This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
326646
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
Boottspurr: I'm not planning on living outside the country anytime soon.
Canada has
poutine
,
beaver tails
,
tim hortons
, and
free healthcare
.
Changing your mind?
Cuz teh govaments steels ur monies 2 by milk bags and tehn gives u sum 4 free but keeps the rest n say "lol milk bags mine"... communists.
Post by
MyTie
Free HealthcareFree Healthcare*
*Healthcare not actually free. Cost of government healthcare may exceed cost of private healthcare. Some exclusions apply. Extended wait period may exist due to doctor shortage due to unwillingness to work for low rates in government facilities. Government hires lowest bidder, so quality may lack. Options and person preference in healthcare do not exist. Additional penalties, restrictions, and costs may arise after recieving healthcare. Healthcare providers not subject to malpractice lawsuits.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Laihendi:
Soooo... scathing
! And from a liberal medial source to boot! Who likes this guy? Who votes for him? Is anyone paying attention?
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
Inc Skyfire/Mytie/Laihendi(?) duel?
Lol. This is what I get for intervening on their argument in the IRL pics thread.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Inc Skyfire/Mytie/Laihendi(?) duel?
Lol. This is what I get for intervening on their argument in the IRL pics thread.
Pay attention and you kids might learn something (don't be scared... intelligent thought is actually fun once you get the hang of it).
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
Laihendi:
Soooo... scathing
! And from a liberal medial source to boot! Who likes this guy? Who votes for him? Is anyone paying attention?
But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
Is that the part you're upset about?
Post by
MyTie
Laihendi:
Soooo... scathing
! And from a liberal medial source to boot! Who likes this guy? Who votes for him? Is anyone paying attention?
But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
Is that the part you're upset about?
I'm not really 'upset'. If this kind of stuff got me actually upset, I would never sleep. I'm definately bothered though. What bothers me is how much his own pocket increases whenever a corporation saves money due to his saving them from following the rules. When the system collapses, I catch the bill, he buys a new house.
Post by
Skyfire
I see. Any possibility that if I were running for federal senate I would convince you that I would put propose for the repeal of all federal laws regarding abortion, and propose amendments to laws indicating that the federal judicial system has no authority to rule on abortion cases.
This, in essence, would put the decision back into the state's hands, giving you more control over the issue. This would work to appease the people who want or don't want abortion, both, and also stand by my belief in lowering federal power.
Changing your mind at all?
I instinctively answered yes when I first considered the question. However:
The problem with your proposition is that abortion
isn't
commanded over by the legislative branch of the United States: there are, in fact, no Federal laws that I know of which make remark upon abortion. The powers which prevent the States from acting have been the Supreme Court rulings of the past, especially Roe v. Wade...
From my interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, yours is initially the more Constitutionally correct position to take. But then, we consider the right to privacy implied by the Constitution (specifically, section 1 of Amendment 14)...
The use of the 14th Amendment to defend that the States should not have the power to legislate on abortion seems weak, but the use of the inalienable Rights does not seem weak at all to me.
So, I think the answer is still no.
Aside from that, I don't know that putting power back in the States' hands really brings the power that much closer to me. I still have a Representative who I have to share with 30,000 people (give or take), which is still a
very
large number. I think it would be easier to influence those in the Federal position of (approximately 600,000 people to one) Senator, more because they are that much more prone to disturbance within their constituency.
Post by
Laihendi
Wait... how does Schumer make money from corporations surviving? You mean campaign contributions or what?
Post by
Dhazy
o'_'o
Post by
Interest
o'_'o
Walls of text hurt my eyes too.
*escapes to IRC*
Post by
MyTie
From my interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, yours is initially the more Constitutionally correct position to take. But then, we consider the right to privacy implied by the Constitution (specifically, section 1 of Amendment 14)...
The use of the 14th Amendment to defend that the States should not have the power to legislate on abortion seems weak, but the use of the inalienable Rights does not seem weak at all to me.
So, I think the answer is still no.
Here it is.
I think you are looking specifically at the text: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
So, in essence, you are saying that the federal government has a duty to protect the people from states who will take the option of abortion away, because abortion is a "privilege"?
Post by
Skyfire
Walls of text hurt my eyes too.
*escapes to IRC*
Paragraphs != WoT
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
So, in essence, you are saying that the federal government has a duty to protect the people from states who will take the option of abortion away, because abortion is a "privilege"?
That particular line, yes.
Not because abortion is a privilege, but because a person's right to him or herself without
any
government interference is a Right they have (without Due Process, of course). i.e., it shouldn't be affected by the States' opinion either.
Post by
MyTie
@Laihendi:
“They knew Schumer would support them,” said one former Moody’s executive, who asked not to be named because he still works in the industry. “He was their go-to guy,” the executive said.
While the Manhattan-based agencies were not significant campaign donors to Mr. Schumer or the Senate campaign committee, their lobbyists and many of their clients were.
At that time, revenues for the agencies were skyrocketing. The housing market was robust, and Wall Street investment firms were paying the agencies to rate various mortgage-backed securities after first advising the firms — and also collecting fees — on how to package them to get high credit ratings.
It was an obvious conflict of interest, financial experts now say. Despite their high ratings, many of those securities, based on risky loans, would prove worthless, roiling markets and threatening financial institutions worldwide.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.