Strict Constitutionists

i meant bud, i guess butt came to mind because this thread stinks

by "question" - of course the meaning is to "challenge" in court the debt.

it is absolutely fucking ludicrous to believe the founders meant that citizens give up their right to hold conversations questioning the debt with anyone.

^ makes sense

now, what exactly did you mean by question? i explained what question means, your turn.


I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.
 
then you mention question the debt...

perhaps you should clarify what you meant, because it did look that way to me and others.


You're seriously going to try and make nice NOW...after the vitriol you spewed at me on page one?

LOL...GFY.
 
Massive Zap pwnage, as evidenced by his continuance to deflect. You should stick to insulting females with twisted sexual innuendos.
 
I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.

you really need reread the OP

How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?
 
Massive Zap pwnage, as evidenced by his continuance to deflect. You should stick to insulting females with twisted sexual innuendos.

Well at lest we agree I pwned both you and the Yurtard...nice to see you can admit that kind of thing.

There may be hope for you after all.
 
You're seriously going to try and make nice NOW...after the vitriol you spewed at me on page one?

LOL...GFY.

huh? asking you to clarify what you meant is making nice? you're a bitter asshole full of hate who can't handle a rational conservation with me. you bitch about vitriol then you tell me to go FUCK myself.

fuck you asshole. since you can't clarify what you meant, then that means i'm right motherfucker.

is that better?
 
Well at lest we agree I pwned both you and the Yurtard...nice to see you can admit that kind of thing.

There may be hope for you after all.

yep...DY is right...the deflection away from the OP continues

i doubt he will address it again, he will now focus on insults, claim the moral high ground by whining that others spout vitriol while he, in the same breath, tells you to go FUCK yourself

lmao
 
you really need reread the OP

How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?


I read it and re-read it. I didn't interpret the way you did. You really took it to mean that the Democrats could invoke the 14th Amendment to stop people from holding conversations questioning the debt?
 
I read it and re-read it. I didn't interpret the way you did. You really took it to mean that the Democrats could invoke the 14th Amendment to stop people from holding conversations questioning the debt?

I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.

so "debate" is the same thing as a court challenge? zappa specifically said to "END THE debt ceiling DEBATE"....what does that have to do with a court challenge?
 
yep...DY is right...the deflection away from the OP continues...
Yup- over 30 posts now and he still hasn't addressed posts 2 and 3 that so thoroughly pwned him.

What color leash should I get this time to lead him around? I have so many but want a different color.
 
Last edited:
Actually, if the U.S. Treasury simply ignored the debt ceiling and took on debt in excess of the debt ceiling, I'm quite certain that people would question the validity of that debt. Hence, the debt ceiling could call into question the validity of the public debt of the United States and could therefore be unconstitutional. And since you claim that this is extreme reaching by the Democrats, here is Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan and GHWB official, pushing such a plan:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx

are you actually trying to say that the size of the debt is the deciding factor in constitutionality of the debt ceiling?

and bartlett is a fucking moron.........and wrong.
 
I read it and re-read it. I didn't interpret the way you did. You really took it to mean that the Democrats could invoke the 14th Amendment to stop people from holding conversations questioning the debt?

Of course that's NOT what I meant, but then again, we are attempting to discuss this with the Yurtard...

The funny thing is if Yurt had even made some minimal kind of attempt at reasonable discussion, then I might have clarified my statement for him...but since all we've seen thus far is 3 pages filled with the same idiotic Yurt attacks, then he can go piss up a rope as far as I am concerned.
 
It does not say that increasing the debt shall not be questioned, it says paying it cannot. Basically the government can't say, "We're not paying that, because it isn't valid!"

It certainly doesn't say, "You must always increase debt with no conversation."

That's just stupid.
 
Back
Top