calbear93 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Can somebody tell how in the &@$# can Captain Bone Spur can bring a convicted felon and Russian pool boy, Manofort, back to work on his campaign.? The idea that Captain Bone Spur can get security briefings is laughable. What could possibly happen when a twice impeached individual who owes almost half a billion dollars gets security briefings that involve Russia or China and through Manafort gets an offer to trade money for info?

---

Who says he will get security clearance? I know he was pardoned but security clearance is not just based on criminal record.

Besides, is it a done deal? Is he on Trump's campaign? At this point, it's almost satire.

---

Satire?
Or dangerous demonic prophesy?

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

---

Sorry but you are rambling a bit.

Let's stay on point.

You object to the SCOTUS actually applying the major question doctrine that has been around for decades.

Are you objecting to the application of the "major question doctrine" under administrative law and you believe that agencies should have unfettered authority to make and enforce laws that has major impact on our country without express authority from elected Congress?

Are you objecting to checks and balances but instead would prefer your views be exempted from the constitution and would prefer a dictator apply all the laws you view as good?

Because protecting the environment is not a black and white issue. There are cost / benefit analysis with great impact on our society. On one extreme is eliminating the human race to provide best protection for the environment but the cost is too high. On the other extreme is burning coal and polluting the rivers all day long without restriction but the cost is also too high. Finding the right area in the spectrum is up for debate that should be decided by those who we elect. Because it should not be an unelected official who decides unilaterally where to place (even in an extreme end of the spectrum), whether it's a republican or democratic. Because Democrats will not always have the White House, and any dictatorship you allow in agencies can apply when it's the other party in the white house. And that's why intelligent thinkers are not whining about checks and balances like some here, because the pendulum can swing quickly.

---

I'm for protecting the environment.
If there is a cost to pay for doing so and we have to reduce GDP growth in order to do so, I am for that.

Markets and economics will adjust. The environment alterations, in too many instances and in general overall, we are told, will not. That is quite different that yahoos who say "mother earth is undefeated". Certainly, mother earth will continue, I agree. But it has taken millions and millions of years for the evolution of species to evolve and balance out to where it's at now. And the ANTHROPOCENE is killing off species at a fast pace that has not been seen since....

You can sit there and argue about various temporary political logic of the day.
Somebody has to do something to stop this train wreck.

Hmmmm. Is that Machiavellian, which I have ripped on in the past?
Sounds like it.

If it makes you feel better, I don't know what "major question doctrine" is.

Re the bolded part above... as if elected officials do a better job at deciding.
I'd rather have a content specific expert who has worked his/her way up in a field/agency to make decisions that most of the elected officials I can think of right now.

Okay, seethe and sink your teeth into all that. Served up nice and juicy for you.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is virtually no chance that Trump is given intelligence briefings. He's been cut off for a while, unlike other former presidents who are read in when helpful.

But the norms/laws are still messed up and didn't anticipate America choosing a highly compromised and corrupt individual like Trump. If our do nothing congress cared, this would be easy to fix, but they can't govern so this will probably never change.

---

I'm sure the Secret Agencies have compiled many plots against Trump.
I suggest we present him with a truckload of the detailed ways that people would like to end his life for him, redacting the sources, mind you.

Keep him up at night worrying if this is going to be his last night in any form other that scattered atoms.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

---

Sorry but you are rambling a bit.

Let's stay on point.

You object to the SCOTUS actually applying the major question doctrine that has been around for decades.

Are you objecting to the application of the "major question doctrine" under administrative law and you believe that agencies should have unfettered authority to make and enforce laws that has major impact on our country without express authority from elected Congress?

Are you objecting to checks and balances but instead would prefer your views be exempted from the constitution and would prefer a dictator apply all the laws you view as good?

Because protecting the environment is not a black and white issue. There are cost / benefit analysis with great impact on our society. On one extreme is eliminating the human race to provide best protection for the environment but the cost is too high. On the other extreme is burning coal and polluting the rivers all day long without restriction but the cost is also too high. Finding the right area in the spectrum is up for debate that should be decided by those who we elect. Because it should not be an unelected official who decides unilaterally where to place (even in an extreme end of the spectrum), whether it's a republican or democratic. Because Democrats will not always have the White House, and any dictatorship you allow in agencies can apply when it's the other party in the white house. And that's why intelligent thinkers are not whining about checks and balances like some here, because the pendulum can swing quickly.

---

I'm for protecting the environment.
If there is a cost to pay for doing so and we have to reduce GDP growth in order to do so, I am for that.

Markets and economics will adjust. The environment alterations, in too many instances and in general overall, we are told, will not. That is quite different that yahoos who say "mother earth is undefeated". Certainly, mother earth will continue, I agree. But it has taken millions and millions of years for the evolution of species to evolve and balance out to where it's at now. And the ANTHROPOCENE is killing off species at a fast pace that has not been seen since....

You can sit there and argue about various temporary political logic of the day.
Somebody has to do something to stop this train wreck.

Hmmmm. Is that Machiavellian, which I have ripped on in the past?
Sounds like it.

If it makes you feel better, I don't know what "major question doctrine" is.

Re the bolded part above... as if elected officials do a better job at deciding.
I'd rather have a content specific expert who has worked his/her way up in a field/agency to make decisions that most of the elected officials I can think of right now.

Okay, seethe and sink your teeth into all that. Served up nice and juicy for you.

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

calbear93 said:

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Enough already with the anti-bitcoin propaganda.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

---

Sorry but you are rambling a bit.

Let's stay on point.

You object to the SCOTUS actually applying the major question doctrine that has been around for decades.

Are you objecting to the application of the "major question doctrine" under administrative law and you believe that agencies should have unfettered authority to make and enforce laws that has major impact on our country without express authority from elected Congress?

Are you objecting to checks and balances but instead would prefer your views be exempted from the constitution and would prefer a dictator apply all the laws you view as good?

Because protecting the environment is not a black and white issue. There are cost / benefit analysis with great impact on our society. On one extreme is eliminating the human race to provide best protection for the environment but the cost is too high. On the other extreme is burning coal and polluting the rivers all day long without restriction but the cost is also too high. Finding the right area in the spectrum is up for debate that should be decided by those who we elect. Because it should not be an unelected official who decides unilaterally where to place (even in an extreme end of the spectrum), whether it's a republican or democratic. Because Democrats will not always have the White House, and any dictatorship you allow in agencies can apply when it's the other party in the white house. And that's why intelligent thinkers are not whining about checks and balances like some here, because the pendulum can swing quickly.

---

I'm for protecting the environment.
If there is a cost to pay for doing so and we have to reduce GDP growth in order to do so, I am for that.

Markets and economics will adjust. The environment alterations, in too many instances and in general overall, we are told, will not. That is quite different that yahoos who say "mother earth is undefeated". Certainly, mother earth will continue, I agree. But it has taken millions and millions of years for the evolution of species to evolve and balance out to where it's at now. And the ANTHROPOCENE is killing off species at a fast pace that has not been seen since....

You can sit there and argue about various temporary political logic of the day.
Somebody has to do something to stop this train wreck.

Hmmmm. Is that Machiavellian, which I have ripped on in the past?
Sounds like it.

If it makes you feel better, I don't know what "major question doctrine" is.

Re the bolded part above... as if elected officials do a better job at deciding.
I'd rather have a content specific expert who has worked his/her way up in a field/agency to make decisions that most of the elected officials I can think of right now.

Okay, seethe and sink your teeth into all that. Served up nice and juicy for you.

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Those are great things.

I'm a fan of Senator Whitehouse.
He has been on a crusade to expose the dark secrets of how the election process works. Dark Money by special interest groups is used to communicate messaging to voters that gets "their" people elected, and they further use this money to broadcast beliefs and values among the electorate.

This is not different than Kellogg's having a big marketing budget to get people to eat Tony the Tiger Frosted Flakes.

The marketing campaigns are often needed, because if left alone, people might not buy and eat that *****
The power of advertising/marketing is powerful.
In it's worst forms, it is propaganda and misinformation.

I think it's okay for me to paste Whitehouse's presentation of an issue that HE wanted to broadcast to the population. I may not know the legalities you brought up, but I trust Senator Whitehouse.

In the case he raised, he's championing the environment. I support that.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

---

Sorry but you are rambling a bit.

Let's stay on point.

You object to the SCOTUS actually applying the major question doctrine that has been around for decades.

Are you objecting to the application of the "major question doctrine" under administrative law and you believe that agencies should have unfettered authority to make and enforce laws that has major impact on our country without express authority from elected Congress?

Are you objecting to checks and balances but instead would prefer your views be exempted from the constitution and would prefer a dictator apply all the laws you view as good?

Because protecting the environment is not a black and white issue. There are cost / benefit analysis with great impact on our society. On one extreme is eliminating the human race to provide best protection for the environment but the cost is too high. On the other extreme is burning coal and polluting the rivers all day long without restriction but the cost is also too high. Finding the right area in the spectrum is up for debate that should be decided by those who we elect. Because it should not be an unelected official who decides unilaterally where to place (even in an extreme end of the spectrum), whether it's a republican or democratic. Because Democrats will not always have the White House, and any dictatorship you allow in agencies can apply when it's the other party in the white house. And that's why intelligent thinkers are not whining about checks and balances like some here, because the pendulum can swing quickly.

---

I'm for protecting the environment.
If there is a cost to pay for doing so and we have to reduce GDP growth in order to do so, I am for that.

Markets and economics will adjust. The environment alterations, in too many instances and in general overall, we are told, will not. That is quite different that yahoos who say "mother earth is undefeated". Certainly, mother earth will continue, I agree. But it has taken millions and millions of years for the evolution of species to evolve and balance out to where it's at now. And the ANTHROPOCENE is killing off species at a fast pace that has not been seen since....

You can sit there and argue about various temporary political logic of the day.
Somebody has to do something to stop this train wreck.

Hmmmm. Is that Machiavellian, which I have ripped on in the past?
Sounds like it.

If it makes you feel better, I don't know what "major question doctrine" is.

Re the bolded part above... as if elected officials do a better job at deciding.
I'd rather have a content specific expert who has worked his/her way up in a field/agency to make decisions that most of the elected officials I can think of right now.

Okay, seethe and sink your teeth into all that. Served up nice and juicy for you.

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Those are great things.

I'm a fan of Senator Whitehouse.
He has been on a crusade to expose the dark secrets of how the election process works. Dark Money by special interest groups is used to communicate messaging to voters that gets "their" people elected, and they further use this money to broadcast beliefs and values among the electorate.

This is not different than Kellogg's having a big marketing budget to get people to eat Tony the Tiger Frosted Flakes.

The marketing campaigns are often needed, because if left alone, people might not buy and eat that *****
The power of advertising/marketing is powerful.
In it's worst forms, it is propaganda and misinformation.

I think it's okay for me to paste Whitehouse's presentation of an issue that HE wanted to broadcast to the population. I may not know the legalities you brought up, but I trust Senator Whitehouse.

In the case he raised, he's championing the environment. I support that.

---

I am also in favor of good although not as much as I am about better. However, I think we should really support what is best and screw you if you are the type who keeps advocating for worse. In case you thought you were a good person, I am a better person because no matter what I actually do, I stated here clearly that I support what is best.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Enough already with the anti-bitcoin propaganda.

---

Again with the straw man argument.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Enough already with the anti-bitcoin propaganda.

---

Again with the straw man argument.

---

Just making it clear I was joking. This is a strange place so want to make sure, while u2 will get it, others might not.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

---

Sorry but you are rambling a bit.

Let's stay on point.

You object to the SCOTUS actually applying the major question doctrine that has been around for decades.

Are you objecting to the application of the "major question doctrine" under administrative law and you believe that agencies should have unfettered authority to make and enforce laws that has major impact on our country without express authority from elected Congress?

Are you objecting to checks and balances but instead would prefer your views be exempted from the constitution and would prefer a dictator apply all the laws you view as good?

Because protecting the environment is not a black and white issue. There are cost / benefit analysis with great impact on our society. On one extreme is eliminating the human race to provide best protection for the environment but the cost is too high. On the other extreme is burning coal and polluting the rivers all day long without restriction but the cost is also too high. Finding the right area in the spectrum is up for debate that should be decided by those who we elect. Because it should not be an unelected official who decides unilaterally where to place (even in an extreme end of the spectrum), whether it's a republican or democratic. Because Democrats will not always have the White House, and any dictatorship you allow in agencies can apply when it's the other party in the white house. And that's why intelligent thinkers are not whining about checks and balances like some here, because the pendulum can swing quickly.

---

I'm for protecting the environment.
If there is a cost to pay for doing so and we have to reduce GDP growth in order to do so, I am for that.

Markets and economics will adjust. The environment alterations, in too many instances and in general overall, we are told, will not. That is quite different that yahoos who say "mother earth is undefeated". Certainly, mother earth will continue, I agree. But it has taken millions and millions of years for the evolution of species to evolve and balance out to where it's at now. And the ANTHROPOCENE is killing off species at a fast pace that has not been seen since....

You can sit there and argue about various temporary political logic of the day.
Somebody has to do something to stop this train wreck.

Hmmmm. Is that Machiavellian, which I have ripped on in the past?
Sounds like it.

If it makes you feel better, I don't know what "major question doctrine" is.

Re the bolded part above... as if elected officials do a better job at deciding.
I'd rather have a content specific expert who has worked his/her way up in a field/agency to make decisions that most of the elected officials I can think of right now.

Okay, seethe and sink your teeth into all that. Served up nice and juicy for you.

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Those are great things.

I'm a fan of Senator Whitehouse.
He has been on a crusade to expose the dark secrets of how the election process works. Dark Money by special interest groups is used to communicate messaging to voters that gets "their" people elected, and they further use this money to broadcast beliefs and values among the electorate.

This is not different than Kellogg's having a big marketing budget to get people to eat Tony the Tiger Frosted Flakes.

The marketing campaigns are often needed, because if left alone, people might not buy and eat that *****
The power of advertising/marketing is powerful.
In it's worst forms, it is propaganda and misinformation.

I think it's okay for me to paste Whitehouse's presentation of an issue that HE wanted to broadcast to the population. I may not know the legalities you brought up, but I trust Senator Whitehouse.

In the case he raised, he's championing the environment. I support that.

---

I am also in favor of good although not as much as I am about better. However, I think we should really support what is best and screw you if you are the type who keeps advocating for worse. In case you thought you were a good person, I am a better person because no matter what I actually do, I stated here clearly that I support what is best.

---

Hahaha.

calbear93 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If you don't know what a major question doctrine is, it may have been best for you to sit out the discussion on major question doctrine. Your political views are not needed in every discussion and derail the topic.

By the way, I am for world peace, elimination of poverty, and elimination of crime.

---

Enough already with the anti-bitcoin propaganda.

---

Again with the straw man argument.

---

Just making it clear I was joking. This is a strange place so want to make sure, while u2 will get it, others might not.

---

I laughed

Moved it here:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/112881/replies/2317699

These people are delusional. Reminder for those that don't know, Hananid is the guy who posted racist garbage for over a decade under fake names all over the internet. He's also the guy that recently posted that bigoted homophobic message that made his own sexuality seem less than clear. He also apparently a professor who is very comfortable making stuff up.

this is no different from 12 year olds posting about how they’re positive that taylor swift is a lesbian https://t.co/OQRukUmG0C pic.twitter.com/2rF58lpHNB

— francis wolf (@francisxwolf) March 24, 2024

Me and @robkhenderson determined that show’s ideology was Bisexual Classical Liberalism, which might’ve been Sydney Sweeney’s initial step from Idaho religious conservative to the Nietzschean Right. https://t.co/frbpO1NQAJ

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 24, 2024

l

GoOskie said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

this is no different from 12 year olds posting about how they’re positive that taylor swift is a lesbian https://t.co/OQRukUmG0C pic.twitter.com/2rF58lpHNB

— francis wolf (@francisxwolf) March 24, 2024

---

Good lord, that woman can Nietzschean right me all night long.

---

You beat me to a comment on this. I was going to say that I would be very interested in an AOC, Sydney Sweeney 'debate' on this, or any, topic.

I would be interested in seeing Democrats debate each other in general. But how can you have a debate if they all agree with each other publicly?

Donald Trump Shares Jesus Comparison While in Court


https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-shares-jesus-comparison-while-court-stormy-daniels-1883109

*I wonder what type of balloon animal the Bible thumping Evangelicals have to twist and turn their superior moral and ethical principles into to rationale that this blasphemy from the judgment labeled "Sexual Abuser" is justified?

*Since I am not a Bible thumper, my response to the Sidney Sweeney post above:

Nicely done, okaydo. You can't make this excrement up.

Kari Lake says the reason she surrendered on the defamation lawsuit against her today was because she felt if she participated in the trial it would give the the people who brought the case credibility. pic.twitter.com/hxvE6xJ40V

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) March 27, 2024

Maria Bartiromo tries to link the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore to "the wide open border" pic.twitter.com/bkMdvFNa3g

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2024

okaydo said:

---

Maria Bartiromo tries to link the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore to "the wide open border" pic.twitter.com/bkMdvFNa3g

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2024

---

I'm sticking with this: the bridge collapsed because the ship ran into one of its main supports.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm sticking with this: the bridge collapsed because the ship ran into one of its main supports.

---

It is so obvious the bridge collapsed because of Woke politics and the MeToo BLM Libtard's who have made this country gay and trans and our bridges weak!!!!!

blungld said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I'm sticking with this: the bridge collapsed because the ship ran into one of its main supports.

---

It is so obvious the bridge collapsed because of Woke politics and the MeToo BLM Libtard's who have made this country gay and trans and our bridges weak!!!!!

---

Bridge is obviously a result of DEI.