• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
The City of New York sued. Case was Clinton v. City of New York. If I remember correctly, some of the line items vetoed by Clinton caused financial injuries to some farmers or something, and they were able to sue.

Basically anyone can sue if they have standing - a particularized/concrete/imminent injury, causation, and redressability. The issue with the debt ceiling is whether anyone has standing to sue. Until the debt ceiling is actually ignored, how can one say that an injury is imminent? Theoretically, if we fail to raise the debt ceiling, then any holder of US bonds could sue to declare it unconstitutional, because the value of their debt would be directly harmed by Congress's actions.

I wonder if a court would allow such a plaintiff (holder of US bonds) to proceed nowadays, given the political volatility surrounding the debt ceiling. I'd say it's worth a shot. Anyone here hold t-bonds?
my kids will love reading about PoliGAF v. Congress in their text books

John Quincy Adams did.
Did he also start the war on traditionalvalues/jesus/christianity/christmas?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I would use the Calvin & Hobbes 10th Anniversary book.

lWPdJ.png
 
Today has been unbearable. All my neocon friends Facebooks and everything are all about evil Obama raising taxes even though he said he wouldn't.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ok just from the standpoint of telling a good joke, that cartoon stinks. It should be the same couple in both panels with reversed reactions. It would still be horribly wrong but at least it would be better from a purely technical standpoint. Honestly this is what bothers me most. It's an old joke, if you're going to use it then do it right!
 

Chichikov

Member
Only a crimson blooded communist would not know that is an American Tool Box (tm)
So the cartoonist really thought that point had to be told twice, through both genders?
What can I say, the man knows comedy.

Also, that old dude with the beer gut on the left panel better pony up for the handbag if he want to keep is young wife.
I ain't saying she's a gold digger, no, wait, I am.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Also the kids don't have to pay it off. If you're dead, any creditors can be repaid from assets in your estate, but debt cannot be inherited. If there's not enough to repay the creditors, they're SOL.

Basically it's stupid and wrong on every single possible level a thing can possibly be stupid and wrong on.
 
Why does that cartoon have two panels? It's just the same thing right? What difference is it that a man is saying it in one panel and a woman in the other?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Why does that cartoon have two panels? It's just the same thing right? What difference is it that a man is saying it in one panel and a woman in the other?

He could have been going for a "both sides do this we need to fix it" thing, but if he was then he screwed it up royally (should have been the same couple in both). That's generous though, reality is probably that he's a moron that saw something similar somewhere and decided to copy it without understanding what it was he read.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
So the cartoonist really thought that point had to be told twice, through both genders?
What can I say, the man knows comedy.

Also, that old dude with the beer gut on the left panel better pony up for the handbag if he want to keep is young wife.
I ain't saying she's a gold digger, no, wait, I am.
Exactly.

Also the kids don't have to pay it off. If you're dead, any creditors can be repaid from assets in your estate, but debt cannot be inherited. If there's not enough to repay the creditors, they're SOL.
Also this.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Why does that cartoon have two panels? It's just the same thing right? What difference is it that a man is saying it in one panel and a woman in the other?

When studying a Terry Wise cartoon, it's important to remember that he has the mind of a 10 year old.
 

RDreamer

Member
Why does that cartoon have two panels? It's just the same thing right? What difference is it that a man is saying it in one panel and a woman in the other?

I thought it was the next generation. Like, those were the kids, and they were pushing it off, down the line, too.
 
Why does that cartoon have two panels? It's just the same thing right? What difference is it that a man is saying it in one panel and a woman in the other?

My guess is if he just kept the woman buying something he would be accused of being sexist by stereotyping women as impulsive shoppers.

He didnt just do the man because he's sexist and couldn't let that stand.
 

GhaleonEB

Member

"When I first went to the House floor and started talking to our other members in Alabama, there were initially only one or two of us who were going to vote against it," Brooks said. "Something happened. It might be that we got the Congressional Budget Office report that afternoon last Tuesday that the Senate did not have access to as all this stuff was being rammed through in about 20 hours on a federal holiday.

"That CBO report said we would be increasing our deficit by about $4 trillion and increase spending and not cutting spending."
He's making an argument against letting any of the taxes rise, by citing how expensive it will be to extend most of them, to backup his position that all of the tax cuts should have been extended.

I honestly cannot fathom how he holds those thoughts in his head at the same time. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.
 
He's making an argument against letting any of the taxes rise, by citing how expensive it will be to extend most of them, to backup his position that all of the tax cuts should have been extended.

I honestly cannot fathom how he holds those thoughts in his head at the same time. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.

Because more tax cuts = more revenue and we can just cut socialist programs and foreign aide and no more problems.
 

pigeon

Banned
Sounds like a sure fire impeachment, given the House. Obama wouldn't be removed from office but still, doesn't seem like a great choice.

Makes more sense to dare republicans to crash the economy. We're forgetting the bill would only need around 18-19 republicans to pass. I just don't see Wall St. creatures like Cantor and Boehner ruining their donors/the economy for no reason.

On this topic:

daily beast said:
Best not to ask GOP fundraising legend Georgette Mosbacher about the state of her beloved party unless you want an earful. The co-chair of the RNC’s Finance Committee (and CEO of Borghese cosmetics), Mosbacher is “mad as hell” about the myriad ways the “brand has been tarnished”: the sorry state of the presidential primary process, the ongoing alienation of Latino voters, the “outrageous” Senate candidates that the party ran this cycle, the epic failure of the fiscal-cliff negotiations, and, most recently, the House’s dithering over disaster aid for the victims of superstorm Sandy....
This is an unfortunate development for the GOP, because, as Mosbacher explained it to me this weekend: “I’m not writing any checks, and I’m not asking anyone else to write any checks until I hear something that makes sense to me.”...
OK. So the party’s finance co-chair is disgusted to the point where she’s threatening to shut off the money spigot. That’s the bad news. Now for the worse news: she is not alone.
As Mosbacher tells it, many of her fellow mega-donors are vowing to sit on their wallets until something changes. “Since the election, there have been a lot of gatherings, a lot of meetings among those who are active in raising money,” she says. “There’s been one every week. There are a lot of us who are saying, ‘Just wait a minute.’”
Mosbacher adds, “The question is, ‘Are we united in drying that up?’ From the people I’ve talked to, the answer is, ‘Yeah.’”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/08/mosbacher-i-m-furious-at-my-own-party.html

This is how moderation works -- money talks.
 

Hilariously, she payed quite a lot of money to get Bush elected/re-elected and helped finance the 2010 takeover; her fingerprints (and receipts) are all over the transformation of the party.

It's hard to imagine enough business types shunning the republican party enough to make a difference in the Citizen's United era.
 

Chichikov

Member
In any bar I worked at, that would've earned you urine beer on your next visit.
If you're lucky.
Urine beer definitely wasn't the worst beer we served, but I think I said too much already.

Edit: I'm calling bullshit on that btw, I don't think anyone that would think that would use "my fair share in taxes", even if it's in scare quotes.
 
He's making an argument against letting any of the taxes rise, by citing how expensive it will be to extend most of them, to backup his position that all of the tax cuts should have been extended.

I honestly cannot fathom how he holds those thoughts in his head at the same time. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.
Is this a joke to these people? Is basic math and common sense a joke to these sons of bitches? I don't even know why I'm outraged anymore. This shouldn't be surprising but God dammit it is. These people have absolutely no shame. No dignity. No conscience. They sell out their country on a daily basis and purposefully keep their electorate dumb as horseshit. I cannot believe these are the people a president has to 'work with' and create bipartisan policies with that make minting trillion dollar coins look like a Nobel prize worthy idea.
 
Reminds me of the episode of Louie where Louie goes to his accountant about buying some really expensive house and he was told he couldn't afford it and after a lot of hilarious back and forth, Louie's final response to thinking he can afford the house which he cannot was:

"Obama?"

Shit had me rolling.
 

Marvie_3

Banned
Reminds me of the episode of Louie where Louie goes to his accountant about buying some really expensive house and he was told he couldn't afford it and after a lot of hilarious back and forth, Louie's final response to thinking he can afford the house which he cannot was:

"Obama?"

Shit had me rolling.
That was great. :lol
 
The federal government "may default on its debt as soon as Feb. 15, half a month earlier than widely expected, according to a new analysis adding urgency to the debate over how to raise the federal debt ceiling," the Washington Post reports.

"The government hit the $16.4 trillion statutory debt limit on Dec. 31 , but the Treasury Department is able to undertake a number of accounting schemes to delay when the government runs into funding problems."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...90a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html?hpid=z3

and here we go
 

Amir0x

Banned
^^ Time to speed up hostage negotiations! Only this time there should be no negotiations, only hilarious laughter every time they make a demand.

"YOU WILL MAKE THESE SPENDING CUTS, MR. PRESIDENT. OR THE COUNTRY GETS IT!"
"hahahahahahahah--"
"THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, WE WILL DESTROY EVERYTHING."
"AHAHAHhahahahhaAHA--"
"What the fuck dude, like, we'll pull the trigger and shit... we mean it..."
"AHAHLOLOLOLAHAHAHAHAHAohohoAHAH.."
"Fuck it."

He's making an argument against letting any of the taxes rise, by citing how expensive it will be to extend most of them, to backup his position that all of the tax cuts should have been extended.

I honestly cannot fathom how he holds those thoughts in his head at the same time. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.

Seriously
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom