Sunday Open Thread

The Caravans is a gospel group that was started by Albertina Walker (queen of gospel). The group reached its peak popularity during the 1950s and 1960s, launching the careers of a number of artists, including: Delores Washington, Albertina Walker, Bessie Griffin, Cassietta George, Dorothy Norwood, Inez Andrews, Shirley Caesar, Josephine Howard, Rev. James Cleveland, and more. The group underwent numerous personnel changes between 1951 and 1961. 1962 to 1966 provided the Caravans with its most stable group member lineup, consisting of Washington, Walker, Caesar, George, James Herndon and Josephine Howard. The group also made frequent TV appearances during this time on shows such as TV’s Gospel Time and Jubilee Showcase.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Celebrations, Christianity, Current Events, Good News!, Gospel, Honor, Inspiration, Love, Music, Open Thread, Politics, Praise, Religion, Spirituality, Tribute, Worship and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Sunday Open Thread

  1. rikyrah says:

    No, Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists

    by BooMan
    Sun Jul 24th, 2011 at 08:14:58 PM EST
    Speaker Boehner is beginning to resemble the infamous Roman Emperor Nero who allegedly played with his fiddle while Rome nearly burned to the ground. He was supposed to have some kind of agreement with the Senate about a path forward by 4pm today so he could calm the Asian stock markets before they opened at 5pm. Instead, he had a conference call with his caucus at 4:30. Amazingly, he did the opposite of what needed to be done. He called on his caucus to stick together. That’s precisely wrong. What he needed to do is issue an ultamatum that divides his caucus between those who are willing to default on our debt and kill our credit rating, and those who are willing to call it a day in the interest of our country. His conference call produced nothing but a recipe for disaster. And, sure enough, the Asian markets were not impressed:

    U.S. stock futures fell, indicating the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will slump after rallying within 1.4 percent of a three-year high, as failure to raise the federal debt limit intensified concern of a default.

    S&P 500 futures expiring in September declined 1.1 percent to 1,325.80 at 7:03 a.m. in Tokyo. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 131 points, or 1 percent, to 12,490. The U.S. dollar fell against the euro, yen and Swiss franc.

    House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans that there’s no agreement on a plan for raising the ceiling before a default threatened for Aug. 2. A Republican congressional official said Boehner, speaking by telephone to lawmakers, is reporting that discussions are continuing. The impasse has boosted the chance S&P will cut the U.S. credit rating from AAA within three months to 50 percent, the company said July 21.

    “There’s a real risk for the markets and the economy,” Peter Sorrentino, a senior money manager at Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati, said in a telephone interview. The firm oversees $14.8 billion. “The market just cannot let go of the fears about creditworthiness and liquidity.”

    Why is Boehner still dicking around? Is he fucking drunk?

    • Damn that man. He is so frightened of losing his speaker position to Cantor that he will frack the country to keep his power. In my 68 years, have never seen anything like this.
      Cantor has got him by his you know what, that he is willing to destroy the country.

  2. rikyrah says:

    July 24, 2011 8:15 PM
    Where things stand

    By Steve Benen

    The afternoon didn’t unfold exactly as planned — in this mess, nothing ever seems to go as planned — but as Sunday winds down, there’s no end in sight to the Republican-generated crisis.

    With markets waking, House and Senate leaders worked through the weekend, trying to overcome the distrust between them and to find a path around default, just eight days away now and counting.

    Going into Sunday night, no final agreement had been reached, but House Speaker John Boehner was still pursuing a two-stage, $3 trillion-plus package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is stepping up, preparing his own creative plan.

    Mr. Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, was trying Sunday to cobble together a plan to raise the government’s debt limit by $2.4 trillion through the 2012 election, with spending cuts of about $2.5 trillion. He would seek to avoid cuts to entitlement programs, but it was unclear how those savings would be achieved.

    Notably, the plan does not currently contain any new or increased taxes, an approach that many in his caucus would probably balk at.

    At first blush, it may sound crazy that Reid would present a “compromise” with $2.5 trillion in cuts with no additional revenue — in effect, a plan that could have been crafted by Republicans weeks ago — but in Reid’s defense, it’s worth emphasizing that the Majority Leader probably counts half of those savings (at least) from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In general, Republicans don’t consider cuts to be cuts unless working people are suffering in some direct way, so his approach isn’t likely to go over well, but if GOP officials want a $2.5 trillion plan with no revenues, Reid is prepared to give them one. Add it to the list of possible ways out.

    Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi met with President Obama for about an hour in the Oval Office this evening. No word yet on how their discussion went.

    And in the meantime, Wall Street is gearing up for a very busy morning.

    U.S. stock futures fell, indicating the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will slump after rallying within 1.4 percent of a three-year high, as President Barack Obama and Congress failed to reach an agreement on raising the federal debt limit, intensifying concern of a default.

    S&P 500 futures expiring in September declined 0.8 percent to 1,330.50 at 8:42 a.m. in Tokyo. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 103 points, or 0.8 percent, to 12,518.

    I’d note for context that the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 both closed at roughly at three-year highs on Friday. Republicans will likely wipe out those gains very quickly.

  3. Ametia says:

    Sunday, July 24, 2011
    That is not a bible in Mr. Breivik’s hand.

    Talk about a rush to judgement. Just check out this wingnut site (don’t miss the comments section) for all the talk of those evil Moooslims right after the [right]wingnut lived out his Glenn Beckkk fantasies in Norway.

    Seems my man had his own little manifesto where he decried multiculturalism and all the race mixing and immigrants who are heading to Western European countries.

    “Text in the video rails against the ‘Islamization’ of Europe and ‘cultural Marxists’ and asserts that the majority of Europe’s population will be Muslim by 2050 ‘unless we manage to defeat the ruling Multiculturalist Alliance.’
    “‘elebrate us, the martyrs of the conservative revolution, for we will soon dine in the Kingdom of Heaven,’ the video says.”

    Norway has what, four million people? Here in A-merry-ca we have over three hundred million. Hmmm, what are the chances of another Behring Breivik appearing right here in the land of the [only some are]free? I am guessing that it’s pretty good. And you all wonder why I am just as suspicious of Bob as I am of Muhammad.

  4. Ametia says:

    News Alert: Asian markets open amid escalating concern over U.S. debt talks
    July 24, 2011 8:11:31 PM

    U.S. officials and investors around the world are watching to see how stock exchanges in Tokyo and Sydney will react to the impasse in debt negotiations as weekday trading begins at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. Other prominent markets, including those in Hong Kong and Shanghai, are to open shortly. With the prospect of a U.S. default on August 2nd only nine days away, President Obama and Congress remain deadlocked over a plan for raising the federal debt limit.

    For continuous updates, visit

  5. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 11:20 AM ET, 04/01/2011
    Census suggests things are going to get ugly in 2012
    By Adam Serwer

    Earlier this week, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, one of the more plausible possible GOP presidential nominees, rebunked birtherism just as Donald Trump and Fox News were eagerly indulging in a crank renaissance.

    But if you think the birthers, the “creeping sharia” crowd, and the New Black Panther Party obsession are all going to fade away sometime soon, you’ve got another thing coming, and not just because, as Jonathan Bernstein noted yesterday, birtherism allows Republicans to pander to a segment of their base whose policy views are unpopular. National Journal’s Ron Brownstein explains that, just as an Obama victory is going to depend on strong minority turnout, Republicans will need to “win an implausibly high percentage of whites to prevail.”

    Unless Democrats regain some of the support they lost in 2010, Obama has no guarantee of matching his 2008 share of the white vote, especially in metal-bending states such as Ohio and Indiana, where voters without a college education dominate the white population. “You have a situation where the bleeding can be so severe that it can overwhelm the changes that are positive,” says Ruy Teixeira, an electoral and demographic analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress.

    But in more racially diverse states, the National Journal’s analysis suggests, Republicans may need to win an implausibly high percentage of whites to prevail, unless they can also reduce Obama’s advantage among minorities. “I think Republicans have long felt and known we need to do better in minority communities,” says GOP consultant Mike DuHaime, the field director for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Pursuing that goal is likely to acquire more urgency as both parties digest the implications of the 2010 Census.

    The Republican Party had a choice after 2008. They could continue to rely on a dwindling but still decisive share of the white vote to prevail, or they could try to bring more minorities into the party. While I’m not entirely sure how much of the decision was made by party leaders and how much is merely the unprecedented influence of Fox News, but whether it’s pseudo scandals of the past two years, from birtherism to the NBPP case, the GOP’s nationwide rush to ban sharia and institute draconian immigration laws, or characterizing nearly every administration policy as reparations, the conservative fixations of Obama’s first term indicate that the GOP will end up relying at least in part on inflaming white racial resentment to close the gap. If Obama can’t mobilize as many minority voters as last time, he’ll have to make up the difference by picking up more white votes in those Rust-Belt swing states — giving the GOP even more reason to make Obama unpalatable to them. What that means though, is that Obama can hardly afford to adopt the kind of hardball identity politics available to his opponents.

    The personal qualities of whoever gets the Republican nomination probably won’t matter. While McCain, to the chagrin of many Republican strategists, notably avoided dragging the views of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, into the contest last time around, the next Republican nominee won’t have much of a choice, because the GOP has spent most of the past two years alienating minority constituencies.

    Ultimately, the state of the economy is still the most important factor in what happens in 2012. But judging by the past two years and Brownstein’s analysis, things are still going to get pretty ugly.

  6. rikyrah says:


    By Willie Ratcliff

    San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper

    June 18, 2011

    When police stopped a teenager stepping off the T-train yesterday to show his transfer as proof he’d paid his fare – $2 at most – he ran from them. They shot him as many as 10 times in the back and neck, according to witnesses. For many long minutes, as a crowd watched in horror, the boy, who had fallen to the sidewalk a block away, lay in a quickly growing pool of blood writhing in pain and trying to lift himself up as the cops trained their guns on him and threatened bystanders.

    Having killed the boy [Kenneth Harding] at 4:44 p.m., according to the San Francisco Chronicle, [1] in broad daylight at the main intersection – Third Street between Palou and Oakdale – in Bayview Hunters Point, San Francisco’s last largely Black neighborhood, the police seemed eager to terrorize the community. They waited and waited and waited as the teenager stopped moving but continued breathing before eventually setting him on a gurney and taking him to the hospital, where the Chronicle reports he died at 7:01 p.m.

    “Why should you die for a transfer?” asked a witness known as Tiptoe in the crowd of hundreds of residents that soon gathered in the plaza at the Oakdale/Palou light rail stop. “Justice will be brought!” hollered one man repeatedly in a booming voice as the crowd shouted at the long line of police in riot gear standing between them and the dying youngster. “I saw the riot squad fly by me on Palou yesterday – five trucks in all,” wrote Bayview resident Sherry Bryson on Facebook.

    As night fell, firefighters washed the teenager’s blood off the sidewalk and police and reporters talked. Rick Hauptman, who posted this photo on Facebook, noted: “The police seemed almost jolly. I saw many handshakes among them; I couldn’t figure that out. Were they solely being respectful to their colleagues and to senior officers, or was it something else?”

    As usual following police murders, the San Francisco Police Department came up with an excuse. The Chronicle [1] relayed it: “As the officers tried to detain the man, he took off running and drew a gun, police said,” according to staff writer Joe Garofoli. “When the suspect shot at the officers, they returned fire, fatally wounding him,” he continued, quoting SFPD Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

    None of the many witnesses I spoke with yesterday saw the young victim either holding or shooting a gun and firmly believe he was unarmed. ABC7’s Carolyn Tyler balanced the police claim that they shot the youngster in self-defense by interviewing Trivon Dixon, who said: “He was running. How could he be a threat in retreat? And he wasn’t running backwards, turning around shooting. He was in full throttle, running away from the police. I don’t see in any way how he could be a threat to the police.”

  7. rikyrah says:

    Sunday, July 24, 2011
    Here Come The Brides
    Posted by Bon The Geek

    Sealing their wedding vows with a kiss shortly after 9 a.m., Chelsea residents Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, seen above, became the first same-sex couple to be legally married by the city clerk in his Lower Manhattan office.

    Siegal and Kopelov have been a couple for 23 years, but today is the first day that New York State has allowed the two women to get married.

  8. rikyrah says:

    Thousands of federal aviation workers furloughed

    (AFP) – 1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON — Millions of dollars in US airport taxes went uncollected Sunday while thousands of federal workers were out of work for a second day, following Congress’ failure last week to pass a bill keeping the country’s aviation authority running.

    Some 4,000 workers with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were told to stay home beginning Saturday, after congressional authorization for several FAA programs expired at 12:01 a.m. that day.

    As a result, FAA employees in 35 states, as well as in Puerto Rico and Washington, DC are furloughed without pay, US officials said.

    Observers said the disabled federal agency foreshadows what could happen around Washington and across the country if Congress fails to reach a deal in its separate negotiations with the White House over a debt ceiling, as it tries to avert a catastrophic federal default before an August 2 deadline.

    In a weekend statement, the FAA said efforts are underway to get authorization for the agency renewed as quickly as possible.

    “We are working diligently with Congress to resolve this unfortunate situation, and apologize for the hardship this situation may cause for our employees and our stakeholders,” the agency said.

    The failure to reach a deal has resulted in a mini-bonanza for airlines.

    With the FAA no longer authorized to collected the 7.5 percent federal excise tax usually levied on each ticket, or the $3.70 tax applied to each flight segment, many airlines have simply pocketed those proceeds.

    Analysts said the airline industry could benefit by $25 million each day that FAA reauthorization is not granted.

    In a statement, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood expressed disappointment that Congress adjourned last week without passing an FAA reauthorization extension, leaving the agency in limbo.

    As a result, the statement said “many states will have to bear a significant economic burden and many airport projects will be halted.”

    “Because of their inaction, states and airports won’t be able to work on their construction projects, and too many people will have to go without a paycheck,” he said.

    “This is no way to run the best aviation system in the world,” the US transportation chief said.

    But US Senator Tom Coburn on Sunday slammed the “waste and duplication” in the federal government for lawmakers failing to reauthorize the FAA’s mandate, telling NBC’s “Meet The Press” that they weren’t approving the agency “because they continue to want to subsidize irresponsible and wasteful behavior.”

  9. rikyrah says:

    Super Congress’: Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

    Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

    This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.

    Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner’s proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it’s anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, “If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.”

    Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation’s credit rating. “We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension,” a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. “Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that.”

    The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. “Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way,” said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell’s, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. “Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee” — the Super Congress — “report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling — downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point.”

  10. rikyrah says:

    GOP Senators Loved Raising The Debt Ceiling Until…
    Posted by Mark on July 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm.

    Republicans in congress have been holding the American people hostage for weeks now. Despite the fact that nearly every credible analyst – economists, politicians, academics, etc. – agree that a default by the United States would bring about an economic calamity, the GOP is still threatening to submit the nation to that fate if Democrats do not capitulate to the Tea Party platform of austerity for average Americans and opulent prosperity for the richest one percent.

    Make no mistake, the Republicans know exactly what their threat entails. They know that default would be catastrophic. We know because they’ve said so. And we know because we have their voting record to prove it. Between the years 2002 and 2008 Republicans voted repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling while George W. Bush was in the White House. So what changed?

    Oh yeah — that.

    The Republican’s are playing “Chicken” with our economy. They don’t care about the deficit. They don’t care about taxes. They certainly don’t care about the elderly or the poor or you or me. They only care about their wealthy benefactors, the billionaires and corporations who bankroll their campaigns. And, of course, their obsession with defeating President Obama next year. They know that a bad economy makes things more difficult for incumbents to get reelected, so they are endeavoring to produce such an outcome to achieve their political goals – at the expense of everyone else and multiple future generations.

    Thanks GOP. And thanks Corporate Media for failing to report this in context.

  11. rikyrah says:

    Obama and D. Smith . . . They’ve Too Much Power For Two Negroes
    Buck n’ the Preacher Ride again . . . !

    President Obama and NFL players Union Head, DeMaurice Smith harkin me back to yesteryear, to that 1970’s Blaxeplotation flick “Buck n’ the Preacher” which was much more, let’s say rustic and rural, in addition to it brought a level of class to the screen not often scene during this era which produced “The Legend Of Nigger Charley” staring the original Hammer, Kansas City Chief Fred Williams.

    Recall Sidney Poiteir was a Buffalo Soldier turned trail-guild, armed with two custom-crafted sawed-off double-barrel shotgun pistols, Belafonte, a bible totin’ character who carried a 45 revolver . . . tucked neatly into the good book These two men took on the Rednecks and won . . . kinda like Smith n the President.

    I like the movie . . . the good guys, in Black, won.

    I don’t believe everybody in the room is aware of what’s playing out before our very eyes, i.e., the symbolic value of two Black men, Smith and Obama doing battle, scoring punches, swaying the crowd in their favor . . . all this paints a picture where both wings of the “Right,” both the Archie Bunker Redneck brigade and the Thurston Howell III Aristocratic branch are alarmed and shaken by the impending doom.

    Obama stands on the verge of splitting/destroying the Republican Tea Party, pitting fat-cats against Rednecks against Patriots against religious fruitcakes. Mr Smith has out-maneuvered/out-flanked and out thunk one of the most elitist cartels in the world . . . the NFL owners.

    And doing it while under a constant, endless, un-relentless attack from an supposed non-bias press corps and fan base.

    Mr Smith, like president Obama, has been demonized, his character and intelligence denigrated, his tactics ridiculed and this criticism has come from yes, believe it or not – the NFL fans and sportswriters – these individuals have employed abusive, venomous language, which I’m sorry, merely reflects the bitter deep-seated ill-will the average, everyday Republican Tea Party sports fans has bottled-up inside related to Blacks . . . who don’t know their place.

    .Regardless most of these writers and fans hail from families which fit into the category of “White trash”, i.e. working class, blue-collar White folks, 3 to 4 paychecks removed from homelessness. I’m mystified and horrified how these “wanna bees” can betray organized labor and blindly defend these NFL aristocratic plantation owner .because of some mythical company line about shouldering all the risk.

    Risk?! We’re talkin ‘bout risk? Risk? RiskRisk man, really – where’s the risk in joining a country club, where a “has-been” franchise like the Dallas Cowboys are valued at over 1 billion? ..And these owners are twisting the arms of more-than- willing local political pimps to have the taxpayers (white people) foot the bill via taxes to construct elaborate gridiron cathedrals to attract the fanatics.

    And the players are the bad guys here, really?

    The problem here; Angry White men don’t have the ability to put Black folks back in that inferior, subordinate box that they locked us in for 3 and a half centuries. and it frustrates them. You can see it on their faces on FOX News, you can hear it in their voices on AM Hate Radio, and you can feel it in their words throughout the print media, AOL, USA Today, ESPN, SI

    Let’s be brutally blunt; Race mixing, integration has been the nightmare White guys feared an half-century ago; once the playing field was moderately leveled – this myth of natural White superiority, this make- believe monopoly on brains, guts and brawn which was shoved-down every-ones throat since 1609 . . . all that jive-ass BS has been eradicated, laid to rest.

    But akin to the 5% White South African Minority which refused to concede the end of a twisted and upside down inverted era of apartheid – angry envious white sports writers refuse to give black men their proper respect, refuse to admit their father’s 1957 racism still lives on in their 2011 heart, and White men have problems and issues accepting Black folks in lead alpha human positions.

    Policemen, doctor, teacher, President, airline pilot, NFL quarterback, fireman, Union president . . . it’s just something about a Black man doing well which intimidates and aggravates some.]

    For instance; did you know Darren Sharper was a product/graduate of William & Mary, as in college, not parents? OK, nor did you know Donaven McNabb was married, McNabb and his college sweetheart, Raquel Ann, an nurse, were married in June 2003, They’ve four children, and McNabb got his sheepskin from Syracuse . . . and sits on the board of Trustees . . . despite his Wonderlick score.

    I watch a lot of NFL football, I’ve got the Direct TV package, Red Zone, I sit on the toilet digesting food and pigskin info – it is my “Days of our Lives” or “Worlds biggest loser” – I’m addicted to the NFL an male soap opera. With that on the table, let me tell you exactly “why” little positive tid-bits like these are not really known – there not mentioned or written about because they contradict the angry White Americans ingrained perception of Black Americans, not only Black gladiators, but all of us

    Caucasians of all persuasions – sports writers and fans just don’t believe, accept nor want to hear about good, decent, ordinary Black folks – the overwhelming law-abiding vast majority of Blacks in the NFL, NBA, living in Detroit or LA, working in Chicago, the Big Apple . . . .No instead they’d rather focus in on the negative in order to paint n’ taint an entire race.

    The motivation behind slighting Blacks? No, not a feeling of White superiority, but rather a sense of inferiority, which I’d suggest fuels the envy and paranoia, which prompts the constant attacks. It’s not that very different then the Cosby Show, it wasn’t just Black folks who thought the show was far too idealistic, it was White America, who deemed it unrealistic if not impossible. That’s insulting in all kinda’ ways.

    It’s interesting how the sports press transformation from male cheerleaders to Elliot Ness coincides with the racial integration of America’s national pastimes . . . “get the niggers.”

    I enhance the truth little, if any.

    Now here-in lies the hypocrisy, the two-faced element of it all; just as the media refuses to report on Black Americans in 360 degrees, the news-gathers will run with Michele Bauchman’s characterization that all the jig-a-boos n’ high n’ might Coons are rollin’ “round the capital in streeetch limos, doing god knows what to some little innocent snow flake intern in the back of those sex-mobiles, as they will promote her contention Black farmers were never wronged and don’t deserve compensation for decades of discrimination, and the same press sought to cover her narrow-ass when she minimized slavey by demeaning the Black family.

    Bauchman is Paul Revere with a vagina . . . she’s the true patriot come to warn the good , decent folk . . . “The Niggers are comin’! The Niggers are comin!”
    Obama, D. Smith, McNabb and Sharper , go on down the list – these men represent the uppity nigger poster-boys that “Real Americans” in this nation fears just like they fear gangsters and thugs. There’s no real difference – the Black man is a threat whether he’s a Eagle Scout or a bank robber. Successful Black folks are a threat to privileged White America’s monopoly on options n’ choices, the decision making power held tightly by angry White dudes..

  12. rikyrah says:

    Howard Kurtz Challenges Cenk Uygur’s Claim That MSNBC Dumped Him For Criticizing Obama

    Former MSNBC host Cenk Uygur appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources to further explain his separation from the network and to speculate why he is likely being replaced by Al Sharpton. However, Howard Kurtz wasn’t really convinced by Uygur’s theories, and instead was curious why he gets “ticked off” by an employer giving him notes on his style?

    Uygur stated the conversation that soured his relationship with MSNBC was when he was told “people in Washington have a concern with my tone.” While MSNBC executives allege such “people” were merely MSNBC bookers and producers, Uygur was “incredulous” of that claim, and instead interpreted “people” to mean members of government. Uygur argued, “our media is obsessed with access, it’s not just MSNBC” and that journalists should be challenging politicians and not worried about trying to get them to appear as guests. Kurtz took exception to such criticism:

    “I see people who I agree with and disagree with on Fox, on MSNBC, on CNN, challenging the government every night. So it does kind of come back to your tone, I’ve watched you, you’re a passionate guy. You can be pretty strident at times. Don’t your employers, if you’re going to work for an MSNBC, have every right to say your style needs some adjustment. Why does that tick you off so much?”

    However, Uygur insisted his removal from the show was not about his style, and after watching a recent 60 Minutes piece on Al Sharpton, Uygur may have figured out what it was truly about:

    “So the guy [Uygur] who was criticizing the President is out, even though he had really good ratings, and the guy [Sharpton] who has decided not to criticize the President about anything is in [in an interview, Sharpton told 60 Minutes that he will not criticize Obama]. That’s interesting.”

    Just as Uygur began to claim no one in the media is saying what he says, that both Democrats and Republicans are screwing Americans, Kurtz ran out of time. Yet just like Keith Olbermann offered, Kurtz too suggested that Uygur might be back since he’s now “liberated.”

  13. rikyrah says:

    Top 10 Reasons Boehner Will Never Be Able to Deliver His Caucus on Debt Ceiling Vote
    It was really clear from watching an unsteady, slurring Speaker of the House John Boehner at his hastily-called press conference Friday evening that there’s nothing he’d like better than to have a vote, approve a debt ceiling hike (even with the dreaded “revenue increases”) since he knows the vast majority of people with functional forebrains will rightfully blame the GOP if America defaults on its obligations.

    But he can’t. And he won’t. He doesn’t have enough Republicans in the House of Representatives who will vote for a debt ceiling increase — ANY debt ceiling increase.

    At the moment, there are 240 House Republicans, 193 Democrats and two vacancies. In order for a bill to pass the house, you need a simple majority which, in this case, would be 217 votes. Now assume the 193 Democrats ALL vote for the debt ceiling increase. You would still need at least 24 of the Republicans to vote for it too.

    Boehner doesn’t HAVE 24 Republicans who WILL vote for the debt ceiling increase.

    And here are the top 10 reasons why!

    10. Like Colombian drug lords who will blow up an entire passenger jet to kill one guy, the GOP is willing to sink the world economy to “get” Obama.

    9. It really doesn’t matter. We are in the “End Times” and Jesus is coming back to whisk the true believers to heaven with him.

    8. Any day I’m gonna let some “nee-grow” tell ME what to vote for is the day I surrender my NRA membership.

    7. Hey, won’t bankrupting the world economy cause the divide between the wealthy and the poor to become wider? It’s a win/win for OUR guys!

    6. But if we vote for a debt ceiling increase, Rush will be MAD and say BAD THINGS about us!

    5. We can still pay our bills. We won’t default. We can just send out post-dated checks.

    4. Social Security? Medicare? Them’s mostly old people and colored cripples ain’t they? Fuck ’em. Let ’em die.

    3. OK, we hire a tough Hispanic house maid and when the Chinese come knocking at the door looking for a payment, she tells them, “Meestah Congress, he no here.”

    2. But if we vote for a debt ceiling increase, Grover Norquist will be MAD and say BAD THINGS about us.

    1. Pass a debt ceiling increase? And let that uppity Obama wave his black ass in our faces for two years saying he saved America from financial ruin? No Thank You! I’d rather be a deadbeat, third world nation than let one of THOSE people have his way.

    I’m sure there are many more reasons. But those are the top ones. So, stock up on the canned goods. We’re in for a long, depressing ride.

    Read more:

  14. rikyrah says:

    Obama Should Give Up On Revenue And Sign An All-Cuts Deal

    The news that Republicans are demanding that the expiration of the individual mandate be used as a trigger to require tax reform does not necessarily tell us what will be in the final agreement. But it does convey one vital piece of information — namely, the negotiating price of getting Republicans to accept tax hikes is simply too high.

    Anti-tax theology is the core of the modern Republican Party. If the GOP leadership cuts a deal that includes higher taxes, that deal will either exert an unbearable price in return or provoke a conservative revolt that kills it, or possibly both. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, and Obama has no need to raise revenue before then. (Indeed, he’d rather postpone any revenue increases until the economy has recovered.) What’s more, as Paul Krugman notes, it’s a fantasy to assume that any Grand Bargain would bind Republicans should they regain a working majority. If Obama wins the election, the Bush tax cuts on the rich will expire (and then he can negotiate a tax reform from a position of strength.) If Republicans win, they’ll pass a big tax cut for the rich, because that’s what Republicans do. Either way, getting agreement on a tax hike on the rich right now won’t matter.

    The incentive Obama has to negotiate on revenue is to get higher revenue on the non-rich. Obama promised during his campaign to avoid tax hikes on income under $250,000, but the fiscal deterioration resulting from the economic collapse has made that untenable, even after the economy recovers. If Republicans will give him cover to get around that pledge, by supporting a tax reform that eliminates subsidies that are regressive but don’t exclusively benefit the very rich, then that’s worth trading some entitlement cuts for. (The gang of Six Plan does this.) If he can’t get more out of them then he’d get by vetoing the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the rich, he’s not getting anything worthwhile. Indeed, he’s making dear negotiating concessions to obtain something of little value.

    And, of course, there are lots of other things Obama wants out of these negotiations. protection for domestic discretionary programs he especially supports. Backloaded cuts that don’t impose a fiscal drag while the economy is struggling. A temporary payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits, or other forms of stimulus. The point is, not putting Republicans in a position to accede to tax cuts would give Obama enormous leverage over other aspects of the deal. That’s where he should invest his energies.

    An all-cuts deal sounds bad, but it contains some real advantages. It clearly positions Obama in the center, and assuages centrist fears that he’s a big government liberal (fears I don’t share, but the political power of which I concede.) It makes a large step toward medium-term fiscal correction without taking the choices off the table. Having taken a large step, voters in 2012 will decide the next one — higher taxes on the rich, or deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid? That’s a good set-up for Obama. If he think he can “take the deficit issue off the table,” then he’s also taking off the table the priority contrast that offers the strongest basis for his reelection. And he ensures the discussion moves off of priorities and onto the state of the economy, which is a discussion he’s likely to lose.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Two More Reasons Obama Wanted a Deal
    Why has Obama been so willing to make a deal on deficit reduction, even if the terms reflect Republican values far more than Democratic ones? The president himself offered some reasons in his press conference on Friday. Observers like me have speculated about others. But administration officials say that two other factors, both related to the economy, weighed on their minds.

    Obama and his advisers are looking at the same job numbers as the rest of us. And they think this budget deal could be their best, if not last, chance to get legislation that would boost consumer demand and jobs. According to a senior administration official, Boehner last week had indicated his agreement with an extension of unemployment insurance, some kind of renewal of the payroll tax holiday, and at least some “language” about future funding for highways. Together, those steps would likely have pumped about $160 billion, maybe more, into the economy over the next year.

    I checked with a few economists. The consensus was that, very roughly, such a stimulus would lift gross domestic product by 1.5 percentage points. That would translate to about a million additional jobs.

    The second reason was concern about the nation’s credit ratings and how that factor might influence the economy. When this episode started, and Republicans first began threatening to block the higher debt ceiling, the ratings agencies indicated they would react by lowering America’s credit rating if the U.S. defaulted. But recently S&P has indicated it was effectively making a second demand of lawmakers: Simply raising the debt ceiling isn’t good enough. Now an agreement must also put forward a credible plan for long-term deficit reduction.

    Ezra Klein had the details about this problem in an item last week, including an interview with the head of S&P’s sovereign ratings division. It’s a pretty brazen intervention into policy-making by a group of people that nobody elected and whose judgment, or lack thereof, played a pivotal role in creating the 2009 financial crisis. But it’s also a fact of life right now. According to estimates by Third Way, a downgrade could raise interest rates and reduce employment by 650,000.

    Would rating agencies really downgrade America based on the contents of a debt ceiling deal? Could the administration could get economic stimulus separately from a debt deal? I really don’t know. But it seems likely that these considerations have played at least some role in the administration’s thinking — and will continue to do so as the default deadline approaches.

  16. rikyrah says:

    July 24, 2011 3:00 PM Boehner preps his plan

    Yesterday morning, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told congressional leaders the risk of a market panic, driven by the Republican debt-ceiling dispute, was a very real possibility. East Asia is 13 hours ahead of EST in the United States, and to prevent the first wave of the larger disaster, they said, policymakers should try to announce a viable way forward beforehand.

    The good news is, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) seems to care about that timeframe.

    House Republican lawmakers are set to participate in a conference call with GOP leaders at 4:30pm Sunday, according to a source notified of the second such meeting in as many days.

    The source, who intends to dial into the telephone conference, anticipates hearing from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) of a deal reached by congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2nd deadline.

    The bad news is, Boehner doesn’t seem to care about handling this in a responsible way

    With Asian markets set to deliver a verdict within hours on the U.S. debt crisis, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on Sunday morning that he was prepared to advance a House debt-ceiling plan without Democratic support.

    I’m stepping away from my desk, and won’t be immediately available to write about Boehner’s message to his caucus. I sincerely hope the whispers coming from Capitol Hill are mistaken and that GOP leaders intend to be reasonable this afternoon.

    But at this point, the picture appears rather bleak.

    Boehner seems likely to tell his caucus that he’ll push a two-step process, in which Congress will vote to raise the debt ceiling twice — once this week, accompanied by $1 trillion in cuts (and no new revenue), and again early next year, after additional talks on “reforming” taxes and entitlements. Democrats are willing to accept these terms, but want one vote on the debt ceiling, not two. (One vote would assure the private sector and global markets that default is off the table at least until at after November 2012, resolving uncertainty that the GOP pretends to care about.) Boehner intends to ignore the Democratic demand and create economic uncertainty on purpose.

    From there, the Speaker hopes to have the House approve his measure sometime this week, daring the Democratic Senate to oppose it. The goal would be to transfer blame in the event of a crisis — Boehner would say Senate Dems didn’t pass his bill, and are therefore responsible for missing the Aug. 2 deadline.

    This is, in other words, a game of chicken wrapped in another game of chicken. The Senate could try to pass the House bill but improve it, sending it back to the House, but given how long it will take to pass the Senate version, there almost certainly won’t be enough time for the back and forth.

    President Obama has suggested he will veto any package that fails to extend the debt ceiling through next year. Boehner believes the president is bluffing, and if given a choice between failure and the bad House bill, Obama will have no choice but to sign the latter.

    Of course, maybe we’ll get a very pleasant surprise after the 4:30 call between Boehner and his caucus. Since I won’t be at my desk, let’s call this an open thread to discuss developments as they come to light.

  17. Ametia says:

    Fareed’s Take: Why American politics changed
    Fareed Zakaria on why the rules of our politics have changed them for the worst.

    The full transcript of Sunday’s Fareed Zakaria GPS can be found here.

  18. Ametia says:

    Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President

  19. Ametia says:

    Mitch McConnell Reaffirms His Top Priority To Limit Barack Obama To One Term

  20. Ametia says:

    Hat tip Rashad

    How the internet created an age of rageThe worldwide web has made critics of us all. But with commenters able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, the blog and chatroom have become forums for hatred and bile

    For a while after his first TV series was broadcast in 2009, comedian Stewart Lee was in the habit of collecting and filing some of the comments that people made about him on web pages and social media sites. He did a 10-minute Google trawl most days for about six months and the resultant collected observations soon ran to dozens of pages. If you read those comments now as a cumulative narrative, you begin to fear for Stewart Lee. A good third of the posts fantasised about violence being done to the comic, most of the rest could barely contain the extent of their loathing.

    This is a small, representative selection:

    “I hate Stewart Lee with a passion. He’s like Ian Huntley to me.” Wharto15, Twitter
    “I saw him at a gig once, and even offstage he was exuding an aura of creepy molesty smugness.” Yukio Mishima,
    “One man I would love to beat with a shit-covered cricket bat.” Joycey,
    “He’s got one of those faces I just want to burn.” Coxy,
    “I hope stewart lee dies.” Idrie, Youtube
    “WHAT THE HELL! If i ever find you, lee, i promise i will, I WILL, kick the crap out of you.” Carcrazychica, YouTube
    “Stewart Lee is a cynical man, who has been able to build an entire carrer [sic] out of his own smugness. I hope the fucking chrones disease [sic] kills him.” Maninabananasuit,
    “I spent the entire time thinking of how much I want to punch Stewart Lee in the face instead of laughing. He does have an incredibly punchable face, doesn’t he? (I could just close my eyes, but fantasizing about punching Stewart Lee is still more fun than sitting in complete, stony silence.)” Pudabaya,

  21. Ametia says:

    Unrelenting Greed Fuels The GOP’s Dream Of An American Default
    July 24, 2011
    By Rmuse

    In every country on Earth, the leader faces criticism for his policies that are contrary to the opposition party, and it is necessary to maintain a semblance of balance where all sides have a voice in the direction the country is going. The current state of affairs in American government has devolved to the point that regardless how far to the right President Obama leans, Republicans are not going to compromise on any issue and the debt ceiling debacle is the prime example of unrealistic, America-hating GOP opposition to the president. The debt ceiling is the latest example, but it started a day after Obama was sworn in as president and has continued unabated up to the point of America’s impending default on its debt with consequences that will bring the country to its knees. Apparently, unless President Obama resigns and appoints Charles or David Koch as monarch and abolishes the Constitution, Republicans in Congress will sit back and let the country fall into the worst depression in history instead of making the slightest concession to save the economy.

  22. rikyrah says:

    Political Animal
    July 24, 2011 11:00 AM
    Boehner claims to be ‘worried about the country’

    By Steve Benen

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), as expected, is now fully invested in a temporary debt-ceiling extension. He’ll accept $1 trillion in cuts — with no revenue — now, and then consider another extension next year after additional negotiations over taxes and entitlements.

    Democrats want one debt-ceiling vote, seeing no need to put the country through this twice in less than a year. Take note of how Boehner responds to this.

    Boehner suggested Sunday that by trying to put the next debt ceiling debate off for so long Obama was trying to gain political advantage.

    “I know the president is worried about his next re-election, but, my God, shouldn’t we be worried about the country?” Boehner asked.

    It’s entirely possible that the House Speaker really is this dumb. With this in mind, I’m trying to think about how to ask the questions in a way John Boehner can understand. How about this:

    1. How would the country benefit from two votes on raising the debt ceiling, instead of one?

    2. If Republicans are sincerely concerned about economic “uncertainty,” why tell investors, job creators, and international markets that default is a possibility early next year?

    3. If getting one debt-ceiling revision through Congress is necessary but difficult, why make lawmakers go through this twice?

    Hearing John Boehner claim the high road, claiming to be “worried about the country,” might be the most hilarious thing I’ve seen in a while. We are, after all, talking about a House Speaker who allowed his caucus to launch an insane hostage strategy, threatening to crash the economy on purpose, and then refused to compromise, even after President Obama handed him an overly-generous offer.

    “My God, shouldn’t we be worried about the country”? What a good question, John. Why don’t you answer it?

  23. rikyrah says:

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011
    Just what is Cut, Cap, and Balance?
    12:49 PM FleetAdmiralJ

    H.R. 2560 – The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. That is what most of the discussion in Washington is going to be about today. So what, exactly, does it do? First of all, you can take a look for yourself here, but it isn’t necessarily that pretty. Let’s take the bill title word by title word.

    Title I: “Cut”

    Title I is, appropriately named, “Cut.” It’s meant to cut the 2012 federal budget. Sec. 101 would cap discretionary spending budget authority for FY 2012 at $1 trillion, 19.4 billion and would cap FY 2012 discretionary outlays at 1.225 trillion.

    Just for comparison, FY2010 (which is the last year we had a real budget), the total discretionary budget was $1.378 trillion, so that would be a cut of $349 billion for budget authority and $153 billion in outlays. And that’s not taking into account any increase in defense spending between FY 2010 and FY 2011. Based on FY2010 numbers, a $349 billion cut in appropriations would result in a essentially a 50% cut in non-defense discretionary funding, if no defense funding were cut from FY2010 levels. Even if one went with the $153 billion in outlays, that’s a 21% cut.

    Just for some scope, to make up $349 billion, we would have to eliminate, entirely, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture (give or take a billion).

    (To make up $153 billion, if you want to use that number, you would merely only have to cut Health and Human Services and Transportation, plus another 2 or 3 billion).

    If one were to carry that cut over 10 years, one would be looking at $3.5 trillion in cuts from the discretionary budget alone based on budget authority, or $1.53 trillion using the outlays number, assuming budget growth is equal to inflation.

    Title I also caps the money that can be spent on the “Global War on Terrorism” (their term in the bill) at $126.5 billion. I’m not entirely sure if that is in addition to the discretionary spending or not.

    Title I then also caps direct, or mandatory spending, at $680.7 billion, exempting Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits and Services, and national debt interest (note: Medicaid is NOT on the exempted list). This may or may not result in any mandatory cuts in 2012. Based on FY 2010 numbers (PDF), that would be a cut of $60.3 billion (taking out gains from TARP), though would be pretty much even with expected expenses based on FY 2012 projections made in January 2011.

    So that’s the “Cut” section. meant for FY 2012.


    Title II: “Cap”

    Section 201(a), as far as I can tell, removes section (c)(4) from this piece of the US Code, which eliminates certain discretionary budget categories, including “highway category,” “mass transit category,” “conservation spending category,” “Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund sub-category,” among others. I don’t think this prohibits funds from being spent for these things, but it appears to eliminate them as distinct budget categories. It then adds to the US Code, this:

    “The term ‘GDP’, for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.”

    Section 201(b) then limits total outlays (both on and off budget) to:

    21.7% of GDP in 2013
    20.8% of GDP in 2014
    20.2% of GDP in 2015
    20.1% of GDP in 2016
    19.9% of GDP in 2017
    19.7% of GDP in 2018
    19.9% of GDP in 2019, 2020, and 2021

    Just as comparison, federal outlays for the past 40 years have averaged at about 20.6% of GDP, though FY 2009 and FY 2010 averaged at 24.4% of GDP.

    Finally 201(b) says that if outlays are over, sequestration measures should be taken, though Medicare, Social Security, military pay, military retirement, veterans benefits, and national debt interest are exempt.

    Then we get to:

    Title III: Balance

    This section extends the debt limit to $16.7 trillion (an increase of $2.3 trillion), but only unless and until a balanced budget amendment as introduced in H. J. Res. 1, S. J. Res. 10, or H. J. Res. 56 (or any comparable amendment) is passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and sent to the states.

    So what do these amendments do?

    Not shockingly, they all require a balanced budget. H.J. Res. 1 allows this to be exempted by a 3/5 vote in both Houses. S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 require a 2/3 vote to override this provision
    They spending at 18% of GDP and requires a 2/3 vote of both Houses to override this requirement
    They require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress
    They require that any increase in revenue require a 2/3 vote in Congress to pass
    They require a 3/5 vote in both Houses to increase the debt limit
    They allow the waiving of the balanced budget requirement, GDP requirement, presidential budget requirement, and debt ceiling requirement in the case a declaration of war is in effect. H.J. Res. 1 also allows the waiving of the revenue increase requirement.
    Ditto on the waiving in the case of the US being engaged in “a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security.” H. J. Res. 1 would allow Congress to declare such a state by a majority vote. The other two amendments would require a 3/5 vote. Those two would also require that any additional spending be limited to the military conflict in question.
    S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 say that no court may require an increase in revenue
    H. J. Res. 1 would take effect in 2 years after ratification, unless it is ratified after 2016, in which case it would take effect in 1 year.
    S. J. Res 10 and H. J. Res 56 would take effect 5 years after ratification
    None of the amendments have a ratification time limit

    So what does this do? It does several things, very few of them good.

    It would force federal spending to be at a level that we haven’t consistently seen since before World War II, as there has not been a stretch of more than 5 years in a row that the federal government has spent at 18% GDP or less since. In fact, only two years – 2000 and 2001 – has this been the case since 1974.

    It would likely gut entitlement spending. The average GDP in 2010 was $14.660 trillion. A 18% cap would have required a spending cap of $2.639 trillion, which would have required a cut of about $913 billion from the budget that actually passed. Even if all discretionary spending, including defense, were cut by 50%, we’d still have to cut $224 billion from mandatory programs. Assuming defense were untouched, we’d have to cut $556 billion from mandatory programs, or about 25.5%. If Social Security, Mediare, and Medicaid were left intact, that would mean ALL other mandatory spending, sans interest on the national debt, would have to be eliminated, including food stamps, veterans benefits, unemployment, student loans, etc.

    The federal budget could very well be reduced to defense spending, Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and national debt interest and absolutely else – assuming that revenues actually reached 18% (and that’s happened under two of President Bush’s, and none of President Obama’s budgets). If not, then even more cuts would be necessary. Based on FY 2010 revenue – and remember it would take a 2/3 vote to increase revenue under these Amendments – the budget would be operating closer to 14% of GDP, meaning that the budget would have faced a cut of about $1.5 trillion, or a 42% budget cut across every single program, including Medicare and Social Security.

    Also, cutting $1 trillion yearly from the federal budget would have a devastating impact on the economy, which would likely reduce the GDP, both lowering the funding cap and reducing tax revenues, forcing further cuts, lowering the GDP further. Such an amendment could trigger a downward spiral that would almost certainly result in the gutting of most of the nation’s entitlement programs.

    This amendment would also largely trigger elections moot, and that’s something that all but the hardest core Republicans should be opposed to, regardless of whether one agrees with current Democratic policies or not.

    This amendment would enshrine in the Constitution right wing conservative economic doctrine, ensuring that conservatives could implement their agenda of cutting the budget and cutting taxes by a mere majority vote, but would require moderates and liberals to meet a virtually unattainable goal of 2/3 vote in both Houses to implement any of their policy goals, or to even undo anything Republicans might have done when they were in power. It would effectively ensure that Republicans control government, even if they lose elections. Only an overwhelming election of Democrats, ensuring a 2/3 majority in both Houses could undo this arrangement.

    Is an arrangement where one party can do what it wants by majority vote, but the other party must face the burden of a 2/3 vote really something that Americans want?

  24. Ametia says:


  25. rikyrah says:

    July 23, 2011
    The Catch-22 of Tea Party madness

    I’m not a psychiatrist, therefore I’ve no medical opinion on whether the Tea Party caucus — which, says Dana Milbank, one GOP aide now refers to as the ‘Default Caucus’ — is clinically imbecilic, just damn stupid, or actually mad.

    In my politico-historical opinion, however, the Tea Party/Default Caucus practices political insanity in somewhat the way that a Whitey Bulger might plead himself criminally insane. That is, no fundamentally rational pol would interpret his demands as incontestably superior to all others’ in political society, especially when his demands are reflected by such a tiny minority of likeminded extortionists, and no fundamentally rational pol would be willing to exact so much innocent blood, if his demands aren’t met.

    Unless, of course, such manifest irrationality is largely a show — for a jury of carnivorous primary voters, for pseudoconservative talk-radio jocks, for some Sammy the Bull “pledge”-enforcer, and so on.

    As Milbank further notes, the Tea Party’s insanity plea has been crucial to their political tactics in the debt-ceiling furor:

    According to negotiation “game theory,” the Default Caucus has boosted Republicans’ leverage. “Your hand is greatly strengthened if you can convince the other side that you’re crazy,” said James Miller, an economist at Smith College. It has enabled House Speaker John Boehner to tell the president: The Tea Party has locked our steering wheel and we can’t swerve — so you have to.

    Ah, but as novelist Joseph Heller has observed, there’s always a catch. Which is to say, if your rationally plotted objective is to convince the other side that you’re crazy, then you aren’t really (really) irrational. You may be an irredeemable sociopath, you may be a carnival-barking swindler, or just a judicious coward — you may be many unpleasant or untoward things, but at your tactical core you cannot by definition be hopelessly irrational, since your objective requires a remarkable element of the cunningly thoughtful.

    It is here that the Tea Party/Default Caucus has overplayed — Yossarian-like, without the humor — its hand. Repeatedly it has appeared before the body politic and flight-surgeon Obama to plead its insanity: and though the flight surgeon spotted the self-cancelling ruse from the start, it has taken the body politic some time to realize that madmen don’t declare themselves mad; nor in declaring themselves mad do they correspondingly declare the object of their violent madness to be profoundly sane — and perfectly harmless.

    It might help, but one needn’t be clinically crazy to be a sociopathic-policy nitwit, or a paradoxic anarchist of authoritarian-personality disorder, or a retro-nihilist of socioeconomic ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ or even ‘Gunsmoke’ impossibilities. But that’s what these clowns — the Tea Party/Default Caucus — are. And they stand ruthlessly exposed — by President Obama, practicing flight surgeon.

  26. rikyrah says:

    July 22, 2011
    Obama strikes with unprecedented ferocity

    Not even when Bill Clinton was getting his guiltless butt impeached by predatory partisan enemies has a U.S. president so utterly mutilated his political opposition — so righteously denounced the “inexcusable.” Barack Obama’s just-delivered evening announcement was brutal, beautiful, unfaltering, fiercely determined and bloodily retaliatory.

    He … has … had … enough.

    On such acutely personal notes as “I couldn’t get a phone call returned” from the House GOP leadership and that he had been “left at the altar” several times now, Obama blasted with a bittersweet fury at those deranged, reckless pseudoconservatives who have now led the nation to a devastating precipice.

    You watched it, too, most likely, so I won’t rehash further. What I will conclude with, briefly, is merely to say that any critical assessments of Obama’s presidential “weakness” can now, and should now, be laid to a permanent and deserved rest.

  27. Ametia says:

    Hat tip BOBF @ TOD—THANK YOU!

    Dear Mr President,

    As you well know, President Lincoln had these words for the US Congress in 1865:

    “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes…. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high
    places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

    What irony that the Republic’s first black President is the person called upon to defend everything that our Founder’s crafted and that 235 years of patriots have strived to achieve.

    What irony that the Republic’s first black President now confronts the ‘party of Lincoln’ as it unabashedly strives to do what Jefferson Davis and his treasonous bandits failed to accomplish during their attempt to not just preserve enslavement but render the Republic a defunct democracy and, thereby, comprehensively deny the inalienable rights of each person irrespective of the color of their skin, their personal faith, their economic status.

    Yes, President Obama, it comes to this moment that a non-white American citizen, a multi-cultural, empathetic, brilliant human being, a community organizer and eloquent statesman, a scholar and an internationally recognized champion of all that is the essence of the human spirit – it comes to you to lead America from the brink of the most concerted, vastly funded onslaught of all that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution represent.

    You have millions of your fellow citizens standing with you. No poll. No analysis. No pundit. No one can obscure for you the fact that WE THE PEOPLE are with you, Mr. President.

    If we now face the 21st Century equivalent of January 1861, if we now face the 21st Century equivalent of April 12, 1861, Mr President, millions of Americans stand with you to preserve the Republic from the totally obvious threat by the very, very few ultra-wealthy, and ironically yet again, the under-educated, fear-driven, pitiful bigoted few whom enabled the destruction of the ‘party of Lincoln’ and replaced it with a pack of treasonous barbarians too inept to realize that in serving their ultra-wealthy, skillfully manipulative masters they are witless slaves – at least the slaves Lincoln and the Republic were trying to free knew they were slave. Oh, the irony.

    Yes.We.Can. … DO.More.Together!



    Sent by Bob to President Obama via the White House online form

  28. Ametia says:

    Cartoons of the Day- Teabaggers
    Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2011, 6:30 am by Paddy

  29. TALLY of The Obama Diary message to Senator Sanders

    Why aren’t you calling for anyone who signed the King Norquist pledge to RESIGN or be forced from office for sedition??? A pledge they hold higher than their oath of office and the US Constitution! If YOU, or any Dem senator had EVER signed such a pledge, the GOP would scream bloody murder and that person would be out of office within 24 hours of doing so. And yet… you are silent.

    Why aren’t you calling out GOP members in Congress that the 14th Amendment clearly states “CONGRESS SHALL ENFORCE” [America to pay her bills]??? THERE IS NO CHOICE ON RAISING THE DEBT CEILING! Why aren’t you calling for removal from office those in the House who refuse to raise it for DERELICTION OF DUTY???? And yet… you are silent.

    No, instead, you attack the POTUS, even when YOU KNOW VERY WELL – he has been up against RECORD filibustering, RECORD opposition, and a bunch of WELL FUNDED traitors who have held this country hostage and hate their own government and fellow countrymen so much they are WILLFULLY trying to crash the US ECONOMY.


    I would never have believed it of you, but I heard it with my own ears. You are suggesting someone primary Obama.

    Obama has NEVER been the problem. It’s the DEMS, who have NEVER, COLLECTIVELY, had his BACK. It’s the DEMS who have no spine, and should have been calling out the weak Congressional Members who have been bought by lobbyists, but remain silent.

    If all of you HAD stood with THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM, we would have gotten so much more done, and he never would have had to so much as entertain giving up the Public Option in HCR, but he KNEW he didn’t have the votes, and because of that, he was forced into negotiating with these damn terrorists in the GOP.

    I get that we never had 60 votes in the Senate. But when you had the opportunity THIS SESSION to change the filibuster rules, it was OUR SIDE that was weak, and failed to do so.

    It was OUR SIDE that never gave Obama the Progressive Army he needed.

    TO DATE – he has NEVER stated he would put cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicade BENEFITS on the table. NOT ONCE. If I can listen and understand the words that come out of President Obama’s mouth, WHY CAN’T YOU??? He has talked about cutting other parts, like to providers (which worked before.)

    Why aren’t YOU calling for the removal of the Contribution Cap on earnings so that EVERYONE pays the same percentage, including those who make over $106k a year?? WHY DON’T YOU DO THAT, INSTEAD OF ATTACKING YOUR PRESIDENT.

    Let me be honest Senator, it doesn’t make Obama look weak when you say things like that. It makes YOU and the REST of the Dems look weak. And you want to know the saddest thing of all? Many of us are not surprised in the least.

    My disappointment in you Senator, has shaken me to my core. I never thought YOU, of ALL PEOPLE would do anything remotely like this, ESPECIALLY at a time, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE, to have your PRESIDENT’S BACK.

Leave a Reply