SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Debt ceiling unconstitutional?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 07 2012, 3:40 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How about they take that to the Supreme Court as they did with the Line Item veto?

The President is the wrong branch of government for this.

"House Democrats are reviving an idea that was last popular during the debt ceiling fight of 2011, urging President Obama to consider declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and denying Republicans the chance to wrest spending concessions in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney for the first time ruled out that maneuver, indicating that President Obama does not believe the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him the right to ignore the legal debt limit...."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 07 2012, 11:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 07 2012, 3:40 pm)
QUOTE
How about they take that to the Supreme Court as they did with the Line Item veto?

The President is the wrong branch of government for this.

"House Democrats are reviving an idea that was last popular during the debt ceiling fight of 2011, urging President Obama to consider declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and denying Republicans the chance to wrest spending concessions in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney for the first time ruled out that maneuver, indicating that President Obama does not believe the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him the right to ignore the legal debt limit...."

Hmmmm,

Isn't borrowing money a way to raise money?  And per the constitution does not Congress hold the purse strings?  Can the executive branch take upon itself the authority to raise money?

I agree with the president on this.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 08 2012, 6:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Don't you know, Obama can do what ever he wants to do?

Never mind that pesky constitution.


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 08 2012, 8:54 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 08 2012, 6:35 am)
QUOTE
Don't you know, Obama can do what ever he wants to do?

Never mind that pesky constitution.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16701
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 08 2012, 10:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Having had to wade through so much of you know what for so long we all know Slinger has had a bad Consitution for some time.

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 08 2012, 11:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Perhaps the debt limit is just like the requirement for a budget....which the dems have been ignoring for years

Inconvenient rules will be ignored


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 4:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Dec. 07 2012, 8:10 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 07 2012, 3:40 pm)
QUOTE
How about they take that to the Supreme Court as they did with the Line Item veto?

The President is the wrong branch of government for this.

"House Democrats are reviving an idea that was last popular during the debt ceiling fight of 2011, urging President Obama to consider declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and denying Republicans the chance to wrest spending concessions in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney for the first time ruled out that maneuver, indicating that President Obama does not believe the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him the right to ignore the legal debt limit...."

Hmmmm,

Isn't borrowing money a way to raise money?  And per the constitution does not Congress hold the purse strings?  Can the executive branch take upon itself the authority to raise money?

I agree with the president on this.

Congress committed the United States when they spent the money with their budget and appropriations bills. NOT paying those debts as they come due is certainly against the Constitution.  

And so it should be argued before the arbiter of things Constitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

Is there any mention of "purse strings" in the Constitution?

So the President having taken this oath: ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."" The holder of that office is committed to uphold the 14th Amendment, Section 4 of the Constitution? There would seem to be an obligation for the President to refer to the Supreme Court for a ruling on this as the debt ceiling law looks to block execution of that Constitutional responsibility.

As "Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred. While debates surrounding the debt limit may raise awareness about the federal government's current debt trajectory and may also provide Congress with an opportunity to debate the fiscal policy decisions driving that trajectory, the ability to have an immediate effect on debt levels is limited. This is because the debt reflects previously enacted tax and spending policies."

Per the GAO
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 3:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Dec. 08 2012, 8:54 am)
QUOTE

(gunslinger @ Dec. 08 2012, 6:35 am)
QUOTE
Don't you know, Obama can do what ever he wants to do?

Never mind that pesky constitution.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?

Yes sir, and the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Federalist papers...and A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States.....Some of Blackstones commentaries....among others....just to name a few....

How about you?


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 3:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So, G, what's your take on Canada being pre-approved for statehood?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 4:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 10 2012, 3:51 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Dec. 08 2012, 8:54 am)
QUOTE

(gunslinger @ Dec. 08 2012, 6:35 am)
QUOTE
Don't you know, Obama can do what ever he wants to do?

Never mind that pesky constitution.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?

Yes sir, and the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Federalist papers...and A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States.....Some of Blackstones commentaries....among others....just to name a few....

How about you?

Well since you're such a scholar, how about telling us why you think Obama is under the impression that he can do whatever he wants to do, even violate the Constitution.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 7:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How about the executive order not to enforce the current immigration law to start with?

Frankly, there's a lot of things I consider to be unconstitutional....and with the Supreme Court voting 5-4 most of the time, almost half agree with me.  Unfortunately, in some cases, a little better than half disagree with me.

Which leads us to the health care debate, parts of which is in front of the SCOTUS again.

I think the founding fathers left a pretty clear vision but some either refuse to study it or chose to disregard it altogether.

Certainly, Madison and Hamilton had different visions so this debate is nothing new.

I've been called a lot of things here on this forum....scholar has never been one of them.  I do appreciate the sarcasm though.... :)


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 7:54 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How about we start with you understanding the history of executive orders. They are not unconstitutional. But I didn't really expect you to have the slightest clue what you were talking about.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 8:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 08 2012, 6:35 am)
QUOTE
Don't you know, Obama can do what ever he wants to do?

Never mind that pesky constitution.

That was George Bush.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 8:07 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There is no clear directive for an executive order in the constitution.

While the executive order it's self isn't necessarily unconstitutional, there are cases where the president attempted to make law that the SCOTUS has ruled on.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

It appears to me that the Obama  order on immigration attempts to create, or change, a law and therefore is unconstitutional as the President doesn't have the power to make a law.


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 9:44 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think Obama did a pretty good job during his first term, but I would not give him an 'A' grade.

One of the reasons I didn't rate him higher is because he did not act in a way that some would define as OverReaching.

I did not want him to violate his constitutional powers.

But, I did expect him to use the Bully Pulpit more;  he was often too passive, too aloof.

He seems to be changing that behavior, tho, since his dismal first debate performance.  He has become more of a bullying crusader which I think a President often has to be.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 11:41 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Dec. 11 2012, 6:44 am)
QUOTE
I think Obama did a pretty good job during his first term, but I would not give him an 'A' grade.

One of the reasons I didn't rate him higher is because he did not act in a way that some would define as OverReaching.

I did not want him to violate his constitutional powers.

But, I did expect him to use the Bully Pulpit more;  he was often too passive, too aloof.

He seems to be changing that behavior, tho, since his dismal first debate performance.  He has become more of a bullying crusader which I think a President often has to be.

I'd agree with that: he seemed to be trying to pull back from an Imperial Presidential model and, IMHO, went a tad too far toward deferring to Congress in passivity. I have more feeling for the Congress as our representative body but the president has more of a role than simply affirming legislation and executing the directives of Congress as I see it. That office is our only nationally selected office after all (VP being placeholder).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 12 2012, 11:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 11 2012, 8:07 am)
QUOTE
There is no clear directive for an executive order in the constitution.

There is no clear directive against murder either or for the draft, or against pollution, or speeding, or public nudity,

Do you have a point?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 11:09 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The point is the president can't make law.  Get it?

--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 12:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 13 2012, 8:09 am)
QUOTE
The point is the president can't make law.  Get it?

Executive orders aren't "law".

They are however, specifically stated in the very first sentence of the relevant section of the Constitution:
"Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...."

So as the executive the president issues a directive on the procedures of the agencies under his executive control. Issued to ensure uniformity of action across the offices involved.

Decisions about how to execute the directives contained in Congressionally passed and signed into law legislation are what that the "Executive" branch of our government was set up to do.

It's explained here:
"Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . . In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denoted as such . . . . Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute. The President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority. The difference between Executive orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance ."

Note they have the full force of law as outlined, meaning they are backed up by enforcement and cannot simply be ignored. But their foundation runs back to Congress or directly to the Consitution and do not rest, you're correct in that, on the president's own weight...

Furether: "As executive orders and proclamations are not defined in the Constitution, there is also no specific provision in the Constitution authorizing the President to issue executive orders and proclamations. However, the fact remains that Presidents have been issuing them since the inception of the Republic. Often Presidents have relied upon Article II of the Constitution as the sole basis for issuing executive orders and proclamations. For present purposes, Article II states that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States," "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[2] The President's ability to issue executive orders and proclamations is also derived from express or implied statutory authority from Congress.[3]"

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 95-722 A

Cruise missiles aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, yet the President may direct their usage by the military in fulfillment of his Constitutional duties.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 3:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Read the text.

The problem isn't the executive order per say, but that in this case it changes the law and because of that IMO is unconstitutional.

Why did you liberals bitch so much when George Bush issued them?


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 4:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 13 2012, 12:43 pm)
QUOTE
Read the text.

The problem isn't the executive order per say, but that in this case it changes the law and because of that IMO is unconstitutional.

Why did you liberals bitch so much when George Bush issued them?

To save some back and forth can you provide links to both the executive order text you view changes a law and the text of the law you view as being changed?

Generally written legislation leaves a lot of leeway into the route and determining boundaries for execution. So, say, temporarily deferring minors from deportation doesn't actually change a law requiring their ultimate removal, but rather an agency policy and procedure. Law enforcement is a continuing judgment of priority of execution. Now were text to, say, specifically state within 30 days a person quilfying for removal must be deported then a change in that interval would require legislative. But the laws are rarely that detailed and I doubt the immigration ones would be, such details of procedure are what the regulatory agencies work out, agencies within the Executive Branch, whose ultimate Constitutional person in charge is the president. But your showing the relevant texts will clarify that.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

To save the back and forth, just google it.

Marco Rubio commented on it.  Romney as well and there's many articles out there predicting law suits to follow.

Because I know how much you liberals like fox news here's a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/us....fessors

This president thinks he can do what ever he dam well pleases and has no regard for the constitution or congressional powers given by it.

Instead of the great uniter, he's the great divider.  Instead of "The most transparent administration in history" he's one of the most closed door presidents we've had.

Here's a link to Yoo's paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144031


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 5:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 13 2012, 2:15 pm)
QUOTE
To save the back and forth, just google it.

Marco Rubio commented on it.  Romney as well and there's many articles out there predicting law suits to follow.

Because I know how much you liberals like fox news here's a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/us....fessors

This president thinks he can do what ever he dam well pleases and has no regard for the constitution or congressional powers given by it.

Instead of the great uniter, he's the great divider.  Instead of "The most transparent administration in history" he's one of the most closed door presidents we've had.

Here's a link to Yoo's paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144031

Yoo...Yoo...that name sounds vaguely familiar.  

You actually think John Yoo has something worthwhile to say about executive overreach.  Really.

Snort. Chuckle. Guffaw.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 24
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10735
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 5:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Isn't telling that Slinger, who thinks of himself as the principled conservative who is so
so respectful of the constitution, sites an article from MR overreach big government
lover himself John Yoo himself to make the case that obama is an overreaching big government
lover?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 5:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(gunslinger @ Dec. 13 2012, 11:09 am)
QUOTE
The point is the president can't make law.  Get it?

Yeah, everybody knows that.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 6:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

John "A Guide to the Memos on Torture" Yoo?

Good one.

For complaints about changes in law why not compare the law and the order? Then we can, you know, form our own opinion from direct observation absent the filter of people like Yoo who thought war crimes could be worked around.

ETA: That entire "you liberals" B.S. when you're responding directly to me takes you off my "try and make a serious response" list. Which is cool, not like I'm averse to The Snark.

The torture guy? Too much. Gotta love the humor, there's that. :)

ETA the 2nd*: So in summary G's been delivered "the truth" and has no need to actually read what he's spouting off about directly because he'd been delivered "The Word" by John Yoo and some reporter at a news station. Lovely.

* Keeping the whole Snark theme going.... Jabberwocky, you can Google it. :)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2012, 6:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 13 2012, 3:02 pm)
QUOTE
* Keeping the whole Snark theme going.... Jabberwocky, you can Google it. :)

Sometimes you hunt the Snark, and sometimes the Snark hunts you.  

gunslinger is one who is regularly hunted by the Snark.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
26 replies since Dec. 07 2012, 3:40 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Debt ceiling unconstitutional?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions