Strict Constitutionists

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

And if you can show me where I've said that "You must always increase debt with no conversation" then maybe you have a point.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
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.
Click to expand...

translation:

yurt cornered me, so i will deflect and cry about insults, despite the fact i have dished out as much as i have received

face it zappa, you got called on a dumbass thread saying the 14th meant you can't DEBATE the issue. instead of just honestly manning up to it, you have to spread lies and cry about insults and yet in the same breath go on the attack yourself. if you had any integrity you would not be such a dishonest whiner.

you have been thoroughly humiliated in this thread. you thought you had a winner and now you realize you don't, so as i predicted earlier, you would abandon the topic and instead focus on the insults of others.

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
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
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.
Click to expand...

yet you said the word DEBATE

so what did you mean? dung claims you never meant challenge in court, yet you said debate. here is your chance zappa.
 
Zap, how about for the sake of clarity, since there seems to be some confusion, you restate what your original comment/question was because it makes for an intersting debate.
 
Yurt said:
translation:

yurt cornered me, so i will deflect and cry about insults, despite the fact i have dished out as much as i have received

face it zappa, you got called on a dumbass thread saying the 14th meant you can't DEBATE the issue. instead of just honestly manning up to it, you have to spread lies and cry about insults and yet in the same breath go on the attack yourself. if you had any integrity you would not be such a dishonest whiner.

you have been thoroughly humiliated in this thread. you thought you had a winner and now you realize you don't, so as i predicted earlier, you would abandon the topic and instead focus on the insults of others.
Click to expand...


Watch in amazement as the Amazing Yurskin puts his telepathic powers to work telling another what they really meant.

Of course NOWHERE in my OP did I state the 14th meant we can't debate the issue...but since when has something as trivial to Yurskin as the truth, ever stopped him from putting whatever words he wants in other people's mouths?
 
Yurt said:
yet you said the word DEBATE

so what did you mean? dung claims you never meant challenge in court, yet you said debate. here is your chance zappa.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Watch in amazement as the Amazing Yurskin puts his telepathic powers to work telling another what they really meant.

Of course NOWHERE in my OP did I state the 14th meant we can't debate the issue...but since when has something as trivial to Yurskin as the truth, ever stopped him from putting whatever words he wants in other people's mouths?
Click to expand...

care to retract your LIE? asking you what you meant is not putting words your mouth. i know that you're on full anger mode and will likely implode, but try and hang on a bit more and explain what you meant. and further, why is it you're not hounding nigel for saying what you meant, he claimed no one said it was anything but challenging in court, yet you said debate. your OP sentence UNDERLINED shall not be questioned and you were talking about DEBATE.

so, once again...what did you mean as it is clear dung is wrong that you were talking about court.
 
Yurt said:
then you mention question the debt...

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

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

LOL...GFY.
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
yet you said the word DEBATE

so what did you mean? dung claims you never meant challenge in court, yet you said debate. here is your chance zappa.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Watch in amazement as the Amazing Yurskin puts his telepathic powers to work telling another what they really meant.

Of course NOWHERE in my OP did I state the 14th meant we can't debate the issue...but since when has something as trivial to Yurskin as the truth, ever stopped him from putting whatever words he wants in other people's mouths?
Click to expand...

this is what happens all the time when you ask zappa a difficult question. deflection upon deflection and lies that you put words in his mouth because you dared to ask him what he meant.

:palm:
 
Yurt said:
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?
Click to expand...


If the Democrats just invoked the ignored the debt ceiling and pretended it didn't matter it would end the debate in Congress about raising it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
are you actually trying to say that the size of the debt is the deciding factor in constitutionality of the debt ceiling?
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I am saying is this: pretend the debt ceiling is $100. Pretend the Treasury ignored the debt ceiling and amassed $150 in debt. Everyone would agree that the fist $100 is kosher. But someone may object to the Treasury paying back the $50 that it borrowed in excess of the debt ceiling, asserting that it was unauthorized and exceeded the debt ceiling. Well, once the money has been borrowed, there isn't much a person can do but try to stop the Treasury from paying it back on the grounds that the debt is invalid. To stop the Treasury from actually paying back that $50, a person would have to file a lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the Treasury could invoke the 14th Amendment, asserting that the validity of the debt of the United States cannot be questioned and the courts cannot do anything about it.


SmarterThanYou said:
and bartlett is a fucking moron.........and wrong.
Click to expand...

That may be. I was just responding to your assertion that this was just an extreme reading by the Democrats. It isn't. Bartlett, a Republican, agrees with it.
 
cawacko said:
Zap, how about for the sake of clarity, since there seems to be some confusion, you restate what your original comment/question was because it makes for an intersting debate.
Click to expand...
He refuses to since he's been so easily and forcefully pwned its much easier for him to assert that he wasn't making a point in the first place. But STY found out where he got the silly idea and here is the first paragraph of the article:

Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

And that was obviously Zap's position when he started this thread.
 
Yurt said:
again...what does that have to do with a court challenge? you claimed no one said otherwise, yet, zappa was talking about "debate".
Click to expand...


Zappa didn't say anything about a court challenge. He said the Democrats could invoke the 14th and end the debate, which they could. If they took the position that the debt ceiling was irrelevant and unconstitutional, there'd be nothing for them to debate.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I don't think anyone other than you suggested that "question" means anything other than to challenge in court.
Click to expand...

David St. Hubbins said:
Zappa didn't say anything about a court challenge. He said the Democrats could invoke the 14th and end the debate, which they could. If they took the position that the debt ceiling was irrelevant and unconstitutional, there'd be nothing for them to debate.
Click to expand...

do try and keep up

your statements are contradictory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top