Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

POLL: Should The Union Peacefully Dissolve?

Would it be better to dissolve the Union?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Would it be better to dissolve the Union?

    • Yes, let's slice this +++++er up and live the way we want to live
    • No, we are better as a whole through compromise and constitutional federalism


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Absolutely. Automation, freer trade, shifting energy sources, inequity built into the system, etc. have all put enormous pressure on the middle class and below.

Andrew Yang Speech GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Davis was selected, not elected. Read a book, just one book.

so many yer mom possibilities here

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, renoskier said:

I was more focused on his first statement regarding the 10th. Don't really understand how he moves from his first sentence to executive authority in his second.

Anyway, I'm still wondering what federal law or "executive action" has negatively impacted anyone here personally.

The tenth amendment specifically defines what the federal gov is allowed to do. We ignore it because it is not taught anymore.

Executive orders should only be used in an emergency and require congress to vote on it within 30 days.

Congress giving unelected govt bureaucrats decision powers happens all the time..... is very wrong

All are examples of us stupidly voting our rights away for a few federal  trinkets.

Now we fight each other rather than fighting the cause of it all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Isn't that a "state" 

Its both...while on that...the federal govt should have zero involvement in our healthcare system to start with.   It has no authority in the constitution.

I was trying to give something specific...but in general  many unwanted regulations drive up consumer costs.

IRS taxes on small businesses have created an unholy alliance between accountants, banks and the IRS.   That one is huge for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Isn't that a "state" problem?

No, the ACA set up state level exchanges specifically. Shoulda had a provision for multiple states to be able to band together to make a mid state sized common market but political will from both parties hasn't been there since 2010 to fix anything about the ACA.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No, the ACA set up state level exchanges specifically. Shoulda had a provision for multiple states to be able to band together to make a mid state sized common market but political will from both parties hasn't been there since 2010 to fix anything about the ACA.

No, the ACA set new standards but state regulation was set by the McCarran-Furguson Act (1945).

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. The result has been a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations and the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) set new standards, but retained the strong context of state regulation combined with expanded minimum federal standards.

So, maybe @Jackrabbit was right, a Federal law was passed to give the states more rights? :shrug:

And President Trump is trying to get around this with an EO, which jackrabbit is opposed to.:facepalm:

United States map of States to allow out-of-state health insurance sales

 

But actually, Wyoming does allow Out-of Sate Insurance sales. Wyoming was the first state, in March 2010, to enact a signed law based on the free-market model but also including a multi-state compact related to federal health reform.

Phuck, I'm confused!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akkula said:

That is kinda like saying, "Well, I don't deny that pornography exists...I do deny that pornography is pervasive throughout society.  I make the assumption that most people are kind and good people."

Many people won't admit even to themselves that they like porn or that they are racist.  This is not a subject that many share with their closest friends and relatives.  But somehow...all this porn...is being watched by someone.  

I think people tell themselves, "it is justified that blacks get killed by police more because of XYZ"  when you pile that on top of all the other systematic injustices that are experienced by blacks.  You don't have to be the slavemaster with a whip in your hand to be a part of the problem.  

Right wing denialism or racism, climate change, gun violence, etc., are all problems.  The idea if you don't agree on the premise that race is a problem there is no reason to fix it...so you default to the prior racist status quo. 

FWIW, I have 0 doubt you are a white supremacist.  No denial here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Gun control advocacy is white supremacy.  @Akkula=Clan lover.

This is a fun game you created Akkula!

Any truth to the claim that the second amendment and all the gun culture was really put into place to put down slave revolts and to allow slaveholders to defend themselves against abolitionists?

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Any truth to the claim that the second amendment and all the gun culture was really put into place to put down slave revolts and to allow slaveholders to defend themselves against abolitionists?

You just want black people to be as vulnerable as possible. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NVGiant said:

I don't know what percentage. And there is truth to what you say. That denying the existence of systematic racism can be a form of enabling white supremacy. But calling everyone who disagrees with us a racist doesn't get us anywhere either. I want to convince them, not dominate them. 

What history shows you that southerners are open to being convinced?  They had to have their slaves taken out of their cold dead hands in the civil war.  They had to have federal troops overpower them to allow integration.  They didn't give up jim crow because they were convinced.....

Overpowering seems to be about the only thing they understand, historically speaking.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You just want black people to be as vulnerable as possible. 

 

 

Black people are assigned a petty drug felony during young adulthood to remove their gun and voting rights.  Black people already aren't allowed to acquire guns.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Akkula said:

Black people are assigned a petty drug felony during young adulthood to remove their gun and voting rights.  Black people already aren't allowed to acquire guns.

WOW, holy shit this an actually racist as hell comment.

Great job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...