DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail HOw is it a strawman? The inept republicans down there in the house author purely dogshit ideological bills, and what honest consideration of dogshit is required by the constitution of the senate? Show me something telling, compelling, and revealing. And look up what a strawman arguement is, cuz you can construct them but do not know what they are, thats plain for anyone to see. Yeah, I don't know what a strawman argument is. Whatever, mn. HR 1315: The one that removes the unelected board from the Frank-Dodd bill. Your argument is that this fucks consumers and lets banks do whatever they want. According to the latest summary, the bill doesn't remove the board. It gives more power to over-rule the Director, and gives more power to the non-voting members of the council. It also takes out the single Director position and fills that with a "Commission": quote:
(Sec. 104) Establishes a Commission to serve as head of the Bureau, in lieu of a single Director, and to prescribe regulations and issue orders. Prescribes the composition of the Commission as the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve System and four additional members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Requires such members to have strong competencies and experiences related to consumer financial protection. Recommends that they also should want to protect service members and their families who are sacrificing their lives for this country from abusive financial practices. Requires one member of the Commission to have as his or her primary responsibility the oversight of CFPB activities pertaining to protecting consumers, with a focus on consumers who are older, minorities, youth, or veterans, from unfair, deceptive, and abusive lending practices. Requires that no more than two members of the Commission be of the same political party. Your response to this was to create a false argument and attack it, thereby declaring HR1315 bad legislation, even though your attack wasn't against HR1315. Huh. Sure as fuck sounds like a "straw man" argument to me.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|