thats_not_funny 1 point ago +1 / -0

Likewise, I would have sided with state's rights.

There has to be a better structure all the way around, a blueprint that I've been working on for a long time. Not ready to share it yet, however.

Good discussion.

thats_not_funny 0 points ago +1 / -1

So you would prefer 50 sets of activist judiciaries? In line with the 10th to be sure, but think about the slope.

Desirable federal consumer protection laws are many, including those around credit reporting (which I've written about), unfair business practices, privacy, and others.

Unfortunately they also come with bloated and corrupt three letter agencies, so what the hell do I know? ๐Ÿ™„

thats_not_funny -2 points ago +1 / -3

Sounds reasonable. But again, do you also ban all federal consumer protection laws? Or just the ones we don't like?

BTW, I support overturning Roe to bring it in line with the 10th. But I don't support states banning it outright for two reasons. One, even if one could somehow divine when life begins, the two lives are connected even after birth. And unwanted children are not a win for anyone. Secondly, most women who have abortions shouldn't have children anyway. Many of them are psychopaths.

thats_not_funny -1 points ago +1 / -2

Okay, zealot. ๐Ÿ˜‚

thats_not_funny -4 points ago +1 / -5

This is a fair assessment.

Which begs the question, should any federal laws be in place to protect the public? What about consumer protection laws?

It's a slippery slope he's proposing. Go down it, and we'll soon find ourselves with many states on par with Taliban style governance.

thats_not_funny -3 points ago +1 / -4

And it also proves that it was never about states rights. That he would use federal law to supercede the 10th Amendment if suits him.

We're surrounded by zealots.

thats_not_funny 5 points ago +6 / -1

Difference being you're in the movie, and when you manage to escape the psychopath after he kills off your friends, nobody believes your horror story.

view more: Next ›