“Constitutional” conservatives love the Constitution except when they don’t love the Constitution.

Very True!

As usual, Michelle Bachman has it “going on!”

This is why Bachmann won’t go the distance; when it all comes down to it her rhetoric just is terrible. Independent voters are not going to elect Sarah Palin light when it comes to addressing the American people as a whole. I’m surprised she didn’t repeat her gangster government line!

Frankly Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment and let them spend all of next year trying to impeach him and run their campaigns. Conservatives are notoriously bad at multitasking and they can only print up so many bumper stickers.

This is what our dear leader wants.Its what we Americans want.The Obamtator knows whats best for us all.

ZAP!

If obama were to be so bold, I would expect impeachment preceding to be effective immediately.  I don’t want an R or a D making dictatorial decisions.

I think obama should go ahead and invoke the 14th amedment and sort this mess out. Michelle Bachman has zero chance of becoming president.

Fact: For him to act and pay debt he still has to be complient to what congress instructs him to do!

Count on Bachmann to say something ridiuclous to fill the gap when Sarah Palin isn’t saying something ridiculous.

So now it’s ridiculous to hold the president accountable?  Was it ridiculous to hold GWBush accountable for wiretapping as well?

I know….saying something as truthful as Obama sucks at being a President is sooo ridiculous.

You can’t fight the truth.

Hey Michele tell your colleague Joe Walsh to pay his child support!

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, the tea party-backed
Republican who squeaked into office last year by vowing to bring fiscal
responsibility to Washington and who has been one of President Barack
Obama’s most outspoken critics during the standoff over the debt
ceiling, is being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support, a
newspaper reported.

The freshman congressman’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim
against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed
$117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday.
She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took
international vacations but said he couldn’t afford child support
payments because he was between jobs or out of work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/joe-walsh-sued-for-100000_n_911800.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Wait im confused.  So are the tea party people for the constitution or against it?

Don’t be silly, everyone knows that there are two set of rules….one set for Liberals and the other set for the rest of us! Ohh, and the set for Liberals can be changed at any time depending on which way the political winds are blowing!!

The were for it before they were against it.

all very logical and well reasoned.

The were for it before they were against it.

all very logical and well reasoned.

Obama and others in his administration have said they will not rely on
the 14th Amendment. At a town hall last week, Obama said that he has
“talked to my lawyers” and “they are not persuaded that that is a
winning argument.”Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html#ixzz1TQ1O7nim

If Congress does not act and the government defaults on his obligations, and Obama does not invoke the 14th Amendment, then he should be impeached. Here is what it says: Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

a dictator up for reelection next year ;-)

Its the congress that does the spending…….unless we are blaming the president for overspending.

Most of the folks that like Palin that I know are Indies.

Count it!

Impeach Obama 2011……….. Jail in 2013.

No one is questioning current debt. We are questioning future debt.

Count it!

A default is NOT going to happen so you can just take that off the table, so says Obama’s own tax-cheat treasury secretary.

http://news.id.msn.com/top-stories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5081106

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said:

“This is not leadership. This is almost like dictatorship. I know they want to force the outcome that . . . their extremists would like to impose.

Is that also ridiculous or is it only when a Conservative says it?

Kind of like Obama being totally against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was in office?

The Baggers will never acknowledge this character is a fraud, not paying you children’s support and your a family values Republican. The fact you have a link to HuffingtonPost will automatically mean the story is not credible and a lie in their eyes.

The left is really getting a big dose of its own medicine these days. 

The left is really getting a big dose of its own medicine these days. 

Bachmann is wrong on this issue. If the congress fails to raise the debt limit, Obama must invoke the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling, failure to do so may be construed as an impeachable offense. After invoking the 14th amendment, let the SCOTUS decide, the powers given by the 14th amendment to the POTUS. Even Bill Clinton agrees to this much.
After invoking the 14th amendment, according to the constitution, Obama should call both the house to an emegency legislative session for the sole pupose to enact legislation that would address the debt issue. It is not required, but Obama should submit his own plan to both the houses as a starting legislation.

What? That’s it? An overblown, sensational headline and a short clip? I was more interested in the rest of the interview about not raising the debt ceiling.

Sure, pick on Bachmann.  But the real horror story here is Obama’s veiled threats to destroy 250 years of precedent and violate the separation of powers that our system is built on, and start spending money in direct violation of the will of the Congress….and of the people (who overwhelmingly support a reduction in the size and scope of government).  This is the kind of power play we associated with Third World dictators. The fact that Democrats would threaten this shows, once again, their view that they are willing to throw aside all ideals and values in the name of forcing through their agenda.  Just as they did with the disastrous healthcare bill, and so many other policy issues.

14th Amendment, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It doesn’t say anything about the Messiah, but I’d love to see the fool try it. 

Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t somehow allow the government to spend more money. Raising the debt ceiling strictly addresses payment of debt that the country has already incurred, meaning that there is absolutely no new spending (i.e., future debt) involved.

It’s fine if you have issue with the pattern of debt ceiling-raising, but it’s rather convenient that it’s suddenly an issue.

Constitutional Conservatives would like to you read the Constitution as opposed to assuming that things you’d like to be in there are.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned.

Do you know who authorizes things by law? Do you know who passes laws? Congress.

You know, I think I’m OK with going into next year with a Constitutional crisis, and an impeachment.

As an independent myself I call BS on that notion.  

Count it.

Especially when a conservative says it. After all your last POTUS said the constitution was just a piece of paper.

You people are getting a dose of your own medicine.

Yes, debt that is authorized by law. Who does that? It ain’t O’Bomber.

What would be funny is sticking him with the bill for everything he borrows without legal authorization. Maybe his buddy Soros can hook him up.

Seem you people agree with him now. How ironic. 

The 14th Amendment, as it applies to this situation could be used as a sort of “last resort,” concerning the legality of debts already incurred from previous years, encompassing the entire national debt.  It could indeed be a catch-22 of sorts for the President, in that he could face articles of impeachment for either acting or not acting. 

If he signs an emergency Executive Order, with the 14th Amendment being the principal rationale, the House of Representatives will no doubt pursue articles of impeachment under the auspices of the current Tea Party members.  There very well could be a 2/3 vote in the HofR, thereby repeating 1998 as with Clinton, however it faces a zero chance of the same 2/3 majority in the Senate, as well as risking the Executive Branch appealing the House decision to the Supreme Court.

If he allows the country to technically default on August 2nd, he could also be subject to impeachment proceedings with the rationale that he didn’t follow the law stipulated within the 14th Amendment.

Overall, the use of the word “dictator,” does not apply to this situation, for the reason that if the President did indeed follow the 14th Amendment, he would simply be following the law, and be consistent within the Constitution.

A “dictator,” according to the latest definition from Merriam Webster must fit within the confines of 3 traits: a) A person granted absolute emergency power, b) one holding complete autocratic control, and c) one ruling absolutely and often oppressively. 

Within the context of this current debt debate, the only one of those criteria that could possibly be applied could be Sen. Mitch McConnell’s idea of granting the President the authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling after a voted rejection of the Congress.  Traits B and C have no credible evidence at this time in which to suggest.

Ladies and Gentlemen, This is a literal meaning of an ignoramus. These freaks go on about the Constitution day and night, Yet they have no clue about its content. 

That would be the court’s job. Let us know what the judge has to say, OK?

 What does it say about “retards” because you seem like an expert on that.

We’re for it, but we insist that you read and comprehend it.

As a devoted independent, I believe you may be incorrect in that. Nice try, though.

Sorry dude, even Obama doesn’t agree with you.

We don’t need to raise the debt ceiling to pay the debt. We have plenty of revenue to do that and a whole lot more. The only reason to borrow more money is so we can spend it.

It’s fine if you have issue with the pattern of debt ceiling-raising,
but it’s rather convenient that it’s suddenly an issue

Well, $1.5 trillion deficits are pretty flashy. It’s a new thing and it’s generating a lot of buzz.

But the Congress is not enforcing the 14th amendment, in fact they will be in violation of the 14th amendment not to recognize the debt, the 14th amendment states that it’s “validity shall not be questioned” which is essentially what the Congress would be doing therefore leaving it up to the chief executive, President Obama

Nice try though.

Not authorizing more debt does not equal questioning existing debt.

Insanity seems to be catching, as does wild imagination.

Perhaps you missed the part where the White House has repeatedly said that only Congress can raise the debt ceiling. In fact, they said it again just an hour ago.

Democrats in Congress are asking, but Obama has said he will not do this. As compared to the Tea Party which now threatens to not pay the bills that the Congress authorized.

Contrary to the rantings, the president cannot spend money not appropriated by Congress. Raising the debt ceiling is Congress authorizing borrowing to pay the moneys they already committed to.

As far as forcing an agenda, read the rantings of the Tea party Republicans lately. I believe their method is “our way or the highway.”

And to preempt the “elections have consequences” retort, they do. And when health care passed, that was a consequence of Obama winning. Now that the GOP has the House, they feel their agenda is what is wanted and they are forcing it.

Hypocrisy really is unattractive on either side.

Here’s their Constitutional argument: “I heard it, I want it to be true, therefore it is.”

Good for you, but Its not new. BO has been agreeing with the GOP more than the Dems. Check his Health care law, extending taxes, war and just continuing the same GOP crap. Enjoy, he is on of yours.

Good for you, but Its not new. BO has been agreeing with the GOP more than the Dems. Check his Health care law, extending taxes, war and just continuing the same GOP crap. Enjoy, he is on of yours.

OH SNAP!

But there aren’t any crayon drawings or pictures, so the lefties will not be able to understand it.

The Constitution’s over 100 years old, anyway. So no biggie.

OH SNAP!

But there aren’t any crayon drawings or pictures, so the lefties will not be able to understand it.

The Constitution’s over 100 years old, anyway. So no biggie.

Wouldn’t it be something if the “Constitutional Law Perfesser” get’s his @ss impeached for un-Constitutional acts?

Wouldn’t it be something if the “Constitutional Law Perfesser” get’s his @ss impeached for un-Constitutional acts?

The lunatic fringe right has complete control over one house of congress, it’s a disgrace to this country and makes us the laughing stocks of the developed world.  Thank you, Michelle Bachmann, for reminding us that now one of you weirdos wants an entire branch of government to yourselves now.

The lunatic fringe right has complete control over one house of congress, it’s a disgrace to this country and makes us the laughing stocks of the developed world.  Thank you, Michelle Bachmann, for reminding us that now one of you weirdos wants an entire branch of government to yourselves now.

do you have a quote?

do you have a quote?

Something to be said for the Romans definition of dictator.  Look up Cincinnatus if you don’t know what I mean.
They called the position ‘Magister Populi’ and it was probably the greatest honor a Roman could receive.

Something to be said for the Romans definition of dictator.  Look up Cincinnatus if you don’t know what I mean.
They called the position ‘Magister Populi’ and it was probably the greatest honor a Roman could receive.

Something to be said for the Romans definition of dictator.  Look up Cincinnatus if you don’t know what I mean.
They called the position ‘Magister Populi’ and it was probably the greatest honor a Roman could receive.

Something to be said for the Romans definition of dictator.  Look up Cincinnatus if you don’t know what I mean.
They called the position ‘Magister Populi’ and it was probably the greatest honor a Roman could receive.

Smartest thing she’s ever said, although I’m sure she didn’t mean it that way >> “It’s Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do
that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a
dictator.”

Smartest thing she’s ever said, although I’m sure she didn’t mean it that way >> “It’s Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do
that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a
dictator.”

Nobody’s laughing, least of all Europe. Definitely not China. Watching America become Greece is not good for anyone.

Nobody’s laughing, least of all Europe. Definitely not China. Watching America become Greece is not good for anyone.

Nobody’s laughing, least of all Europe. Definitely not China. Watching America become Greece is not good for anyone.

Nobody’s laughing, least of all Europe. Definitely not China. Watching America become Greece is not good for anyone.

Good, it will be that much easier to get rid of him then.

Good, it will be that much easier to get rid of him then.

Good, it will be that much easier to get rid of him then.

Good, it will be that much easier to get rid of him then.

It would be just delightful!

It would be just delightful!

It would be just delightful!

It would be just delightful!

Raising the debt ceiling is about existing debt, it has nothing to do with future debt that may be incured.

Nice try though.

Raising the debt ceiling is about existing debt, it has nothing to do with future debt that may be incured.

Nice try though.

Stop pretending your an Independent. 

Stop pretending your an Independent. 

Stop pretending your an Independent. 

Stop pretending your an Independent. 

Those pesky Civil War Amendments! You’d think the Republicans who passed them were trying to transform our nation.

She’s right. The libs can mock her all they want, but if Obama does that, he’ll be impeached in the House immediately(it won’t go anywhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate of course). It doesn’t help matters that this would come on the heels of the illegal war he started in Libya that’s now become a stalemate.

And it would effectively end his Presidency and kill any reelection hopes he has. A Constitutional crisis heading into an election year is probably not the best idea.

Do we know how much of the accumulated debt is the result of unappropriated war expenses incurred at the same time taxes were lowered?

Isn’t this just astounding?

And, his attorney doesn’t question the delinquency, only the amount.

I have no patience with parents who don’t pay child support. Sorry debates! He needs to set in jail for a nice long while until he purges himself of his contempt of our judicial system and his own offspring.

Nice to be supporting a Dead Beat Dad.

So, you have no problems with Dead Beat Dads either?

Why don’t you check to see is that would be a CONSTITUTIONAL basis for impeachment and get back to us?

Hello impeachment.

That is totally correct, Pablo. As long as they leave existing debt alone, there is no requirement on Congress to authorize further debt.

I think the new national pastime is insanity.

Actually, it is about authorizing new debt to pay existing appropriations. Thus the phrase, “increase the debt limit.” Not raising the limit could cause previously appropriated money to mot be spent, but it does not have a thing to do with the existing debt.

While it has nothing to do with future spending, it does indeed create further (and therefore future) debt.

The biggest thing about this debate is that both sides are simply redefining the reality to fit.

Don’t be obtuse.

You’re just an Obama bootlicker with a deliberately limited memory. Your leftwing cabal of haters spoke this way every day from 2000-2008:

http://tiny.cc/gd3jv

This is just the usual guttersniping from the Party of No Ideas and No Budget.

No, and neither do you. It really doesn’t matter. The debt is the debt.

Educate everyone.

Look up, I posted the source somewhere up there.

Look up, I posted the source somewhere up there.

Michael Ramirez absolutely nails the Democrats’ idea of “compromise”.

Michael Ramirez absolutely nails the Democrats’ idea of “compromise”.

“It’s Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do that”……hmmmmmm, interesting statement!!

“It’s Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do that”……hmmmmmm, interesting statement!!

When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When neither is on your side, pound the table.

The left has opted for option 3 in this discussion.

When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When neither is on your side, pound the table.

The left has opted for option 3 in this discussion.

It’s not an absolute emergency. The Democrats refusing to pass anything passed in the House is their own problem and something they will pay a political price for. That hardly constitutions a dire, immediate national emergency.

So therefore, Obama would be violating the Constitution, and you’d be cheering him on anyway.

This Presidency, for those watching, has been a complete and utter disaster thus far, and those defending Obama would be in agreement if there were an R next to his name.

They pilloried Bush for 5.5% percent unemployment and a debt 1/3 of what it is now.

It’s not an absolute emergency. The Democrats refusing to pass anything passed in the House is their own problem and something they will pay a political price for. That hardly constitutions a dire, immediate national emergency.

So therefore, Obama would be violating the Constitution, and you’d be cheering him on anyway.

This Presidency, for those watching, has been a complete and utter disaster thus far, and those defending Obama would be in agreement if there were an R next to his name.

They pilloried Bush for 5.5% percent unemployment and a debt 1/3 of what it is now.

Stop defending him, then, and join the attack with us.

Spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. There is some debate as to whether the Senate can initiate this sort of legislation, but regardless, Congress does the spending. The President merely signs off on it or vetoes it.

Grow up, how crude, using a discusting word that’s used in refering to the mentally challenged members of our society as a slur.  You discust me.

Instead of getting the car out of the ditch, your inexperienced and ill-equipped President and his party floored the accelerator and drove it further in. Then you turn around and blame everyone else for the damage you caused.

Get in the back seat. You’ve done enough damage.

NO – it’s ridiculous to call him a DICTATOR for invoke the Constitution that this dimwit claims so much to support.

I love how the liberals are now trying to tell us that by ignoring the 14th Amendment and violating the Constitution, Obama isn’t, like, a “dictator-dictator.”

The irony. It burns.

i saw those pics of you and wu in your tigger suits. did you guys gangbang that teenager?

For Democrats, compromise goes like this: “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot the hostage and blame it on you.”

The reason that Obama won’t evoke the 14th amendment is because the House Republicans will introduce Articles Of Impeachment, whether or not the Executive Branch utilizing the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional is open to interpretation, reading legal scholars arguments for and against. He won’t do it regardless so this is a moot issue.

and you support the sexual harassment of teenagers…  boom!

You are aware, that everyone is a ‘Constitutional Scholar’….even the many that have never attempted to read it??  Just maybe, the way to find out if Pres.Obama is within the rights…..is simply for him to use the 14th, then have it challenged in the Supreme Court(controlled by Conservatives)…and find out!!!!

‘Pretty-much!’

Yes, it’s the President’s fault CEOs of companies are sitting on a stockpile of cash and hoping they get some tax cuts for their efforts.  When you have people dumb enough to give you more money for hoarding money you gave them to stimulate the economy why wouldn’t you?  (Not including the existence of a soul, which we know they don’t have)

Stock market has DONE great under Obama, it’s the CEOs and private companies and banks that have failed to stimulate to economy…. and you’re itching to award them for it.  Congratulations, you’re the willing. enabling idiot who inhabit a large portion of this country’s population that is eating it from the inside out.

I think you meant “you’re”. You’re is the contraction of you are.

That would make…..2-for-2 Dictors(back-to-back) then…..beautiful batting average!

No, that probably makes him safer. Your people don’t seem too adept at picking candidates.

Drop dead, you lying freak.

No, raising the ceiling is about more debt, the stuff we’re going to borrow.

Good God, it’s like talking to a turnip. A psychotic turnip.

Ditto

Sure, right after you check out who controls Congress, and therefore the impeachment hammer.

Do we know how much of the debt is due to fraud committed by illegal aliens?  Politicians diverting funds for their own use? 

Nothing will ever change the FACT that Michele Bachmann suffers from psychosis and is a pathological liar.

She should be in a mental institution receiving medication and treatment.

In all Socialist revolutions there have been as series of events leading up to a spark, that actually ignites the revolution.  Marx and Engels wrote the philosophy and Lenin, with the help of notables such as Trotsky and Stalin, continued to foment until the “spark” ignited the fire.

Lenin had fled to France and Switzerland but managed to keep involved with the Bolsheviks, Communists, Soviets,etc.  Then the Russian economy crashed, the military, comprised of uneducated peasants, revolted and even the Monarchy and court began to fail.  Thus the “SPARK”

In 1917, Lenin returned to St Petersburg with millions in Gold bouillon, courtesy of the Kaiser and Germany.
The Soviets, as Lenin and company came to be called, had the money to keep Russia alive, briefly.  

Of course, soon the money ran out, but the Soviets were firmly in power and they had a brutal dictatorship in place.  Way worse than the Romanov’s could have ever thought of being.

So, here we are in America.  We have a President, whose grandparents, parents, mentors, teachers, college associates and professors, friends and now, political compatriots have invested years and money toward this moment.  A moment when a SPARK ignites the revolution.

If and when the President ignores or abuses the 14th amendment, he ignores the entire Constitution.  Hence, America, as it was once known to be, will cease to exist.

If this happens, I am certain that I will be arrested, so too will others who have opposed a Socialist takeover.

Like others, I have been writing about this for years, way before Obama arrived.  Even, supposedly, after the Cold War when we were cheering victory, I felt little joy as I knew America’s greatest threat came from within.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC 

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Gets His History Wrong, Selectively Quotes 14th Amendment
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/07/28/msnbcs-chuck-todd-gets-his-history-wrong-selectively-quotes-14th-amend#ixzz1TQMRiBu9

President could and should sign executive order and invoke 14th amendment if necessary.   Get both sides to sign a damned CLEAN bill and move on.  The debt ceiling should have been raised with a CLEAN bill in the first place.

btw, George Bush signed an unprecedented number of executive orders, no one even blinked

Stock market has done GREAT under Obama, it’s the CEOs and private
companies and banks that have failed to stimulate to economy…

Just…wow. Amazing.

There would be no impeachment — that is absurd.

But 20 minutes after President Obama made such a declaration invoking the 14th Amendment, there would be an injunction by one or more federal courts, so nothing would result except he’d made himself look like an even bigger fool.

I haven’t read all the posts, so I don’t know if this has been explained. But the clause in the 14th Amendment was intended to ensure that states which had seceded from the Union could not escape repaying debts incurred during the Civil War. It has no applicability today, nor has it been applicable since 1877 or so.

Bachmann is only associated with the tea party because she can spell it and she drinks it.

valkyrie: The “insurrection or rebellion” referred to in that clause was the Civil War. So the rebels had to pay the pensions for Union soldiers and their widows, and the other costs incurred by the Union Army to defeat the Confederacy.

Stock market has done GREAT under Obama, it’s the CEOs and private
companies and banks that have failed to stimulate to economy…

Unreal.

The level of non-comprehension regarding the free-market system, capitalism, general micro and macroeconomics, and the government’s relationship to all of these is simply stunning.

It’s almost as if these imbiciles think businesses exist solely to act as their personal ATMs (oh, wait – Obama has declared ATMs a threat, too) to fund them and their political machinations, and for no other reason.

Valerie wrote: “your last POTUS said the constitution was just a piece of paper.”

Really? He said that? When and where? Got a link? Otherwise I call BS.

Chief Political Hack, er, Correspondent for the National Barack Channel got his history wrong – and tried to make his misquote favor the Democrat President?

The DEUCE, you say!

If raising the debt ceiling is for debt already incurred than why are the DemocRats screaming that there won’t be enough money to pay grandma. They can’t make up their mind. That is if they had one. Insanity I tell you, moron after moron on the left of this issue. STOP THE SPENDING NOW. Our country is heading towards a cliff and these idiots have us on autopilot. Ron Paul 2012 or any fiscal conservative if we are to save ourselves from an imminent collapse. Please please wake up America.

Seeing as you don’t know 14th amendment works, you’re not a very smart Indie.

Count it.

They love their “idea” of the Constitution insofar as it can be sloppily employed to justify fanatical positions.  

http://aara.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/corporate-infusion-what-the-tea-party-s-really-serving-america

What’s incorrect about my statement? I said that I know independents that like Palin. That’s the same as saying I know independents that like Obama. Which isn’t the case, but could also be said and still be a true statement.

You’re trying to create something that doesn’t exist.

You never posted a link.  But Pablo and Michelle did.  You them?

Takes one to know one

Do we know how much of the accumulated debt is Libya-related as we didn’t need to enter that war?

What’s the dow jones looking like?  Last time I checked it was doing about the same as it was under Clinton, you know, when people had jobs.   Don’t worry, I’ll just ignore your next glib answer masquerading yourself as someone who know what they’re talking about.

The entertainment continues

Last I checked, Bush was OUR President. Just as in, Obama is OUR President.

I’m glad you’re an Independent. You would give the R’s a bad name.

That is ‘True’ Adam….simply looking at a flow chart as to how bils become Law, is my point exactly…which is what I tried to point out in Rep.Bachmanns statement!

Yogi: the 14th Amendment clause has not applied for the last 140 years. The Confederate States, when they rejoined the Union, were responsible for debts incurred by the United States during the Civil War, including the costs of waging the war against the Confederacy.
Ms Bachmann is correct, and if the president tried to use this amendment as justification for raising the debt limit without congressional approval, the federal courts would stop him in about 20 minutes.

Seriously, stop using phrases like “you people”….as an Indie, you should be showing a balanced approach. That isn’t being shown in your responses.

You have no standing on any matter when you use such rhetoric. You are a poor reflection on women as a whole.

Do you know who signs and authorizes those laws? The President

All debt that is authorized by law must be paid, per the 14th Amendment.

I’ll give you that McPain was a horrible candidate but I don’t believe the American people will make the same mistake twice.

If the debt limit is not raised, the interest on our debts would have to be paid, by law, first. Thus, the Chinese debt, etc., would have to be paid as a priority to medicare, etc.

I’ve posted two links in this forum, one of them answers your question.

This would be like NOTHING else any other President has done.

What? Shocker!

A Dick or a Dictator…they both apply.

You’re correct, the democrats have no shame.

Not unless and until Congress passes them. This is 5th grade civics, or at least it used to be.

An America this ignorant is doomed.

Do you know who creates them? Congress.
Do you know who controls the purse strings? Congress.
Not the President.

The more you know…

My “Wish List”:

1. The bogus boehner plan should be KILLED in the House. (If not, it will go to the Senate where dingy-harry will make it even worse – including a free pass for obozo’s re-election efforts throughout 2012 – and send it back to the House, where the House Repubs will be on the hook to pass the atrocity or leave the government with no increased spending authority – and the d-cRAT socialists and their stooges in the socialist media will see to it that they get ALL of the BLAME for that.)

2. NO-PLAN-OBOZO unilaterally increases the debt limit to continue the reckless, out-of-control irresponsible, wasteful, Greece-like d-cRAT socialist spending. (He will then be IMPEACHED by the House.)

3. ALL the credit agencies DOWNGRADE the US from AAA to AA. (That will finally prove to everyone that the d-cRAT socialists and establishment repubs are doing nothing but blowing smoke up America’s butt with their bogus “debt-reduction plans.”)

4. Cut, Cap and Balance becomes law and the Budget Balanced Amendment is adopted by the states. (This is the ONLY way that washington’s political hacks will act responsibly – if they have NO OTHER CHOICE. Of course, the first step REQUIRES a Repub Senate and a Repub president to join a Repub House, which can then follow CCB even while the states vote on the BBA. )

Valerie isn’t an independent.

She’s an Obama cheerleader pretending she’s “independent” so that others may think she’s “objective” when she’s criticizing the GOP.

But since all of her criticism seems to go to the GOP and none to the Democrats or Obama – nay, they seem utterly incapable of doing anything wrong, in her mind – she reveals herself.

OK, so authorization to borrow more money is not about the money we’re going to borrow. Gotcha.

Jesus wept.

Fact: Typical democrat misapplying laws to fit their needs but I’m sure Supreme Court after the fact will correct them even with Obama’s stooges!

Yeah, those evil Republicans that freed the slaves, those evil Republicans that passed Civil Rights laws. Those evil Republicans that want individual rights and freedoms to be maintained by the Rule of Law.

Hey, did you miss me Naked Emporor? I’m bacccccccccccck!

I think your nakedness is a distraction.

Fact: Michele Bachmann is not in the democrats party. She has morality and God on her side were as your side doesn’t have DIDDLY SQUAT!

Independents like me are tired of the rigid partisan nonsense that spews from both sides including Obama and Palin. As I keep saying, both sides are disgusting and have no interest in the people.

I know some so-called independents that support Obama and some that support Palin. Given the harsh partisan game playing, neither is really what independents are looking for.

What is errant in your statement is the implication that she is somehow an independent favorite. She is not and neither is Obama. Both promise independent thought but deliver pure partisan hackery.

Fact: Last time republicans got shafted with unethical crap from a democrat in office he was impeached and today still has it tattooed on his library! You know the Presidential library that looks like a casket!

Nice.

Sounds like GoneRouge is a perfect name for you. The color in particular.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

I disagree.  Just as in the time of Lincoln, it will be not be “we falter and lose our freedoms,” rather, because a plurality falters.  I guess it is arguable that “we” got ourselves into this mess, but, “they” are preventing a solution by following the principles of evil men (Socialism) combined with a disregard for simple common sense.

Purveyor

Would someone tell this woman that she was elected to Congress to do her job not prance around the country trying to run for President?

Bachmann has missed 40% of House votes since announcing

By Brian Lambert | Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Campaigning for president takes a lot of time away from your day job. Michael O’Brien of The Hill reports: “Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has missed nearly 40 percent of votes in the House since she formally launched her presidential campaign.
Bachmann’s absentee rate, which is significantly higher than the two
other House members running for president, could be used by her GOP
opponents on the campaign trail. Bachmann, the chairwoman of the House
Tea Party Caucus who has surged toward the top of the Republican
presidential field, has missed 50 of 135 votes (37 percent) since
formally announcing her candidacy June 27 in Waterloo, Iowa. … Asked
earlier this month whether she would forfeit some of her congressional
salary, Bachmann replied, ‘No comment.’ When pressed, Bachmann said, ‘I’m not doing an interview with you now.’ ”

http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2011/07/26/30335/bachmann_has_missed_40_of_house_votes_since_announcing

“Compromise,” for the Socialist, is frequently a diversionary tactic.  While Le Duc Tho was negotiating with Kissinger in Paris, General Giap was planning the final push after the American withdrawal.  (We called it “Vietnamization”)

 The Socialist philosophy is not one of political inclusion and plurality, rather, “be reasonable, do it my way” form of Governance.  The Conservatives and Tea Party has recognized that in virtually every arena, be it national or international, the “Mr. Nice Guy” approach is viewed and abused as weakness.   Such must stop!

I do not know what the President and compatriots, including an army of “useful idiots” has planned, however, I do know that most American’s will regret this Presidency, if we survive it.

Purveyor

LOL. Well thanks for spelling it out for us. You wish for our financial collapse and the impeachment of our president. A true patriot. Your living in a time warp and its 1860. 
 

So, the House may impeach for whatever reason, despite the fact that impeachable defenses are defined, by limitation, in the Constitution? By Golly! You’re simply brilliant!

Next.

Then why do you, Mad Michelle, Little Eric Can’tor and your sorry ilk take such pleasure in driving America and the American people off the cliff every couple of years. Geez! Get some consistency man!

Another time warp victim, and it’s 1860. 
 

Another time warp victim, and it’s 1860. 
 

Another time warp victim, and it’s 1860. 
 

“all debt that is authorized by law”. It is Congress that authorizes it, not the president. He can’t spend money without authorization, so if the money runs out then that’s tough.

Today will be the third iteration of a budget plan that the House has sent to the Senate. The House has done and will continue to do its job. It passed the Ryan budget, then it passed Cut-Cap-Balance; and in a little more than an hour it will vote on the so-called Boehner plan.

The Senate has not voted on a budget since April 3, 2009, when it finally passed a budget for fiscal 2010 (more than six months late). It passed a continuing resolution for FY 2011 on April 8, 2011 (more than six months late).  And a few hours ago, before the House took up the Boehner plan for debate, it was voting on amendments to the Commerce Department budget — I have no idea whether the Senate plans to vote on ANY appropriations bills this year. My point is that the House is doing the work it was hired to do, and the Senate is not.

“all debt that is authorized by law”. It is Congress that authorizes it, not the president. He can’t spend money without authorization, so if the money runs out then that’s tough.

Today will be the third iteration of a budget plan that the House has sent to the Senate. The House has done and will continue to do its job. It passed the Ryan budget, then it passed Cut-Cap-Balance; and in a little more than an hour it will vote on the so-called Boehner plan.

The Senate has not voted on a budget since April 3, 2009, when it finally passed a budget for fiscal 2010 (more than six months late). It passed a continuing resolution for FY 2011 on April 8, 2011 (more than six months late).  And a few hours ago, before the House took up the Boehner plan for debate, it was voting on amendments to the Commerce Department budget — I have no idea whether the Senate plans to vote on ANY appropriations bills this year. My point is that the House is doing the work it was hired to do, and the Senate is not.

“all debt that is authorized by law”. It is Congress that authorizes it, not the president. He can’t spend money without authorization, so if the money runs out then that’s tough.

Today will be the third iteration of a budget plan that the House has sent to the Senate. The House has done and will continue to do its job. It passed the Ryan budget, then it passed Cut-Cap-Balance; and in a little more than an hour it will vote on the so-called Boehner plan.

The Senate has not voted on a budget since April 3, 2009, when it finally passed a budget for fiscal 2010 (more than six months late). It passed a continuing resolution for FY 2011 on April 8, 2011 (more than six months late).  And a few hours ago, before the House took up the Boehner plan for debate, it was voting on amendments to the Commerce Department budget — I have no idea whether the Senate plans to vote on ANY appropriations bills this year. My point is that the House is doing the work it was hired to do, and the Senate is not.

“all debt that is authorized by law”. It is Congress that authorizes it, not the president. He can’t spend money without authorization, so if the money runs out then that’s tough.

Today will be the third iteration of a budget plan that the House has sent to the Senate. The House has done and will continue to do its job. It passed the Ryan budget, then it passed Cut-Cap-Balance; and in a little more than an hour it will vote on the so-called Boehner plan.

The Senate has not voted on a budget since April 3, 2009, when it finally passed a budget for fiscal 2010 (more than six months late). It passed a continuing resolution for FY 2011 on April 8, 2011 (more than six months late).  And a few hours ago, before the House took up the Boehner plan for debate, it was voting on amendments to the Commerce Department budget — I have no idea whether the Senate plans to vote on ANY appropriations bills this year. My point is that the House is doing the work it was hired to do, and the Senate is not.

Valerie must have forgotten that only Republicans can legitimately use that word! Like TV talk show folks.
BTW, do you mean “disgust”? How “discusting” is the term ”mentally challenged”? How about “learning disabled?” Any better???

I urge you to re-read the portion of my posting pertaining to “emergency power.”  In no manner did I suggest there is an “absolute emergency.”  If you remember from a several weeks ago, Mitch McConnell pitched the idea that the end solution could be something along the lines of: 1. Craft legislation that would allow the President to ask for debt ceiling increase.  2. Congress will vote it down. 3. Despite the unanimous vote of “No” by the opposing members of Congress, the legislation will grant the President a form of “emergency” authority in order to avoid default.

McConnell’s solution could be construed as a “passing of the buck,” concerning accountability of who decides what happens when.  However, both sides are equally as responsible for any success/failure of the current stalemate. 

Your view of Constitutionality/Unconstitutionality is not completely formed.  Again, if you read my post, you would see how the issue of constitutionality could be seen from both sides of the end result.  It may come down to litigation in order to solve a potential Constitutional crisis.

I will not speak to your assessment of the President, as it is subjective and hyperbolic, and in no way progresses the conversation forward towards any viable conclusion.

Not 1860, but July 9 1868, when a ratification vote by the legislature of South Carolina made the 14th Amendment an integral part of the Constitution.

The relevant clause, currently being discussed, ensured that the states formerly known as the Confederate States had to contribute to repaying the federal debts — even debts incurred to pay for the Union Army that defeated the Confederacy.

So, with this in mind, are you saying Congress is who has overspent, underbudgeted and authorized our country’s debt? That’s very interesting, since they are blaming all of this on the President.

BREAKING NEWS:

BACHMANN DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR THE DEBT CEILING VOTE TODAY

TIME OF BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY IS NOW OOOOOOVER

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

Must have been a migraine

Why did they not use limiting language, like the expression, “Our current debt”, or “Those debts associated with the war only”, etc.? Instead, the language is more general, to wit: “Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. 
 

Why did they not use limiting language, like the expression, “Our current debt”, or “Those debts associated with the war only”, etc.? Instead, the language is more general, to wit: “Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. 
 

Michele Bachmann today: Totally out of bounds to scrutinize my husband while I’m running for President.

Michele Bachmann in 2008: Michelle Obama has “very anti-American views.”

Purveyer was expressing almost exactly the position of the south after the election of Lincoln in 1860.

She didn’t show up for the debt ceiling vote, she should do the right thing and step down. She obviously doesn’t take her job seriously. Resign Bachmann!

Actually, in a Post farther up, I quoted Lincoln, and then disagreed with the Great Man to make the point that the misguided South, almost destroyed America.  Moreover, just as a misguided and treacherous Socialist-Democrat party is threatening to do the same today.

As for the Post a few spots above, regarding “compromise”: instead of the inane comment, why couldn’t you have found the capacity to compliment me on my use of history, reason and logic to make a point about the weakness of “compromise” in debate, argumentation or negotiation?  It was/is an excellent and well reasoned Post.  Like it or not!

It boggles the mind how ignorant Conservatives are. Bachmann, says it is the duty of Congress to deal with  the budget, and she is correct. But ignorant Conservatives try to lay all the responsibility of the budget, National debt and the “debt ceiling” at the feet of the President. These issues are and were the responsibility of Congress, in the first place. But Cowardly Conservatives need to blame someone else for their ineptness. Conservatives have no conception of logic. These pre-schoolers don’t even deserve to be in Congress.

That is President Obozo, the leader of the free world and your President.

Those “pre-schoolers” are the only ones who have passed bills to deal with the situation. The “adults” in the Senate won’t even allow them to go to debate.

Obama didn’t bother to vote for the debt ceiling increases in 2007 and 2008. What’s your point?

MORALITY and GOD … so what’s all the fuss about?
I’m just going to have a drink and relax. Everything is under control

Point: This is one of her MAIN PLATFORMS

AND SHE DOESN’T SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE FOR IT TO GO FORWARD

seems like she’s REEEEAAAALLLLLL SERIOUS about it

BAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHA

Michelle Gay Bachmann is a tea bagger- when did they become anti-constitution?

Yep. Invoking the Constitution to govern when Republicans in congress have declined to fulfill their oaths of office would make Obama a dictator. You betcha.

You obviously need a new brain. President Obama is far to the right of every Democrat. If
he were really a Progessive Democrat he would deport all you losers holding back our country with your racism, hate, and greed. 

Fsnook
You’re not good with our language but I’ll assume you’re talking abour President Obama using OUR
CONSTITUTION to settle a problem with moronic teabaggers who are trying to destroy our country.
You think someone can be impeached for following our Constitution? You really are a doofus.

Right. One of her main platforms is to not raise the debt ceiling. See how that works? She’s not there so therefore she is not helping to raise the debt ceiling.

If by “bills to deal with the situation” you mean “radical assaults on America,” then perhaps you’re right.

In the real world, the Senate is trying its best to govern while Republicans in the House play “Lord of the Flies” with the nation’s economic system.

LOL. Radical assaults on America? Because they want to lower the National Debt? Okay. Sure. Whatever you say. 

 This lady is effectively out of her mind.

This cheery fantasly leaves out the part where the economy collapses and parents have to eat their children to survive.

In a spirit of full disclosure, I’d say you had a responsibility to mention that aspect among the things you’re asking your fairy godmother for.

Whoops! I forgot — you’re a rightwing zealot. You don’t *do* responsibility.

You dumkoff- why is every economist claiming we’ll default if your gibberish is true?
 It isn’t just liberal economists- it’s economists all over the world. The whole world is backing President
Obama in scamming tea baggers and their lemmings?  Don’t you have tomatoes to pick somewhere?

Money bills have to begin in the house but the tea baggers are proposing laws for themselves- not
the nation. They are incompetent- ignorant of finances, budgets, world affairs. I guess everything except tea bagging.

You’re post is a perfect example of half-baked, junior league, non sequiters pasted together with words you imagine will trigger something in an audience that growls at the word socialist, regardless of context.

In a word piffle. This is not unusual around here.

She is absolutely correct–Read my post below

Kramer- wise up doofus- the few Republicans that helped President Johnson pass the Civil Rights bills have no relationship to today’s Republicans. He needed their help to overcome the dixiecrats- you know like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms et al- the freaky southerners that voted Democrat for 100 years  because Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil Rights bills passed all the dixiecrats switched to Republicans- so in your ignorance you’re confusing a group of present day racists- your Republicans- with Republicans of the 50′s andf 60′s who were honorable men for the most part. Dirksen would personnally kill most present day Republicans.

BS- it’s in the Constitution- doesn’t matter what it’s purpose was doofus- it’s law.

Michelle,
Please win the nomination Michelle. We know that you are the most qualified, experienced candidate in the race. We wish you every bit of success in your efforts to be victorious in the primary process.Kind regards,
Obama’s reelection committee

dumbya wasn’t held accountable- for anything- he’s a war criminal and should either be dead or in prison. Obama let him walk.

Scroll down to 3 hours ago.  I posted a lengthy piece based on Constitutional law and history about the ramifications of Obama abrogating his fidelity to the Constitution…

Explains quite a bit.

“Lowering the national debt” at the expense of recovering from the worst recession in history is just plain stupid, and highlights both their ignorance and yours.

Could you give me an example of an “inference not based on the premise in my Post?” I love you too Honey!

Your statement proves you’re a doofus Republican. of course dumbya said it- there are whole sections of book stores filled with books of his stupid sayings- that was just one of tens of thousands.  We were
under attack and that cxlown sat listening to 3rd graders rerad a book to him about “My Pet Goat”-
why 14 minutes? He wanted to see how it ended before he resumed his “role” as most powerful man on earth. If he were my son I would have flushed him- along with jebbie.

Apparently you dont know about voting NAY

Once you pass 5th grade Civics you can comeback to this board to post

stfu loser. It’s in the constitution- if it doesn’t apply ,why is it still in the constitution?

in the mental hospital perhaps 

Bruce, before you accuse Ms Bachmann or any other member of the House Republican Caucus of ignorance or irresponsibility, you should recall that this House passed a budget plan, the Ryan budget, that cuts $6.8 trillion in spending.

When the president and the Senate Democrats declined to go along with their plan, the House came back with the Cut-Cap-Balance plan that left entitlement reform until later — the the president and the Senate Democrats chose not to go along with that one.

So now they are nearing the end of debate on an even smaller, very temporary plan, and the Democrats are blasting it.

So it it absolutely the fault of President Obama, because when he keeps rejecting every responsible effort that comes out of the House, then he is the one being irresponsible.

Lastly, you call them “cowardly conservatives”, which is a damned lie. They are showing the courage to tackle a debt crisis which was, in the main, caused by the Democrats, and which solutions the Democrats would prefer to postpone until 2013 or maybe never.

The federal debt is now more than $5 trillion greater than in 2007, when the new Democrat majorities in Congress took charge of the spending. In that last Republican budget $2.73 trillion was spent — and that year and in previous years the Democrats accused the GOP of being big spenders, because $2.73 trillion was a significant increase from six years previous.

If the Democrats had frozen spending at the 2007 level, they would have shown exceptional fiscal sanity. And if they had done so, there would have been savings of more than $700 billion every year.

Now they are talking about cutting $50 billion or $112 billion in 2012, but probably less. Instead of hundreds of billions in annual cuts, they are arguing about tiny, tiny cuts.

How many votes did Barack Obama miss in 2007 and 2008 when he was running for president? And when he was there, didn’t he vote “present” much of the time? Or was that while he was in the Illinois senate and didn’t want to leave a paper trail to his radical views?

Breaking news, Nuts: Bachmann is in Washington, spoke at the National Press Club earlier today, and is on the Hill tonight to cast her vote on the debt ceiling.

So, would you care to make an apology or at least a retraction? Or are you totally lacking in class?

So Adler, is it your position and the position of progressive Democrats that Obama should suspend the Constitution and deport all his political opponents?

In the past I’ve made comparisons between the progressive movement in the US and the national socialist movements in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

But always before I’ve been met with cries of outrage. You are the first or one of the first to confirm that behind every progressive is a totalitarian.

Run, Michelle, run! You and Sarah — the newest sister act.

And your piece mitigates the fact that Bachmann is completely crackers how?

U serious? Obama and the democratic congress passed the stimulus bill and all of the other ‘economic recovery spending’ put forth by Obama. Liberal Pres + Liberal senate + liberal house = all agree on legislation. That was 2008, republicans won the house back in 2010 because American’s want REAL change we can believe in!!! 

None of the radical efforts by Tea Party zealots — the Ryan plan which was designed to destroy most social gains of the last 70 years, nor the Cut-Cap-Balance charade, which was both impossible and deeply cynical, nor this current “temporary” plan that would only ensure that the upcoming election will be thrown into utter chaos — has any relationship to the words reasonable, responsible, or sensible.

Words that do describe them: Crazy, irresponsible, unpatriotic, mean . . . and unpopular.

 Ill read it purveyor but if nothing gets done something has to be done period. I don’t want him to have to do it but I don’t want to see the market crash and watch all my money go down the toilet either.

Adler, you are critical of what you perceive as “hateful” or “racist” comments from the right. But your own remarks are as disgusting as any that appear here. 

If you don’t mind if people trash you viciously, then I guess you can say any nauseating thing that comes to mind. But I might warn you that your rhetorical style is not persuasive in the least, and tends to make it impossible for any compromise or agreement.

You are willing to sell your soul for a little protection? Just who are you selling your soul too?

Michele Bachmann has just asked that her congressional office be moved to a lower floor for fear, she might be too high is the “debt ceiling” is raised.

 Not just mine purveyor my families and their future and many many americans. I hope your right and this is just another y2k scare, but the way the market is reacting just this week is not a good sign.

That’s right change the subject.

If I could unsnarl your garbled screed with something more precise than a meat cleaver, I might be able to deconstruct your inferences and premises. Of course, per your typical irrelevance, that’s not what I was talking about, but I’m not at all surprised at your comment.

For fun, let’s just quote one nonsensical paragraph that would do Lewis Carrol proud:

“The Socialist philosophy is not one of political inclusion and plurality, rather, “be reasonable, do it my way” form of Governance. The Conservatives and Tea Party has recognized that in virtually every arena, be it national or international, the “Mr. Nice Guy” approach is viewed and abused as weakness. Such must stop!”

In case it passed your notice, that paragraph is completely nonsensical (illogical, “it does not follow,” non sequiter), and it uses the dog-whistle-term “socialist” in an attempt to trigger a Pavlovian response among the droids.

This “blah blah blah SOCIALIST blah blah blah OBOZO blah blah blah CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT blah blah blah” type of discourse only works on zealots and the feeble-minded. I realize those two groups are significantly overrepresented on the right, but that doesn’t make sillyass arguments any more compelling.

Speaking of ignorance, Adler, every one of your posts that I’ve read contains gross mistakes of fact.

You claim that “after the Civil Rights bills passed all the dixiecrats switched to Republicans,” which is false — Strom Thurmond is the one and only member of the Senate that switched parties, and among all the prominent southern Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act I could not find a single name who switched parties. I looked at the Southern senators and representatives who voted “No” on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and at all the Southern governors from that era, and only one — Strom Thurmond of South Carolina — switched from Democrat to Republican.

Every one of those who voted against the Act, except for Thurmond, remained in the Democrat Party until the day they died. The only one I can name who is still alive is former speaker Jim Wright of Texas, who is still living at age 88 and is still a Democrat. He was not in the House leadership in 1964, but he was in the House and he voted “No”.

If you decide to check my research, and if you find any other prominent Dixiecrat who switched parties, I would like to know about it so please post your findings.

lol I know Im being bias on this but liberals are more funny:) Don’t get mad at me right wingers! Im just saying:)

“What’s incorrect about my statement? I said that I know independents that like Palin.”

Ha, no, that’s not what you said.  You said “Most of the folks that like Palin that I know are Indies”, which is quite different.  Your tap dancing doesn’t change your dishonesty.

How dare you call Bachmann a Conservative? She voted for all of Bush’s budget-busting deficits, said not a word when Cheney justified them saying, “deficits don’t matter,” and she supports the most liberal laws on gun ownership, allowing anyone to obtan as many firearms as they can or want, and votes to liberalize mass corporate industrial pollution of the environment.

What in the world about this woman is Conservative? Somewhere between liberal and batshit crazy seems a lot closer to the mark.

YOU mentioned “non sequitur.” An “inference not based on the premise.” The premise is the Constitutionality of Obama claiming the 14th amendment allows him to assume what amounts to “absolute” power. Ms. Bachman, along with myself and many Constitutional Scholars, question the President’s authority. In our Tri Partite form of Government which encourages citizen participation, you take offense at Ms Bachman’s concern by calling her “crackers”?
Ergo, you are inferring that Ms. Bachman is “crackers” because she is doing her job and exercising her prerogative as a citizen. Hence, YOU are committing a “non sequitur,” i.e. you infer Bachman’s crackers NOT based on the premise of Constitutionality. Rather, because of your questionable political inclinations.

Doofus? You have posted a lot today but have not even bothered to find out if anything you say is true. I’ve found a number of mistakes which were easy to spot, and I am surprised that any person of average intelligence and education would make any of these mistakes. 

But it seems as though you do not care whether what you say is true or not. And so I do not understand why you are here. Why are you here? If the messages you post are filled with mistakes, fallacies and lies, how can you hope to persuade anyone of anything?

Doofus? You have posted a lot today but have not even bothered to find out if anything you say is true. I’ve found a number of mistakes which were easy to spot, and I am surprised that any person of average intelligence and education would make any of these mistakes. 

But it seems as though you do not care whether what you say is true or not. And so I do not understand why you are here. Why are you here? If the messages you post are filled with mistakes, fallacies and lies, how can you hope to persuade anyone of anything?

NO, I did not say this is a false alarm, We are on the verge of Civil War. Already, we are in a Civil War of rhetoric! Read my post from 3 hours ago

Adler, you seem fond of the word “doofus” which means a dimwit, nitwit, or half-wit. Any one of these terms would seem to fit you to a T.

Congress cannot agree on a budget. Why would anyone believe that they could support a vote for impeachment?

 Lol I can see it now after Obama converts his apprentice young skywalker and has them kill all the youngling tea party people he will accuse the republicans of being traitors and declare the First Imperial Galactic Empire on the floor of the senate:) Doing this all in a hood that will not show his scared face from his lightsaber battle with Cantor that just took place in his office:)

massive star wars reference sorry lol

Congress cannot agree on a budget. Why would anyone believe that they could support a vote for impeachment?

Congress cannot agree on a budget. Why would anyone believe that they could support a vote for impeachment?

Expat, if spending more money was the solution to preventing recession or ending one, then we would not have lost so many jobs since Barack Obama became president.

So it hardly makes sense to argue that spending less money will prevent recovery, or make the recession worse. The evidence from the last three or four years shows an absence of proof that the government can spend the country out of recession.

To the contrary. The country is worried about the increasing debt and the future consequences if serious spending cuts are not made NOW. Among those consequences are 1) global lenders will stop buying our Treasury bonds, 2) the Federal Reserve will continue with QE3, QE4, … QEn and the monetizing of the debt will lead to hyperinflation, and/or higher and higher taxes just to pay interest on the debt, killing growth, destroying the future for our children and grandchildren.

It is these fears (along with increased regulations, ObamaCare, and pro-union policies) that discourage economic expansion and prolong the recession. As long as the federal government keeps spending 25% of GDP, there is no possibility of a robust recovery.

“I will not speak to your assessment of the President, as it is
subjective and hyperbolic, and in no way progresses the conversation
forward towards any viable conclusion.” 

Thank you.

I say we let an election decide whether the country wants someone that has compromised significantly with the other Party (Palin) or someone that is an ideologue.

Palin’s got a libertarian bent so she’s already ahead of Obama on the gay rights issue.

Most of the people that I know who are Independents like Palin. Simple as that. If you wish to create something, go ahead and make a cake.

If you’re going to attempt German, at least spell the word right. It should read Dummkopf.

And yes, I’ve been to Germany….twice.

Among the various synonyms of “doofus”, I was thinking which might best apply to you. Let’s see, a nitwit is a foolish person, and a dimwit is a stupid person, but I guess halfwit might be the most suitable because even a dimwit would not respond with such a feeble comeback as “of course dumbya said it- there are whole sections of book stores filled with books of his stupid sayings- that was just one of tens of thousands.”

I’m sure there are some books of that nature, but are their really whole sections? Are there really tens of thousands of such books? And is it true that in one of these books you found a direct quote from George W Bush, where he said the Constitution was just a piece of paper?

I don’t believe you. I don’t believe a thing you say. I say you are a fabricator and a deceiver, an inventor of facts that are easy to disprove, a person with no regard for the truth, a person whose word cannot be accepted. All in all, you are just not a very nice person and I am happy not to know you.

Nice of her to be so clear that if we default it won’t be Obama who is responsible.

It follows rule #1 IOKIYAR.

“stfu loser”? Really? I must be getting under your skin. I wish it was so easy to win all my arguments. 

Sometimes I get in debates where I’m not sure if I can win the argument, because my opponent makes a strong case for his position.

But with you, it’s just too simple. You’re no challenge. I present facts, easily verifiable facts, and your response is “stfu”?

Why are you here, Adler? Aren’t you supposed to be in summer school? Third grade isn’t going to pass itself!

no don’t apologise most agree Democrats are funny, even if not a right winger we agree..
but we really don’t need clowns in washington, it’s a place for grownups.

After the interview Bachmann’s advisors informed her that “dictator” did not mean Obama has a potato on his penis.

Expat, I have no doubt that any effective plan to reduce the deficits and the debt will be unpopular — in part because the Democrats keep lying and saying there’s no need for any unpopular cuts in the programs people like the most. 

Only one party is crazy and irresponsible, and it’s not the Republicans. I’ve been listening to the debate in the House — I’m listening right now — and it’s as if you are getting the same talking points as the Democrats who keep marching up to the front of the House.

I thought the subject WAS the 14th Amendment? How was WCinWI’s remark about the 14th Amendment changing the subject?

Michelle continues running her mouth without a clear understanding of what she is saying. She is a gift that keeps on giving to Obama. Like Sarah she won’t ever become president of this great country.

What don’t you people get about the independents. It is not a party or even a group who has a common ground of thought. It is people who don’t want to sign up with any party. Saying that most of Palins followers are independents doesn’t mean that most independents support Palin. I also am an independent and will vote for Palin if the Republicans put her against Obama but I would rather see them put someone else in.

Jerry Baustian 22 minutes ago in reply to expatpatriot

Expat, if spending more money was the solution to preventing
recession or ending one, then we would not have lost so many jobs since
Barack Obama became president.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  The job loss was during the Bush Presidency at the very beginning of his Presidency.  We were bleeding 700,000+ jobs per month.  It turned around to job gains shortly afterwards and there has been job gains ever since.  Granted the gains have been small but that doesn’t change the fact none the less.

Hahaha…. DFW wrote: “How dare you call Bachmann a Conservative? She voted for all of Bush’s budget-busting deficits”.

I’m surprised you don’t know even the most basic facts about Michele Bachmann, including, for instance, that tiny little item about her first being elected to the House in 2006.

So she was in the minority from January 2007 until January 2011, and so voted against every budget bill that was presented by Nancy Pelosi, John Spratt of the Budget Committee, and Charlie Rangel the Ways & Means chairman.

And during this time, with the Democrats in charge, the deficits ballooned from $165 billion in 2007 to over $1 trillion in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Congresswoman Bachmann voted against these Democratic budget-busting bills. She voted against ObamaCare and against the stimulus/porkulus bill. 

How dare you even comment on Michele Bachmann’s record! You know nothing of Michele Bachmann, except how to slander a fine woman.

More phony numbers from liberal hucksters. How many jobs did Bush save?  Doesn’t he get to count those too?

Kitty, I agree with you that unemployment rapidly worsened in the last half of 2008 and this continued for several months at the beginning of 2009. But Mr Obama promised that if his stimulus bill was passed, it would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. That stimulus bill was passed only a few weeks after he took office.

In January 2009, there were 110,981,000 Americans working in the private sector. down almost 5 million from January 2008. So Mr Obama got them all back to work in quick order. Oh wait, no he didn’t. Because today, based on the June 2011 employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are still fewer than 109 million workers with jobs in the private sector. 

By this measure, there has been modest improvement in the last year. But when one looks at the number of unemployed, this measure has not improved. It was less than 12 million when Obama took office and is now over 14 million. During the mid-2000′s, when the economy was considered at full employment, the number of unemployed averaged around 7 million.

So, it is obvious that the policies of Mr Obama and the Democrats have failed (just as I predicted before he even took office).

Kitty, I agree with you that unemployment rapidly worsened in the last half of 2008 and this continued for several months at the beginning of 2009. But Mr Obama promised that if his stimulus bill was passed, it would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. That stimulus bill was passed only a few weeks after he took office.

In January 2009, there were 110,981,000 Americans working in the private sector. down almost 5 million from January 2008. So Mr Obama got them all back to work in quick order. Oh wait, no he didn’t. Because today, based on the June 2011 employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are still fewer than 109 million workers with jobs in the private sector. 

By this measure, there has been modest improvement in the last year. But when one looks at the number of unemployed, this measure has not improved. It was less than 12 million when Obama took office and is now over 14 million. During the mid-2000′s, when the economy was considered at full employment, the number of unemployed averaged around 7 million.

So, it is obvious that the policies of Mr Obama and the Democrats have failed (just as I predicted before he even took office).

 Im not going to question this so much but  have heard this “promise” that Obama made that unemployment would not go about 8% many times. Im not saying he didn’t say that but did he actually make that promise? Ive never seen that quote, and it would seem like a silly thing for any politician to say expesh given the circumstances at the time. Like I said im not saying he didn’t say that but in what context and how was it quoted?

lol ok well at least we agree on something:)

YES HE DID!

Insideguy, in January 2009, before Mr Obama was inaugurated, his choice to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, Professor Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, issued a detailed report called ”The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”. It had lots of charts and even a few equations, showing that without the stimulus bill unemployment could reach 9.5%; but with the stimulus bill, unemployment would peak at less than 8% and drop rapidly from there, to 7% and then 6%.
http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

During the next several weeks, before and after the inauguration, leading up to the party-line vote in the Congress, did the president ever refer to Romer’s paper and claim or promise that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8%? I think he did — it would be totally out of character for him NOT to talk up that key talking point from the entire report. But if he did then the record has been scrubbed.

However, the administration speaks for the president: his press secretary, his chairman of the CEA, his Treasury Secretary, and the people who were supposed to guide his program through the Congress.

I stand corrected

Nobody has my rapier wit!

Democrats think they are witty and funny. But they still think “teabagger” is funny, when it hasn’t been funny since, oh, April 2009?

Nothing is funny after the 10,000th time.

 Ok but did he say I promise it wont go over 8%  or if all these policies are implemented its projected not to go over 8%?  Oh ok I just read through it one more time so its never been on record where he says I promise that is wont go over 8. Like I said interesting ,ever since the no new taxes quote from bush back in the day politicians of any stripe don’t make very many hard and fast predictions about anything. Well except for this from rumsfeld

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

 hey purveyor if you get the chance go over to the latest jon stewart fox news board and read a recent comment by a guy name Haiden i think that his name anyway. Its really an interesting and though provoking comment that I think you would like

actually the dudes name is Hamidian 

Kind of like the “Lies” Republicans spread about increasing the taxes on the wealthiest in our society. Quit with the hypocrisy. And as far as all of the disingenuous attempts at a solution to the debt situation, it is all a ruse by the Coward Republicans to achieve their stated political goal…”defeat Obama in 2012″.. They could care less about the debt problem, the economy or the American people They are uniformly focused on their one goal of defeating Obama in 2012. And if the U.S. economy has to suffer for it, then so be it. You’d think if the Republicans had any ‘nads they would at least compromise to get a significant reduction in the U.S. debt.  Yes the pre-schoolers, i.e. Tea Party, seem to have enough unity to scare the old guard Republicans and block any budget plan they don’t approve. Republicans cannot compromise on anything at the moment. So don’t give us this, (“We passed two budget/debt plans, what have you done?), BS.  Republicans passed plans they knew would not pass the Senate. Republicans have no interest in solving the debt problem or the budget problem. When I say Republicans are Cowards Mitch McConnell proves it by putting forth a compromise that lays all of the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling on the President and forces the President to deal with the debt situation two more times before the 2012 election. That is so transparent it isn’t even funny. Face it Republicans are hypocrites.

I’ll retract. She’s there now that the vote’s been delayed…

You know, Insideguy, when Senator Obama was running for president in 2008, I don’t remember him promising budget deficits of $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion every year forever.

lol true dat see he’s a smart politician!

Jerry, even my 84 old Mom, who lives with me now, knows that Liberals are are too paranoid, morose and intense, to possess real humor. (they of the “Jackass” generation) Self deprecating humor is way beyond them. Also, irony and sarcasm. (my favorites) Which begs the question: what about Jon Stewart and Bill Maher? Answer: The audience of limited education and intellect, which simply does what it is told! LOL (Sadly)

I looked, thouroughly. Maybe paraphrase the comment?

No radical assaults like “defaulting” for the first time in U.S. history. I realize the limited intellectual capacity of  Conservatives precludes them from accepting or understanding that there is a consensus among Republicans and Democrats in solving the “debt crisis”.  For Conservatives, It is truly”my way or the highway”.Conservatives do not possess the capability to understand that there is more than one way to solve this problem. They can not fathom that Republicans and Democrats agree on most issues concerning the “debt crisis”. It is beyond them to come to the realization that Democrats want to solve the debt problem as much as Conservatives. But actually this is nothing new. Conservatives are taught at an early age that if a Conservative comes up with an idea or a plan, it is as if God him/herself  had originated it. BUT if a Liberal were to come up with the very same idea or plan, even to the point of being identical, then the idea or plan is the work of the Devil himself. It is not in the Conservative nature to accept the possibility that Conservatives and Liberals can agree on anything. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of this. During the early stages of the Libyan situation, when Obama had not taken any action, Newt criticized Obama for being indecisive. When asked what would Newt have done, without hesitation he said he would establish a “No Fly Zone”. Shortly after that interview, President Obama set up a “No Fly Zone” over Libya. Immediately after those actions were taken Newt was addressing some sort of Conservative function, and Newt proclaimed he would have never set up a “No Fly Zone”. This is typical of Conservative behavior. Now I won’t say all Conservatives are as blatantly ignorant as Newt, many of them have enough smarts to avoid being overtly hypocritical, but nonetheless, this is how they operate. If a Conservative says it, it is from God, If a Liberal says the very same thing, it is the Devil talking. You can not compromise with this way of thinking.

aww man its a big comment he posted like 3 hours ago its on the jon stewart rips fox news about christian terrorist  board really one of the most recent comments you cant miss it!

… which tends to be when they actually *read* the Constitution… 

its the third comment down from the top if you view newest first.

Oh, please. Are all the history and political science teachers dirty liberals or are they too stupid to understand anything not accompanied by pictures? Somebody doesn’t have an argument to defend their point, so they make fun of people, instead.

Instead of sniveling about who authorizes and passes laws, how about READING what those words say from start to finish and then asking questions if their meaning is unclear to you. 

Or would you rather just make fun of people some more? 

Insideguy: “Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

March 20 (March 19 back in Washington), initial air strikes on Baghdad and first ground troops roll out of Kuwait.

April 9, Fall of Baghdad

April 11, Fall of Kirkuk

April 14, Fall of Tikrit

May 1, The U.S. declares an end to major combat operations.

So let’s see, 42 days… that is seven weeks. So Rumsfeld was pretty close with his prediction.

 Oh come on Jerry your better than that. I really don’t want to argue semantics with you on this one.

Bruce wrote: “You’d think if the Republicans had any ‘nads they would at least compromise to get a significant reduction in the U.S. debt.”

That was the Ryan plan — the budget framework they passed back in May, I think it was. As for a compromise, I think they are still waiting to hear from the White House about modifications that would lead to a deal. That was budget plan 1.0.

Budget plan 2.0 was Cut-Cap-Balance, a two-part plan to get close to the numbers in the Ryan plan, while waiting for a negotiated agreement on entitlements.

And the current bill is 3.0 — even smaller, but very short-term because there is no time to negotiate budget reform. 

Eventually there has to be budget reform, and entitlement reform, and tax reform. With all the resistance the Democrats are putting up to everything, it is going to be a long hard slog for the next 12-15 months.

You’re completely wrong smegma, I do have self deprecating humor, I shit myself just this morning.

You know Tedderman, I never liked you. HOWEVER, that was pretty funny! I can use that material in my act…

Is it any wonder that rightwingers are universally branded “unreasonable” in these debates?

Here’s what happened to Obama’s 8% prediction: the world economic situation actually got worse. Not because of Obama’s policies, but in spite of them. This is, after all, the most serious downturn short of depression in the nation’s history. We’re very lucky to have Obama in office instead of McCain, because McCain (captive to the loons in his own party) have done nothing, and the situation would be significantly worse.

From a political perspective, Obama should never have used a number, because now he can be flogged with it. A mistake but not the biggest a president has ever made.

To say that his polices have failed, when they’ve actually be among the few things preventing the world economy from collapsing entirely is “unreasonable.”

Is it any wonder that the only reasonable people in these debates are on the right and center-right?

Did you happen to catch any of the debate Thursday evening? The Democrats were pathetic. Their arguments were no better than the ones you lefties here at Mediaite come up with. In fact, they were the identical arguments, nearly word for word. It was almost as if everyone was getting the same talking points. How could that happen?

Is it any wonder that the only reasonable people in these debates are on the right and center-right?

Did you happen to catch any of the debate Thursday evening? The Democrats were pathetic. Their arguments were no better than the ones you lefties here at Mediaite come up with. In fact, they were the identical arguments, nearly word for word. It was almost as if everyone was getting the same talking points. How could that happen?

I infer nothing (except my inference that Bachmann is crackers — arrived at outside the bounds of this discussion and based on her behavior).

I state categorically that Bachmann is crackers. This follows directly from observation.

Incidentally, application of the label “non sequiter” is not restricted to statements that are totally illogical; it also applies to statements that are total gibberish.

I think I’ve got the range of your posts pretty authoritatively covered.

I infer nothing (except my inference that Bachmann is crackers — arrived at outside the bounds of this discussion and based on her behavior).

I state categorically that Bachmann is crackers. This follows directly from observation.

Incidentally, application of the label “non sequiter” is not restricted to statements that are totally illogical; it also applies to statements that are total gibberish.

I think I’ve got the range of your posts pretty authoritatively covered.

OK . . . whatever . . . moving right along.

OK . . . whatever . . . moving right along.

You misspelled “non sequitur.” When engaging in the “petty,” the “insignificant” becomes important in gaining or saving “face”. Is that what you are attempting to do, somehow save face?
By the way, do you play chess? White opens, of course: e4. Your move?

To Jerry Baustin and the 13 others who liked his comment.  The country did not get into trouble with our President.  He has tried in vain to work with those people like you who don’t care about Black people or Poor People.  Bush did exactly like he wanted to do and you didn’t ask for him to be impeached.  I’m a die hard Democrat and I liked Bush – because he would not let anyone push him around.  If he felt like something was right he went with it.  Our President should do the same thing because it doesn’t matter what he does – there are people like you who do not like people like him and never will.  And I bet you don’t have any problems sleeping at night.  Now anyone like you.

What Pig God do you suppose Bachman [prays to???

schmegma said (but now we’re too far down the chain for me to reply):

“You misspelled “non sequitur.” When engaging in the “petty,” the “insignificant” becomes important in gaining or saving “face”. Is that what you are attempting to do, somehow save face?”

Misspelling “non sequitur” is one of my downfalls. I am a world-class speller, but I always screw that one up.

With regard to the rest of your post: say what?

No, I didn’t catch the debates, so I can’t rate who was more pathetic than anyone else. With regard to the similarity of what people have to say, it’s not exactly shocking that arguments built on reason, empathy, sensibleness and the truth would cluster around a common rhetorical center.

I realize they have less experience with that on the other side of the House where speakers either parrot Roger Ailes’ most recent fax or blast out with some utterly whacked-out nonsense that no one can understand, but democrats are actually used to testing arguments against each other to arrive at a consensus.

Consensus? I suspect you’ll have to look it up. It’s little used by the right.

If the roles were reversed, then I think that Bachmann would not hesitate to get what she wanted any way how she could get it.  Obama in my opinion needs to just do and tell Bachmann to “sue me” IF all budget talks fail.  While I hope that it does not come down to this, I would like to see Bachmann get a taste of her own bad tasting medicine!

Mitch Dworkin
Dallas, Texas

As exampled by these posts everyone is blaming the Republicans or the Democrats… but ALL politicians are to blame and we’re to blame as well for electing their asses into office.  If Congress and the President allow this country to go into default, well, they ALL should lose their jobs.  ALL the politicians are playing with our future for their OWN political gain and are not representing the needs of the people, just their own.  We really need to start with a blank slate and do away with the two party system.

Liberalism means “arrested development.”  Shouldn’t you go outside and play?

Mitch,

There is a Legal Scholar named Ronald Dworkin?

Anyway, quote: “If the roles were reversed.”  One of my favorite quips is: “wait until your Ox is gored,” which is, effectively, similar to your question.

This dilemma before our President, (former Con-Law teacher) is a purely Con-Law question.  Your name sake, Ronald Dworkin along with myself and others, argue the Constitution has been waay over interpreted.  With that thought in mind, there is now a vague precent for Obama to misinterpret the 14th amendment as, what the hey, everybody else did it.  Ouch!

When Laws are made, principles should be established, however, many times the long term effects of those “principles,” (not laws) are not anticipated.  Hence, does the President have the inferred power to by-pass Article 1, of the Constitution because of a clause in the 14th Amendment?

I know you’d like to know whether or not a Conservative would do such under similar circumstances?  I wouldn’t, as I am a man of principle, “Neutral Principle.”  (Google neutral principle, you may find interesting)

I say this too you without malice or hyperbole, but, the culmination of events, particularly a President effectively rendering the Constitution impotent, could be the mechanism for a Civil War, as America would no longer have a President, but, a Dictator.

Purveyor 

Ronald Dworkin, who teaches at NYU, is my Uncle (my dad’s brother) and he is liberal in his thinking.  I fully stand behind that ideologues like Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh would do whatever it took to get what they want if the roles were reversed.  Obama in my opinion must save this country from tea party kooks who even John Boehner cannot control if all budget talks fail!

Do bad manners and an imperious demeanor run in the family? I thought you would, at least, be pleased that someone connected the dots, so to speak. However, like a good Socialist,useful idiot,” all you were capable of, was/is a venomous and cliched retort. Quite simply: “ouch, that hurt!” without explaining the how and why the pain and discomfort was created and what you would do about such.

I suggest your reaction to my letter was one of “Cognitive Dissonance?” LOL

I apologize for confusing your Uncle’s legal predilections (bias) for other, more scholarly and Constitutionally astute Legal Philosophers. Say Robert Bork or Professor Wechsler.
Lastly, judging from your response, may I conclude you approve of disregarding the Constitution, no matter who does it?
PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

Read what everyone is saying – this is not to spend new money, this is to pay for what Congress has already spent. NOT raising the debt ceiling means defaulting on debt, means our interest rates sky rocketing, means HAVING to raise taxed to cover our interest payments. It also means American companies not being paid for work they have done for the governemnt, folding, and higher unemployment. Raising the debt ceiling is dealing with an immediate situation, reducing spending is a long term problem – they should not have been tied together. The reason you didn’t hear about it before is because when it was raised during the Bush, Reagan and Carter presidencies, it was never an issue – and it certainly wasn’t tied to the budget.

What is happening now is kind of like coming home, seeing that your child found a knife and stabbed himself – and building a safe place to keep the knives before stopping the bleeding.

That’s compromise..;)

You presented facts? No you didn’t. I did. You presented your opinion. The 14th Amendment
has not been repealed so it is still in effect. Maybe you’re the one that needs summer school.

Your reading comprehension skills are nil. I didn’t say there were tens of thousands of books. Your knowledge of our language  is poor. The phrase “that was just one of tens of thosands” referred to the statement dumbya made. I didn’t mention any particular book so it coudln’t refer to books. Like most righties you only think you’re intelligent. You probably don’t believe that dumbya said “I believe than man and fish can coexist peacefully”. “I know how hard it is to put food ON your family”.  As one of the owners of the Texas Rangers he authorized the sale of Sammy Soza for a bag of chips.  His daddy found oil in Texas- dumbya found dirt- over and over. I have a bookcase full of books about dumbya and his adventures with our language. I’m sure some stores have sections of books on that same subject. Remember- there are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

I just reviewed some of your recent postings, and here is a sample of the words you used to label anyone who doesn’t agree with you: dumb, brain-dead, stupid, repugnant, moron, liar, greedy, racist, loser, asshole, airhead, evil, homophobic, dumbshit, dipshit.

Considering under Bush we were losing jobs each month and under Obama we are gaining jobs it is not a failure just not enough stimulus was done, to remain even with population growth we need to gain 150,000 to 175,000 jobs per month. If we would of stayed with the GOP ideology unemployment may be at 50% with no surviving American automobile industry most jobs related to these industries down to the coffee shops frequented by workers would be at risk. But at least G.E. and Exxon would still be paying no taxes.If anything Obama is too far to the right and buckles to GOP demands but the more he caves the farther to the right the GOP goes won’t be long before they demand all handicapped, and poor are sent to death camps after all that will save money in entitlements if everyone on them died

Did you read my Uncle’s article about this issue?  Can Obama Extend the Debt Ceiling on His Own?Ronald Dworkin July 29, 2011 11:58 a.m.

Quote: “Considering under Bush we were losing jobs each month and under Obama we are gaining jobs it is not a failure just not enough stimulus was done, to remain even with population growth we need to gain 150,000 to 175,000 jobs per month”

I think I posted the numbers above, in the message you replied to. The number in the work force is not growing 150,000 per month, because so many are giving up and leaving the job market. Those with jobs are down 2 million from January 2009, and those officially considered unemployed are up 2009. But there are alternative measures of unemployment, published by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, that show an actual rate of over 16%. And the numbers are not getting better at all — official unemployment up from 8.8% to 9.2% in just the last few months. I think I read somewhere that mass layoffs are up, so it is not just weak job creation.

Snake, I can’t tell you things would be better if McCain had been elected, because he might have followed many of the same policies as Obama. On the other hand, if he’d proposed them and the Democrats were still in the majority in Congress, maybe they might have voted against a stimulus bill and health care bill, so right there we’d be better off. 
If GM and Chrysler had gone through liquidation in bankruptcy, I don’t know who’d be building cars in those factories. But I know the rightful owners of their debt would have been paid back first, so at the least the rule of law would be intact. And all the other companies that build cars in America would be on a fair footing; the successful companies would not have been unfairly punished by government subsidies to failed companies.

As for what might happen to the poor and handicapped and elderly, I am pretty sure not a single Republican voted for ObamaCare, with its death panels and its $500 billion cut in Medicare.

I just did, Mitch, and he said “Of course the principle does not prevent Congress from refusing to authorize new obligations.”

True enough. What it says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

So, the debt must be repaid, and interest on the debt. Creditors get paid first; this would include firms or individuals who have sold goods and services to the federal government, as well as those who hold Treasury debt. The bond-holders comes first, as they always should. (Though this did not happen in the Chrysler bankruptcy)

Some of the money government spends is optional — it does not need to spend billions for high-speed rail, or millions for super-deluxe bicycle paths, or or thousands for scientific studies of the sex-lives of snails. And the list of optional items is enormous. Congress does a bad job of prioritizing — it likes to make “A and B” decisions instead of “A or B”.

Too much attention is being paid to the negative consequences of this debate; but the positive consequences are enormous, as it forces us to consider the proper role of government, the proper size of government, and ultimately how much power we want our government to have.,

Of course Republicans wouldn’t vote for Obama’s health care plan it might hurt the REAL DEATH PANELS Insurance companies searching for ways to deny coverage after all they have to make MONEY. And the GOP prays to the mighty church of greed Acne at 14 is a pre-existing condition to cancer at 50 so they won’t pay.Insurance companies are greedy liars whose sole goal is to deny payments to make more profit. I have dealt with insurance companies I have watched people die as insurance companies count profits. How dare you even speak of “death panels” in Obama’s plan it has been proven over and over that is false and just shows how little of the real world you understand and how much you rely on “Fox” News.$500 Billion Cut the GOP wants to eliminate MediCare and replace it with those same criminal insurance companies, as I said why do you think Bush ordered the FEMA coffins for all the poor and elderly they plan on killing.

Snake, do you have insurance? If so, why, if they are criminals? Why do you give money to criminals? What’s the matter with you? 

Last question: do you think government is more efficient than private sector companies? (Or do you think it doesn’t matter?)