I'm not going to argue practical vs. technical default with you, for two reasons. 1) who cares? Nobody but a few crazies wanted either type, which is of course why it was perceived to be useful as a bargaining chip. 2) it's over, the tea party lost. 3) Now that the tea party has lost on the issue my own view is, see #1.
Okay, no accountability for your first assertion. How about accountability for this assertion? Can you provide a specific example of anyone in either party saying they wanted a default?
I didn't say the crazies who wanted one were "in a party", as in, elected. Maybe you're one of the crazies. Arguing that failing to raise the debt ceiling wouldn't lead to a real default is no longer a useful bargaining tool for the tea party--no one (today) thinks it's going to happen anyway.
"That doesn't look like a section. Support your assertion with something other than ad hominem." So, where's the ad hominem in what I wrote?
No where. "Ad hominem" was the wrong phrase. I apologize and did not mean to suggest you attacked me personally as you did not.