P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Just like compromise.Spending cuts must be dirty words in DC
Just like compromise.Spending cuts must be dirty words in DC
One incident is proof, here is another incident?? The proof that guns aren't the weapon of choice in crime? The proof that guns can protect against others with guns?
Ratliff was co-owner of FPS Industries, whose website says it "is proud to be world leaders in product development and testing for hard use firearms shooters."
Investigators from many agencies -- including the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- are investigating, and the GBI said Friday that they are making progress in identifying the shooter.
Several guns were found at the scene, but none of them were used to shoot Ratliff, the GBI said in a news release.
This would be truly hilarious if it wasn't actually real. The famously, comically incompetent ATF stumbling all over themselves with excitement as they discover upwards of 300 "murder weapons" in the guy's showroom. It's like the plane that crashed in the Finnish cemetery, from which 4,500 bodies were recovered in the weeks that followed. The only thing that could make it more of a fiasco is if they call in the FBI for a special crime scene investigation. My goodness why do we employ these people if they can't find real work in the real world?
For the legislature to cede further responsibility to the executive is proceeding down a path fraught with peril. If this keeps up, why have a federal legislature at all, and just have a dictator?WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democratic senators urged President Barack Obama on Friday to be ready to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval in order to avert a damaging debt default.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his leadership team said Obama should use "any lawful steps" under his authority to "ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis."
They urged Obama to act on his own if Republicans insist on a debt limit extension that is coupled with "unbalanced or unreasonable" spending cuts.
Democrats are anticipating another possible deadlock over the debt limit in Congress and hope a unilateral move, or the threat of one, by Obama would avoid a replay of the 2011 fight that pushed the country to the brink of default.
Obama has vowed not to negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling.
Republican reaction to Reid's letter showed no willingness to back down from their demands that spending cuts be part of the debt limit debate.
"The Democrat leadership hiding under their desks and hoping the president will find a way around the law on the nation's maxed-out credit card is not only the height of irresponsibility, but also a guarantee that our national debt crisis will only get worse," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, said, "The American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms."
Some analysts and Democrats believe the 14th Amendment of the Constitution gives the president the authority to raise the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling unilaterally.
That provision states the validity of government debt shall not be questioned. But the White House has so far ruled it out. One Senate Democratic aide said other legal options were being explored.
The U.S. Treasury is shuffling funds around to continue paying government bills. Those accounting maneuvers are due to run their course around mid-February.
"We believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation's economy and reputation to be held hostage," said the letter, signed by Reid and the three other leading Senate Democrats.
Republicans have said they will only approve a debt ceiling increase if it is accompanied by spending cuts and changes to big government programs Social Security and Medicare.
The Democratic leaders agreed that the borrowing cap increase should be separate from a deficit reduction plan. They said any fiscal deal should include spending cuts as well as additional revenue from the wealthy and the elimination of certain tax breaks.
Shouldn't you be focused on the person who is dead?
I posted the video in post #329Some prominent gun dude just lost his CCW or something for saying on YouTube people will die if any guns bans are implemented.
For the legislature to cede further responsibility to the executive is proceeding down a path fraught with peril. If this keeps up, why have a federal legislature at all, and just have a dictator?
For the legislature to cede further responsibility to the executive is proceeding down a path fraught with peril. If this keeps up, why have a federal legislature at all, and just have a dictator?
This is death by a 1,000 cuts or boiling to death in a slow cooker.
Because the legislature refuses to act like grownups. Sometimes you have to call things as they are, and the Republican House majority is possibly the worst Congress in the history of the republic. As Obama correctly said, the country can't refuse to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred.
I would like to think that despite the takeover of the GOP by teabagging nutjobs (witness the guy from GA defending Todd Akin's rape comments last week), there's still enough corporate Republicans in Congress who will stop the madness once they start getting frantic messages from the Aldersons and Koch brothers of the world who will lose serious money if a default causes a second recession. However, with these total lunatics I'm not so sure.
Like in 2006,So if the left does the same thing when the right is in control, it's "checks and balances"?
So if the left does the same thing when the right is in control, it's "checks and balances"?
I don't see very many Dems in the Yes count on raising the debt limit during this vote from the Bush II years; in fact I don't see any.1) Dems never refused to raise the debt limit and send the country into default even when Bush II was Prez.
I don't see very many Dems in the Yes count on raising the debt limit during this vote from the Bush II years; in fact I don't see any.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054
I don't see very many Dems in the Yes count on raising the debt limit during this vote from the Bush II years; in fact I don't see any.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054
I don't see very many Dems in the Yes count on raising the debt limit during this vote from the Bush II years; in fact I don't see any.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054
Priceless beat me to it, but it bears repeating. You're on the spot Bill. Show me where the Dems held up a debt ceiling vote with a filibuster. If the GOP allows a vote but votes against it, that's one thing. If they block the vote as expected, they deserve a charge of Treason.
So because it's 10 judicial nominees, many of which were for lower courts, it's OK? Hypocrite.