Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 397
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 280
George Spelvin 267
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70798
biomed163382
Yssup Rider61074
gman4453297
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48697
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42867
The_Waco_Kid37224
CryptKicker37224
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-14-2013, 10:05 PM   #16
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly View Post
Unwad your panties. He would have done it 6 months or so ago if he thought he could. He's a constitutional lawyer, ya' know, and not shy on signing executive orders.
You didn't read what I wrote above.

There are reasons based on prudent politics not to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling. That doesn't mean that such action is unconstitutional.

So the fact that he didn't do it six months ago means nothing. But his hand is being forced now.

If you have a link to an article FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that explains why it is unconstitutional to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling and how POTUS can be blocked from doing so, then post the link.

Breitbart does not count as a reputable source.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:10 PM   #17
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwarounder View Post
I hope he does! Will just add to the legacy...

you're an idiot



The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.
Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. That would precipitate another financial crisis and threaten the jobs and savings of everyday Americans – putting the United States right back in a deep economic hole, just as the country is recovering from the recent recession.


that would go right along with the republican legacy ...

no thanks
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:19 PM   #18
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

and ?
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:24 PM   #19
gnadfly
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
You didn't read what I wrote above.

There are reasons based on prudent politics not to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling. That doesn't mean that such action is unconstitutional.

So the fact that he didn't do it six months ago means nothing. But his hand is being forced now.

If you have a link to an article FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that explains why it is unconstitutional to take unilateral action on the debt ceiling and how POTUS can be blocked from doing so, then post the link.

Breitbart does not count as a reputable source.
I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling
gnadfly is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:26 PM   #20
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly View Post
I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling
same question came up in 011, apparently the POTUS might have the juice ... the reublitards caved, just like they will this time
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:33 PM   #21
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

bump
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:37 PM   #22
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly View Post
I read what you wrote. You tend to get panicky. My response was to the thread posted.

Here's the President doubting the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. Again, we went thru this 6 months or more ago. Yeah, the article doesn't go thru why its unconstitutional but its from the President's mouth. You know, he's a constitutional lawyer and not shy on using Executive Orders.

BTW, Slate is about as reputable as Breitbart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...g-debt-ceiling
Die you even read the link you posted?

Obama never said he didn't have the power to do it. His only concern was the political ramifications of it. That is essentially what I said.

Quote:
-----------------------------------
"Setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure. It would be tied up in litigation for a long time. That's going to make people nervous."
"So a lot of the strategies that people have talked about, well the president can roll out a big coin, or he can resort to some other constitutional measure," he added. "What people ignore is that ultimately what matters is, 'What are the people who are buying treasury bills think?'"
--------------------------------------

As for competent journalism, Slate is head and shoulders above Breitbart, even if it is left-leaning magazine. And the author, Eric Posner, is a calm intellectual, not a knucklehead firebrand. And he is the son of Richard Posner, so he comes from conservative intellectual stock.

And I don't "tend" to get panicky. I just recognize reckless idiots playing chicken with the economy.

What does concern me is that the GOP is going to come out of this looking bad. They will get nothing significant out of Obama and they will look weakened.

All because of know-nothing, single issue debt fanatics, who really don't understand what they are doing.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 10:47 PM   #23
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
bump
Why, would you "bump" your crap 7 minutes after you post it?...
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 11:02 PM   #24
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,074
Encounters: 67
Default

Your butt buddy Bumped one of his SPAM threads five times in 30 minutes, even though nobody responded to it.

Great post, Simple Jack.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 11:32 PM   #25
gnadfly
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
Die you even read the link you posted?

Obama never said he didn't have the power to do it. His only concern was the political ramifications of it. That is essentially what I said.

Quote:
-----------------------------------
"Setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the U.S. Treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure. It would be tied up in litigation for a long time. That's going to make people nervous."
"So a lot of the strategies that people have talked about, well the president can roll out a big coin, or he can resort to some other constitutional measure," he added. "What people ignore is that ultimately what matters is, 'What are the people who are buying treasury bills think?'"
--------------------------------------

As for competent journalism, Slate is head and shoulders above Breitbart, even if it is left-leaning magazine. And the author, Eric Posner, is a calm intellectual, not a knucklehead firebrand. And he is the son of Richard Posner, so he comes from conservative intellectual stock.

And I don't "tend" to get panicky. I just recognize reckless idiots playing chicken with the economy.

What does concern me is that the GOP is going to come out of this looking bad. They will get nothing significant out of Obama and they will look weakened.

All because of know-nothing, single issue debt fanatics, who really don't understand what they are doing.
Yes, didn't you read my caveat? Read the the first sentence that you quoted. If he was POSITIVELY 100% sure it was legal, he wouldn't of qualified it with " the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure." If Obama was POSITIVELY 100% sure, he'd have threatened to use the 14th Amendment more than 6 months ago when this came up. He didn't. He's a Constitutional Scholar, you know, and not afraid to sign executive orders.

Yes, you tend to get panicky. Your HPV vaccination thread is a good example.

Slate is just another (pick your directions) leaning extremist website just like Brietbart that is full of like-minded, echo chamber, squawking journalists that in their case blows smoke up Obama's ass. At least Brietbart's journalists are actually doing some investigative reporting on the administration instead of Slate's constant intellectual theorizing about how Obama's nuanced policies are making the Democrats look brilliant and the Republicans look crazy.

Some here would make the case that Obama and his Democratic enablers are the ones playing with the economy. And that enabling Obama no matter how incompetent he demonstrates he is, is their "single issue."

You are watching too much TV. Don't fall for the Barackolypse hype.
gnadfly is offline   Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 11:50 PM   #26
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly View Post
Yes, didn't you read my caveat? Read the the first sentence that you quoted. If he was POSITIVELY 100% sure it was legal, he wouldn't of qualified it with " the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional because people wouldn't be sure." If Obama was POSITIVELY 100% sure, he'd have threatened to use the 14th Amendment more than 6 months ago when this came up. He didn't. He's a Constitutional Scholar, you know, and not afraid to sign executive orders.

Yes, you tend to get panicky. Your HPV vaccination thread is a good example.

Slate is just another (pick your directions) leaning extremist website just like Brietbart that is full of like-minded, echo chamber, squawking journalists that in their case blows smoke up Obama's ass. At least Brietbart's journalists are actually doing some investigative reporting on the administration instead of Slate's constant intellectual theorizing about how Obama's nuanced policies are making the Democrats look brilliant and the Republicans look crazy.

Some here would make the case that Obama and his Democratic enablers are the ones playing with the economy. And that enabling Obama no matter how incompetent he demonstrates he is, is their "single issue."

You are watching too much TV. Don't fall for the Barackolypse hype.
Your standard of "positively 100% sure" is ridiculous and has no basis - even with Obama. In fact, just the opposite with Obama.

No politician of either party has ever required that much certainty about constitutionality before proceeding with legislation.

And if you had paused to think about is, you would realize Obama doesn't follow that standard either. There were LOTS of questions about the individual mandate prior to passing Obamacare. And the ONLY reason it passed constitutional muster is because John Roberts decided to treat it like an income tax (which the government can do) instead of a requirement to buy insurance (which it can't).

And I'm pretty certain that if I took the time to search, i would find plenty of posts by you about how Obama willingly disregards the constitution. So, which is it?

So, no, I don't think that Obama was restrained in any way 6 months ago about questions of constitutionality of raising the debt ceiling. And neither do you, judging by your past posts.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 12:12 AM   #27
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders!
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 12:14 AM   #28
gnadfly
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,460
Default

I'll give you that 100% certainty is likely a bad choice of phrase. Let me change it to "strongly confident."

But this isn't "just legislation" but Obama usurping Congressional Power and doing so in an unprecedented way. That is why he would need to be "strongly confident." He isn't . He knows its a pipe dream of his enablers. Just like it was more than 6 months ago. He's a Constitutional Scholar and doesn't mind signing an executive order to get his way, you know.

Just like his enablers wanted him to sign an executive order banning guns 5 months or so ago, he knows he doesn't have the Constitutional power.

Did you read your Slate article? Not very scholarly. They took the 14th amendment and edited a sentence to read to fit their beliefs. Its actually a very small part of the article and the rest of the article doesn't go very far in supporting their "theory."

Let me help you out with some advice: if the price of gold goes up $200 an oz in one day, your panicking is justified and you need to act on it.
gnadfly is offline   Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 12:18 AM   #29
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy View Post
The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders!
stfu ... when we need your inept opinion two or three of us will fart in harmony
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 12:18 AM   #30
gnadfly
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy View Post
The debt ceiling debate is simply political theater. Grandstanding for the fans. Like a WWF match. Neither party wants to quit spending. So relax, overspending fans. The dollars will keep being printed.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling. It wastes time. Or better yet, get rid of the spenders!
If the debt ceiling were done away with the country would look like the Wal-mart in Louisiana that had shoppers with EBT cards with no limits due to a glitch.
gnadfly is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved