For a group that is so anti-frivolous lawsuits it seems pretty silly for them to bring a suit they probably wont even have standing for let alone a shot in hell of winning.
At least
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
June 29 2014 19:45 GMT
#22841
On June 30 2014 01:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), on Sunday defended the GOP's plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive actions. "It’s not about our wanting to stop him from doing his job. It’s our wanting to do the job the constitution prescribes," Goodlatte said about the effort on "Fox News Sunday." “It’s very important," Goodlatte continued. "And this should be bipartisan — people standing up to protect the balance of power.” Host Chris Wallace then questioned how Republicans could justify a lawsuit when there are other remedies that could be used to curb the president's power. Goodlatte again insisted that Congress had the authority to sue Obama. "We also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the President of the United States is exceeding his authority," he said. And when Wallace asked Goodlatte if the lawsuit would be pointless since it would probably be dragged out past the end of Obama's second term, Goodlatte said that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months. Source For a group that is so anti-frivolous lawsuits it seems pretty silly for them to bring a suit they probably wont even have standing for let alone a shot in hell of winning. At least | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
June 29 2014 20:00 GMT
#22842
On June 30 2014 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2014 01:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), on Sunday defended the GOP's plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive actions. "It’s not about our wanting to stop him from doing his job. It’s our wanting to do the job the constitution prescribes," Goodlatte said about the effort on "Fox News Sunday." “It’s very important," Goodlatte continued. "And this should be bipartisan — people standing up to protect the balance of power.” Host Chris Wallace then questioned how Republicans could justify a lawsuit when there are other remedies that could be used to curb the president's power. Goodlatte again insisted that Congress had the authority to sue Obama. "We also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the President of the United States is exceeding his authority," he said. And when Wallace asked Goodlatte if the lawsuit would be pointless since it would probably be dragged out past the end of Obama's second term, Goodlatte said that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months. Source For a group that is so anti-frivolous lawsuits it seems pretty silly for them to bring a suit they probably wont even have standing for let alone a shot in hell of winning. At least Rand Paul actually means what he says even if it sounds crazy sometimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTw2wrvuR2A Wrong Paul. Not sure I would believe the same level of sincerity exists in Jr's political opinion. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 29 2014 21:06 GMT
#22843
On June 30 2014 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2014 01:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), on Sunday defended the GOP's plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive actions. "It’s not about our wanting to stop him from doing his job. It’s our wanting to do the job the constitution prescribes," Goodlatte said about the effort on "Fox News Sunday." “It’s very important," Goodlatte continued. "And this should be bipartisan — people standing up to protect the balance of power.” Host Chris Wallace then questioned how Republicans could justify a lawsuit when there are other remedies that could be used to curb the president's power. Goodlatte again insisted that Congress had the authority to sue Obama. "We also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the President of the United States is exceeding his authority," he said. And when Wallace asked Goodlatte if the lawsuit would be pointless since it would probably be dragged out past the end of Obama's second term, Goodlatte said that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months. Source For a group that is so anti-frivolous lawsuits it seems pretty silly for them to bring a suit they probably wont even have standing for let alone a shot in hell of winning. At least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTw2wrvuR2A The reason Boehner is doing this is in hopes it keeps the impeachments crowd from getting too loud. He's knows it will be thrown out, so long as it is AFTER the midterms. Of course when it is thrown out and the impeachment crowds gets louder he will have to deal with that but at least not before the midterms which will be damaging either way. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
June 29 2014 22:58 GMT
#22844
On June 30 2014 04:10 Chocolate wrote: By the way, if you were qualified enough to get in to one of those rich private schools, I don't even know why you would complain about loans. You could easily get a full ride, or very close to one, at a different school, in all likelihood. It was your choice to go to a school that would be a stretch financially. School prestige is a stupid social concept, but it's one you have to deal with. A given GPA and a given major at Princeton gets you more places than the same GPA and major gets you at Rutgers. It's not fair; hell, the Rutgers professors might care more/be more engaged. And there is the corresponding thing that some people go by the liberal arts college rankings, which gets you a different list of top schools. Most places go by some combination, so Williams or Brown are both gonna be considered "top tier." Getting a degree isn't exactly about getting an education anymore. I know some very educated people who graduated from low-tier schools or not at all. I know some extraordinarily ignorant people who went to Ivies or Nescac schools. But what matters is certification. You get more currency in the job and dating market with a more prestigious school name. It helps a ton in a lot of stupid ways, and the degree to which we make doing this easier for rich people is sickening, and a contributor to economic immobility. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 30 2014 01:35 GMT
#22845
| ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
June 30 2014 02:29 GMT
#22846
On June 30 2014 10:35 oneofthem wrote: it may not be fair in terms of some meritocratic ideal but college name is a signaling tool that shows you had the ability to get into a certain school. the actual knowledge or whatever may or may not matter that much depends on the field. Sure, but it's classist. I got into a top 5 liberal arts college ED, a friend of mine in high school got into the same one. My parents could afford it, and so I could go. His financial aid wasn't enough, so he couldn't. We were as qualified by the standards of the college (which are classist on their own), but I got the name recognition and he didn't just because of the way his financial aid worked out. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 30 2014 03:12 GMT
#22847
WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports. American Embassy officials in Baghdad sided with Blackwater rather than the State Department investigators as a dispute over the probe escalated in August 2007, the previously undisclosed documents show. The officials told the investigators that they had disrupted the embassy’s relationship with the security contractor and ordered them to leave the country, according to the reports. After returning to Washington, the chief investigator wrote a scathing report to State Department officials documenting misconduct by Blackwater employees and warning that lax oversight of the company, which had a contract worth more than $1 billion to protect American diplomats, had created “an environment full of liability and negligence.” “The management structures in place to manage and monitor our contracts in Iraq have become subservient to the contractors themselves,” the investigator, Jean C. Richter, wrote in an Aug. 31, 2007, memo to State Department officials. “Blackwater contractors saw themselves as above the law,” he said, adding that the “hands off” management resulted in a situation in which “the contractors, instead of Department officials, are in command and in control.” His memo and other newly disclosed State Department documents make clear that the department was alerted to serious problems involving Blackwater and its government overseers before the Nisour Square shooting, which outraged Iraqis and deepened resentment over the United States’ presence in the country. Source | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 30 2014 04:10 GMT
#22848
On June 30 2014 11:29 Yoav wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2014 10:35 oneofthem wrote: it may not be fair in terms of some meritocratic ideal but college name is a signaling tool that shows you had the ability to get into a certain school. the actual knowledge or whatever may or may not matter that much depends on the field. Sure, but it's classist. I got into a top 5 liberal arts college ED, a friend of mine in high school got into the same one. My parents could afford it, and so I could go. His financial aid wasn't enough, so he couldn't. We were as qualified by the standards of the college (which are classist on their own), but I got the name recognition and he didn't just because of the way his financial aid worked out. well yea it is class related no doubt. | ||
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
June 30 2014 04:27 GMT
#22849
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
June 30 2014 04:51 GMT
#22850
On June 30 2014 13:27 Livelovedie wrote: If it was a top liberal arts school then his parents chose not to afford it. Even if that was the case, sucks to have parents who make bad (for you) choices. Suppose we are supposed to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers though right? | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
June 30 2014 06:49 GMT
#22851
On June 29 2014 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: NPR reran a story the other day on the price of college education. Apparently prices haven't grown nearly as much as people think, because of a growing disconnect between the costs that schools publish and what people actually pay. source Also from Brookings on how much people are shelling out to pay back loans: + Show Spoiler +
It's a miracle that monthly student loan payments are going down, what with the increased repayment period and all. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
June 30 2014 14:23 GMT
#22852
On June 30 2014 07:58 Yoav wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2014 04:10 Chocolate wrote: By the way, if you were qualified enough to get in to one of those rich private schools, I don't even know why you would complain about loans. You could easily get a full ride, or very close to one, at a different school, in all likelihood. It was your choice to go to a school that would be a stretch financially. School prestige is a stupid social concept, but it's one you have to deal with. A given GPA and a given major at Princeton gets you more places than the same GPA and major gets you at Rutgers. It's not fair; hell, the Rutgers professors might care more/be more engaged. And there is the corresponding thing that some people go by the liberal arts college rankings, which gets you a different list of top schools. Most places go by some combination, so Williams or Brown are both gonna be considered "top tier." Getting a degree isn't exactly about getting an education anymore. I know some very educated people who graduated from low-tier schools or not at all. I know some extraordinarily ignorant people who went to Ivies or Nescac schools. But what matters is certification. You get more currency in the job and dating market with a more prestigious school name. It helps a ton in a lot of stupid ways, and the degree to which we make doing this easier for rich people is sickening, and a contributor to economic immobility. I picked what could be called the worst school I got into, though I shouldn't insult my alma mater in that way . The higher ranked ones I got into (UChicago, Hopkins, Brown) gave me no financial aid (heck, I think the UC's were actually more generous), and the amount I got from Emory was solely merit-based. So, that was that-- trade off between prestige and setting back my parents' retirement by 10-15 years. I joke sometimes about how I could have gone to some state uni full ride +stipend, but there's two problems. The quality of the education is significantly lower (it's not necessarily that great here, but it is more rigorous on average), and name recognition matters. I've just started watching Suits, and the law firm they have hires solely from Harvard Law. That may be seem a bit ridiculous, but that kind of practice of exclusively hiring from known/feeder schools is pretty common. (basically agreeing with Yoav) | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 30 2014 16:08 GMT
#22853
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to California's law that bars mental counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight. The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state's ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason. Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law along with other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm. Source | ||
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
June 30 2014 16:15 GMT
#22854
On June 30 2014 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2014 13:27 Livelovedie wrote: If it was a top liberal arts school then his parents chose not to afford it. Even if that was the case, sucks to have parents who make bad (for you) choices. Suppose we are supposed to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers though right? I don't think it's any secret that life is mostly impacted by decisions outside your control even if you aren't a determinist. I think a progressive payment system is by the fairest method if we are to buy into the idea of college as a social vehicle. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 30 2014 16:16 GMT
#22855
| ||
BronzeKnee
United States5208 Posts
June 30 2014 16:26 GMT
#22856
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion? Disgusting. This country... I don't ask for much. I just ask that we all share in the wealth we make for the nation. Not fairly, of course not, but when CEO pay is at record high, and the minimum wage is so stagnant that everyone else if forced to pick up the tab and pay for welfare, then we have a real problem. As a liberal, I am tired of paying welfare people when the responsibility lies with their employer to pay a living wage. And "compassionate conservatives" should agree too. A low minimum wage means more welfare, which means more wealth distribution and more government. We should give people some pride, and make work pay, lessen the need for public assistance the right way. Does it really matter if the Walmart Family makes $11 billion or $13 billion dollars a year? Because that extra two billion is the difference between Walmart workers making $8.00 and $10.00 an hour, and that really matters to people trying to survive on that wage. But yes, it does matter, because we'd rather strip everyone of their dignity, and force the religious views of a select few on as many people as we can. Rant over. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
June 30 2014 16:35 GMT
#22857
On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes. The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion? Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
June 30 2014 16:37 GMT
#22858
On July 01 2014 01:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to California's law that bars mental counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight. The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state's ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason. Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law along with other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm. Source No, no, no, it's just a few people who want to change some curriculum nothing to see here... But, but, but, the 1st amendment...? Pretty sure most of these 'pray away the gay' shticks are covers for stuff like this. I guess getting judges to hand over new children to molest is one way to use your political power...? Lakeside Christian Church's senior pastor, the Rev. Ryan J. Muehlhauser, 55, of Cambridge, appeared in court Tuesday on eight felony counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and remains free pending another hearing next month. Muehlhauser also was a counselor through Robbinsdale-based Outpost Ministries, whose website says it was founded more than 30 years ago to help men and women "break away from gay life" and declares that "all homosexual behavior is sin." Authorities were informed of the alleged assaults from another Outpost counselor, who said the two men told him what had gone on with Muehlhauser. According to the criminal complaint: One of the men told investigators that Muehlhauser "blessed" him by cupping his genitals outside of his clothing several times and that Muehlhauser asked the man to masturbate in front of him for "spiritual strength." Muehlhauser would also fondle the man at times. Their encounters occurred over a period of nearly two years. Another man told investigators of similar encounters spanning most of this year, adding that Muehlhauser feared he would "lose everything" if anyone found out. At one encounter, Muehlhauser fondled the man and then the two joined the pastor's wife for a dinner outing. I'm sure president Bachmann would not have allowed this... I mean her husband is a lead figure in the pray away the gay community... Yeah.... Seriously... | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
June 30 2014 16:45 GMT
#22859
On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes. The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion? Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. Then why is your party making 'right to work' laws? | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
June 30 2014 16:54 GMT
#22860
On July 01 2014 01:45 Jormundr wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote: On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes. The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion? Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. Then why is your party making 'right to work' laws? You obviously have no idea what "right to work" laws are. They certainly don't convey workers a right to a particular job. You may want to take the time to educate yourself substantively rather than just taking a buzzword title and presuming that you have a clue regarding what it really means. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH219 StarCraft: Brood War• practicex 33 • RayReign 6 • OhrlRock 1 • Kozan • AfreecaTV YouTube • aXEnki • intothetv • Gussbus • Poblha • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel League of Legends Other Games |
StarsWar
Maru vs Spirit
ShoWTimE vs GuMiho
Firefly vs herO
Oliveira vs SKillous
Replay Cast
Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
Chat StarLeague
Afreeca Global
Cure vs Stats
Creator vs Solar
StarsWar
Chat StarLeague
BSL
Dewalt vs Zhanhun
ForJumy Cup
[ Show More ] Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
Cure vs Rogue
Stats vs Dark
Korean StarCraft League
|
|