What's new
By:
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!

ScoobyDoo said:
It's all tax dollars, Bob. If we don't start cutting somewhere we'll never get anywhere. Seems a principled individual would make a stand instead of reaching his hand out.
Click to expand...
No, actually a lot of it is borrowed money, not tax dollars.

You stepped right into that one! :p
 
Bob Gray said:
Hey, if the feds are going to blow a trillion dollars, I can understand people thinking that the money out to at least be spread around a bit (though of course a lot was directed to cronies, but that's another discussion the media avoids). If he really only advocated for two projects in his district, that sounds like small potatoes compared to the money that flowed to a lot of areas of the country. The abortion clinic example is just stupid, and fictional as much of your postings are.
Click to expand...

Looks like I hit a nerve. Glad to see you have no problem with blatant hypocrisy. You must consider Newt Gingrich to be a paragon of family values too. ;)
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Bob Gray said:
On the debate, no clear winner. Biden was feisty and aggressive and didn't have a lot of gaffes, but was consistently rude and cut in constantly (too bad the moderator didn't make an effort to cut him off as she did with Ryan). Ryan did ok, but didn't seem to be as sharp and on his game as I've seen other times. I don't expect it'll have much influence one way or another.
Click to expand...

Bob-Personally I am not a big fan of either of these two. I am glad that they are just on the ticket as opposed to running for the top spot. I would vote for neither. And I agree totally-this should not influence one way or the other and just serves for the various sides to claim points and victory. I suspect as each debate goes forward-there will be less viewers each time.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Rover said:
Looks like I hit a nerve. Glad to see you have no problem with blatant hypocrisy. You must consider Newt Gingrich to be a paragon of family values too. ;)
Click to expand...
There you go again, being snarky and then giving a wink. Not a good mix. And no, you came nowhere near a nerve. Now back to your ramblings.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Rover said:
So, when you try to whip out musty old Reagan quotes from 32 years ago, do you also put on cowboy boots and dye your hair black for full effect, or is that considered overkill?
Click to expand...

You mean that wasn't his natural hair color? Presidents actually touch up their hair? I'll have to start watching more closely.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Rover said:
So, when you try to whip out musty old Reagan quotes from 32 years ago, do you also put on cowboy boots and dye your hair black for full effect, or is that considered overkill?
Click to expand...
You must not have enjoyed Joe Biden's awkward attempt to play Lloyd Bentsen last night, eh?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Bob Gray said:
Biden was feisty and aggressive and didn't have a lot of gaffes, but was consistently rude and cut in constantly.
Click to expand...

Good thing no one was feisty, agressive, rude, and cut in constantly in the first debate...oh wait...

Granted, Ryan was nowhere near as bad as Obama was in the first debate, but I'm still not sure why it's being touted as a draw as opposed to a moderate win for Biden. Especially considering the rules established from round one.

That said, you're correct that the VP debate almost never changes anything. At most, it'll give the Dems a 4-day halt in the polls until Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

FreshFish said:
"how can he claim to be revenue neutral about cutting tax rates while also limiting deductions without identifying any one particular deduction for elimination? he 'must be' lying."
Click to expand...

reducing taxes by 20% means he must cut a similar amount of "loopholes" to make up for that 20% in lost revenue to be revenue neutral.

He has already taken the mortgage interest deduction, the carried interest rule, and the lowered capital gains taxes off the table. The remaining "loopholes" do not equal 20% of revenue.

Therefore, it must be a lie, because what's left cannot possibly get you back to revenue neutral.

duper said:
I would say for two reasons.

Number one, because whether or not murder is legal should NOT be left in the hands of the state. (This is where this issue could translate to abortion. Is this an issue on which the states should have their power to ban it taken away by the feds) By having a murder law in the US Code, you guarantee that if some state abolishes their murder law, murder will still be illegal in that state. So the question there is, does the fed have the power to over-rule the state on that issue.

Number two, because there are places in the country where no state has jurisdiction. If a murder happens in those places, the fed investigates and prosecutes.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right on number two, and completely wrong on Number one.

Again, there is no general police power for the federal government. Federal criminal statutes are specific. You have to get them in through the commerce clause, or federal lands, or something like that.

Just because there's a federal murder statute doesn't mean it applies to every murder in this country. In actuality, it applies to very few.

If a state were to abolish murder from its books, the feds would not have an inherent right to suddenly investigate all homicides in that state.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

unofan said:
reducing taxes by 20% means he must cut a similar amount of "loopholes" to make up for that 20% in lost revenue to be revenue neutral.

He has already taken the mortgage interest deduction, the carried interest rule, and the lowered capital gains taxes off the table. The remaining "loopholes" do not equal 20% of revenue.

Therefore, it must be a lie, because what's left cannot possibly get you back to revenue neutral.



You're exactly right on number two, and completely wrong on Number one.

Again, there is no general police power for the federal government. Federal criminal statutes are specific. You have to get them in through the commerce clause, or federal lands, or something like that.

Just because there's a federal murder statute doesn't mean it applies to every murder in this country. In actuality, it applies to very few.

If a state were to abolish murder from its books, the feds would not have an inherent right to suddenly investigate all homicides in that state.
Click to expand...

You kill a federal chicken inspector and you're in a world of trouble.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

unofan said:
You're exactly right on number two, and completely wrong on Number one.

Again, there is no general police power for the federal government. Federal criminal statutes are specific. You have to get them in through the commerce clause, or federal lands, or something like that.

Just because there's a federal murder statute doesn't mean it applies to every murder in this country. In actuality, it applies to very few.

If a state were to abolish murder from its books, the feds would not have an inherent right to suddenly investigate all homicides in that state.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness...

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to disagree with really simple, obviously true statements. I made no comment anywhere in any post about investigation of murder. I neither said nor implied that the federal government would take over murder investigations. I said:

- There is a federal law against murder (fact)
- Having a federal law against murder is appropriate (opinion, so neither true nor false)
- If some state went crazy and abolished its murder law, murder would still be illegal in that state due to the federal law (fact)
- There are places in the US wherein no state has jurisdiction, and so federal agents investigate murders (fact)

None of these statements is disputable as untrue. And none of them suggests that some mythical federal police force that you seem to think I'm inventing in my head is out there investigating routine homicides. I didn't say that, I didn't think it, I really don't think I implied it. However, if some state abolished the murder law, I feel fairly sure that the federal government would do SOMETHING that is not currently on the book because it is totally unnecessary. But, that has no bearing on anything I said.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

duper said:
- If some state went crazy and abolished its murder law, murder would still be illegal in that state due to the federal law (fact)...
However, if some state abolished the murder law, I feel fairly sure that the federal government would do SOMETHING that is not currently on the book because it is totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Except it can't. This is a first year law school exam question. And it's what LynahFan was trying to get at in his original post on the subject. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the ability to do that.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

unofan said:
Except it can't. This is a first year law school exam question. And it's what LynahFan was trying to get at in his original post on the subject. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the ability to do that.
Click to expand...
Bwaaaahahahaaaaaahahahaaa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top