Your example is not a concession. Only someone incompetent at discourse would think so (which I know, I know, I harp on the fact that you guys are idiots and can't actually communicate all the time, but just maybe it will stick one of these times). If I came to you and said, sorry I want to shut everything down that you've been working on and you said 'no', and then I said, ok I just want to shut it down for a year and then we'll decide in your honest opinion have I offered you a concession? The rest of your statement is platitude and might amuse a simpleton, I'm sure Zombie has liked your comment by now. RINOs haha see, you do it to yourselves and its hilarious. You're not a "real" republican because you don't think people should be governed the way I think they should be. You and Zombie can go suck each other's dicks for another two years...that's about the length I give the Tea Party before its on to something else (like I mentioned before the "bi-partisan" outreach proposal) Notice you dumb motherfuckers, I haven't ever identified as Republican, I merely said I've voted Republican more than I've voted Democrat - truth or not the fact that you immediately say. in effect, FUCK YOU, merely proves my point. There are far more moderates than there are wackadoos, and the Tea Party is alienating them. Thank you, you're writing your own obits.
How is it not? They're giving up what they want in exchange for something less. In what twisted world is that not a concession?
Anyone who throws around the term RINO for someone who isn't lock step in with the far right is either an idiot or a trojan who WANTS to see the Republicans reduced to a regional party with little impact on the national level.
"RINO" isn't a matter of "not in lockstep with the far right." It's a term for those who vote in line with Democrats, whose political stance is in lockstep with authoritarian Democrats, who might as well be Democrats. It's an abbreviation for "Republican In Name Only"; that's exactly what it describes, and those like McCain, Rubio, and for the most part Boehner earn that designation. The Tea party (notice the small 'p', because it's a movement, not a political party) is not "the far right." The Tea party is essentially Libertarian in its stance, advocating on behalf of the individual rather than on behalf of the corporation or the state. It really is baffling to me that anyone who values his or her own natural rights would demonize a political movement the focus of which is safeguarding those rights. In any case: http://freebeacon.com/study-premiums-for-young-people-to-rise-in-all-50-states/ Obamacare is still a shit law that hurts young working Americans. And the authoritarians among us will continue to defend the state to the detriment of young working Americans, because the authoritarians among us don't actually give a shit about young working Americans.
Oh, and . The elites being equally as fucked by their reckless power-grab as the lowly hoi polloi is really just like stabbing them in the gut.
That's the part Admiral Ginger and far too many leftists and RINO do not understand. You're not a RINO because you aren't far right. You're a RINO because you're essentially a Democrat who claims to be a Republican. Right now as we argue over this nonsense the Republican leadership being led by Speaker of the House John Boehner is trying to secretly push through amnesty for illegal aliens. Republican voters don't want that. But the RINO crowd is trying to quietly work hand in hand with the administration and the Democrats to get that done. Every once in a while a RINO accidentally acts a like a Republican but for the most part they lie to the faces of the people who vote for them and when they go to Washington they are really not that different from Democrats. Democrats might want to take route A and the RINO wants to take route B but the destination is the same. You'd think that someone like Admiral Ginger would be all for the Tea Party. But see he's not a true liberal. He's a progressive. They aren't interested in freedom or the individual. In his world the state is king and all power should reside with it and you will like it prole.
Oh look once again the Administration is taking "hostages" by ordering the DOD to not pay the death benefits to the families of those soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. BUT THIS JUST IN!!!!! Michelle Obama's government funded http://www.letsmove.gov/ is still up and running!!! All hail the mighty Obama family that even in this time of shutdown they can still find the funds to fund the first ladies activities while the President plays yet another round of golf as the taxpayer funded golf course....... (can't find that Obama smiley)
Gods, I hate them all. All of them. The ship of state should be helmed by the best and brightest, not shitbags and criminals.
Excellent point. So then why does the president get to use executive orders to select which parts of the law he wants to take effect and those which he finds politically inconvenient which won't be put into effect? After all it's the law.
Well, this is why I point out that the authoritarians simply keep rebranding themselves and their causes. They're not liberals, because they not only don't give a damn about individual liberty, they actually oppose it. But people figured that out and came to associate "liberal" with anti-liberty policy. So the "liberals" had to rebrand, and now they're "progressives." "Global warming" came to be understood for what it was: a set of economy-killing, hyperregulatory policies that accomplished nothing other than creating a slew of new do-nothing regulations that succeed only in taking more money from business and putting it in government pockets; so it was rebranded and is now "climate change." "Gun control" came to be recognized for what it is: a do-nothing scheme to disarm law-abiding citizens; thus, it was rebranded as "common sense anti-violence" legislation. That's how con artists work; that's how we know authoritarians for what they are: con artists with the state's monopoly on armed force backing their scams.
Precisely. Immigration enforcement laws are no less "the law of the land" -- why is he being given a pass on illegally suspending enforcement of those laws. More to the point, if Obamacare is "the law of the land" and his job is to enforce the law of the land, how the hell do you excuse him handing out waivers that give his cronies a pass on obeying "the law of the land"? Not supplying arms to narcoterrorist organizations is "the law of the land" -- when do you expect him to have Eric Holder held responsible for his agency violating that law? Seems to me that "the law of the land" applies to everybody except this jackass's friends.
Don't they? They seem to be trying to; but, of course, they're opposed by con artists who spin like dreidls.
And what you are too stupid to understand is that the only reason that there IS a Speaker Boehner is b/c of the 'RINO's you deride for not being in lockstep with the far right.
No Admiral Ginger. The reason there is a Speaker Boehner is because the American people got pissed off that the Democrats rammed Obamacare down the country's throat and the American people gave the House back to the Republicans to try and stop it. The Republicans are so infested with RINO's however that they had to be forced into fighting. Even now they are trying to look for ways to chicken out and just let Obama win.
Of course, with 17% of the Federal government shut down, it doesn't help Obama's cause (except among the Faithful, who refuse to notice or care) that he's directing the most visible "closures" to occur in places that Feds either don't expend manpower on anyway or don't even control access to at all, such as open-air memorials and the fucking highway from which people can view Rushmore. He's playing at shutdown theater, and he's specifically designing his shutdown theater to hurt ordinary Americans in order to gin up a backlash against the "mean kids" who won't just bow down and give him every last fucking thing he wants. That's not statesmanship. That's not even governance. That's playground bullying.
By the way, for those of you who have signed on like good little sheep, you're fucked. The state now owns you. But it's fine, Citizen. Trust. Consent. Obey.
You left out the rest, which is important to understanding the fourteenth amendment. "including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Section s4 and 5 of the fourteenth amendment are irrelevant now because it only applies to slaves, slavery and the Confederacy. I've highlighted in bold the sections that refer to this. Since none of those things exist, the only relevant and applicable parts of the fourteenth amendment are section 1, 2 and 5. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article Honestly, if the President wants to have that fight, I doubt it will go well since there are ways to pay the debt that would eliminate programs he favors. On the same token, I doubt the Republicans would want that fight either because there are ways to pay off the debt that would include cutting defense and programs they favor. The reality is that both parties enjoys spending and neither party is proposing real cuts that would reduce our debt or limit the government in any significant way. They are simply arguing on where the spending goes, not that we should spend.
The debt was already authorized. In any case, the clause was specifically inserted because several states' representatives were threatening to default on the national debt if the Confederate debt wasn't paid off also.
No, it applies to all debt, but it also specifically lists the kinds of debt as also valid because they were controversial at the time of passage.
I hope you never sign any kind of contract ever then. In any case, you're still protected under the 4th Amendment.
I'm not wrong. Raising the debt limit now is needed to pay for things Congress HAS ALREADY AUTHORISED. It's not a wish list...it's a to do list. What you're talking about is like eating a meal at a restaraunt, and then deciding it's too expensive and refusing to pay for it. But we're not talking about raising the credit card limit to pay for next month's rent. We're talking about raising it to pay for last month's rent.
Even if there is no default on debt, the enormous cuts to spending triggered by failure to raise the ceiling (if they lasted any time) could cause a worldwide recession potentially as big as the one that we're still recovering from.
The law is written in a way that gives flexibility in how it's executed. That's typical of our governing structure. Also, not a comment aimed at you, but I love the paranoia expressed by Castle and Zombie in this thread. It's palpable, that sense of encirclement, the encroaching forces of evil they perceive in every direction.
Nice post. On your first point, I don't believe the court has ever ruled on applicability of the clauses you suggest are obsolete. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. At any rate, without such a ruling, we don't know that 14.4 doesn't apply. The way I read the second part, it's saying not to confuse Confederate debt with constitutionally protected union debt. As the union is still alive and well, union debt is still protected. This squares with the statement by the Senate president from that era (posted up thread). As for your last paragraph, that's politics, and the President does not appear to want to make an issue of 14.4, so we are unlikely to get any ruling from SCOTUS at this time. My purpose in this thread is simply to point out yet another way in which House Republicans are being reckless.
