By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 232 Protections House Republicans Think You Don't Deserve

Jpcc86 on 15 December 2016
NobleTeam360 said:
Republicans are very backwards, it's quite amusing.

Its amusing until it brings certain social structures down, which seems likely to happen. 



Around the Network
mrstickball on 15 December 2016
Lafiel said:
mrstickball said:
In other words, they want you to be responsible for yourself. Sounds like a great idea.

and who takes responsibility for when climate change turns out to be real? I assure you the reps won't

btw conservatives want to regulate a whole lot of things, especially when it's about sexuality, reproduction or minorities, but as a white male you obviously don't give a shit

Who takes responsibility for killing off zero-carbon nuclear energy in the 1970s? Its not as if conservatives are the only ones that have done things to increase carbon emissions. Democrats and Jimmy Carter, not Republicans, were the ones that pushed for coal in the 1970s over the nuclear boogeyman. Even today, as the market tries to move from coal to gas, its opposed by environmentalists that are pushing for renewables-or-bust, and damn the financial and energy costs to consumers. 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

palou on 15 December 2016
mrstickball said:
kitler53 said:

i'll assume you didn't actually read any of the 232 regulations up for revoking because there is nothing in there that would lead to that conclusion.  i don't think even 1 of those regulations is applied to a citizen,.. it is applied to how government and buisiness act.

so the real statment is,

"in other words, business don't need to be responsible for anything but profiting now."

 


i'll never understand why conservatives want to push things for far in the direction of "self responsibility" anyways.  i always thought the american dream was the idea that with hard work and persistance you can success in this word.  a "merit" based evaluation.  the economy conservatives keep pushing has none of that,.. children are simply benefitiaries or victims of the status they were born into.  

sounds like a horrible place to live to me.

Have you tried running a small business in the United States to make that argument? Or been in a situation where you've tried to make a life for yourself, and the government has done more harm than good? There's a reason that conservatives push for smaller government for both the populace and business.

It is statistically much harder for a poor person to come into the upper classes in the US than Europe. There's a sound mathematical way to evaluate that, Intergeneratioanl Income ineelasticity, look it up. The higher the value, the deader the american dream.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Johnw1104 on 15 December 2016
mrstickball said:
kitler53 said:

have you been born into extreem poverty in the United States to make your argument?  Or been in a situation where your only hope for a full belly is free school lunch and food stamps or your only hope for bettering yourself is public schools?  There's a reason that liberals push for social services that so that all citizens have at least some hope of opportunity.

 

and as lafiel stated,.. conservatives would be more than happy to regulate things like definition of marriage to ensure only their very narrow view of what it means to be an "american" can have access to the protections marriage provides a family.

 

the war on drugs was and continues to be a tool for discrimination.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2016/03/top-adviser-richard-nixon-admitted-war-drugs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti-war-proteste

 

the obvious flaw in conservative thought is that the world is fair and merit based outcomes is how the populace is rewarded or punished.  it's a nice ideal that i wish were true but it isn't.

Actually, yes. I was born into poverty. I didn't go to a public school, and was homeschooled... Got a fairly good education from it.

The problem is that I've done private chairity work and helped those in need. Directly. I've found that one-size-fits-all government services typically renders worse services than liberals chime in that they're supposed to accomplish, and clamor for more services time and time again. Speaking of education - why is it that we see the most expensive public schools performing the worst in America? 

Methinks you are wasting your time.

Either way, my only real concern is with some of the environmental impacts, but this otherwise isn't a terribly big deal. This is a lesson for future presidents: rule through executive orders and your legacy will be undone the moment you leave office.



LurkerJ on 15 December 2016

Republicans Unveil Plan To Gut Social Security, Raise Retirement Age

Republicans Are Coming For Your Overtime Pay

Republican Senator Wants Trump To Undo Everything Obama Did

GOP Leader: Repeal Obamacare So More People Will Have Health Insurance

The GOP Is Trying To Kill The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Trump Is Purging The Energy Department Of Science Believers

Trump Picks Anti-Regulation Climate Denier To Lead The EPA

 

I just don't understand how anyone can defend all of that. Literally the unique good thing about Trump was his anti-immigration stand and the republicans, just like the democrats, weren't even on that boat until Trump crushed the GOP primaries. 

Fuck the American media for running after tweets and leaving out the real issues, and fuck the DNC for rigging their primaries and clapping for Hillary



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 15 December 2016

I have yet to see one right that you demand that isn't paid by another individual, group or company... so yes, none of those changes are rights or protections being removed, they are burdens being rid off.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

WolfpackN64 on 15 December 2016
mrstickball said:
kitler53 said:

i'll assume you didn't actually read any of the 232 regulations up for revoking because there is nothing in there that would lead to that conclusion.  i don't think even 1 of those regulations is applied to a citizen,.. it is applied to how government and buisiness act.

so the real statment is,

"in other words, business don't need to be responsible for anything but profiting now."

 


i'll never understand why conservatives want to push things for far in the direction of "self responsibility" anyways.  i always thought the american dream was the idea that with hard work and persistance you can success in this word.  a "merit" based evaluation.  the economy conservatives keep pushing has none of that,.. children are simply benefitiaries or victims of the status they were born into.  

sounds like a horrible place to live to me.

Have you tried running a small business in the United States to make that argument? Or been in a situation where you've tried to make a life for yourself, and the government has done more harm than good? There's a reason that conservatives push for smaller government for both the populace and business.

And they'll create an enviroment where big business will play Godzilla with small shop owners.

As government, they have responsability and they're not taking it. People not confronted or protected with/by their own government will start to question why they have it. Que Anarchism.



Player2 on 15 December 2016
kitler53 said:


Nutrition. The caucus advises Trump to undo Obama-era guidelines for school lunches ("burdensome and unworkable"; "industries can't comply with the standards") and supplements.

So that's what Make America Great Again was about? Trump should have said things more clearly, I'd supported him if I knew that jokes about fat americans were in danger.



Johnw1104 on 15 December 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Johnw1104 said:

Methinks you are wasting your time.

Either way, my only real concern is with some of the environmental impacts, but this otherwise isn't a terribly big deal. This is a lesson for future presidents: rule through executive orders and your legacy will be undone the moment you leave office.

That reminds me.  Obama issued less executive orders per year than has any president in over 100 years.

While there have been some substantial and impactful executive orders in the past (emancipation proclamation/getting off the gold standard), over the past two decades they've transitioned from being primarily mundane orders that would normally instruct departments of government into instead being a tool to circumvent congress and unilaterally dictate domestic policies.

Otherwise, he hasn't had to use the executive order as often as he has further bought in on a practice invented by US history's biggest control freak and aspiring autocrat FDR, ressurected by Clinton, and vastly expanded by Bush Jr: the regulatory czar. He has appointed more than any president before him, granted them almost limitless authority in their respective fields, and in doing so has almost eliminated the need for official "executive orders", simply governing through his subordinates.

I'm not saying he invented the practice, but he certainly doubled down on it. What we're seeing now is that such an approach to governing has no staying power, and it may soon appear as if his eight years in office never happened.



pokoko on 15 December 2016

Kind of a mixed bag.  Some of these should definitely be reviewed--actually, all such rules and programs should be reviewed periodically.  Others look like fluff designed to seem meaningful but are really just anchors.  Cutting those will help businesses without hurting anyone.  However, some of these should be left alone or, at worst, streamlined.  Especially programs that help spread technology or protect consumers from misleading product claims.  

I just hope that the pros and cons of each are considered carefully in terms of real-world impact instead of political point scoring.

mrstickball said:

Have you tried running a small business in the United States to make that argument? Or been in a situation where you've tried to make a life for yourself, and the government has done more harm than good? There's a reason that conservatives push for smaller government for both the populace and business.

I've owned and managed two successful small businesses and I found your "in other words" to be far too simplistic.  Many of them have nothing to do with "being responsible for yourself".