Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: "Repeal" Amendment


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: "Repeal" Amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 6:07:40 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Obsequious? inferior?
I think you are projecting way to much , and being insulting to more than just Rule.( which I can understand as he drew first blood)
Congratulations

Snarky and selfrighteously
Lucy

You have mail.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 6:14:50 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Despite your strong desire for a domme in which to be inferior, I'm not it.  Look elsewhere. 


Your words

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Despite your strong desire for a domme in which to be inferior, I'm not it.  Look elsewhere. 


Your words,
Using his profile to insult him and other males???
how sweet
you brought it up, own it


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 6:18:06 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Obsequious? inferior?
I think you are projecting way to much , and being insulting to more than just Rule.( which I can understand as he drew first blood)
Congratulations

Snarky and selfrighteously
Lucy

You have mail.

Firm


Then dont let it get to that point, report him same as the rest of us do
despite it being in his profile it sounded like attack against Dommes and male subs
Im sure not everyone is aware that rules profile includes thos words
poor show



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 6:44:18 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Your words,
Using his profile to insult him and other males???
how sweet
you brought it up, own it



Hmmm... I don't believe I tried to "disown" it.  I merely pointed out where my inspiration was derived.

Aside from the fact that my comments were not addressed to anyone other than RML, if any other males reading consider themselves weak-willed and inferior, why would they be insulted by my comments?  And why on earth would they take umbrage at learning that I'm not in the least bit attracted to them?

For heaven's sake... 

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 7:14:07 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
maybe you should have mailed it rather than expected someone else not pick up on it.
this is ...kinda public, and a BDSM site...never know who could be reading
for heavens sake
my aplogies for hijacking the thread.
goodnight


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 7:44:37 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Can you imagine the unmitigated good that would come from this?

The western and appalachian states would band together to repeal mining safety regulations because the mining corporations really can be trusted to keep their workers safe. West Virginia and Wyoming's state legistlatures are completely independent on the issue, really.

A coaltition of "business friendly" states coming together to repeal all federal consumer protection laws would stimulate "business" and "only" harm lawyers. Just trust the state legislators paid for by GM, GE, the utility industry and the importers of cheap crap made in China they wouldn't support the repal if it was bad for the common folk.

Maybe after this passes we can start letting individual states enter into treaties and otherwise conduct their own foreign affairs.

So, you trust the Federal Government, but you don't trust any of the State governments?

Firm

That's not at all what he said.

Policies have consequences. So does the lack of policies. Problems don't vanish because the solutions aren't perfection or don't suit everyone's ideal preferences. That's simply governing. I wish there were some "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario where you could lose the Federal government and live with the consequences--you'd wake up screaming "Clarence! Take me back! I want a government!" No point in draining a swamp to create a desert.

Among these consequences are with every cut at the federal level, for years now, burdens are added to the states. Despite the mantra, federal government compared to population is smaller relatively, while state and local governments have ballooned. Unfunded mandates have been passed down as well (thank Bush for that too) in the name of "fiscal conservatism" that's only using one credit card to pay the other. And yes, he'd be wise to be wary of trusting state governments, which have created their own fiscal deficits by ignoring the need to fund their obligations in favor of short term gains and political favors (not every state fell into this trap). Or California, where voters refuse cuts but also refuse funding. That's your populist system, and it's ungovernable on its road to fiscal disaster.

I can imagine a Conservative States of America shutting off trade and learning that damn, goods are expensive, and shit, why aren't there jobs when we're making all this stuff ourselves, and crap, what are we going to do about all this poverty, not to mention the sick and dying people with no money, and oh yeah, the crumbling roads and bridges? You know, like back in the good old days. What would actually happen, though, is the CSA would get an abrupt and harsh lesson in the reality of the multinational corporation that doesn't need to pay attention to arbitrary barriers. Or that the good people of the CSA don't just automatically behave without police, master skills without teachers, or act in the public good without regulations.

For all its problems, this is the greatest country in the world. We are neither starving nor going down the tubes. Our GDP is twice that of China's. Twice! Three times the size of Japan's. Four times the size of India's. Five times the size of Germany's, and multiples of any other European country. And despite our bonehead foreign policies sometimes, we are a force for peace and safety in the world. Know why global shipping works? The U.S. Navy. Period.

Bullshit like this is crack for the indoctrinated conservative believer. Conservative leaders, incidentally, don't practice any of that--it's just the candy they feed supporters. They know the federal government is the main game, and their aim is to control it--and the funding it can control. But they need people to vote for it, and the new strategy is apparently to become the Party of Theatrical Stunts. Impractical, even ridiculously impossible, but with a hungry audience soaking up the performance, no one will point out that they have nothing to offer in the way of any workable plans. Other than plans to regain power for power's sake.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/22/2010 8:12:52 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Can you imagine the unmitigated good that would come from this?

The western and appalachian states would band together to repeal mining safety regulations because the mining corporations really can be trusted to keep their workers safe. West Virginia and Wyoming's state legistlatures are completely independent on the issue, really.

A coaltition of "business friendly" states coming together to repeal all federal consumer protection laws would stimulate "business" and "only" harm lawyers. Just trust the state legislators paid for by GM, GE, the utility industry and the importers of cheap crap made in China they wouldn't support the repal if it was bad for the common folk.

Maybe after this passes we can start letting individual states enter into treaties and otherwise conduct their own foreign affairs.



That would probably be a big improvement, the State Dept is incapable of cutting any kind of a deal with foreign countries without cutting them a check!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 1:58:14 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:


The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”


Let me see if I get this correct....

We should create, ANOTHER LAYER, of goverment, that votes on a 'provision of law or regulation' at a federal level, because we do not have an entity (*COUGH* CONGRESS *COUGH*) that normally does this? Aren't conservatives the folks who just got done telling us Americans, they dont want Big Goverment? And here it is, in the flesh, a mechanism to make goverment....BIGGER.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 6:19:39 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:


The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”


Let me see if I get this correct....

We should create, ANOTHER LAYER, of goverment, that votes on a 'provision of law or regulation' at a federal level, because we do not have an entity (*COUGH* CONGRESS *COUGH*) that normally does this? Aren't conservatives the folks who just got done telling us Americans, they dont want Big Goverment? And here it is, in the flesh, a mechanism to make goverment....BIGGER.

Quite the contrary.

All of the same exact governments and personnel are in place now, as would be under such a amendment.

The amendment only attempts to redress a basic change in the mechanisms of checks and balances that our founders put into place, ensuring that the Federal government better respects the powers of the State governments and the people of the nation.

I think that some people are also misunderstanding the likely, actual ability of States to commonly "overturn" Federal legislation, as a 2/3rds majority of States (34) would be required to do so.  A 3/4ths majority of States (38) is required for a Constitutional change, and how many successful Constititional amendments have we had over the last two hundred odd years?

But the possibility of such a rebuke would likely engender better consensus building, and more caution on the Federal branches' decision to legislate unpopular edicts.

The majority of such rebukes would likely be "unfunded mandates" and programs which have allowed a larger and larger Federal bureaucracy.  Therefore the end result would be a smaller government over time.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 6:45:24 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"The majority of such rebukes would likely be "unfunded mandates" "

I would say. Like the millions being spent across the country for new street signs.

Actually if the states had any backbone it would not be an issue. They can null the Constitution by declaring themselves a "home rule" state. Why not telling the feds to take a hike ? Because they are bigger. It's a home rule state when the little guy's ass is on the line, but when the mighty feds speak, they are silent. State legislators will go to the supreme court to assert their right to execute an innocent Man (Texas) or damnear anything else, as long as it suits them. The silliness of changing street signs apparently suits them because it moves the People's money around and they can claim complete innocence.

The fact is I don't trust any governments, federal, state or local. I don't trust them in other countries either. Until the mess is fixed, no minor changes in form will cure anything.

T

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 6:54:50 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
Not bloody likely.

This is just ike the movement to repealthe direct election of US Senators. The real reason is that less attention is paid to the election of state legislatures and therefore it is easier for the entities on the far right to get their people elected.

Mine safety is a prime example of the reality of the situation. The mine companies want to operate as cheaply as possible and that means no safety precautions. They can fairly easily control the state legislatures of states where mining is a mjaor part of the economy, West Virginia is the prime example but it is also the case in many of the mountain west states. No state where mining is major part of the economy has stricter mine safety rules than the federal rules. Despite the fact that it is fairly obvious to anyone who pays attention that mining is far more dangerous than it should be. You'd think that some state somewhere would have responded to a mine disaster with stricter regulations but it has never happened and state agencies have routinely fought the federal government when the feds implemented stricter regulations.

Quite clearly the majority of repeals would be of regulations affecting big business profitability. They are the ones with the money to fund a repeal effort in 34 state capitals. That would mean more mountain top removal mines, more air pollution, less environmental cleanup, less safe workplaces (OSHA would likely be one the first casualties) and a shift of the tax burden onto us while corps and the wealthy would pay even less.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 11/23/2010 7:28:07 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 7:11:34 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"Mine safety is a prime example of the reality of the situation"

Yes, but not the only example. The fact is big money can control almost any form of government, and does to a large extent. They didn't get money being stupid, they will adapt to almost anytthing, except one thing. Politicians who are loyal to their constituents.

Find some of them and I'll vote for them, and do whatever I can to get them in. Hell, even a dictator would be fine if not despotic and could work within something like the [intent of] the Constitution.

Also unlikely.

T

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 7:19:43 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Not bloody likely.

This is just ike the movement to repealthe direct election of US Senators. The real reason is that less attention is paid to the election of state legislatures and therefore it is easier for the entities on the far right to get their people elected.

Mine safety is a prime example of the reality of the situation. The mine companies want to operate as cheaply as possible and that means no safety precautions. They can fairly easily control the state legislatures of states where mining is a mjaor part of the economy, West Virginia is the prime example but it is also the case in many of the mountain west states. No state where mining is major part of the economy has stricter mine safety rules than the federal rules. Despite the fact that it is fairly obvious to anyone who pays attention that mining is far more dangerous than it should be. You'd think that some state somewhere would have responded to a mine disaster with stricter regulations but it has never happened and state agencies have routinely fought the federal government when the feds implemented stricter regulations.

Quite clearly the majority of repeals would be of regulations affecting big business profitability. They are the ones with the money to fund a repeal effort in 24 state capitals. That would mean more mountain top removal mines, more air pollution, less environmental cleanup, less safe workplaces (OSHA would likely be one the first casualties) and a shift of the tax burden onto us while corps and the wealthy would pay even less.


There's irony in them there hills.
So this is a move orchestrated between the Senators and the mining industry?

Evidently you think your scenario is much more likely but as Firm has pointed out..It would take a great many states to usher in such a thing. Could happen I suppose but it's just as unlikely.


I'm personally not sure how this would play out in general..I mean from what I'm seeing, the states are Fed up with being told what they can and can't do by and overreaching bigger brother. It's just a move to take back some of that power....Will they do any better at regulating themselves...Who knows..Maybe..Maybe not.

Will it possibly wind up making more red tape which "we'll" have to fight through to get something done...maybe.

Will it allow states to make changes inside their own jurisdictions and actually make changes..Quite possibly.

Personally I've seen some of the states standing up and saying NO and I'm glad they are. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.



< Message edited by Icarys -- 11/23/2010 7:21:51 AM >


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 7:30:04 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
So this is a move orchestrated between the Senators and the mining industry?

Reread what I wrote. You won't find this claim anywhere.

(in reply to Icarys)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 7:59:35 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"So this is a move orchestrated between the Senators and the mining industry? "

Why pick on the mining industry ? It's the golden rule - He who has the gold makes the rules. How about the steel and auto industries ? How about construction firms that want to build skyscrapers out of paper mache' and use speaker wire for electricity ?

Ironically that may be good for some of the less huge businesses, as the price of influence goes down. Now if tort law was something "untouchable" and one could sue in federal court without ....... hmm, the idea was that nothing is untouchable.

Damnned if you do and damnned if you don't.

T

(in reply to Icarys)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 9:25:21 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh damn!

But you do already have your submissive, so I understand.


Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no.  I find obsequious men with no backbone to be... well... repellent is probably the kindest way I can say it. 

Take heart though, there has to be some woman out there who'd be willing to put up with you.



Anyone who reads this board knows who wears the pants.

Though you might like to indulge in your fantasies it becomes pretty obvious every time you run to his rescue when he gets in over his head.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 10:14:42 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh damn!

But you do already have your submissive, so I understand.


Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no.  I find obsequious men with no backbone to be... well... repellent is probably the kindest way I can say it. 

Take heart though, there has to be some woman out there who'd be willing to put up with you.



Anyone who reads this board knows who wears the pants.

Though you might like to indulge in your fantasies it becomes pretty obvious every time you run to his rescue when he gets in over his head.

OK, enough.

If you have a personal problem with us, take it to the emails, and keep it out of the threads, or I will start reporting you to the mods for both personal attacks and thread hijacking.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 10:52:57 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
So this is a move orchestrated between the Senators and the mining industry?

Reread what I wrote. You won't find this claim anywhere.

Not outright but it did seem a likely conclusion based on what you were saying.

The Senators get more power which in return can be wielded by the mining industry being that they control through their money..it would then make the Senators a party to this unless your suggesting they are governing and being controlled by the influence of money unknowingly.

< Message edited by Icarys -- 11/23/2010 11:13:54 AM >


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 11:38:12 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

the end result would be a smaller government over time


Nonsense. The end result would be another venue for pointless theater.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: "Repeal" Amendment - 11/23/2010 11:50:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
So this is a move orchestrated between the Senators and the mining industry?

Reread what I wrote. You won't find this claim anywhere.

Not outright but it did seem a likely conclusion based on what you were saying.

The Senators get more power which in return can be wielded by the mining industry being that they control through their money..it would then make the Senators a party to this unless your suggesting they are governing and being controlled by the influence of money unknowingly.

You really do need to work on reading for comprehension.

(in reply to Icarys)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: "Repeal" Amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063