[QUOTE=chappy;355555]This isn't a red-team/blue-team thing--its a how we respond to fake crises thing. Just because the red-team has currently staffed themselves with crazy doesn't mean that they will always be in the wrong. That doesn't change that right now they are wrong.[/QUOTE]

[Applause!]

Beautifully said! :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;355558][Applause!]

Beautifully said! :smile:[/QUOTE]

And Ernst carefully ignored the fact that during the most intense parts
of the debates over NSA spying I made hardly any posts at all because I
was very sick from chemo. This was over a period of 3 months.

To be fair I don't believe he was saying that any of us were in favor of the wiretaps.

[URL="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/10/04/76319/then-and-now-the-truth-about-government-shutdowns/"]this was written[/URL] by the uncle of a friend of a friend of mine...which means absolutely nothing...but it is an historical look at the Government shutdown weapon.

I second the applause. Well said, Chap.

RDS- I intensely hope to avoid the sort of ordeal you are enduring. I worked at M. D. Anderson when I was much younger, and saw patients under extreme chemo treatments at very close range. I sincerely hope there is some significant improvement possible for you, and that such a possibility comes to pass.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;355549]I have spoken against the illegal spying.[/QUOTE]

Where?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;355559]And Ernst carefully ignored the fact that during the most intense parts
of the debates over NSA spying I made hardly any posts at all because I
was very sick from chemo. This was over a period of 3 months.[/QUOTE]

Not being "in the loop" on your day-to-day medical status, I only recall seeing various posts from you in other areas of the forum, and getting a curious impression of "silence" on your part with respect to the NSA spying issue. Let me do a quick check:

o NSA spying thread begun on 6/6/2012; your first {and only] post there not until 20 September, one [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=353609&postcount=292]strictly of the crypto-technical variety[/url];

o You average roughly 2 posts per day, and I see no major "period of silence" in your overall forum usage/postings since the above date. In fact I - perhaps wrongly, but I hope not - took your continued engagement hereabouts as a good sign.

So I would be genuinely curious to see the"speaking out against" posts you mention.

Perhaps I got an erroneous impression based on that I spend little time in the Factoring forums - but as we are speaking here of government-agency legality and ethics, I wouldn't expect much discussion of that in Factoring; rather, this is precisely the sort of thing Soap Box was created for.

----------------

But - let us continue any discussion of the above in the appropriate neighboring thread. I brought the issue up only in the "people who are alleged to be flouting the constitution" sense. I now return the discussion to its previous and proper "Republicans are douches, man" theme.

What does it matter how much anyone spoke out against illegal spying? What a strange shibboleth. I don't think I posted in it at all, or maybe very little - but mainly because I didn't think that I was holding any special point that hadn't been made.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;355492]The U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. can not default on its debts.[/QUOTE]If Congress has no legitimate right to impose a debt ceiling, that is something that may need to be determined in the Supreme Court. I think it could be possible for that court to find that Congress's authority in this matter is somewhat less than has been supposed for a long time.

[quote]If Boehner will not bring it to a vote, can the Justice Department
have him arrested for treason (probably not)
or a simple violation of his oath of office?????

He swore to uphold the Constitution........[/quote]... but there is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House bring a debt ceiling bill to a vote. It is neither a violation of oath of office nor treason.

You present no evidence that Boehner's not bringing a certain type of bill to the House floor for a vote is any violation of his oath of office, much less is treason.

I think you have sufficient legitimate argument on your side so as not to need to resort to exaggeration or hyperbole.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;355548]Does that carry with it the responsibility to not pass unfunded laws?[/QUOTE]Define "unfunded law".

I think it has been quite rare for Congress, at the time it passes a bill creating a new executive-branch power or obligation, to have simultaneously appropriated sufficient funds for the entire future carrying-out of operations in support of that power or obligation.

[quote]Also, what precisely constitutes "default" in a context of a government which can emit unbacked currency at will?[/quote]Despite your frequent declaration of the latter emission's existence, that is not the same as the Treasury's having enough money to pay all bondholders who present matured bonds for redemption.

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

That was a woman. A man would not forget "the association of politicians' wives and mistresses" or something equivalent... :smile: Don't tell me any of the mentioned organizations have more influence on the mentioned subject...

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;355580](blah blah blah)[COLOR=White].[/COLOR][/QUOTE] :rofl:

Pretty good list, but I fear the Pope and the Queen of England will feel slighted. :smile:

Oops. The Vatican IS listed. Poor HRM Liz is left out in the cold.