O/T: A Prognostication

Page 1 of 3  
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011.
As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.
Obama will not allow default to happen.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

THe 14th simply says that the bond holders have to be paid. It doesn't say that anyone else does.

There need be no default. If there is, it's *purely* Obama's choice.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it.
Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State."
Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true, irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise perfectly good claims and agnedas.
Deb
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm a proud liberal, though a fiscal conservative. I believe in a balanced budget, but also in deficit spending in times of need for such. I do NOT believe there will be a default. The idiots in Congress WILL get to a last minute compromise. Until now everyone in Congress and the administration (pfft on you too) has just been posturing (hey, they are politicians!). The idiot TP members (what else does TP stand for besides Tea Party?) may not understand compromise, but that'll make them excellent 1-term people makinf a point. The idiot free-spenders will get their one-comeuppance (sp?) too. Someone will finally notice that we have a simple choice. Generate jobs (=spending which=inflation) or unemployment (ήpression). The alternative is to also generate revenue. I'm a biochemist (retired), not an economist, but then I'll pay any single one economist a grand prize of $2.== for finding the solution ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dr. Deb wrote:

Interestingly, the Constitution is much like the Bible. It doesn't mattery what it SAYS; the only thing that counts is what it MEANS.
In the non-Catholic tradition, interpretation of scripture is left up to the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants carry over that technique to the reading of the Constitution.
In fact, the Constitution is more like the Catholic methodology: It is the Supreme Court (Holy See) that is charged with deciding what is meant, not the individual in the pew.
That said, should Obama invoke some evanescent power via the 14th Amendment, a couple of extreme things will result: a) An immediate appeal will be taken to a federal court, who will be completely flummoxed since the judiciary REALLY does not like to meddle in the operation of another branch, and/or b) Somebody will introduce an impeachment motion in the House that will NOT be dismissed out of hand.
I can see it now: The military, getting no paychecks, march on Washington much like the Bonus Army of 1932 except there will be no Douglas McArthur to confront them with tanks and bayonets. Instead of having their wives and children along, granny ladies without Social Security checks will be carrying the pitchforks and the poor who can't get Medicaid will be carrying the torches. The SEIU will provide the T-shirts and the AFGE will provide cold drinks.
Finally, we will be living in interesting times.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 8:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"k-nuttle" wrote in message

Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea that Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the U.S. so he could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power indefinitely so among other things he could attack Iran.
And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and become dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when considering left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is "wingnut".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

A right-wing president becoming president for life is more likely to succeed than a left-wing president, but less likely to happen.
If it DID happen we right-wingers could sustain the coup because we have most of the guns. On the other hand, right wingers just don't do force and intimidation very well.
Here's an example: Instead of McCain, many of us were rooting for Jeb Bush. After him, that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew for eight years. By then the legacy would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to a monarchy.
But you'll note, we tried to work within the system.
Oh well.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At first, I could have voted for McCain (would have been unlikely, but it seemed possible). Then he went of the deep end in his opinions, and tried to cover that up with a cover girl. Sorry, Twitsie did him in for good.
And that is my opinion, YOU know the facts ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Han" wrote in message

It's too bad Karl Rove was able to torpedo McCain's campaign in 2000, if he had become President it seems reasonable to me he wouldn't have been so quick to go to war with a nation that hadn't attacked the U.S.
I hadn't made up my mind between McCain and Obama until after it became apparent just how bad Caribou Barbie really was, that did it for me. First time in decades I didn’t think the Repubs had come up with the better ticket.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

But the government would lack enough people to actually FIRE all the guns they have warehoused.
Today's military is not composed of automatons or cannon-fodder. Today's general is well aware that the corporal running the radio is as much an expert at his job as the general is at his.
The American soldier will NEVER fire on American civilians, no matter who gives the order (unless, of course, those civilians are rioting hippies).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're not including the National Guard then. (Kent State)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2011 10:29 AM, Robatoy wrote:

They're the only ones he included. He didn't include the Branch Davidians or the entire southern half of the country.
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In other words, meaning lies within the perview of the reader and not the author. Interesting. So what you are advocating is a rebellion with the military marching on Washington. That could get you charged with sedition, which is a somewhat serious thing, in case you did not know.
Before you respond, I was not serious in the above. I was merely using your hermeneutical prinicple. Its amazing how quickly liberal politics, theology and philosophy are abandonded when those prinicples are brought to bear on us and our posiitons by our opponent. :-)
Deb
HeyBub wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dr. Deb" wrote in message

LOL, did you just accuse HeyBug of being a liberal?
This should be fun.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dr. Deb wrote:

No, you were misinterpreting. Nowhere did I advocate marching on Washington, violence, or tormenting cats. That's your own reading.
And far from hermeneutical principles being abandoned, I was applying them to the situation at hand. Hermeneutics and the Theory of Law have much in common, so it's fairly straightforward to use the tools of one to make sense of the other.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dr. Deb" wrote in message

Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money?
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine The man of whom it was said (by John Adams), "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:53:13 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper money. In 1956.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However the Founders did not seek "separation of church and state". The First Amendment has unusual wording--"Congress shall make no law resepecting an establishment of religion". In other words it's a restriction specifically on what laws may be enacted by the Federal government.
The reason that that particular item was included in the Bill of Rights was that several states had state religions at the time and would not have ratified the Constitution if there had been a chance that the Federal government would override that state religion.
One can argue that incorporating it under the fourteenth to restrict the actions of state governments is at variance with the original intent, however that would be an uphill battle at this point.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.