What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Articles of confederation forever!
I was thinking more along the lines of the Federalist Papers, but feel free to bring as much vitriol as you'd like into each and every conversation on subjects with which you disagree. It's a sign of maturity.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I was thinking more along the lines of the Federalist Papers, but feel free to bring as much vitriol as you'd like into each and every conversation on subjects with which you disagree. It's a sign of maturity.
I know you are but what am I?

States rights arguments, especially when it's something that pertains universally across the country, are asinine. This is not a local tax for a school or bridge project, it's states being given the power to limit a citizens control of their own body.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I know you are but what am I?

States rights arguments, especially when it's something that pertains universally across the country, are asinine. This is not a local tax for a school or bridge project, it's states being given the power to limit a citizens control of their own body.

Not a bad thought. Maybe we should not have any states. It would be great for me since that way I would not have to remember those 50 Capitals to score points on Jeopardy. I mean like who cares about Carson City, Jefferson City and Montpelier anyway?;)
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Overturning Roe v Wade would not ban abortion. It would place the matter strictly with the states, where such a matter belongs. Some states like Utah and Alabama might completely ban it, others like California and New York won't change one thing about their current laws. That's the way it should be in this country.

Too funny. What happens when a doctor in Colorado is indited for murder in the State of Utah for performing a legal procedure in his state?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I was thinking more along the lines of the Federalist Papers, but feel free to bring as much vitriol as you'd like into each and every conversation on subjects with which you disagree. It's a sign of maturity.
Come now, I would not put Foxton in even the top (bottom?) ten of people here who do that.

Don't hurl around accusations of being a Pio. That's a very special honor.

BTW, whichever way it would be decided, abortion is the last thing in the world that should be decided by the states.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I know you are but what am I?

States rights arguments, especially when it's something that pertains universally across the country, are asinine. This is not a local tax for a school or bridge project, it's states being given the power to limit a citizens control of their own body.

If you don't like it, move to another state.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Romney Lied! oops, well, not quite....


At last Wednesday's debate in Denver, Mr. Romney explained that he doesn't plan to cut taxes by $5 trillion. This is because, while his plan rolls back individual income tax rates by 20% and cuts the corporate rate to 25% from 35%, he also plans to reduce personal and corporate deductions.

The idea is that lower rates but fewer loopholes and the faster economic growth that results can generate a similar amount of tax revenue. The Republican also stated once again that his plan does not include a tax increase on the middle class.

Mr. Romney has been saying this for months, over the weekend Obama campaign spokesman Jen Psaki conceded 80% of the argument. En route to California with reporters aboard Air Force One, Ms. Psaki said that the elimination of enough deductions and loopholes could in fact cover $3.8 trillion. That becomes $4 trillion if you include fewer interest payments on less debt, which means the Obama campaign was saying as of Sunday that the Romney "tax cut" was $1 trillion, not $5 trillion [emphasis added]


Funny, the "charge" gets trumpeted, the retraction is muted:

There is no $5 trillion tax cut. But before retreating to Ms. Psaki's seemingly more reasonable $1 trillion figure, Mr. Obama should think twice.

Turns out there's trouble with that estimate too. Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen, cited by the Obama campaign as a source for the claim that the Romney plan must raise taxes on the middle-class to avoid increasing the deficit, now says that Team Obama has been misrepresenting his research. [emphasis added] In fact, his work shows that increased economic growth from a more efficient tax code and lower marginal tax rates will allow Mr. Romney to cut rates and deductions while avoiding both a rate hike on the middle class and a deficit increase. Maybe Mr. Romney's reasonable, coherent explanation for this is why he won the debate.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Too funny. What happens when a doctor in Colorado is indited for murder in the State of Utah for performing a legal procedure in his state?
In what way could the State of Utah charge a Colorado doctor for performing an act within the State of Colorado? Do you understand anything about jurisdictional boundaries? Why hasn't the MN's Attorney General ordered the arrest of liquor store operators in WI? BECAUSE THEY'RE OPERATING WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN!
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Aaah yes. More fantasy. Mythical cuts to deductions and mythical economic growth due to fixing the tax code.

When does reality kick in?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

In what way could the State of Utah charge a Colorado doctor for performing an act within the State of Colorado? Do you understand anything about jurisdictional boundaries? Why hasn't the MN's Attorney General ordered the arrest of liquor store operators in WI? BECAUSE THEY'RE OPERATING WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN!

Utah girl goes to Colorado to get an abortion. A murder has been committed to one of Utah's own. You mean to tell me their not going to indite?
 
Romney Lied! oops, well, not quite....





Funny, the "charge" gets trumpeted, the retraction is muted:

And I don't care how many bitter academics they trot out, claiming that you can pay for massive tax cuts (lets say 4T if you'd like) through efficiencies in the tax code is complete BS. We tried that before, and it always leads to massive deficits. Its basically a wimpy way out and absolves politicians from actually doing hard work. What Mittens is saying is that he's not even going to try to identify ways to pay for his upper income tax breaks. For anybody concerned about the debt that ought to be a sobering thought.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Utah girl goes to Colorado to get an abortion. A murder has been committed to one of Utah's own. You mean to tell me their not going to indite?
No, they will not indict. They have no grounds for an act committed within Colorado. A few years ago, when that MN hunter traveled to WI, shot & killed the WI hunter a few years ago, and then he went back to MN, in which state was he charged and convicted with his crimes? Why did MN not press charges when that very same thing is illegal here?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

No, they will not indict. They have no grounds for an act committed within Colorado. A few years ago, when that MN hunter traveled to WI, shot & killed the WI hunter a few years ago, and then he went back to MN, in which state was he charged and convicted with his crimes? Why did MN not press charges when that very same thing is illegal here?

So, Utah is just going to sit back and accept that they have numerous citizens going to other states to commit murder?

I don't buy it. I understand your legal premise, but having different standards for murder seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Utah girl goes to Colorado to get an abortion. A murder has been committed to one of Utah's own. You mean to tell me their not going to indite?
I don't see how, the act was legal in the state in which it was commited
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Then why did Vermont force a New York company (International Paper) to not grow their business?
Was IP doing business in Vermont like it was in the vast majority of the rest of the country? I know nothing of the issue at hand, but I'm willing to bet that VT was going to create a law which would punish companies like IP doing business within its state borders (harvesting trees, running mills, whatever), unless IP was willing to change its practices voluntarily.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

So, Utah is just going to sit back and accept that they have numerous citizens going to other states to commit murder?

I don't buy it. I understand your legal premise, but having different standards for murder seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
All states have different standards for murder now. There is no federal law against murder and no federal standards that the state laws must adhere to.

Of course, the country IS a bit of a disaster, so maybe you're onto something...
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

All states have different standards for murder now. There is no federal law against murder and no federal standards that the state laws must adhere to.

Of course, the country IS a bit of a disaster, so maybe you're onto something...

Alright. I'm convinced. Go for it. It offers another clear choice for citizens to help them pick the state they want to live in. Fine by me. Course it flies in the face of logic that we would have different state to state standards for this and not for education. But, I digress.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Alright. I'm convinced. Go for it. It offers another clear choice for citizens to help them pick the state they want to live in. Fine by me. Course it flies in the face of logic that we would have different state to state standards for this and not for education. But, I digress.
Clearly having a single national standard for eduction has worked so well for this country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top