That guy needs to retire so badly

its not the same at all, the brother and sister can procreate.

CalvinBall wrote:its not the same at all, the brother and sister can procreate.

with a much higher tendency of birth defects


and most incestual relationships are generally the harbinger of some other really fucked up shit happening to the couple prior.

and I've never seen any study showing people are naturally attracted to specifically their own siblings over others the way gays are attracted to their own sex. (Could be wrong about that: really the first 2 should be enough anyway)

it was just a joke

we're debating whether or not to pay our debts, we may as well debate the merits of brother/sister hookups



it's amazing to have such an out bigot leading our state in 2013.

CalvinBall wrote:it was just a joke

oh yeah i know, didn't mean to make it seem otherwise

What about when two brothers marry, huh?

pacino wrote:we're debating whether or not to pay our debts, we may as well debate the merits of brother/sister hookups



it's amazing to have such an out bigot leading our state in 2013.

It will also be amazing when he becomes the first Pennsylvania governor not to win a second term since the institution of two-term governorships in the commonwealth. Corbett seems hellbent on his own demise.

MoBettle wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:its not the same at all, the brother and sister can procreate.

with a much higher tendency of birth defects


and most incestual relationships are generally the harbinger of some other really fucked up shit happening to the couple prior.

and I've never seen any study showing people are naturally attracted to specifically their own siblings over others the way gays are attracted to their own sex. (Could be wrong about that: really the first 2 should be enough anyway)

you obviously don't watch enough Game of Thrones

there's something to be said for pure bloodlines

Houshphandzadeh wrote:there's something to be said for pure bloodlines

Hemophilia?

JFLNYC wrote:What about when two brothers marry, huh?

THAT'S RACIST!!!

Rand Paul wrote:I'm for taking default completely off the table. I'm promising to the American people and to the markets to Wall Street that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority. Do you know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about 30 billion. We just promise we will always pay it. What's going on is interestingly the Democrats are scaring people and saying, we might not pay it because Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest.

those democRAT liars!
pay foreign investors over all. genius! like we could even pay certain debts first and not others.

pacino wrote:

Rand Paul wrote:I'm for taking default completely off the table. I'm promising to the American people and to the markets to Wall Street that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority. Do you know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about 30 billion. We just promise we will always pay it. What's going on is interestingly the Democrats are scaring people and saying, we might not pay it because Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest.

those democRAT liars!
pay foreign investors over all. genius! like we could even pay certain debts first and not others.

Do you disagree with what he said? What he said is utterly reasonable, and allows us to borrow money at ~2%.

This chart also might be helpful before you assert that defaulting on a debt payment would hurt foreign investors instead of US pension funds:

Grotewold wrote:

Speaking of burning...

Some dude set on fire at DC mall. No word yet if he set himself on fire (protest or insane or both) or if someone else did and our society is spiraling towards a Mad Max Thunderdome civilization (thanks Obama).

pacino wrote:

Rand Paul wrote:I'm for taking default completely off the table. I'm promising to the American people and to the markets to Wall Street that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority. Do you know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about 30 billion. We just promise we will always pay it. What's going on is interestingly the Democrats are scaring people and saying, we might not pay it because Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest.

those democRAT liars!
pay foreign investors over all. genius! like we could even pay certain debts first and not others.

Yeah, I am not sure the legality of passing a law that would suddenly make certain debt subordinate to other debt; at least not without compensating the holders of the now subordinate debt for changing the characteristics of their investment mid-stream.

Werthless wrote:This chart also might be helpful before you assert that defaulting on a debt payment would hurt foreign investors instead of US pension funds:

I'd like to see the trending of those percentages in addition to a point in time. Would be much more helpful in deciding which way to go with this.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Rand Paul wrote:I'm for taking default completely off the table. I'm promising to the American people and to the markets to Wall Street that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority. Do you know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about 30 billion. We just promise we will always pay it. What's going on is interestingly the Democrats are scaring people and saying, we might not pay it because Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest.

those democRAT liars!
pay foreign investors over all. genius! like we could even pay certain debts first and not others.

Do you disagree with what he said? What he said is utterly reasonable, and allows us to borrow money at ~2%.

This chart also might be helpful before you assert that defaulting on a debt payment would hurt foreign investors instead of US pension funds:

we do not have a balanced budget. he is mixing deficit and debt.

im not sure what point is being made other than he is saying that his say-so is good enough for people who hold the debt of the US. uhm, sure. if anything, your chart shows how little the debt matters.

He's not mixing anything up. You're misreading what he is saying. If the debt ceiling is hit, it doesn't mean we automatically default on our obligations. It just means we can't borrow any more money. The federal government would continue bringing in revenue, and he's suggesting there should be a law that requires the repayment of interest on the debt to be prioritized over all other spending. Until the debt ceiling was raised, the federal government would be forced to run a balanced budget because it wouldn't have the statutory authority to borrow money.

Defaulting on payments to defense contractors, soldiers, employees, vendors, etc., would be OK by him, I guess.