I tend to agree that the government should never have started viewing a married person as different than a single person.

that's the mistake the conservatives made in passing the defense of marriage act. governments, especially the federal government, should have no role in defining what a marriage is or isn't.

by elevating the definition of marriage to the federal level, the conservatives thought they could strengthen their positions in a few states that were considering loosening up the definition of marriage. instead, once the federal government becomes liberal enough to refuse to defend the lawsuit against the defense of marriage act, the definition of marriage got changed even for those states where traditional marriage was/is strong.

they put too many eggs in one basket.

 

All I naively think is that the government is to serve the people and our there by the will of the people.

that's why you should support a small and weak government: no one is going to bride someone who has limited power/influence.

 

So @#12 here is another batch.

16. End federal funding for Planned Parenthood:

17. Allow states to shut down abortion Clinics

18. Oppose stem cell scientific research:

45. Replace sex education with abstinence-only approaches:

 

18. Oppose stem cell scientific research

That only applies when said cells are harvested from aborted fetuses, btw.

 

So @#12
45. Replace sex education with abstinence-only approaches:

I've calmed down now, I will disagree with that statement.

 

That only applies when said cells are harvested from aborted fetuses, btw.

And, I believe it only applies to federal taxpayer-funded research.

 

That only applies when said cells are harvested from aborted fetuses, btw.

Yes on both (I think) only restrictions on embryonic and Federal funding.

 

A more difficult batch on regulations.

2. Deregulate the banks

3. Stop consumer protection:

4. Start repealing environmental laws:

14. Loosen gun controls nationwide:

23. No labeling of GMO ingredients in food products:

26. Build the Keystone XL Pipeline:

27. Expand fracking and burying nuclear waste

28. No tax on carbon products

34. Give internet service providers monopoly control

 

Nice list Ron,

Here is their platform ... The sound bites you provided can achieve your goal, but, let the people read the platform and decide.

 

Nice list Ron,

Here is their platform ... The sound bites you provided can achieve your goal, but, let the people read the platform and decide.

I didn't make the list. I must admit it is a little blunt. Perhaps for brevity.
I didn't check them all, but I scanned thru until I found some stuff relative to a few of them.

Of the many reforms being proposed, all options should
be considered to preserve Social Security. As
Republicans, we oppose tax increases and believe
in the power of markets to create wealth and to
help secure the future of our Social Security system.

We respect the states’ proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic
fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal
drilling, and we will end the Administration’s
disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with
respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

Unfortunately, in response to the financial institutions crisis
of 2008-2009, the Democratic-controlled Congress
enacted the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank

Fancy words for one liners.

 

From my experience in bill titles, there is more to the bill than what the title alludes.

 

From my experience in bill titles, there is more to the bill than what the title alludes.

This is not like the Trump Translator is it?

 

No ... It's because of all the amendments ... Or as some call it ... Pork barrel spending.

 

No ... It's because of all the amendments ... Or as some call it ... Pork barrel spending.

Hmm, I thought we were talking about the platform???????

 

Unfortunately, in response to the financial institutions crisis
of 2008-2009, the Democratic-controlled Congress
enacted the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank

I should have quoted this paragraph when I wrote the thing about Bill Titles ....

Dodd-Frank was also involved with Fannie and Freddie pushing them to change their loan standards, a couple of years before the housing meltdown.

 

I should have quoted this paragraph when I wrote the thing about Bill Titles ....

Dodd-Frank was also involved with Fannie and Freddie pushing them to change their loan standards, a couple of years before the housing meltdown.

So we should take it back????
I should think once was enough.
Edit:
But it's @#12 that's trying to decide who he is.

 

So we should take it back????
I should think once was enough.

It would be nice if it ONLY was once. It's ongoing.

Just read the December entries from this website.

If your delinquent more than 60 days, they want to reduce your payments 20% because of the high cost of foreclosure. And yet, we will complain when "others" use the rules of the game to their advantage.

Both Freddie and Fannie, the GSEs, are under the Conservatory of the U.S. Treasury. In essence, the taxpayers are picking up the tab for any and all corporate errors.

Of course, with Fannie being on the stock market, you could invest in this government backed GSE, and potentially get expotential gains according to reference.com

p.s. According to this website, fannies stock rose 45% when Trump announced his choice for Treasury Secretary.

 

@ronv

@#12 is like everyone else. A mixed breed that runs the gamete between the extremes. One can only find which party aligns with their thoughts on the issues and whoever has the majority agreement gets their vote. The other options include to look for who is more photogenic ... think of the Kennedy - Nixon and the first televised debate ... or ... whoever you think will do the best job for the country ... or ... screw the country, I want my piece of the cash.

In charitable contributions, I believe that is an individual decision and not what someone in the halls of Congress decides.

One on your list was planned parenthood funding. Planned parenthood is a 501(c) organization. Obamacare provides healthcare for all, so why does the government need to fund planned parenthood's medical branch? Why can't they file insurance claims like other doctors? No one would complain if an individual gave planned parenthood money, except those who use to receive that individuals money.

When CFC (combined federal campaign) came around for contributions, I told the sailors if they contributed to one side of the Mary's home for unwed mothers, they should contribute to the other side to balance it out.

 

It would be nice if it ONLY was once. It's ongoing.

Just read the December entries from this website.

If your delinquent more than 60 days, they want to reduce your payments 20% because of the high cost of foreclosure. And yet, we will complain when "others" use the rules of the game to their advantage.

The more important news is this:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency has issued its Foreclosure Prevention Report for the third quarter of 2016. According to the report, the serious delinquency rate for mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) has reached the lowest level since June of 2008, falling to 1.16 percent at the end of the third quarter.

Both Freddie and Fannie, the GSEs, are under the Conservatory of the U.S. Treasury. In essence, the taxpayers are picking up the tab for any and all corporate errors.

Of course, with Fannie being on the stock market, you could invest in this government backed GSE, and potentially get expotential gains according to reference.com

p.s. According to this website, fannies stock rose 45% when Trump announced his choice for Treasury Secretary.

Well actually they are making money, not paying for errors, but weather they are private or public is not the issue. The regulation is the issue. (see list)
But having said that, you can run out and buy them if you think they are going back into the $60 range.

 

@ronv

@#12 is like everyone else. A mixed breed that runs the gamete between the extremes. One can only find which party aligns with their thoughts on the issues and whoever has the majority agreement gets their vote. The other options include to look for who is more photogenic ... think of the Kennedy - Nixon and the first televised debate ... or ... whoever you think will do the best job for the country ... or ... screw the country, I want my piece of the cash.

In charitable contributions, I believe that is an individual decision and not what someone in the halls of Congress decides.

One on your list was planned parenthood funding. Planned parenthood is a 501(c) organization. Obamacare provides healthcare for all, so why does the government need to fund planned parenthood's medical branch? Why can't they file insurance claims like other doctors? No one would complain if an individual gave planned parenthood money, except those who use to receive that individuals money.

When CFC (combined federal campaign) came around for contributions, I told the sailors if they contributed to one side of the Mary's home for unwed mothers, they should contribute to the other side to balance it out.

There is no line item in the budget that says Planned Parenthood. They do get their Federal money thru insurance. That insurance is medicaid. Insurance for the poor.