The One Thing The GOP Has Missed

The debt drama has turned into a total cluster@$%!

Everybody's gotten lost in the weeds on this plan or that plan, who's up, who's down, where's the Waldo in the White House, etc. There's only one group that hasn't fallen into the chaos: the Democrats. Why? Because they've orchestrated the timing from the beginning.

Here's the one big point the Republicans have missed:

THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ONE-DAY GAME. The whole game has been to start at the end. The goal was to set a deadline---arbitrary as it is---August 2, and THEN be the last one to put a plan out. As long as Harry Reid can play the last card at the last minute, he's able to control the whole thing. He's able to put the burden on the Republicans (in his own chamber and in the House), and say, "Well? What are you going to do? Are you going to let the country go down? Are you going to force the government into a partial shutdown?" The bluff will be called, and it's not Obama's bluff. It's the Republicans'.

In other words, he who controls the final day controls the whole game. EVERYTHING TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN IRRELEVANT.

This has been Obama's game. This is why he fell silent and went AWOL this week. He is preparing to alight on the scene to propose or bless a Democrat plan at the last minute. This is also why neither he nor the Democrats have put out any plans of their own. Republicans are pounding them for their lack of plans and leadership. But the Democrats know EXACTLY what they're doing. It's always been against their interest to put forth "plans" because "plans" would've only allowed the Republicans to counter with a demand that they budge. And they've got no intention of budging on anything.

So the GOP has negotiated against itself while the Democrats have been sitting quietly. Reid "removed" tax hikes from the equation, but Obama did not. There was a method to that supposed madness. Reid will now add those terms to some form of the Boehner plan, and then Obama will either accept that or add terms of his own.

The Republicans have once again put themselves into a box. They have created the very problem they sought to avoid: being held responsible for the finale.

Nothing has ever mattered but the last day or so. The GOP should have stuck it out the way the Democrats have and begun NOW with Cut, Cap and Balance. But alas, it's too late.

We're getting to the last day, a day Obama set in place on purpose so he could play this very game. The Republicans stumbled blindly into it, and now they'll be stuck with the consequences.

Comments

[thebuckstopshere]

my ? was where is YOUR PLAN?

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=23330

STOP THE SPENDING NOW

[Jay]

Alice Rivlin DOESN'T support the Ryan/Rivlin plan:

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) touted the help of former Clinton adviser Alice Rivlin — “a great, proud Democrat” — in promoting a key Medicare provision in his budget proposal Tuesday.

The only problem? Rivlin said she told the Republican she doesn’t support the final version of the measure he wrote into his budget — a provision Ryan referred to generally as the “Ryan-Rivlin” plan when rolling out his sweeping economic blueprint."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52622.html#ixzz1Ti2nf9kw

[DJ]

Something to consider: Savage is feared by the establishment; Levin is not.

Posted by: DJ | July 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

DJ,

That may be so, but I need to know who is saying it---aside from Savage.

-------------

Gringoman,

One glaring example is Savage was banned from entering Britain. I think it's safe to assume the Brit elites are threatened by what the good Doctor has to say.

[gringoman]

Something to consider: Savage is feared by the establishment; Levin is not.

Posted by: DJ | July 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

DJ,

That may be so, but I need to know who is saying it---aside from Savage.

-------------

Gringoman,

One glaring example is Savage was banned from entering Britain. I think it's safe to assume the Brit elites are threatened by what the good Doctor has to say.

Posted by: DJ | July 31, 2011 at 03:32 PM

DJ,

I think it's safer to say that the UK multy-cultys needed a non-muslim to ban, in order to "balance" their ban of the most egregious jihadis. Even Savage has made that clear. As a "bomb=thrower" Savage would be a better candidate for them---far easier than an attorney like Mark Levin, who has dared even the White House, if I recall, to take him to court on something he said.

Overall, Savage is the more entertaining, but his precision is usually below Levin's, sometimes way below, except when he does something that nobody can do better.

[DJ]

Overall, Savage is the more entertaining, but his precision is usually below Levin's, sometimes way below, except when he does something that nobody can do better.

Posted by: gringoman | July 31, 2011 at 04:19 PM

------------

Indeed. But, again, you can't discount the fact that out of all the right-wing talkers and polemicists in America, the British liberal elite chose to single out Savage. The fact is Savage will broach subjects head-on that Maha-Rushie, "the all knowing", feigns ignorance and Levin avoids. For instance, the subject of massive third world immigration and how it is rapidly changing the very nature and culture of America.

[jay]

What do you know!
I went to another conservative website. Made a couple of my comments. and, got several thumbs up!
Maybe "OPC" is Memo specific!

Iowntheworld.com

[LongRifle]

Jay never mentions one FACT:
Republicans had majorities in BOTH the House and Senate during the last Six of Clinton's Eight years, after the voters through out the House Dems in 1994.
The Federal Surpluses were for the years 1998-2001.

Bush had Dem majorites in both Houses from 2007 on...

[LongRifle]

"THREW" out, dammit.

[xbjllb]

"Bush had Dem majorites in both Houses from 2007 on..." - longrifle

Absolutely irrelevant. The President has the power of the veto pen and can veto anything Congress throws his way.

Also, a majority in one house in Congress can completely gum up the works and never send anything a President is willing to sign. Thus has been the case with the GOP since last November, and prior to that they had gummed up the works as a minority as well with never before used filibusters.

Who is in power in Congress has become completely irrelevant. The right wing has discovered, since back in the 90's, that they can foil everything, and do.

Unless there's a right winger in the White House. Which if the debt ceiling cracks, will never happen again.

[xbjllb]

NOT LIKELY TO BE A DEAL

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-usa-debt-pelosi-meeting-idUSTRE76U2L420110731

MARKET AT 6000?

Considering that the stock market should really be around 6000 without all the smoke and mirror shenanigans and propped up computer buys, I think IF I had any stock, I'd be on the phone to my broker TONIGHT. Most likely all the computers will be set to only start buying below 6000. Maybe less in more of the frugal houses.

Besides, as I've already laid out; why should Obama stop the Republicans from suicide?

Why should America?

Why should the world?

Why should the universe?

The right wing earned this. With every fibre of their corrupt being.

And they will own it forever.

Why would a sane Obama bail them out?

All he has to say to America when they're clamoring for him to use the 14th amendment, and it is PRICELESS:

I. REFUSE. TO. CHEAT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PUT THIS PARTY IN POWER; THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST TAKE CARE OF IT.

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY AND WE ALL HAVE OUR JOBS. CONGRESS, ME, AND YOU.

NOW. HERE ARE ALL THE JOBS BILLS I AND THE DEMOCRATS PROPOSE:

[xbjllb]

What President, in his right mind, would choose certain impeachment (if he used the 14th amendment), over letting the right wing suicide itself?

It's that simple. The man (wisely, I must say NOW) gave them nothing but rope the past three years. Foot after foot after yard after yard after mile after mile.

And what did the right wing do with it? What Nazis and fascists ALWAYS do when they're given the world:

SUICIDE THEMSELVES BY ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY EVERYTHING AROUND THEM WHEN THEY CAN'T GET THEIR WAY.

I must hand it to the man, it was a brilliant ploy, brilliantly played. I could have never done it, I would have tried to smash them the first bit of crap they pulled, the first lie out of their mouths.

But patience has paid off; they've really gone and done it now, it's irreversible, and impossible to pin on the President.

Oh, their braindead racist imbecile base (a mere 10% of America now) will always hate the man and worship at Limbaugh's and Murdoch's filthy feet.

But sane independents? Lost forever. They will never forget.

All Obama has to do now is PLAY BY THE RULES and STAND FAST.

Evil is a curious thing. For all the "fun", for all the monetary rewards, IT IS IN ITS NATURE TO DESTROY ITSELF AND ALL INVOLVED.

It can't help itself. Ultimately, evil is the most moronic thing in the universe.

[LongRifle]

Bush had Dem majorites in both Houses from 2007 on..." - longrifle

Absolutely irrelevant.

Not at all. Congress does the work and appropriates the funds or cuts them. The President just agrees or does not. That's how it works.

[jay]

Jay never mentions one FACT:
Republicans had majorities in BOTH the House and Senate during the last Six of Clinton's Eight years, after the voters through out the House Dems in 1994.
The Federal Surpluses were for the years 1998-2001.

Bush had Dem majorites in both Houses from 2007 on...

Posted by: LongRifle | July 31, 2011 at 06:14 PM

From 1995 on. the GOP had control during Clinton's era.
From 2007 on, the Democrats had control. Doubt if the minute the Dems took control, the recession started.

Also, doubt if the Republicans would vote for a tax INCREASE to 39%. And, the democrats would vote for a tax DECREASE to 35%.
That, right there goes against party principles.

also, what's the reason then for the cause of the depression being ALL GOP?
Snoot-Hawley act- GOP
President- GOP
from at least 1921 to 1929 Control of both houses-GOP

That's going back aways. But, cnservatives always yell,"it's all about the liberals."

[gringoman]

Jay never mentions one FACT:
Republicans had majorities in BOTH the House and Senate during the last Six of Clinton's Eight years, after the voters through out the House Dems in 1994.
The Federal Surpluses were for the years 1998-2001.

Bush had Dem majorites in both Houses from 2007 on...

Posted by: LongRifle | July 31, 2011 at 06:14 PM

True, but a statmonger has to leave things out. If a statmonger doesn't leave things out, like context, he'd be of no value to the Dummycrats as a factoid hustler.

A Dummycrat statmonger can even "prove" that Donald Trump wants more taxes. He has to be careful, of course, not to quote the latest from Trump on the Obamanation. The 'crats and their mongers can't use that,

[jay]

A Dummycrat statmonger can even "prove" that Donald Trump wants more taxes. He has to be careful, of course, not to quote the latest from Trump on the Obamanation. The 'crats and their mongers can't use that,

Posted by: gringoman | July 31, 2011 at 09:37 PM

First, I posted that Trump link months ago. and, second.

If, it was the Republicans that created Clinton's surplus. then, why don't they vote back the 39% tax rates. They did it before. right?

the fact that there was a tax increase under Clinton, then a tax decrease under Bush. REALLY shows who was in power.
THAT's a fact that Conservatives LEAVE OUT!

[jay]

Once again. Facts are only harmful if they go AGAINST what you WANT to believe in.
But, the strangest thing. They NEVER go away!

[gringoman]

Overall, Savage is the more entertaining, but his precision is usually below Levin's, sometimes way below, except when he does something that nobody can do better.

Posted by: gringoman | July 31, 2011 at 04:19 PM

------------

Indeed. But, again, you can't discount the fact that out of all the right-wing talkers and polemicists in America, the British liberal elite chose to single out Savage. The fact is Savage will broach subjects head-on that Maha-Rushie, "the all knowing", feigns ignorance and Levin avoids. For instance, the subject of massive third world immigration and how it is rapidly changing the very nature and culture of America.

Posted by: DJ | July 31, 2011 at 04:54 PM

They all have their "specialties." Limbaugh and Levin don't ignore illegalismo, but nobody grabs it by the jugular like Savage does.

OTOH, when it comes to what's really going on in the Beltway and the corridors of Congress, Savage isn't even in the ballpark with Limbaugh and Levin. They both know it in a way that Savage can't begin to, and probably doesn't want to. On "culture" and "religion" and literature and history and "the deep questions" of course, Savage is way ahead of Levin and Limbaugh, who have little interest in going there on air (although Levin is way ahead of everybody on early American history, the Constitution etc.) Limbaugh is way ahead of Savage on pop culture and sports. Age difference and Savage not interested. (With some exceptions, I don't especially like any of their choices in music. John Batchelor, he the way out Music Man.)

[RafeMasters_76]

Congratulations GOP / Tea Party. You got what you wanted by threatening the President with the destruction of our economy. The American people will remember this in November 2012. Real change can't happen when you deal with selfish, narrow-minded, irrational people.

[gringoman]

gringoNOTE: Not sure if I agree with Sowell, but I respect his opinion---far more than that of any white liberal dummycrat racist.

July 28, 2011 12:00 P.M.
THOMAS SOWELL////Boehner’s Plan Will Do
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income-tax rates. But they did — and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt deserves much of the credit for that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272972/boehner-s-plan-will-do-thomas-sowell

[jay]

Congratulations GOP / Tea Party. You got what you wanted by threatening the President with the destruction of our economy. The American people will remember this in November 2012. Real change can't happen when you deal with selfish, narrow-minded, irrational people.

Posted by: RafeMasters_76 | July 31, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Agree 100%

[jay]

to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income-tax rates. But they did — and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt deserves much of the credit for that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272972/boehner-s-plan-will-do-thomas-sowell

Posted by: gringoman | July 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Even though this country did BETTER with 39% rates that the Republicans voted for under Clinton. Than, the 35% rates that the Democrats voted for under Bush!

[gringoman]

The word is getting out from Washington: Dems getting very, very nervous about Obama. He has absolutely proved himself to be a lousy negotiator. Dems had expected to be able to roll the GOPsters on this Debt Ceiling, which is why they delayed it till July. Insiders seem to be saying it hasn't worked out that way for them. Election 2012 beginning to look gloomier for them than it did in 2010.

But will Goopers still be able to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, say, with a RINO Corporate Charley like Mitt Romneycare? They will certainly shut up like proper castrati while the OSM prog piranha try to devour alive a Michelle Bachmann et al.

Pray tell, Monica.

[jay]

Another argument was that raising taxes actually lowers total revenue, and that only cutting taxes stimulates federal revenue. This is supposedly proved by the history of tax receipts since my friend George W. Bush became president.

In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again.

By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue..

[jay]

Dems had expected to be able to roll the GOPsters on this Debt Ceiling, which is why they delayed it till July. Insiders seem to be saying it hasn't worked out that way for them. Election 2012 beginning to look gloomier for them than it did in 2010.

But will Goopers still be able to snatch defeat out

Posted by: gringoman | July 31, 2011 at 10:33 PM

the problems the Dems had was that other Republican politicians had to get McConnel's okay on everyhting. And, the Green Tea baggers didn't care what happened to the economy.
The senior GOP politicians even had a talk with them.

This will be more damaging to the conservatives, especially the tea baggers morethan the Democrats.
Reuter's poll showed 51% sided with Obama.
Only 19% with the conservatives.

[gringoman]

MICHAEL BARONE: GOP wins when the fight is over cuts not more taxes. “Democrats went into this fight with a precedent in mind, the budget fight between President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995-96. The conventional wisdom is that Clinton won that fight and Republicans lost. That’s not quite right: After shifting to noticeably more moderate policies, Clinton was re-elected in 1996, but Republicans lost few House seats and held onto their congressional majorities at the same time. The difference this time is that Obama has not shifted policies noticeably, but instead has seemed to position himself as a complainer on the sidelines, asking voters to call their congressman. He has presented no specific plan of his own.”

Posted at 8:53 pm by Glenn Reynolds

[jay]

And, we must remember the Republican controlled Congress under Clinton raised the taxes to 39%.
And, Obama asking people to call their Congressman
What do you expect when he had to deal with TEABAGGERS!
That, didn't care what happened to the economy.
Notice how far wall Street has dropped during this time?

[jay]

Both Reagan and Clinton raised taxes during a recession and created 40 million jobs:

"Let me make, therefore, what should be an obvious assertion: raising taxes (or, more accurately, letting the cuts expire as they were designed) on the top 2% not only will not reduce economic growth, it will spur it. Capital flows will increase into the US, as it will be perceived as a safer haven. As a corollary, I will make another prediction: the wealthy will be even wealthier, there will be more of them, even after paying higher taxes, and, in good measure, because of them.

Why? Because raising taxes on the top 2% shows domestic and world markets that the US is serious about its long-term deficit problems, and is capable of making tough choices.

The evidence?

It worked for Ronald Reagan. It worked for Bill Clinton. Together, following their tax increases, nearly 40M new jobs were created. Bill Clinton even generated budget surpluses."

[xbjllb]

"Not at all. Congress does the work and appropriates the funds or cuts them. The President just agrees or does not. That's how it works." - longrifle

Thanks for making my point for me. The President has the final say, and the credit and/or blame. You're trying to make the point that Congress gets the credit for the better economic performance during Democratic Presidencies. Your own argument says that's BS. For the President has the final say. Bush could have said "No" to thousands of Dem spending bills, but he did not.

In this case, however, the President has the final say but DOESN'T OWN IT, because the rightwing absolutely refused to send him anything he could sign.

That's a first.

[xbjllb]

I think the Tea Party and the Progressive Democratic Congress are going to unite tomorrow and throw out "Satan's sandwich" in the house, after a surprisingly low "winning" vote in the Senate.

DEFAULT 2011

[jay]

Thanks for making my point for me. The President has the final say, and the credit and/or blame. You're trying to make the point that Congress gets the credit for the better economic performance during Democratic Presidencies. Your own argument says that's BS. For the President has the final say. Bush could have said "No" to thousands of Dem spending bills, but he did not.

In this case, however, the President has the final say but DOESN'T OWN IT, because the rightwing absolutely refused to send him anything he could sign.

That's a first.

Posted by: xbjllb | August 01, 2011 at 12:31 AM

have noticed that conservatives in their blame game. Pick was it either the president or congress who was Democrat. and, act accordingly

[jay]

I have always said who was president.

[jay]

have noticed that conservatives in their blame game. Pick was it either the president or congress who was Democrat. and, act accordingly

When i posted my how well did Republicans do in relation to the democrats in creating jobs.

One conservative tried to break the chart down by sectors.

"Your chart showed how poorly the GOP did, because it's not broken down by such and such."

Anything to make themselves look good!

[jay]

Both parties compromised on the Debt.
When you don't have a compromise. then, you have a dictatorship.
The question of the country's integrity. Should never have been questioned!

Maybe the regulars on the memo,who practice OPC, believe in the dictatorship!

[DJ]

Posted by: RafeMasters_76 | July 31, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Agree 100%

Posted by: jay | July 31, 2011 at 10:26 PM

--------------

LOL! The foggy headed dronebots agreeing with each other.

Priceless!

[DJ]

"True, but a statmonger has to leave things out. If a statmonger doesn't leave things out, like context, he'd be of no value to the Dummycrats as a factoid hustler." (Gringoman)

-------------

Gringoman,

In the case of Jay, I truly beleive we are dealing with someone who simply does not know he does not know waht he is talking about. Hence, you give him too much credit.

[jay]

LOL! The foggy headed dronebots agreeing with each other.

Priceless!

Posted by: DJ | August 01, 2011 at 09:39 AM

have found that about the regulars even more so!
They are like lil Conservative robots.

[jay]

Gringoman,

In the case of Jay, I truly beleive we are dealing with someone who simply does not know he does not know waht he is talking about. Hence, you give him too much credit.

Posted by: DJ | August 01, 2011 at 09:44 AM

Problem is. I know too much. That's why I get so much attention here.

[DJ]

"They all have their "specialties." Limbaugh and Levin don't ignore illegalismo, but nobody grabs it by the jugular like Savage does."

----------

I can say this for Limbaugh: He deliberately obfuscates the issue of massive third world immigration, thus gives a distorted picture regarding it. He fits right in the typical Gooper mold in that regard. Moreover, anyone who studies the issue of immigration KNOWS ALL TOO WELL IT'S THE GREATEST EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

[jay]

The Conservative robots singing their little song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCOEiWg9Yc

[xbjllb]

"KNOWS ALL TOO WELL IT'S THE GREATEST EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION." - DJ

On the contrary, it's people who insist that who are the greatest threat.

There is only one race; the human race. And eventually, one nationality.

Get used to it. Your kids and their kids will live it.

[xbjllb]

That is, if you and yours don't blow the planet up first "to save it".

[WowZER]

IT's NOT ABOUT "VICTORY" by any group! IT's ABOUT AGREEING AS A NATION TO REDUCE Go-FORWARD GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

"The eye that alters, alters all" said poet William Blake. People in Washington and the biased mainstream media have lied by changing the meaning of words for so long that their group think is totally out of touch with reality!

* The Gross Public Debt still rises when the government's budgeting method automatically increases the annual budget by 7% per year whether or not such increase is needed or justified ("BASELINE BUDGETING"), instead of requiring every government department to justify their annual budget starting with a ZERO BASELINE.

The "COMPROMISE DEAL reached REDUCES THE ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASE BY A NOMINAL AMOUNT THAT WILL HARDLY PUT A DENT IN THE FUTURE RISKS TO AMERICA. Our public debt will still grow go-forward. So will the risk to the budget of COMPOUNDING and RISING INTEREST RATES applied to the growing public debt.

* We are ALL LOSERS by the "COMPROMISE DEAL" which continues to all GOVERNMENT TO ROB THE FININCIAL FUTURE of OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, and GREAT GRANDCHILDREN who will be saddled with the taxes needed to pay off the growing debt, or, will be saddled with a LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING because of the inflated prices they will be paying for their basic needs and having to work many more years.

THE INSANITY OF OUR POLITICIANS IS THEIR FAILURE TO GRASP THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL PASSENGERS ON THIS TITANTIC COUNTRY and WE ARE ALL GOING DOWN WITH THE SHIP IF OUR FINANCES ARE NOT RIGHTED OVER THE COMING YEARS! And our demise will surely take the rest of the world and its' economies down with it into anarchy, chaos, despiration and destruction.

[RafeMasters_76]

And look at the market's response to the deal. Why? Because this isn't a job solution which is the core problem with this economy. JOBS.

[jay]

What did Reagan and Clinton do to create jobs and get out of a Recession?
RAISED TAXES.

Both of them created 40 million jobs.

[jay]

And, got to thank DJ for my Conservative Robots idea!

[jay]

This will be added on Monica's new post.

"Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993"

[DJ]

Found this piece at the CofCC website (h/t to
Jay for highlighting the CofCC here at the Memo).

**AP pushing fake Rosa Parks attempted rape story.**

"In the United States black men rape white women over 100 times a day. Meanwhile white on black rape is extremely rare. Sometimes not even registering on the massive DOJ surveys which are the best gauge of true crime rates.

However the extreme left-wing “mainstream” media would like you to believe the exact opposite. Now the AP is claiming that Rosa Parks was once “nearly raped” by a “white neighbor.”

This claim comes SIX YEARS after Rosa Parks has been deceased. She never made this claim while alive, nor did she put it in her autobiography.

The hoaxers at the AP are justifying this claim with some handwritten notes allegedly made by Rosa Parks. In them she claims that a former white employer once made an inappropriate sexual advance. He backs off when Parks tells him to stop. Parks never actually claims any violence or attempted rape took place. The AP calls this “nearly raped.” The story by the AP is a hoax. With white women being raped hourly in violent attacks by black men, the AP should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this anti-white fabrication.

Compare this to an actual violent attack on Rosa Parks. In 1994, an elderly Rosa Parks was horrifically beaten and robbed by a black male. The only time Rosa Parks was the victim of a violent crime, it was at the hands of a black man. Why doesn’t the AP talk about this? Why are they inventing a fake attempted rape by a white man, when a black man committed an actual violent crime against her.

Shame on the AP for this politically motivated fake story."

Video can be seen here:

http://cofcc.org/2011/07/ap-pushing-fake-rosa-park-attempted-rape-story/

[xbjllb]

I think the market senses that THIS COMPROMISE is NOT going to pass in the house due to BOTH left and right "NO EFFIN' WAY" votes.

Wait until tomorrow when the market opens, after the panic in the oriental markets.

DEFAULT 2011

[Chief Joe]

Icahn has the answer : The public needs to incentivize the situation for the politicians, instead of kicking their asses, blaming them, and threatening to remove them from office. Without incentives, like Sitting Bull, they just sit there, waiting for something.

[Chief Joe]

Icahn went on to say that the public owns the pension funds, so ... what do they want to do with them? Maybe give 1% to their representative, and in return perhaps they would pull the money out of China?