PDA

View Full Version : Romney Cheated in Debate?



rob19
10-09-2012, 04:29 AM
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ5_qdHLV8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Someone suggested the paper was blank, this is one of the top comments in reply to it


#1. Why would he bring out a piece of paper from his pocket if it was blank. Pen and paper was already provided, it was on the podium.#2. Obama did not take anything from his pocket and put it on the podium.
#3 Obama was writing with the pen and paper that was provided by the debate committee.
#4 Yes, while you are right there is no way to prove that there was something written on that piece of paper that Romney brought, it is rather quite odd and suspicious.
#5 This is not bias, just facts.

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 05:45 AM
It was his own personal teleprompter of course thats the only way he could beat Obama.:lol2:

rob19
10-09-2012, 05:55 AM
It was his own personal teleprompter of course thats the only way he could beat Obama.:lol2:

I personally don't think it's that big a deal, but interesting nonetheless. I think they should be allowed notes, but he did seem to violate the rules.

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 06:00 AM
could have been anything.......what it for sure is is a nice attempt at rationalization for obamas piss poor effort in the first debate. mot by you, but by the media and the embarrassed dems surrounding the potus

rob19
10-09-2012, 06:13 AM
could have been anything.......what it for sure is is a nice attempt at rationalization for obamas piss poor effort in the first debate. mot by you, but by the media and the embarrassed dems surrounding the potus

Is the media reporting on this already?

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 06:16 AM
i had already seen this on several websites. cant recall if i saw it on tv media.

rob19
10-09-2012, 06:26 AM
It'll be interesting to see MSNBC's & Fox's spin on the matter.

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 06:30 AM
It'll be interesting to see MSNBC's & Fox's spin on the matter.


if i watched both side by side i get the feeling my eyes would spin out of my head like christopher lloyds character the judge in who shot roger rabbit

Buddy
10-09-2012, 07:20 AM
It is fairly common knowledge that Romney carries a small piece of paper to debates with him that simply reads "Dad". It is to remind him of the strong politician that his father was and that he is watching over him in heaven. There was no cheating or lying, he was simply far better prepared and far more knowledgeable than Obama regarding the economy. I think that you will find that Obama is not the brightest bulb in the box without a teleprompter...this is just the first candidate that has faced him that has the intelligence to expose him. I don't expect Obama to win any if the debates although he will show better because he will be better prepared.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

phins_4_ever
10-09-2012, 09:25 AM
It'll be interesting to see MSNBC's & Fox's spin on the matter.

Rachel Maddow actually had a piece on it a couple days ago. Her comment was that the Romney campaign said that it was a handkerchief. She started out like she had something fishy on her hand but went on to say that if anybody is looking for a reason for Obama's poor performance they have to look at Obama and showed a piece where Romney actually used that handkerchief during the debate.

This is a non issue.

RockyMtnPhinfan
10-09-2012, 09:31 AM
It is fairly common knowledge that Romney carries a small piece of paper to debates with him that simply reads "Dad". It is to remind him of the strong politician that his father was and that he is watching over him in heaven. There was no cheating or lying, he was simply far better prepared and far more knowledgeable than Obama regarding the economy. I think that you will find that Obama is not the brightest bulb in the box without a teleprompter...this is just the first candidate that has faced him that has the intelligence to expose him. I don't expect Obama to win any if the debates although he will show better because he will be better prepared.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Yeh Obama's lack of intelligence was exposed years ago when he was appointed head of the
Harvard Law Review, the most prestigous position of it's kind. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

You're calling him "not the brightest bulb", and you have BIG WORM on your profile? HAHAHAHA now that is some funny **** right there. C'mon hater.

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 10:07 AM
Yeh Obama's lack of intelligence was exposed years ago when he was appointed head of the
Harvard Law Review, the most prestigous position of it's kind. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

You're calling him "not the brightest bulb", and you have BIG WORM on your profile? HAHAHAHA now that is some funny **** right there. C'mon hater.



Tim was so learned, that he could name a horse in nine Languages.
So ignorant, that he bought a cow to ride on.

Benjamin Franklin

Book smarts are great, but they only carry you so far.

MoFinz
10-09-2012, 10:08 AM
:ponder:

Tunaphish429
10-09-2012, 10:19 AM
It is fairly common knowledge that Romney carries a small piece of paper to debates with him that simply reads "Dad". It is to remind him of the strong politician that his father was and that he is watching over him in heaven. There was no cheating or lying, he was simply far better prepared and far more knowledgeable than Obama regarding the economy. I think that you will find that Obama is not the brightest bulb in the box without a teleprompter...this is just the first candidate that has faced him that has the intelligence to expose him. I don't expect Obama to win any if the debates although he will show better because he will be better prepared.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


This guy is super rich..his wife spends 1000 dollars on a shirt and you expect me to believe that he carries the messege "Dad" with him on paper?? Cant he just get a rolex or something expensive and get it engraved?

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 10:28 AM
[QUOTE=RockyMtnPhinfan;1064453087]Yeh Obama's lack of intelligence was exposed years ago when he was appointed head of the
Harvard Law Review, the most prestigous position of it's kind. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?


I was just wondering as head of Harvard Law Review mean that he was the best at fabricating facts, misleading, telling non truths for ones personal benefit. I can see it though because he does show the need to go over and Review The Law

Telling the Defense industry not to give their employees 2 month notice of layoffs which happens to be the LAW.........oh and if these industries come under legal challenges the Obama Admin. will pay their legal fees.................with OUR tax money........
damn people wake the "F" up.............

RockyMtnPhinfan
10-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Yes let's limit the ability to be appointed head of a law review to "book smarts". That tells me all i need to know. Some folks want to make a guy that shipped American jobs overseas our president. Something seems fishy there to me. A guy that also wants to take away our ability to deduct home mortgage interest from our taxes, only to give this increase in revenue towards allowing tax cuts for businesses. No thanks. Some of you have been watching Fox news a little too long.

rob19
10-09-2012, 10:49 AM
I was just wondering as head of Harvard Law Review mean that he was the best at fabricating facts, misleading, telling non truths for ones personal benefit.

It goes both ways

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

Romney ain't exactly Honest-Abe.


Rachel Maddow actually had a piece on it a couple days ago. Her comment was that the Romney campaign said that it was a handkerchief. She started out like she had something fishy on her hand but went on to say that if anybody is looking for a reason for Obama's poor performance they have to look at Obama and showed a piece where Romney actually used that handkerchief during the debate.

This is a non issue.

Mystery solved.

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 11:30 AM
deleted

rob19
10-09-2012, 11:50 AM
Telling the Defense industry not to give their employees 2 month notice of layoffs which happens to be the LAW.........oh and if these industries come under legal challenges the Obama Admin. will pay their legal fees.................with OUR tax money........
damn people wake the "F" up.............

I know you'll take this as I'm defending Obama, but this is just in the interest of accuracy.


However, Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said WARN Act notices would not be necessary this year, calling it little more than political theater. He believes there will be no defense contractor layoffs due to sequestration in January.

“From a defense industry perspective, whatever [contractors] were working on before Jan.2, they will be working on after Jan. 2,” he said, since that work has “already been funded.”

Defense Department comptroller Robert Hale testified during a congressional hearing last month that no signed contracts would be canceled as a result of sequestration on Jan. 2.

Sequestration would have “a delayed effect on the defense industry,” Harrison said.

It would first hit unobligated funds, likely hitting the ordering of equipment first. That could happen within months after sequestration starts, leading to layoffs and reduced hiring later in the year. More layoffs would be expected in future years, he said.

As a result, the recent Republican uproar over the government’s potential liability for lawsuits resulting from a failure to issue WARN Act notices this year, from the guidance, is “kind of a nonissue,” he said.

Nor should the guidance leave the government open to picking up the tab on the cost of future WARN Act-associated lawsuits, as Republican lawmakers have implied. The guidance is specifically for potential Jan. 2 layoffs, he said, and the administration would likely send out revised guidance if the situation changes.

http://www.stripes.com/partisan-debate-deepens-over-layoff-notices-before-sequestration-1.192039

I guess we'll have to wait & see on that one.

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 12:14 PM
[QUOTE=rob19;1064453299]I know you'll take this as I'm defending Obama, but this is just in the interest of accuracy.



" Romney Cheated in Debate ? "


Ya love your accuracy and accountability...........
reminds me of Rosan Rosana Dana...................Put some BS statement out there as if it's truth and then say "nevermind"...and then call others Liers.
Hey keep up the non defending.....lol

rob19
10-09-2012, 12:23 PM
" Romney Cheated in Debate ? "


Ya love your accuracy and accountability...........
reminds me of Rosan Rosana Dana...................Put some BS statement out there as if it's truth and then say "nevermind"...and then call others Liers.
Hey keep up the non defending.....lol

Don't shoot the messenger; I'm just bringing it to the table for everyone to debate. Also, those are indeed false-statements made by Romney in that link. That website also has Obama's false-statements which you're free to look up; maybe you'll even report them accurately next time.

Spesh
10-09-2012, 12:38 PM
" Romney Cheated in Debate ? "


Ya love your accuracy and accountability...........
reminds me of Rosan Rosana Dana...................Put some BS statement out there as if it's truth and then say "nevermind"...and then call others Liers.
Hey keep up the non defending.....lol

He started a thread after watching something very questionable then stated "oh, thats the story, ok my bad". Believe it or not, this forum is around for clarification and discussions about stories and is not just a area where you get to call Obama a liar and rage against anyone who says otherwise.

True to form, you come in guns blazing making wild accusations then rip into the guy who proved you wrong. Its a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem and its actually against the TOS of this forum. The difference between your post and Robs is, Rob went after the argument and you went after the person who made the argument. You attempted to deflect the argument by putting him on the defensive. It wont work.

If you dont like people proving your wild accusations wrong, dont make them in the first place. Or, i can rephrase: Damn man, wake the "F" up....

rob19
10-09-2012, 01:05 PM
He hasn't used any insults & generally the pofo is more loosely modded than others so he's within the TOS, just maybe not within the confines of logical discourse.

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 01:06 PM
He started a thread after watching something very questionable then stated "oh, thats the story, ok my bad". Believe it or not, this forum is around for clarification and discussions about stories and is not just a area where you get to call Obama a liar and rage against anyone who says otherwise.

True to form, you come in guns blazing making wild accusations then rip into the guy who proved you wrong. Its a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem and its actually against the TOS of this forum. The difference between your post and Robs is, Rob went after the argument and you went after the person who made the argument. You attempted to deflect the argument by putting him on the defensive. It wont work.

If you dont like people proving your wild accusations wrong, dont make them in the first place. Or, i can rephrase: Damn man, wake the "F" up....

Hey Spesh get a clue...or not

thread title " Romney Cheated in Debate ? "
ya and non of us see direct character assasination just by putting such a BS statement out there....

Normal people without an agenda might have saked, " Did Romney Cheat in the Debate " and you have the nerve to tell me of my wild accusations....and I guess that wouldn't have worked for Rob.....

Don't worry I'm not going to rain on your parade anymore for America is actually seeing through all this BS .....Go back to sleep.....and look for more issues to

Eshlemon
10-09-2012, 01:09 PM
Lol, this was funny from comedy central...


http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/10/05/new-conspiracy-theory-mitt-romney-cheated-in-debate

New Conspiracy Theory: Mitt Romney Cheated in Debate

Conservatives this morning cried conspiracy over jobs report numbers that favored the Obama administration. Typical conservatives: petty, desperate, reactionary and childish, quick to claim the other side cheated whenever a political news cycle does not turn their way.


In completely unrelated news — have you guy's seen the shocking, explosive evidence that proves Mitt Romney cheated in the debate?! I can't believe Mitt Romney cheated in this political news cycle that did not turn my way!

The Romney campaign claims the item Mitt Romney retrieves from his pocket is a handkerchief and they almost had me fooled, until I read this irrefutable analysis from Daily Kos…

"I have never seen a man's hanky be so uniform and flat coming from a front pant's pocket. Back pocket, yes, breast pocket in a jacket, yes.. but not the front pant pocket."

The conspiracy goes all the way to the top and bottom of his pockets! You may be thinking, "How do they know so much about how handkerchiefs come out of back pockets?" This is Daily Kos we're talking about. All of their writers are certified handkerchiefs-coming-out-of-pant-pockets experts.

Need more circumstantial evidence? CBS Boston's Bill Buck explains…

After the Romney and Obama families chat post-debate the President walks off stage, leaving his notes behind for an aide, no doubt.

But not so for Romney. The Presidential challenger goes back to his lectern to retrieve his items. It is clear that the only thing that Romney takes is paper. Not a handkerchief. Not a white flag. Nothing but paper.

Mitt Romney was so sneaky, he even brought an actual handkerchief with him and used it during the debate. We assume he then cleverly hid it before shuffling his papers, just to make a local CBS affiliate opinion columnist look foolish.

Never has a hanky been used so treacherously. You can even see watch the clip from c-span here.

This all raises the question, what else did Mitt Romney have in his pocket? Some loose change? Maybe someone should make an amatuerish documentary about it called Loose Change and put it online.

rob19
10-09-2012, 01:12 PM
Hey Spesh get a clue...or not

thread title " Romney Cheated in Debate ? "
ya and non of us see direct character assasination just by putting such a BS statement out there....

That's a question not a statement.


Normal people without an agenda might have saked, " Did Romney Cheat in the Debate "

That's basically what I asked. The use of a question mark implies I'm asking a question, not making a declarative statement.


and you have the nerve to tell me of my wild accusations....and I guess thats wouldn't have worked for Rob.....

Well, they were wrong. That's why I told you.

Locke
10-09-2012, 01:13 PM
Meh. True or not, it doesn't excuse Obama's piss poor performance. The man expected to walk in and take the debate without breaking a sweat. Doubt he'll make that mistake again...

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 01:20 PM
That's basically what I asked. The use of a question mark implies I'm asking a question, not making a declarative statement.


OK then i guess in that respect this works for you:

Rob is an Idiot ?

rob19
10-09-2012, 01:27 PM
OK then i guess in that respect this works for you:

Rob is an Idiot ?

Yes, that is indeed a question. Any other grammatical quandaries I can aide you with my dear friend?

Spesh
10-09-2012, 01:29 PM
Hey Spesh get a clue...or not

thread title " Romney Cheated in Debate ? "
ya and non of us see direct character assasination just by putting such a BS statement out there....

Normal people without an agenda might have saked, " Did Romney Cheat in the Debate " and you have the nerve to tell me of my wild accusations....and I guess that wouldn't have worked for Rob.....

Don't worry I'm not going to rain on your parade anymore for America is actually seeing through all this BS .....Go back to sleep.....and look for more issues to

I noticed a question mark there. Looks like a question to me. And even if you ignore the question mark, your taking a potential grammatical error as character assassination. Yet you come out with accusations that "certain candidates" fabricate facts.

Gotta give credit where its due, you have to victim routine down. Not everything is a conspiracy to discredit Romney, he does that well enough on his own. If you have a rebuttal against Robs argument, you should have stated why you felt the link Rob posted was false instead of declaring "CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!!!!". And even if you feel the need to do so, i would strongly recommend not reminding people of the word "agenda".

Locke
10-09-2012, 01:30 PM
I love when these Republican loud mouths show up, act belligerent, get called out on their bullsh*t, then start acting like they are in middle school again. It's like clockwork, and it blows my mind how few lefties show up and do this here. That isn't even being partisan, it's just numbers...

Spesh
10-09-2012, 01:34 PM
He hasn't used any insults & generally the pofo is more loosely modded than others so he's within the TOS, just maybe not within the confines of logical discourse.

Fair enough.

Didnt mean to suggest he had insulted you, just that he called into question your accountability instead of simply disagreeing with what you wrote. I would hope logical fallacies, such as what i discussed, would be more frowned upon in here, but i suppose that they inevitably come up more often then other sections of the forum.

rob19
10-09-2012, 01:38 PM
Fair enough.

Didnt mean to suggest he had insulted you, just that he called into question your accountability instead of simply disagreeing with what you wrote. I would hope logical fallacies, such as what i discussed, would be more frowned upon in here, but i suppose that they inevitably come up more often then other sections of the forum.

I knew what you meant, I just wanted to clarify for Vinny.

cuzinvinny
10-09-2012, 01:53 PM
Yes, that is indeed a question. Any other grammatical quandaries I can aide you with my dear friend?

Na....I think that about says it all........................but thanks

phins_4_ever
10-09-2012, 02:32 PM
I love when these Republican loud mouths show up, act belligerent, get called out on their bullsh*t, then start acting like they are in middle school again. It's like clockwork, and it blows my mind how few lefties show up and do this here. That isn't even being partisan, it's just numbers...

Like **** roaches coming out at night. But once you turn the light on (bring facts) they scatter and run and hide.

:chuckle:

phins_4_ever
10-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Yes, that is indeed a question. Any other grammatical quandaries I can aide you with my dear friend?

Quickest Boom! Roasted! in PoFo history.
:lol:

Buddy
10-09-2012, 06:29 PM
Yeh Obama's lack of intelligence was exposed years ago when he was appointed head of the
Harvard Law Review, the most prestigous position of it's kind. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

You're calling him "not the brightest bulb", and you have BIG WORM on your profile? HAHAHAHA now that is some funny **** right there. C'mon hater.

You will see that i referred to his knowledge of the economy, not his communications skills. Obama is a brilliant speaker and is supremely persuasive. However, he has given no indication in his body of political work that he has any true understanding of the underlying material. He is a very well trained lawyer and orator, however this jury isn't buying his BS any longer.

Don't judge the man by his avatar...I'm an MBA educated and very well read red neck who happens to have very eclectic taste in movies. With that being said, it is my opinion that Obama has surpassed Carter as the very worst president the US had ever had. GWB was bad but not even in the same league as Obama.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Buddy
10-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Yes let's limit the ability to be appointed head of a law review to "book smarts". That tells me all i need to know. Some folks want to make a guy that shipped American jobs overseas our president. Something seems fishy there to me. A guy that also wants to take away our ability to deduct home mortgage interest from our taxes, only to give this increase in revenue towards allowing tax cuts for businesses. No thanks. Some of you have been watching Fox news a little too long.

Truthfully, have you ever run a business? Do you have any clue how the economy or businesses actually work?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Locke
10-09-2012, 06:38 PM
I feel like people are underestimating how difficult it is to get into any Ivy League school, nevermind Harvard. This isn't something where you just show up, smile for an interview, then get admitted. It is the hands down most prestigious university in the United States. It isn't like Obama came from some well-known and powerful family and had some strings pulled for him. This is a man that got admitted on his own hard work. I can't even begin to describe how difficult that is.

You can rail on Obama for any number of reasons, but intelligence is not one of them. He is head-and-shoulders smarter than anyone posting on this forum, and probably the same with most of his peers in Washington. To say otherwise is being partisan. Beyond being partisan, it's being ridiculously ignorant. I seriously can't believe anyone is going to sit here and try to minimize this. It blows my damn mind...

Buddy
10-09-2012, 08:52 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but i have no illusions that Obama isn't extremely intelligent. However, there are thousands of people who graduate with Ivy League degrees (including GWB and a lot of other presidents and candidates) every year. That does not in any way guarantee that they are uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. That doesn't even guarantee that they have a working knowledge of the political process, economics, trade, foreign relations or social issues. There are some brilliant people in the classroom who are idiots in the real world. Obama is clearly an amazing speaker but he doesn't appear to be an amazing thinker. Thus the serious drop off when he speaks from the head/heart/hip and not from prepared materials. Add i have said, he really doesn't understand what is going on and neither do most of the people who still want him in office. If he were not cool/popular/en vogue, people would be calling for his head. His job performance has been abysmal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Spesh
10-09-2012, 09:34 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but i have no illusions that Obama isn't extremely intelligent. However, there are thousands of people who graduate with Ivy League degrees (including GWB and a lot of other presidents and candidates) every year. That does not in any way guarantee that they are uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. That doesn't even guarantee that they have a working knowledge of the political process, economics, trade, foreign relations or social issues. There are some brilliant people in the classroom who are idiots in the real world. Obama is clearly an amazing speaker but he doesn't appear to be an amazing thinker. Thus the serious drop off when he speaks from the head/heart/hip and not from prepared materials. Add i have said, he really doesn't understand what is going on and neither do most of the people who still want him in office. If he were not cool/popular/en vogue, people would be calling for his head. His job performance has been abysmal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I dont think theres a single sentence in there that couldnt also be attributed to Romney. Especially the speaking from the heart/head/hip thing.

Last i checked, there wasnt some clear black and white solution to fixing economies. There are many different theories with many different results. It isnt like one side has a 100% foul proof solution and the other side is just stupid for not implementing it. If there was, the economy wouldnt have tanked under a Republican.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 12:35 AM
I dont think theres a single sentence in there that couldnt also be attributed to Romney. Especially the speaking from the heart/head/hip thing.

Last i checked, there wasnt some clear black and white solution to fixing economies. There are many different theories with many different results. It isnt like one side has a 100% foul proof solution and the other side is just stupid for not implementing it. If there was, the economy wouldnt have tanked under a Republican.

I can come up with a lot of things about Romney that i am not thrilled about but his knowledge and mastery of business and the economy are some things that he is definitely very solid on. Additionally, his ability to speak off the cuff has proven to be very solid as well. He is not as good as Obama at prepared speeches but he is far better in debates and town hall situations.

With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Spesh
10-10-2012, 01:14 AM
I can come up with a lot of things about Romney that i am not thrilled about but his knowledge and mastery of business and the economy are some things that he is definitely very solid on. Additionally, his ability to speak off the cuff has proven to be very solid as well. He is not as good as Obama at prepared speeches but he is far better in debates and town hall situations.

With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ill remember that the next time he makes a birther joke, reveals secret meetings with foreign intelligence agencies, tries to take credit for the auto bailout, rips 47% of the American population, and insults Olympic preparations. My personal favorite was Romney suggesting that Obama would remove God from coins, where that came from is beyond me but i hope to god it wasnt a planned remark.

Ah, so its Clinton's fault. Gotcha. Funny how if Bush is mentioned Republicans flip out and demand you stop blaming Bush, but if they are reminded the economy crashed under a Republican President...well, that was Clinton. Again, there is no hard and fast rule to fixing a broken economy. There is a history of deregulation leading to economic disaster. There is a history of over regulating leading to economic stagnation. In our current political atmosphere every problem is blown up and every solution is simplified. If the solution to the problem could be fixed in 8 words(your words), it would have done so already. Or better yet, Romney would have proven his worth by telling us exactly how he was going to fix it. Instead, he insists we trust him. Sadly for him, he seems unaware that people have the capacity to remember 4 years ago and recall his solutions during his last election try: bailouts and stimulus. Leave it alone!.....?

rob19
10-10-2012, 02:46 AM
With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!



Deregulation is basically what you're advocating, & a case could be made that deregulation of the banks is what caused the housing collapse in the first place, & with Romney's top 6 campaign contributors all being banks, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on the matter.


By now, the narrative of the subprime mortgage crisis is well-documented: Risky loans were doled out to unqualified buyers, then those loans were packaged into derivative products and sold to other banks. Now that the dust has settled from the fall of that house of cards, it's time to point fingers.

Today, a federal commission laid the blame for the 2008 housing crisis largely at the feet of the two Fed chairmen, Alan Greenspan and his successor Ben Bernanke, for allowing deregulation to fuel a massive trade in bad mortgages.

The New York Times reports:

"The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.

It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank,Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.""

The commission provided several other examples of how authorities' "see-no-evil" approach led to risky decisions by banks.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”


http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/commission-report-blames-deregulation-housing-crash

rob19
10-10-2012, 03:14 AM
Allow me to share a clip from the Jon Stewart v. O'Reilly debate about the flip side of the Free-Market; the collapse.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGGBknXZoH4

"In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government."

'The notion that banks privatize profits and socialize losses dates at least to the 19th century, as in this 1834 quote of Andrew Jackson:

"I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves."

—Andrew Jackson, 1834'

Buddy
10-10-2012, 12:01 PM
Ill remember that the next time he makes a birther joke, reveals secret meetings with foreign intelligence agencies, tries to take credit for the auto bailout, rips 47% of the American population, and insults Olympic preparations. My personal favorite was Romney suggesting that Obama would remove God from coins, where that came from is beyond me but i hope to god it wasnt a planned remark.

Ah, so its Clinton's fault. Gotcha. Funny how if Bush is mentioned Republicans flip out and demand you stop blaming Bush, but if they are reminded the economy crashed under a Republican President...well, that was Clinton. Again, there is no hard and fast rule to fixing a broken economy. There is a history of deregulation leading to economic disaster. There is a history of over regulating leading to economic stagnation. In our current political atmosphere every problem is blown up and every solution is simplified. If the solution to the problem could be fixed in 8 words(your words), it would have done so already. Or better yet, Romney would have proven his worth by telling us exactly how he was going to fix it. Instead, he insists we trust him. Sadly for him, he seems unaware that people have the capacity to remember 4 years ago and recall his solutions during his last election try: bailouts and stimulus. Leave it alone!.....?

I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

phins_4_ever
10-10-2012, 12:27 PM
I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

There is no natural balance of capitalism. The natural balance if there is one is: profits stay private. For everything else there is a government handout.

You are on a forum of an NFL team. How do you think Stadiums get build? The last 100% privately financed and remodeled stadium is our very own. When an owner wants a new stadium he goes for government money (local) first. If it doesn't work out he moves the team to a city who gives him the most money. Almost every business had government funding at one time or another. It doesn't matter of it is tax breaks, small business loans, research investment etc.

The nature of capitalism is: give me public funds but don't interfere and leave your hands of my profits. I come back when I go bankrupt.

The establishment of greed is the only natural in capitalism. In the past it was not as wide spread. In the last 10-15 years it has increased dramatically.

Romney is a poster child of greed. His business life was liquidation for profit. But not for profit of the companies they purchased but for their own profit regardless of the good of the 'asset'. You do not require a Masters in Business to sell off assets and pocket the money. It is more a question of business ethics and business morals. Some have different morals. They can live and sleep pocketing money knowing they just got rid of a couple thousand jobs. I couldn't.

Romney is a "fantastic" man who has mastered the "I take government money and then bitch about government being involved". Look no further than his record on the Olympics and his governorship in MA.
In addition to that he also uses offshore banks and companies to avoid taxable income. That is in my opinion a no-no.

Romney represents essentially everything that is wrong in capitalism.

The only other natural you have in capitalism you have is that the government has to step in where private business fails. It has always been that way. Capitalism has never pulled itself out of a recession like we recently had or any depression. When you lay off millions of people private business loses its consumer base and the demand is decreasing to a point where many more business have to close doors. Capitalism can not stop that domino effect. How could they if they lose their customers?

So if you talk about the nature of capitalism it is very clear: keep your hands of my profit and be ready and hand me that government money when I need it.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 12:49 PM
Deregulation is basically what you're advocating, & a case could be made that deregulation of the banks is what caused the housing collapse in the first place, & with Romney's top 6 campaign contributors all being banks, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on the matter.



http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/commission-report-blames-deregulation-housing-crash

Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states. I am not advocating anarchy but rather a simple set of parameters and rules for businesses to operate under. Because much of the regulation we have was enacted as a response to an acute situation, it ends up having very unintended long-term effects. Consequently, I think we need to wipe about 1/2 of the regulation and branches of the Federal Government (FG) out and let the market decide what is needed and what is not. The market will naturally have booms and busts, prosperity and recession...the government does not need to get involved on either end.

You are also correct that deregulation of the banks allowed for the housing collapse, however you also must recognize why that deregulation occurred (in order to increase home ownership among low-income and minority groups) and who initiated and enacted the deregulation (The Clinton Administration). The deregulation itself did not cause the bubble and collapse, it was initiating the deregulation to achieve higher home ownership then guaranteeing the loans through Fannie and Freddie and allowing Fannie and Freddie to package the loans into mortgage backed securities and the subsequent derivatives of those mortgage backed securities. All of the politicians/Bureaucrats along the way are to blame...Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, James Johnson (Fannie), and a host of other players on both sides of the isle that either directly influenced what happened or stood by and watched it happen. Then, adding horrible insult to injury, the FG tries to put out the fires of their own making with gasoline by trying to bail these banks and the auto industry out (Bush and Obama Administrations are both guilty of this...equal blame from me!) with taxpayer money.

The banks did what banks do...they assessed the prevailing winds of the economy and made money off of it. When the FG agreed to guarantee mortgage loans that clearly never should be issued in the first place, they signed the death warrant for the US economy. Clinton and his cronies were long gone before the crap hit the fan and Bush nearly made it out of the woods before the bottom fell out. Obama definitely inherited a mess that I do not blame him with the mess he walked into but he has done exactly the wrong things to fix it...he took a bad situation and made it much, much worse. This is evidenced in the stagnant economy, ridiculous debt, and insane burden of regulation facing

Locke
10-10-2012, 12:50 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but i have no illusions that Obama isn't extremely intelligent. However, there are thousands of people who graduate with Ivy League degrees (including GWB and a lot of other presidents and candidates) every year. That does not in any way guarantee that they are uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. That doesn't even guarantee that they have a working knowledge of the political process, economics, trade, foreign relations or social issues. There are some brilliant people in the classroom who are idiots in the real world. Obama is clearly an amazing speaker but he doesn't appear to be an amazing thinker. Thus the serious drop off when he speaks from the head/heart/hip and not from prepared materials. Add i have said, he really doesn't understand what is going on and neither do most of the people who still want him in office. If he were not cool/popular/en vogue, people would be calling for his head. His job performance has been abysmal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

GWB got admitted due to coming from a prestigious family. I'd bet money on that. Most Politicians inherit their fortune and Political Capitol from their parents, which implies strong family connections. As much as it makes me angry, having connections is more important that intelligence when it comes to getting admitted to most of these Universities. Obama is different in that he didn't have any of those connections.

Seeing how Obama is a self-made man, I don't see how you could even begin to believe he is an "idiot in the real world". That's reserved for people who ride Daddy's coattail through life and never learn how to stand on their own 2 feet. Someone who comes from poverty to earn a way into Harvard University, and eventually into the highest office in the U.S., is not an "idiot in the real world".

Again, there are dozens of things you can blast Obama for, most of which I would probably agree with you on. However, trying to paint him as unintelligent or not street smart is ridiculous. That is partisan election year propaganda...

Spesh
10-10-2012, 01:01 PM
I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

Its your right to stick to your point of view. I personally havent seen Obama fumble as badly as Romney does in public. If he had, Republicans wouldnt have had to dig up videos(some heavily edited) from 5 and 14 years ago to bash him. The Republican national convention ran their entire events on the premise of "we built that!"....another heavily edited Obama quote. Regardless, by all means its your choice to stick to your belief that Obama has had more gaffees.

Others have picked up the torch to argue about "government intervention" and "the natural balance of economics". My point is the same as its always been: there are many different philosophies to ecnonomics that have a wide range of results. No hard and fast rule to fix everything. The "always keep the government out" philosophy hasnt worked. Didnt work before the collapse(though your now saying Clinton administration forced involvement) and it didnt work before the great depression.

I will point out two things. 1) Bush's political career was basically over after 2004. He didnt have to worry about re-election. He wasnt going to run for another office. If your assertion, that he knew what was about to happen, is true, he would have taken steps to correct it so he wouldnt have to be linked to the worst economic crisis in decades. Bush was a big believer in the "natural balance" and it backfired on him.
2) Romney supported the measures you equate to dumping gasoline on the fire, and hasnt told us how his current policies will be different then Obama's current ones. Mitt Romney is certainly not a "natural balance" candidate.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 01:09 PM
There is no natural balance of capitalism. The natural balance if there is one is: profits stay private. For everything else there is a government handout.

I am a bit of a purist, I agree with profits staying private but abhor goverment handouts to anyone...businesses and individuals alike. I agree with tax breaks as incentives to locate businesses to a given area but I totally disagree with most anything more than that. Selling municipal bonds for a football stadium has to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard of and I have no idea why anyone in office might think this would be a good idea. However, rich people get rich and stay rich by having the ability to evaluate the environment in which they are operating and doing what needs to be done to maximize their profits. Bain Capital and Romney didn't do anything immoral or illegal, they just profited from the environment in which they operate. Who in their right mind would voluntarily maximize their own tax burden or losses? Romney's group didn't acquire profitable companies that were running efficiently so that they could gut them and sell off the pieces. They bought companies at a discount because they were failing and retooled them to be profitable. Most of the time, that involves staff changes or relocation. Nevertheless, a reduced staff or relocated staff is far more beneficial than a company run into the ground and bankrupt that apparently now gets to be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 01:17 PM
I will point out two things. 1) Bush's political career was basically over after 2004. He didnt have to worry about re-election. He wasnt going to run for another office. If your assertion, that he knew what was about to happen, is true, he would have taken steps to correct it so he wouldnt have to be linked to the worst economic crisis in decades. Bush was a big believer in the "natural balance" and it backfired on him.
2) Romney supported the measures you equate to dumping gasoline on the fire, and hasnt told us how his current policies will be different then Obama's current ones. Mitt Romney is certainly not a "natural balance" candidate.

I agree with both of statements and have a problem with Bush and Romney for their actions. However, they are both far closer to my beliefs than is Obama or Clinton. Romney agreed with someone's dumb decision and is certainly not my ideal candidate but I feel that he will make far fewer dumb decisions in the future than Obama. I would like to vote for someone far more fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama but I don't have a viable alternative at this time.

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 01:42 PM
Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states.

You want the states to regulate interstate commerce?

rob19
10-10-2012, 01:42 PM
Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states. I am not advocating anarchy but rather a simple set of parameters and rules for businesses to operate under. Because much of the regulation we have was enacted as a response to an acute situation, it ends up having very unintended long-term effects. Consequently, I think we need to wipe about 1/2 of the regulation and branches of the Federal Government (FG) out and let the market decide what is needed and what is not. The market will naturally have booms and busts, prosperity and recession...the government does not need to get involved on either end.

You are also correct that deregulation of the banks allowed for the housing collapse, however you also must recognize why that deregulation occurred (in order to increase home ownership among low-income and minority groups) and who initiated and enacted the deregulation (The Clinton Administration). The deregulation itself did not cause the bubble and collapse, it was initiating the deregulation to achieve higher home ownership then guaranteeing the loans through Fannie and Freddie and allowing Fannie and Freddie to package the loans into mortgage backed securities and the subsequent derivatives of those mortgage backed securities. All of the politicians/Bureaucrats along the way are to blame...Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, James Johnson (Fannie), and a host of other players on both sides of the isle that either directly influenced what happened or stood by and watched it happen. Then, adding horrible insult to injury, the FG tries to put out the fires of their own making with gasoline by trying to bail these banks and the auto industry out (Bush and Obama Administrations are both guilty of this...equal blame from me!) with taxpayer money.

The banks did what banks do...they assessed the prevailing winds of the economy and made money off of it. When the FG agreed to guarantee mortgage loans that clearly never should be issued in the first place, they signed the death warrant for the US economy. Clinton and his cronies were long gone before the crap hit the fan and Bush nearly made it out of the woods before the bottom fell out. Obama definitely inherited a mess that I do not blame him with the mess he walked into but he has done exactly the wrong things to fix it...he took a bad situation and made it much, much worse. This is evidenced in the stagnant economy, ridiculous debt, and insane burden of regulation facing

I'm as unhappy as anybody that we bailed out the fatcats on Wallstreet, but what would you propose we do? Let the banks go bankrupt & have everyone lose their money? Have countless businesses (both small & large) who fiance with those banks go out of business? The reality is we just might have had to bail them out. So if we're forced to 'foot the bill' for the bankers when they collapse, wouldn't you advocate making regulations to ensure that that doesn't happen again? Now, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially are you advocating we just 'trust them' to not do the same type of things that started the whole collapse to begin with? I'm all for smaller government, I just don't know you can trust everyone to operate under ethical means.

Spesh
10-10-2012, 01:47 PM
I agree with both of statements and have a problem with Bush and Romney for their actions. However, they are both far closer to my beliefs than is Obama or Clinton. Romney agreed with someone's dumb decision and is certainly not my ideal candidate but I feel that he will make far fewer dumb decisions in the future than Obama. I would like to vote for someone far more fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama but I don't have a viable alternative at this time.

Thats fair. Im not being sarcastic when i say that. We get alot of people on here who declare Romney is going to fix everything or is the most conservative man on the face of the planet. This post is probably the most honest opinion ive seen in the last year about why to vote for Romney.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 05:36 PM
You want the states to regulate interstate commerce?

No, but I do want the least amount of regulation possible to encourage as much interstate commerce possible. Like I said earlier, there is a role for the Federal Government but it is far, far less than what we have today. That is one of the things that sets the US apart is the rights of the states and decentralization of power. We are moving toward a very centralized power and I detest the thought of it.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm as unhappy as anybody that we bailed out the fatcats on Wallstreet, but what would you propose we do? Let the banks go bankrupt & have everyone lose their money? Have countless businesses (both small & large) who fiance with those banks go out of business? The reality is we just might have had to bail them out. So if we're forced to 'foot the bill' for the bankers when they collapse, wouldn't you advocate making regulations to ensure that that doesn't happen again? Now, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially are you advocating we just 'trust them' to not do the same type of things that started the whole collapse to begin with? I'm all for smaller government, I just don't know you can trust everyone to operate under ethical means.

I know that most people are uncomfortable with the idea but yeah, I would have let the banks, GM, and Chrysler hit the ground and shatter. Many of the banks/companies involved would not have failed and they would have been far more cautious in the future in their business ventures. As it stands, the banks and big industry as a whole do not fear failure because Uncle Sam will jump in and throw cash at them. So, they can be wholly irresponsible with regards to risk because they are guaranteed not to fail. Like I said, the economy's death warrant was signed when the mortgage standards were forcibly lowered and the resulting loans were ultimately guaranteed by congress and paid for by the US taxpayers.

Once the crap hit the fan, everyone pointed fingers at each other...yes, the same ones on both sides of the isle who had beat their chests about the record levels of home ownership and particularly the level of home ownership among blacks and other minorities. Then, the coup de gras...in the government's feeble attempts to placate the people who demanded "Something be done!", they have fortified the institutions that they were supposed to be harnessing and reprimanding. Dodd-Frank has served no other real purpose than to eliminate much of the competition that the big banks face in local and regional banks as they can not afford to comply with the new regulations.

So, the government took a functional and strong economy during the Clinton years and "tweaked" it to pander to a demographic. In doing this, they ignited a furious economic bubble that brought unimaginable wealth and prosperity for a little while. The party didn't last long though and most of the wealth turned out to be bad debt. The bad debt was then transferred to the taxpayers as was the burden of the people who lost their jobs in the wake of the fiasco. Like I have said all along, keep the government's hands off of the economy and control their spending and we won't likely find ourselves in the disaster that we are in.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 06:19 PM
Thats fair. Im not being sarcastic when i say that. We get alot of people on here who declare Romney is going to fix everything or is the most conservative man on the face of the planet. This post is probably the most honest opinion ive seen in the last year about why to vote for Romney.

I really appreciate that Spesh, I really do. I am not always right and Lord knows that politicians lie every time their mouths move so all we can do is align ourselves with whomever fits our criteria the closest and hope for the best. The scary part is that despite my fiscal conservatism, I am actually quite socially liberal. I truly believe in personal choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility - we need a new party...the MYOB party. If something does not impose on anyone else, I think it should be legal. What you do in your home with your money and your time is up to you as long as you stay out of my business. That is why I so strongly support state's rights, municipal rights, and personal rights - delegate to the lowest possible level. Theoretically, this would allow each level to be much more effective as they could focus on a much narrower spectrum of responsibilities.

Romney is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He is conservative by Massachusetts standards but certainly not by rural South Texas standards. I do think he is a very good businessman and has a very strong grasp of the economy that very few people could equal. So, I will cast my vote for him and hope he can right the ship. You, my friend, will have to choose your own course. Hopefully, I have given you something to think about anyway. That is why I enjoy reading, debating, and discussing politics, religion, the economy and such because I can learn and make decisions with the greatest amount of information possible.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 06:51 PM
GWB got admitted due to coming from a prestigious family. I'd bet money on that. Most Politicians inherit their fortune and Political Capitol from their parents, which implies strong family connections. As much as it makes me angry, having connections is more important that intelligence when it comes to getting admitted to most of these Universities. Obama is different in that he didn't have any of those connections.

Seeing how Obama is a self-made man, I don't see how you could even begin to believe he is an "idiot in the real world". That's reserved for people who ride Daddy's coattail through life and never learn how to stand on their own 2 feet. Someone who comes from poverty to earn a way into Harvard University, and eventually into the highest office in the U.S., is not an "idiot in the real world".

Again, there are dozens of things you can blast Obama for, most of which I would probably agree with you on. However, trying to paint him as unintelligent or not street smart is ridiculous. That is partisan election year propaganda...

I would do a little more research before I stated that Obama is a self-made man. He has been successful, too successful in fact. How does one go from a nobody to president of the US in record time with no tangible accomplishments other than being able to speak eloquently? How does one get a birth certificate sealed and school records sealed? If everything is legitimate, why all the secrecy? I know that most all politicians lie and hide stuff but this is just odd. He also has had some very powerful mentors and supporters from a very early age. He may not have come from money and power but he has been surrounded by it for quite a while. I don't know what the actual facts are regarding his education or meteoric rise to super-stardom but I can tell you that it does appear he had a whole lot of help along the way.

Locke
10-10-2012, 06:59 PM
I would do a little more research before I stated that Obama is a self-made man. He has been successful, too successful in fact. How does one go from a nobody to president of the US in record time with no tangible accomplishments other than being able to speak eloquently? How does one get a birth certificate sealed and school records sealed? If everything is legitimate, why all the secrecy? I know that most all politicians lie and hide stuff but this is just odd. He also has had some very powerful mentors and supporters from a very early age. He may not have come from money and power but he has been surrounded by it for quite a while. I don't know what the actual facts are regarding his education or meteoric rise to super-stardom but I can tell you that it does appear he had a whole lot of help along the way.

The definition of a self-made man is starting from nothing and ending with everything you want. How does Obama not fit that description...?

Buddy
10-10-2012, 07:17 PM
The definition of a self-made man is starting from nothing and ending with everything you want. How does Obama not fit that description...?

That is not my definition but to each his own. He definitely has a knack for being in the right place at the right time and capitalizing on the situation. I still think he is an awful president that never should have been nominated much less elected but I give him kudos for being Mr.Right Now when Mr. Right wasn't available. I assure you though that the man has had some very serious support along the way that bears no resemblance to "grass roots".

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 07:52 PM
No, but I do want the least amount of regulation possible to encourage as much interstate commerce possible. Like I said earlier, there is a role for the Federal Government but it is far, far less than what we have today. That is one of the things that sets the US apart is the rights of the states and decentralization of power. We are moving toward a very centralized power and I detest the thought of it.

A lack of regulation can just as easily serve as an impediment to interstate trade. It's the chief reason why the Articles of Confederation had to be abolished. The states were starting turf wars with each other over trade and the federal government had little power to regulate.

I honestly don't think that decentralization and states rights is what sets the US apart. Europe, even now, is very decentralized and each country has great sway over what happens within their borders. What does that lead to? Disorganization, disunity, waste, corruption, petty squabbles over nothing. They can't get together and decide what to do with Greece. They argue every time sanctions against this country or that are proposed in the UN because one country or another will have a trade agreement with the country to be sanctioned. It's a cluster****.

Another good example is modern day India, where the central government is essentially powerless and all the power rests with the provinces. As a result, their infrastructure is a joke -- the traffic in India is among the worst in the world -- and there's no leadership on a federal level to mediate disputes or prosecute abuses and corruption by businesses.

What sets the US apart is a balance between state power and federal power. The superceding power of the federal government is both wise and necessary to prevent regional squabbling and to ensure the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be challenged by local mandate. But it is also wise that certain tasks are left to the states, where the proximity to variables can help produce the best results.

This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 08:37 PM
A lack of regulation can just as easily serve as an impediment to interstate trade. It's the chief reason why the Articles of Confederation had to be abolished. The states were starting turf wars with each other over trade and the federal government had little power to regulate.

I honestly don't think that decentralization and states rights is what sets the US apart. Europe, even now, is very decentralized and each country has great sway over what happens within their borders. What does that lead to? Disorganization, disunity, waste, corruption, petty squabbles over nothing. They can't get together and decide what to do with Greece. They argue every time sanctions against this country or that are proposed in the UN because one country or another will have a trade agreement with the country to be sanctioned. It's a cluster****.

Another good example is modern day India, where the central government is essentially powerless and all the power rests with the provinces. As a result, their infrastructure is a joke -- the traffic in India is among the worst in the world -- and there's no leadership on a federal level to mediate disputes or prosecute abuses and corruption by businesses.

What sets the US apart is a balance between state power and federal power. The superceding power of the federal government is both wise and necessary to prevent regional squabbling and to ensure the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be challenged by local mandate. But it is also wise that certain tasks are left to the states, where the proximity to variables can help produce the best results.

This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.

I think that you are very correct in that you propose a logical balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. I do want a strong federal government that is able to maneuver and act decisively within its proper parameters. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the federal government interfering in business other than to set basic rules for everyone to play by. I don't think that the federal government should be involved in mandating morality, education, abortion, capital punishment, or any of these types of issues. These issues should be decided at the state level.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 09:00 PM
I think that you are very correct in that you propose a logical balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. I do want a strong federal government that is able to maneuver and act decisively within its proper parameters. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the federal government interfering in business other than to set basic rules for everyone to play by.

Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

I'll take this next section one at a time:


I don't think that the federal government should be involved in mandating morality,

For instance? The Constitution, and by extension, the federal government, is only interested in rules and laws. Not morality. Are you by chance referring to the involvement of Church in public life? Because that relationship is governed -- contentiously, of course -- by the second amendment.


education

So there should be no standards about how long school years are from state to state, or what counts as high school accreditation, or as a college degree, or any of that? This is an area where business actually wants government to interfere, so they can have confidence in the solidity of a college degree without having to do costly the legwork of verifying this or that school for themselves.


abortion

The right to for a woman to get an abortion was ruled to be a privacy issue guaranteed by the Constitution. Surely you don't believe that the Constitution should guarantee a right and then have no power to enforce that right.


capital punishment

See: the eighth amendment. Are you suggesting we repeal it?

This notion that as the federal government retreats from an issue, the freedom of people relative to that issue increases, is a complete fallacy, to me. It certainly can be true, but it is by no means always true. The legacy of civil rights, to use one example, is of states and local communities engaging in wholly institutional oppression. It took federal action, based on federally enumerated principles, to free people from that oppression.

As you remove a federal oppressor, you might only be enabling the creation of a state or local one. And sometimes you can even be removing a protector, without whom you would be at the mercy of an oppressor close by.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 09:37 PM
Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

I'll take this next section one at a time:



For instance? The Constitution, and by extension, the federal government, is only interested in rules and laws. Not morality. Are you by chance referring to the involvement of Church in public life? Because that relationship is governed -- contentiously, of course -- by the second amendment.



So there should be no standards about how long school years are from state to state, or what counts as high school accreditation, or as a college degree, or any of that? This is an area where business actually wants government to interfere, so they can have confidence in the solidity of a college degree without having to do costly the legwork of verifying this or that school for themselves.



The right to for a woman to get an abortion was ruled to be a privacy issue guaranteed by the Constitution. Surely you don't believe that the Constitution should guarantee a right and then have no power to enforce that right.



See: the eighth amendment. Are you suggesting we repeal it?

This notion that as the federal government retreats from an issue, the freedom of people relative to that issue increases, is a complete fallacy, to me. It certainly can be true, but it is by no means always true. The legacy of civil rights, to use one example, is of states and local communities engaging in wholly institutional oppression. It took federal action, based on federally enumerated principles, to free people from that oppression.

As you remove a federal oppressor, you might only be enabling the creation of a state or local one. And sometimes you can even be removing a protector, without whom you would be at the mercy of an oppressor close by.

I would love to shoot the bull with you over a couple of beers as you make me think and be accountable with logical and factual banter. Kudos!

With that, here are my thoughts:

Morality issues such as gay marriage (first thing i could think of) should be left up to the state. There is no need for an amendment mandating yay or nay. The individual states should decide how, when, and under what circumstances.

Similarly, i feel the same about abortion. Each state should decide how they want to approach the situation.

Though I am a devout Southern Baptist, I have no inclination to impose my mortality on anyone else nor do I want anyone imposing their will on me. I do disagree with the extent to which the division of church and state has been carried as I feel that the current interpretation far exceeds the implication in the constitution.

So far as education, setting basic standards is absolutely necessary but you can't possibly believe that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top bear any resemblance to setting standards for basic education. The departments of education, energy, environmental protection and all of the czars far exceed the limits and intentions of the constitution.

You make a great point that the Federal Government and the Constitution are (our at least should be) only interested in rules and law, not morality. I wish that the populous knew more about the constitution and revered it for the true miracle that it is. The further that we depart from it and abuse it, the worse things are going to get.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 10:06 PM
I would love to shoot the bull with you over a couple of beers as you make me think and be accountable with logical and factual banter. Kudos!

Thanks! I'm always glad when these debates can be civil. If you make it down to SoFla, let me know, and we'll have those beers.


With that, here are my thoughts:

Morality issues such as gay marriage (first thing i could think of) should be left up to the state. There is no need for an amendment mandating yay or nay. The individual states should decide how, when, and under what circumstances.

Similarly, i feel the same about abortion. Each state should decide how they want to approach the situation.

But why? The federal government has a responsibility to enforce the rights it guarantees. Otherwise, it's not a guarantee. I don't know if you're familiar with Loving v. Virginia, but I think a similar ruling is heading our way regarding gay marriage. With regard to abortion, this was once again ruled to be a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Do you believe that a state should have the ability to curtail federally protected rights?


Though I am a devout Southern Baptist, I have no inclination to impose my mortality on anyone else nor do I want anyone imposing their will on me. I do disagree with the extent to which the division of church and state has been carried as I feel that the current interpretation far exceeds the implication in the constitution.

The implication of the constitution relative to religion and state is, unfortunately, unclear, despite the fact that both sides are convinced that it is clear. The excellent book Moral Minority helped clarify the views of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Adams on this issue, and I think the far stronger case is that they felt that they should be as separate as possible, not only for the sake of the freedom of people but for the sake of each religion to believe as they please. The factional and contentious divisions between faiths is less now than it was then but the founders and their ancestors had just left a Europe riddled by partisan religious wars and it is clear that the leading lights among the founding fathers (lesser figures like Patrick Henry did fight to have God and religion inserted in the Declaration and the Constitution but were overruled).


So far as education, setting basic standards is absolutely necessary but you can't possibly believe that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top bear any resemblance to setting standards for basic education. The departments of education, energy, environmental protection and all of the czars far exceed the limits and intentions of the constitution.

Well, that's a different discussion then. Before it sounded like you thought there should be no federal standards on these things.


You make a great point that the Federal Government and the Constitution are (our at least should be) only interested in rules and law, not morality. I wish that the populous knew more about the constitution and revered it for the true miracle that it is. The further that we depart from it and abuse it, the worse things are going to get.

Eh, once again, I can't agree. Part of the greatness of the Constitution was that it was designed to be amended. Despite what some originalists will tell you, it contains no specific instructions on how it's to be interpreted and the various founders fought with each other over various provisions and came at times to poor (3/5ths Compromise) or incomplete ("necessary and proper" means what exactly?) solutions.

Buddy
10-10-2012, 10:44 PM
But why? The federal government has a responsibility to enforce the rights it guarantees. Otherwise, it's not a guarantee. I don't know if you're familiar with Loving v. Virginia, but I think a similar ruling is heading our way regarding gay marriage. With regard to abortion, this was once again ruled to be a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Do you believe that a state should have the ability to curtail federally protected rights?

The implication of the constitution relative to religion and state is, unfortunately, unclear, despite the fact that both sides are convinced that it is clear. The excellent book Moral Minority helped clarify the views of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Adams on this issue, and I think the far stronger case is that they felt that they should be as separate as possible, not only for the sake of the freedom of people but for the sake of each religion to believe as they please. The factional and contentious divisions between faiths is less now than it was then but the founders and their ancestors had just left a Europe riddled by partisan religious wars and it is clear that the leading lights among the founding fathers (lesser figures like Patrick Henry did fight to have God and religion inserted in the Declaration and the Constitution but were overruled).

Well, that's a different discussion then. Before it sounded like you thought there should be no federal standards on these things.

Eh, once again, I can't agree. Part of the greatness of the Constitution was that it was designed to be amended. Despite what some originalists will tell you, it contains no specific instructions on how it's to be interpreted and the various founders fought with each other over various provisions and came at times to poor (3/5ths Compromise) or incomplete ("necessary and proper" means what exactly?) solutions.

The problem that I have with the rights "guaranteed" by the constitution pertaining to gay marriage and abortion is that neither is specifically mentioned in the actual constitution. Thus, by my interpretation, they should be delgated to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. This guarantee was issued by the courts not the constitution and in my opinion, it was the wrong decision.

I will check out Moral Minority as clarification and education on the matter of separation of church and state would be very beneficial to me. I definitely understand the concept of keeping the two in their proper places but it has gone way too far in removing the Ten Commandments from court rooms, forbidding prayers before football games, and the like. Most of the time that complaints arise it comes from some out-of-town activiist and not from anyone actually affected by the prayer or court room decor. I would just as vehemently fight against mandating the Ten Commandments be posted in every court room or that prayer be required in school. People need to make up their own minds and the government needs to just stay out of it. I do agree with you that the water is muddy at best on this subject and probably also needs to be delegated to the states and municipalities...you will see that answer a lot from me!

I also agree with you that provisions were made in the Constitution to allow for growth and changes in the landscape of the United States. However, I still contend that most people today have no idea what the Constitution states, why it was written the way it was, and why it is so important as the foundation of our government and society. It is not a perfect document but it is one of the most effective pieces of legislation ever constructed.

rob19
10-10-2012, 11:21 PM
I know that most people are uncomfortable with the idea but yeah, I would have let the banks, GM, and Chrysler hit the ground and shatter. Many of the banks/companies involved would not have failed and they would have been far more cautious in the future in their business ventures. As it stands, the banks and big industry as a whole do not fear failure because Uncle Sam will jump in and throw cash at them. So, they can be wholly irresponsible with regards to risk because they are guaranteed not to fail. Like I said, the economy's death warrant was signed when the mortgage standards were forcibly lowered and the resulting loans were ultimately guaranteed by congress and paid for by the US taxpayers.

“Critics say that the bailout may encourage even more bad behavior in the future by leading bankers to think that the government will be there to save them. But this moral hazard critique is overblown. The government has a long history of letting businesses collapse – think of all the companies that went under between 2000 and 2003, including Enron and WorldCom. And even in the financial crisis, several huge firms disappeared: Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. Citigroup barely survives and has never recovered its value. Many masters of the universe lost their shirts. I can’t imagine that the lesson anyone would drew here is that it’s perfectly fine to blow up your firm with outsized risks because Uncle Sam will come to the rescue. Just look at the recent collapse of MF Global.”

http://www.policymic.com/group/showCompetition/id/2445 (http://www.policymic.com/group/showCompetition/id/2445)


The scary part is that despite my fiscal conservatism, I am actually quite socially liberal. I truly believe in personal choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility - we need a new party...the MYOB party. If something does not impose on anyone else, I think it should be legal. What you do in your home with your money and your time is up to you as long as you stay out of my business. That is why I so strongly support state's rights, municipal rights, and personal rights

I’d vote for that party!


Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.

What he said^

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 11:40 PM
The problem that I have with the rights "guaranteed" by the constitution pertaining to gay marriage and abortion is that neither is specifically mentioned in the actual constitution. Thus, by my interpretation, they should be delgated to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. This guarantee was issued by the courts not the constitution and in my opinion, it was the wrong decision.

Well, the right for gays to marry hasn't yet been sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I just think it will be.

I think a good way for me to show why I disagree with your adamantine states rights position is to look at the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, 1967's Loving v. Virginia. I'll summarize here from Wikipedia:

Mildred Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving) (a woman of African (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) and Rappahannock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappahannock_tribe) Native American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)) and Richard Perry Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving) (a white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) man) were residents of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act), a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_County,_Virginia), they were charged with violation of the ban. In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6, 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) filed a motion on their behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). This set in motion a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. On October 28, 1964, after their motion still had not been decided, the Lovings began a class action suit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 22, 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry L. Carrico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_L._Carrico) (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions.


Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_v._Naim) (1955), also arguing that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama).


The Court eventually ruled that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and overturned it. Thank goodness.

But you see what I'm getting at here? By the standard you're laying out, marriage is not a "right" specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Why then should the government interfere in the states in how they want to write their marriage laws?


I will check out Moral Minority as clarification and education on the matter of separation of church and state would be very beneficial to me.

Well, to be fair, the book was written by an atheist and takes the position that church and state are meant to be totally separate. There are other books out there that oppose this notion.


I definitely understand the concept of keeping the two in their proper places but it has gone way too far in removing the Ten Commandments from court rooms

I don't think the Ten Commandments should be anywhere near a court room, personally. First off, this is not some historical practice going back to the early days of the republic. The trend began as promotional stunt for the movie The Ten Commandments. And secondly, unless "you shall have no other Gods before me" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" became laws while I wasn't looking, I can't see how they're relevant to the workings of a courtroom.


People need to make up their own minds and the government needs to just stay out of it.

Well, this is a republic, meaning government by and for the people.


I do agree with you that the water is muddy at best on this subject and probably also needs to be delegated to the states and municipalities...you will see that answer a lot from me!

It appears so. I'm looking forward to your answer on whether you think the Supreme Court did the right thing in Loving v. Virginia, though.

Buddy
10-11-2012, 12:19 AM
Well, the right for gays to marry hasn't yet been sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I just think it will be.

I think a good way for me to show why I disagree with your adamantine states rights position is to look at the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, 1967's Loving v. Virginia. I'll summarize here from Wikipedia:

Mildred Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving) (a woman of African (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) and Rappahannock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappahannock_tribe) Native American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)) and Richard Perry Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_and_Richard_Loving) (a white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) man) were residents of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act), a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_County,_Virginia), they were charged with violation of the ban. In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6, 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) filed a motion on their behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). This set in motion a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. On October 28, 1964, after their motion still had not been decided, the Lovings began a class action suit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 22, 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry L. Carrico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_L._Carrico) (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions.


Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_v._Naim) (1955), also arguing that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama).


The Court eventually ruled that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and overturned it. Thank goodness.

But you see what I'm getting at here? By the standard you're laying out, marriage is not a "right" specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Why then should the government interfere in the states in how they want to write their marriage laws?



Well, to be fair, the book was written by an atheist and takes the position that church and state are meant to be totally separate. There are other books out there that oppose this notion.



I don't think the Ten Commandments should be anywhere near a court room, personally. First off, this is not some historical practice going back to the early days of the republic. The trend began as promotional stunt for the movie The Ten Commandments. And secondly, unless "you shall have no other Gods before me" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" became laws while I wasn't looking, I can't see how they're relevant to the workings of a courtroom.



Well, this is a republic, meaning government by and for the people.



It appears so. I'm looking forward to your answer on whether you think the Supreme Court did the right thing in Loving v. Virginia, though.

Though I thoroughly disagree with the premise of the law, I think that Virginia had the right to write their marriage laws as they saw fit. I also initially think that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by overturning the Virginia law. Please understand though that I don't know anything more about the case than what you posted above so i do not know the specifics of the case nor the law. With that being said, I could see the criminal portion of this case being unconstitutional yet see the Supreme Court upholding Virginia being able to refuse to recognize the marriage as valid.

I believe that we will see a lot of states refusing to recognize gay marriages even if they were performed in states that do recognize it. Either way, i still don't think the federal government our supreme court should intervene either way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 12:40 AM
Though I thoroughly disagree with the premise of the law, I think that Virginia had the right to write their marriage laws as they saw fit. I also initially think that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by overturning the Virginia law. Please understand though that I don't know anything more about the case than what you posted above so i do not know the specifics of the case nor the law. With that being said, I could see the criminal portion of this case being unconstitutional yet see the Supreme Court upholding Virginia being able to refuse to recognize the marriage as valid.

I believe that we will see a lot of states refusing to recognize gay marriages even if they were performed in states that do recognize it. Either way, i still don't think the federal government our supreme court should intervene either way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Thank you for being honest. Though I must say that if you don't think the federal government should have the power to ensure it's citizens aren't being discriminated by an utterly racist local law, we really don't have much common ground to build on.

Buddy
10-11-2012, 01:29 AM
Thank you for being honest. Though I must say that if you don't think the federal government should have the power to ensure it's citizens aren't being discriminated by an utterly racist local law, we really don't have much common ground to build on.

I do think that they have the power to ensure its citizens aren't being discriminated against, however that power is limited to specific, named situations. I don't think that power should be expanded because the situation is horrible. The Lovings did have the opportunity to move to DC and stay there. Please understand that I am disgusted by the discrimination but two wrongs do not make a right.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2