I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.
Strict Constitutionists
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
not when you're talking about the Amazing Yurskin...from his attitude on these boards one can easily assume that he regularly "nips things in the butt".
zappasguitar
Well-known member
You're seriously going to try and make nice NOW...after the vitriol you spewed at me on page one?
LOL...GFY.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Massive Zap pwnage, as evidenced by his continuance to deflect. You should stick to insulting females with twisted sexual innuendos.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
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?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
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.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
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?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Yes he did. A far-left web site would not have misspelled "constitutionalists".
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
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
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
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?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
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?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
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:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Pink?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Nope, got one for him already that color...
SmarterthanYou
rebel
isn't that what I just said?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
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.
It certainly doesn't say, "You must always increase debt with no conversation."
That's just stupid.
They're not doing that, Zappa's just not getting it.