No matter who controls the White House or congress, the debt limit always passes, always.
Yes there have been battles before, with a lot of threats, but that is nothing but politicians posturing and bluffing.
The Republicans repeatedly increased the debt limit when Bush had the WH and they controlled congress.
This is an easy call.
If Obama gives up anything, anything at all for a debt ceiling vote, let it be very clear..
That is NOT a 'compromise deal', that is NOT to be 'bipartisan'.
If Obama gives up anything on this to the Republicans it is because that is what Obama really wants
This is such a clear call that maybe this time Obama will not give away anything on it
I can only hope
Listed below is what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. There have GOT to be more.
Making this out and trying to remember, there was some nostalgia there, I cant believe the FLA no recount allowed was over ten years ago.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated!
Big Dog -Bill Clinton
Chimp -George W Bush
Darth Vader -Dick Cheney
Turd Blossom -Karl Rove
Caribou Barbie -Sara Palin
McGrumpy - John McCain
Poppy -Bush Sr
The Poodle -Tony Blair
Rummy -Donald Rumsfeld
The Asshole -Rham Emmanuel (ok, I made that one up, but it should be)
Tweety -Chris Mathews
Timmeh -Tim Russert
The Professor -Paul Krugman
Joke Line -Joe Kline
Adams Apple -Ann Coulter
Glennzilla -Glenn Greenwald
The Traitor -Joe Lieberman (ok, I made that one up too, but it should be)
Cruella -Katherine Harris
The Witch -Christine O'donnell
Chickens for Checkups -Sue ???
House Boy -Jeff Gannon/Guckert
Diaper Dave -GOP Senator David Vitter
Wide Stance -GOP Senator Larry Craig
Man on Dog -GOP Senator Rick Santorum
President Gimmick -Obama
Brownie -Michael Brown, head of FEMA during Katrina
Hot Tub Tom -Tom Delay
I must confess, a long time ago I used to get all worked up and hot under the collar when talking to Ditto head types. Many times to the point of it becoming a shouting match. Maybe its just from getting older, or most likely during the Bush years it was so easy proving their talking points as utter bullshit.
In any case, I was at a small party last night and got into it with a real right wing nut. We eventually got on global warming. Now, I have always been curious about this topic, and what the motivation is for these rightwingers to so vehemently deny it.
This guy just refused to believe warming was taking place. He said something about all the snow storms and laughed.
I told him, 'you do know that more snow doesnt really mean its colder, it just means that its below 32 and there is a lot of rain'
For some reason that seemed to catch him off guard, so then I rattled off everything I could think of...
2010 was the hottest year ever recorded. 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded were all since the year 2000. Greenland and the Arctic ice are melting.
In the 400+ years we have know about the Northwest Passage above Canada, now for the first time ever ships can freely pass during the summer.
They are estimating that in the next 10-20 years, during the summer you will be able to sail a boat to Russia right over the top of the north pole.
There are huge chunks of ice, some the size of Rhode Island breaking off of Antarctica and melting.
Just last month we had to emergency evacuate some bases in Antarctica because the Ross ice shelf is breaking up and melting.
I told him about Glacier national park, that almost half the ice has already melted. I said if he wanted to go he better hurry because they are estimating it will ALL be melted in about 5-10 years. (On this one he actually mumbled 'yeah, I heard something about that')
I told him that this topic is the only rightwing issue I can think of that Sara Palin does not agree with. Why? Because she lives in AK and they SEE IT happening. She can literally see it from her kitchen window (I really had fun saying that part!)
I told him that a few years ago, for the first time ever the Iditarod dog sled race had to be moved, they had to move it 200 miles further north because all the snow and ice are melting.
And again, I just dont understand the motivation for these people to so vehemently deny the reality. I even asked him why he would so strongly deny something like weather reports? He said 'because it's bullshit!'
So I told him... look, if I am wrong then everything will be fine, if you are wrong then eventually millions and millions of people will die. Don't you think you shouldn't be so quick to scoff at it, you know, just in case??!!
He slowed down a little with that one, but not much, he still pretty much scoffed at it.
I told him that its more than just hot weather and melting ice, its screwing up the entire weather system. There will be more and more extreme weather. More storms, more hurricanes, more tornados, more floods, and even more droughts. 100 and 500 year floods are becoming more and more routine.
That slowed him down a little more, but it was still clear that there was really no way to change his mind. So I gave up, and hit him with my last shot...
I asked him if he had children. He said yes.
I told him he needed to do something very important. You need to talk to your children, you need to make it perfectly clear to all your children that their father does not believe in global warming, and that their father refused to do anything about it, ever.
You need to tell your children that every single day, so that they will never forget it for the rest of their lives.
With that it pretty much ended. When I first mentioned his kids he started to get really angry, but it was clear he had no idea where I was headed with it and by the time I finished he had a weird look and just mumbled something under his breath. I told him there was no point in going on about it and just walked off.
Every time I have one of these encounters I always come back later and second guess what I should have said. I have used alot of those points in one way or another before, the kid thing was new and I have no idea where that came from. In the end I may have made a dent but I'm guessing he will not change his mind.
One interesting thing, when I started stating specific things that have happened, his wife sure did get very interested in our conversation, maybe I won his wife over, but who knows?
But the thing that still baffles me is why are these rightwingers so strongly against any mention of global warning, they can't ALL have a billionaire uncle that owns an oil rig or coal power plant, so I just don't understand what the motivation is???
Yes, the guy was pretty much an asshole, and he clearly hates liberals, but there has to be more to it than that.
Posted by KelleyKramer in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Sep 15th 2007, 10:28 PM
I made a post the other day about the Siegelman case and some folks said they had not heard anything about it.
There is way too much involved to try and do it in one post.. so for starters I'll tell you just one part of the story...
When the verdict was read, they refused to let him remain free on bond during the appeal (and he certainly is not a flight risk). They did not even let him take a common period of 30 days to 'get your affairs in order'. He couldn't even go by the house to get a toothbrush... Siegelman was immediately hauled away from the courtroom bound in shackles.
He was taken to a federal facility in Atlanta and processed. He was put in a small cell and held there for 23 hours a day. He was not allowed any books, magazines, newspapers or any kind of reading material... I guess you just sit and stare at the wall all day and all night (or do push-ups).
After a lot of haggling, he was finally able to convince them to give him a Bible to read.
But that was only the beginning.
Over the next week or two.....
Siegelman was taken from Atlanta and transported to the state of Michigan where he was processed into a facility.
Then he was transported from Michigan to the state of New York and processed into a facility there.
Next, he was taken from New York and transported to the state of Oklahoma and processed into a facility there.
After that, he was taken from Oklahoma and transported to the state of Louisiana and processed into a facility there.
He was then scheduled to be transported from Louisiana to Texarkana, Texas. But that facility refused to accept him, so Siegelman remained at the facility in Louisiana.
Is this abuse of power and harassment? I'll let you decide.
But there a couple things to remember here.. its my understanding (maybe a lawyer here can clarify this) that it is against the law to place someone more than 500 miles from their home.
And more important than that... during this time Siegelman had motions pending before the court and it was important to be able to meet with his lawyers.
Again, that is just a small part of what has happened in this case, but it should give you an idea of how unbelievably out of control these people are.
Posted by KelleyKramer in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Sep 14th 2007, 10:26 PM
If you want to get up to speed on the Ala Gov. Siegelman/US attorney scandal, this would be a good place to start....
The Remarkable “Recusal” of Leura Canary
By: Scott Horton, Harpers Magazine
September 14, 2007
Alabama media continue to report uncritically just about any statement that emanates from the office of Leura Canary, the U.S. Attorney in Montgomery, who is currently in the crosshairs of the Siegelman investigation. One of the most often repeated, and still unexamined, contentions to emanate from her office is the claim that Leura Canary recused herself from the prosecution of Governor Don Siegelman, and that the case was handled from that point forward by the head of her criminal department, Louis V. Franklin. As we will shortly see in an examination of that question forthcoming in a major legal periodical, Franklin’s claim that he ran the case collapses completely under close inspection. He did handle the trial, which is important, but the key aspects of tactical and case management decision-making were retained by political appointees in Washington—to an extent that was quite extraordinary. Yet it seems that no reporter in Alabama ever worked up the gumption to ask any questions or do any research about it; they all just reported what Louis Franklin said, and they didn’t put any follow up questions to him, either.
But one of the oddest claims has consistently been the simple suggestion that Leura Canary ‘recused’ herself from the case. When I first heard this, I put down on my check list: collect Canary recusal papers from court docket. My researcher went off looking for them, and reported back: there are no Canary recusal papers. How could that be? I sent him back again. Same result. I started asking counsel and clerks at the court. Well, it seems, no one else had ever seen the recusal papers. So that leaves it open in my mind: did Leura Canary actually recuse herself? I’m skeptical of that claim. Moreover, the matter’s extremely important since Mrs. Canary went to great lengths to create a public appearance that she had withdrawn. But there’s a lot to suggest that in fact she never relinquished complete control over the case; that her ‘recusal’ is a sham. Let’s take a deeper look, shall we?
In mid-2001, Leura Canary commenced an investigation into “certain state employees” on corruption allegations. It soon became apparent that the principal target of this investigation was Governor Siegelman. The investigation had been initiated at the request of William Pryor, then Attorney General of Alabama. Various representatives of Mrs. Canary’s office have given conflicting false explanations of the source of the complaint initiating the investigation, by the way. Usually they attribute it to a newspaper reporter from Mobile, in an effort to obscure the actual and highly partisan political source. This is important because, as we will see, William Pryor and Leura Canary share a common partner. And his name is William Canary.
Mr. Canary served as chief of staff for the Republican National Committee, as chief of staff to the 2000 G.O.P. Convention chairman and former Bush chief of staff, Andy Card, and as National Field Director for the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992. I am told by senior Republican figures that Canary secured these various roles largely on the strength of his close personal friendship with Karl Rove and with Rove’s express endorsement. In 1994, Mr. Canary and his friend and mentor Karl Rove put together a grand strategy to turnaround the court system in Alabama, putting the G.O.P.’s handpicked candidates in control of key Alabama appellate court races. This process was chronicled by Joshua Green in a major article on Rove’s remaking of the judicial politics of Alabama published in The Atlantic. In a 1995 article, Time Magazine’s Michael Kramer called Bill Canary a “legend in Republican circles” and in the same article, former RNC Chairman Rich Bond described Bill Canary as an “expert political paratrooper” and “someone you dropped into a state where something needed fixing and it got fixed.” Mr. Canary was the architect of a special relationship between the Alabama G.O.P. and the Business Council of Alabama that proved the finance lifeline for many Alabama G.O.P. election campaigns. He was widely described as the G.O.P.’s Alabama “kingpin.”
--MUCH more on the link, here-
Posted by KelleyKramer in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Sep 14th 2007, 01:15 PM
This could get interesting.....
Lawyer to answer questions on origin of Siegelman case
Friday, September 14, 2007
Birmingham News Washington correspondent
WASHINGTON - Congressional staff members today are scheduled to interview an Alabama woman about whether former Gov. Don Siegelman's prosecution was arranged by politically-motivated Republicans, part of an ongoing investigation into the independence of the U.S. Justice Department.
Jill Simpson, a lawyer from Rainsville, is scheduled to answer questions privately but on the record and under oath about discussions she says Alabama Republicans had about the long-running federal investigation of Siegelman's administration. Simpson's interview on Capitol Hill will be attended by three Democratic staffers and three Republican staffers, and one from each side will be asking her questions, according to her attorney, Priscilla Duncan. No members of Congress are expected to attend, and it will be decided later whether a transcript of the interview will be made public and whether she'll be called to testify in an open hearing.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., started looking into Siegelman's case earlier this summer as part of a broader probe of outgoing U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales' office and whether politics influenced who to prosecute or not prosecute. Siegelman was convicted by a jury in Montgomery in 2006 on seven corruption-related charges, and he is in prison awaiting his appeal.
Simpson in May swore in a written statement that in 2002 she heard Alabama Republicans close to Gov. Bob Riley discuss the federal investigation of Siegelman and say that White House adviser Karl Rove had knowledge of it. "William `Bill' Canary told him not to worry, that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman," Simpson said in her affidavit about the November 2002 conference call.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate
FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves
Happy Mother's Day
I love DU2!
Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux)
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.