Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Those Winnetka douchebags are making us all look bad. Overseas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8242008/Armed-police-storm-school-after-man-accidentally-calls-wife-from-his-pocket.html

Officers in America wearing riot gear and carrying automatic weapons searched Carlton Washburne School, Winnetka, for almost three hours after the woman, who has not been identified, called 911.

Joseph De Lopez, the local police chief, said the woman reported receiving a call from her husband in which she could hear muffled voices and believed he was being held captive by a man with a gun.

Within minutes a security perimeter was established around the school, whose pupils had left for the day, and officers poured into the building. Three TV news helicopters were circling above.

But while they were still searching the school, and the man's distressed wife remained connected to his mobile phone and to 911, he returned home.

It became clear that while driving back from work, he had called his wife by sitting on his mobile phone, which was in his back pocket, while he listened to hip-hop and talked to himself.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-04/news/ct-met-butt-dialing-20110104_1_swat-team-winnetka-school-police-officers

In the popular vernacular, it was a butt dial, the bane of many a chagrined cell phone user. This time, it led to a frantic 911 call from a wife. Soon, more than 30 gun-toting officers converged on Carleton Washburne School, which also houses the District 36 offices where the man works.

"He was listening to music and he had, I don't know, hip-hop ... or music like that, where there were lyrics that were gangster-like," explained Mark Friedman, interim co-superintendent of District 36. "So there were lyrics on the radio as he was driving home, and she listened to it and became concerned."

...

Putting a price tag on the resources spent on the night's excitement would be too difficult to estimate, De Lopez said, adding that no one would be charged since there was no intent to deceive police.

The bright side: The SWAT team got a little real-time training, he said.

"It was good practice," he said. "It's not the way we want to practice. We want to know when a situation isn't real."

[MikeC]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

[Tonker]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

You're giving Mike Crazy waaaaayyy too much credit here,  mate.

[Gilgamesh]

CBO preliminary scoring on HR 2: the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (actually called that)

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750

Granted, this is from the CBO and not an august and unbiased source like CATO or something, but take it for what it's worth.

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

[Quality Start Machine]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

But they read the 10th Amendment, which was the deal brokered by Madison between the Southern states and the Pennsylviania Quakers to kick the slavery can down the road 20 years.

[CBStew]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

[Brownie]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, but reading the Constitution, whilst omitting its blemishes, is as big a sin as ignoring it in the first place.

[Eli]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

All of this.  Mostly the last one, though.

Also, having things read out loud to you as an adult is insulting.  I mean, just assign the damn thing as homework.

[Brownie]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

[Chuck to Chuck]

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.

That's crap. I didn't vote for staffers.

Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.

What TJ said.

Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

Exactly.  Plus, it hearkens back to the Newt days when every session started with reading the Contract with America into the Congroid Record.

Stop gimmicking and start legislating or your majority will be gone in about 23.99 months.

[SKO]

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.

That's crap. I didn't vote for staffers.

Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.

What TJ said.

Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

Exactly.  Plus, it hearkens back to the Newt days when every session started with reading the Contract with America into the Congroid Record.

Stop gimmicking and start legislating or your majority will be gone in about 23.99 months.

In other words, we need politicians who are there to SERVE?