Last edited:
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.
Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
- Thread starter Plante26
- Start date
- Status
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
And old Abe would never pander to whoever he was talking to.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Hey, smart guy......he was talking to the modern equivalent of a labor union. Not exactly "pandering" when you tell a bunch of union workers to make their own way instead of taking from the rich.
You're full of baseless claims, Foxton. I'd put you on ignore, but you're usually good for a daily laugh or two. Keep in mind--I'm laughing AT you, not WITH you.
Hey, smart guy......he was talking to the modern equivalent of a labor union. Not exactly "pandering" when you tell a bunch of union workers to make their own way instead of taking from the rich.
You're full of baseless claims, Foxton. I'd put you on ignore, but you're usually good for a daily laugh or two. Keep in mind--I'm laughing AT you, not WITH you.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Or his first inauguration speech where he played both sides, trying to reconcile certain demands to the south while taking a hard stand that they weren't leaving the party.
But really, a politician not changing how he acts depending on who he talks to? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
Sort of like how he strongly supported an amendment which would have made slavery protected in all slave states in the lead up to the war? (Corwin Amendment)
Or his first inauguration speech where he played both sides, trying to reconcile certain demands to the south while taking a hard stand that they weren't leaving the party.
But really, a politician not changing how he acts depending on who he talks to? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
Last edited:
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
They can do a lot of damage prior to you having that opportunity.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Nearly half of Americans paid no income tax
This is unsustainable. When a tax increase doesn't affect half of the electorate of course they will be in favor of it. That is why I feel that any tax increase should be applied to everyone (ideally Fair or Flat Tax).
Nearly half of Americans paid no income tax
This is unsustainable. When a tax increase doesn't affect half of the electorate of course they will be in favor of it. That is why I feel that any tax increase should be applied to everyone (ideally Fair or Flat Tax).
Last edited:
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
No, what's increasingly unsustainable is the federal government's continued reliance on individual income taxes to support an aging population. If you're looking for "fair" taxation, you should be looking at a VAT or national sales tax since they are generally applied to everyone, including corporate entities, and usually have few exemptions. I'm not sure about a "Flax Tax", since I doubt Flaxseed is a major driver of the economy.
No, what's increasingly unsustainable is the federal government's continued reliance on individual income taxes to support an aging population. If you're looking for "fair" taxation, you should be looking at a VAT or national sales tax since they are generally applied to everyone, including corporate entities, and usually have few exemptions. I'm not sure about a "Flax Tax", since I doubt Flaxseed is a major driver of the economy.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
No...that seems to me to be both a liberal point of view (see civil war) and one that protects Americans' rights (see freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, etc).
I was referring to UNOs point about 34 states, the Constitution and whatever the issue is this year. And for that matter a push for an amendment to block gay marriage (ie, limit Americans' rights) last time conservatives were running the show.
Yeah! Like amending the Constitution to abolish slavery! **** them conservatives!
No...that seems to me to be both a liberal point of view (see civil war) and one that protects Americans' rights (see freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, etc).
I was referring to UNOs point about 34 states, the Constitution and whatever the issue is this year. And for that matter a push for an amendment to block gay marriage (ie, limit Americans' rights) last time conservatives were running the show.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Which won't happen unless the conservatives take the non-conservative position of ignorning past precedence.
Wickard v. Filburn, as horrible of a decision as it was, has never been overruled.
For the record, I wasn't advocating an Amendment. I was merely trying to explain what I thought the other poster likely meant by "a critical mass" of states.
Which won't happen unless the conservatives take the non-conservative position of ignorning past precedence.
Wickard v. Filburn, as horrible of a decision as it was, has never been overruled.
For the record, I wasn't advocating an Amendment. I was merely trying to explain what I thought the other poster likely meant by "a critical mass" of states.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
34 States represents 2/3rds of the states, which is what would be required to call for a Constitutional Convention. Such a convention could propose amendments to the Constitution. The other option (and the only option that's been used to date) for proposing amendments is for them to be passed by a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress.
Regardless of how amendments are proposed, they would still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States to be enacted - that's the 38 state threshold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments
So, the 34 State 'critical mass' isn't wrong. However, it's a bit of a different challenge to get 34 States for a Constitutional Convention, rather than just opposed to the current HCR law.
34 States represents 2/3rds of the states, which is what would be required to call for a Constitutional Convention. Such a convention could propose amendments to the Constitution. The other option (and the only option that's been used to date) for proposing amendments is for them to be passed by a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress.
Regardless of how amendments are proposed, they would still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States to be enacted - that's the 38 state threshold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments
So, the 34 State 'critical mass' isn't wrong. However, it's a bit of a different challenge to get 34 States for a Constitutional Convention, rather than just opposed to the current HCR law.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
It would be idiocy to try to create an anti-health care amendment, when repeal is a much easier (relatively) process.
It would be idiocy to try to create an anti-health care amendment, when repeal is a much easier (relatively) process.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Yes, it is. For any real legitimacy, an Amendment would have to be broadly framed as to the question of federalism - and, as noted, that's a much different task, and a completely different ask for those 34 states to sign on to...
Yes, it is. For any real legitimacy, an Amendment would have to be broadly framed as to the question of federalism - and, as noted, that's a much different task, and a completely different ask for those 34 states to sign on to...
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
You and your numbers and your facts, and your wikipedia.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
You didn't point out the 40% that GET PAID to live here.
There will be a torrent of posts to tell you that it all makes sense but there is no way that it is in the best long-term interest of this country to have 40% making money off of other people's taxes. I'd like to see the total of that payout...how much are we paying people to live here?
You didn't point out the 40% that GET PAID to live here.
There will be a torrent of posts to tell you that it all makes sense but there is no way that it is in the best long-term interest of this country to have 40% making money off of other people's taxes. I'd like to see the total of that payout...how much are we paying people to live here?
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Dick Morris wonders if the much-celebrated "permanent Democrat majority" circle jerk might have been premature... one related fact covered elsewhere is that Americans' favorable ratings of their own representative are at an all-time low. This shift is dramatic here in MI 1, where Stupak is pondering a retirement move to Tibet.
Dick Morris wonders if the much-celebrated "permanent Democrat majority" circle jerk might have been premature... one related fact covered elsewhere is that Americans' favorable ratings of their own representative are at an all-time low. This shift is dramatic here in MI 1, where Stupak is pondering a retirement move to Tibet.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Gang
My point about 34 states was not that of a Constitutional amendment (though that is the # required), but what # of states bringing suit against the Federal Government for (they contend) overreaching its authority in enacting the Health Care Act will get the attention of the Congress and cause them to (highly unlikely) rethink their position?????
Will it take California or NY to bring the movement to the tipping point???
Gang
My point about 34 states was not that of a Constitutional amendment (though that is the # required), but what # of states bringing suit against the Federal Government for (they contend) overreaching its authority in enacting the Health Care Act will get the attention of the Congress and cause them to (highly unlikely) rethink their position?????
Will it take California or NY to bring the movement to the tipping point???
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Minor change: you need 38 states (3/4) after 2/3 of H&S for a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified.
Minor change: you need 38 states (3/4) after 2/3 of H&S for a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Look at the polls. The total would make up the majority of the Democrat's voting base.
Of course, Pirate, no one from the left will respond to your post. It's more convenient to put their heads in the sand and ignore anyone who contends that they're essentially buying votes with taxpayer money funding the numerous government handouts.
Look at the polls. The total would make up the majority of the Democrat's voting base.
Of course, Pirate, no one from the left will respond to your post. It's more convenient to put their heads in the sand and ignore anyone who contends that they're essentially buying votes with taxpayer money funding the numerous government handouts.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
Dude, its how liberals get votes... You vote for me and I'll take money from the "rich" and give it to you... What a great country
- Status