Never mind, I found it. She said it on Fox “News” last night:
Further manipulate?
Yep. She is really fucking ignorant.
Here’s the full conversation. It’s full of stupid.
She does not know a thing. She is pretty and appeals to those who do not care but think pretty is enough. It is hard to refudiate that.
I think it’s pretty obvious that, to Palin, anything that hands Obama any sort of power, from raising the debt ceiling to switching to non-dairy creamer in the White House cafeteria, makes the woman quake.
I’m pretty sure she’s convinced that Obama is a Bond-level villain, destroying the country in the name of KAOS or something.
The quotes you picked out seem perfectly reasonable to me. Downright genius for Palin.
You are kidding, right?
I think this is true for all Teabaggers, and for a large percentage of the Republican Party, frankly. Which leads me to ask…why? Why would a person want to “destroy the country?” Why do liberals seek to destroy America, as conservatives claim? What is our motive? What’s Obama’s motive to destroy America?
It’s the downfall of most supervillains, really - there’s never a good motive for destroying the world, they just want to do it for…no good reason.
Palin has raised only $1.6M in the first half of 2011. Romney raised $18.25M in the second quarter alone. Palin doesn’t even have the bucks to hire staff. She’s not running.
I wonder when she’s going to go back to her bus tour? Did she serve on a jury in the last few weeks?
You bought that crap? PSYCH!!!
That’s a damn good question.
And, no. These articles are the most up to date I could find.
I love this quote from the first one:
Did she really think any of the following:
- There was a chance in hell she would ever serve on a jury?
- She really had to abandon everything and immediately return to AK?
- She would score some political capital with this?
No, what’s wrong with them?
Having control of the debt limit has never been a presidential power, nor is there any compelling reason it should be. Would you have rushed to give Bush unilateral control of the debt limit?
Besides that, you’re not only saying you disagree, you’re saying she’s retarded for even holding that position. Why? Is this so cut and dried that it’s just purely obvious that this should pass and the president should have that power? No debate, just straight up anyone who doesn’t agree with this proposition - which is a weird political gimmick tactic in itself - is ignorant?
Quoth gonzomax:
No, I can refute that. She’s not pretty. Her face looks like it was molded out of plastic.
Quoth SenorBeefp:
No, I wouldn’t have, because it’s a stupid idea. Just because it’s stupid doesn’t make it unconstitutional, though.
Oh come on. The constitution does enumerate the seperation of powers even if we do ignore it pretty much entirely. You can make a reasonable case that controlling the debt ceiling is not a function of the presidency. You can also disagree with that. But let’s not treat it like she said OH LOL JESUS SAID DINOSAURS here, it’s a perfectly reasonable stance to take on the issue.
News flash: there’s a big, big difference between “bad idea” and “unconstitutional.”
Her comments about constitutionality display rather profound ignorance, yes.
Please note that I did not use the word “retarded.”
Ok then, specifically what section of the constitution grants either the executive the ability to control the debt ceiling, or congress the ability to make laws granting someone else the ability to control the debt ceiling?
Be specific.
The same part of the Constitution that gave Congress the authority to set a debt ceiling to begin with.
I’m not quite sure legally exactly how the debt limit works. If the debt limit is raised, does Congress still have to go in and specify exactly when it will incur debt, or do treasury bonds automatically sell to whatever the debt ceiling allows them, should it be needed to face current expenditures?
If the law regarding the debt ceiling automatically grants the treasury the ability to sell t-bills without a specific order from Congress, then the ability to set the debt ceiling is effectively the indirect ability to borrow. Which is a power granted to Congress, not the presidency. Hence you could make a case for it being in violation of the constitution.
This assessment may very well be wrong, but wrong is a different issue than “OMG REALLY SHE SAID THAT YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS”, like what she said here was just another Paul Revere hisory lesson or something. If someone with more credibility had said it, it’d seem like a reasonable point.
So there’s no reason to pile on here like it’s the dumbest thing anyone has ever said just because she said it, snce there’s plenty of stupid shit she’s said. This is one of the few times she’s actually said something that at least sounds like a reasonable case could be made for it.
I am not a constitutional lawyer. But here’s what I understand about the issue:
Congress has the right to pass laws (Article 1, Section 8). Nothing in the constitution explicitly concerns laws about the creation of a “debt ceiling.” Congress can therefore pass laws authorizing a debt ceiling, whether the authority is vested in themselves or ceded to the president or some other authority, such as the Federal Reserve, which has been authorized by Congress (Federal Reserve Act, 1913) to dictate monetary policy in the U.S., such as by setting the federal funds rate. Authorizing control of the “debt ceiling” really is no different in principle.
There has been some question about whether creating a debt limit is unconstitutional in the first place, but I don’t buy that either.
Anyway, Palin is full of fail for stating that McConnell’s suggestion is unconstitutional. If it were, then the Federal Reserve would be, too. (I am not implying that the Federal Reserve is part of the executive branch, just that the principle is the same.)
In thinking about it some more, I accept this point.
I will add however that my remark referring to Palin as “fucking ignorant” also referred to her statement about Obama “manipulating” the economy. That’s an absurd remark on the face of it and deserves ridicule. Obama has no direct control of the economy, and cannot “manipulate” it in any sense that does justice to the word. All presidential effect on the economy is indirect. Congress has the direct control.
Looking at 2010 and how you guys took a bath in that one, I don’t think anyone should be laughing. 80% of candiates she supported won.