he's saying it was low on voters' priority during this election. which is true.
I'm pissed that Republicans (and Democrats) voted down the drug importation bill.
Last edited by Jay (2017-01-13 06:25:10)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +651|4036
Obama's legacy will be trying to get people healthcare, handling the great recession, and not fighting against socially liberal causes. I still hang around young liberals at colleges. Not a damn one can tell you or cares about EPA regulations on coal plant emissions. They care about their student loans, jobs, insurance, police, immigration and a host of other things.Jay wrote:
Obama's legacy will be of expanding the EPA and dealing with climate change. Do you really think it has no impact on politics?SuperJail Warden wrote:
Environmentalists are tiny part of the left. None of that shit even came up during the election. The liberals living in big cities by and large couldn't care less about the environment in rural America. Bernie ran on free college not saving trees in Minnesota.
But I know you live in a little bubble so whatever.
So Obama's legacy is just a bunch of stuff dumb college aged kids care about? Ok. I'm the one in the bubble
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +651|4036
Right only college kids have healthcare insurance, jobs, and worry about the police. Christ you are stupid.
Without an EPA, your cities would look like China.Jay wrote:
Both sides do it. The left has their own doom and gloom shit too. "If you don't pass this environmental bill the polar ice caps will melt tomorrow and all the polar bears will die and your grandchildren will curse your name" blah blah blah. Protesting pipelines and using fear of leaks as the justification. Anti-vaxxer idiots like Kennedy pushing fear of autism on parents. Random Malthusians proclaiming the end of the world if we don't curb population growth. Fear is a useful political weapon but it's an awful basis for legislation.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.Jay wrote:
fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown.
I don't see how that is a fear factor when it's empirical evidence.
Whereas the conservatives fear Muslims and gays. They're only people.
OkAussieReaper wrote:
Without an EPA, your cities would look like China.Jay wrote:
Both sides do it. The left has their own doom and gloom shit too. "If you don't pass this environmental bill the polar ice caps will melt tomorrow and all the polar bears will die and your grandchildren will curse your name" blah blah blah. Protesting pipelines and using fear of leaks as the justification. Anti-vaxxer idiots like Kennedy pushing fear of autism on parents. Random Malthusians proclaiming the end of the world if we don't curb population growth. Fear is a useful political weapon but it's an awful basis for legislation.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Donald Trump just won an election by scaring people as much as possible about Mexicans and Muslims. Clinton didn't have deporting Muslims and building walls as part of her platform. The GOP has had nothing but fear and hate to run on. The liberals have only been interested in healthcare and college lately.
I don't see how that is a fear factor when it's empirical evidence.
Whereas the conservatives fear Muslims and gays. They're only people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They already do.
Here's a picture of LA on a nice sunny day.
Here's a picture of LA on a nice sunny day.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +651|4036
Environmental regulations make products more expensive thereby preventing Jay from stuffing more lasagna into his face.
The law of diminishing returns applies. The initial set of regulations worked incredibly well. We had cleaner air because lead was banned, and cleaner water because dumping was prohibited. Over time, the mission has crept and they've attempted to exert influence over wider sections of the economy. The big stuff is gone, so they turn their attention to ever smaller issues. This is how government agencies work. Everyone has to justify their job. The problem is, all these little issues cost a lot of money for very little return. I don't think anyone wants dirty air or water, but they do want the regulatory state to be pushed back inside its original scope.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Since Jay seems to struggle with projecting abstracts and hypotheticals into the real world at large or his own life I was trying to illustrate the point with something directly personal.uziq wrote:
stop obfuscating the simple point with your tired bullshit dilbert.
Jay is still arguing that we should let disasters happen and let dead people sue afterwards.
Compared with fear of blacks, muslims, Mexicans, taxes, immigration, socialised healthcare, weapons of mass destruction? Once again you took part in a precautionary war to make the world more predictable.Jay wrote:
Their whole worldview is one of fear. Every policy action is about controlling the world around them in order to make it more predictable and, in their eyes, safer. Fear of guns, fear of rednecks, fear of crime, fear of encountering different beliefs, fear of the unknown.
Who are 'they' who want the EPA pushed back? Not the average citizen I don't think.I don't think anyone wants dirty air or water, but they do want the regulatory state to be pushed back inside its original scope.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-01-13 13:04:02)
Fuck Israel
Yes, everyday people
http://m.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-m … d97b9.html
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro … water-rule
http://m.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-m … d97b9.html
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro … water-rule
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Those are specific, trivial issues which have been dealt with.
Where is the general groundswell? Its not the average person - its corporations wanting to cut their costs and increase pollution.
Where is the general groundswell? Its not the average person - its corporations wanting to cut their costs and increase pollution.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +651|4036
anyway
7 more days until we will see much will power to pull this off congrssional GOP has. Mainly congressional GOP since
Not surpirsed the state governors don't want to repeal the ACA. Especially the states that went through with the Medicaid expansion. It was a good deal. Such a good deal that even Chris Christie went along with it.
Most of the places that didn't go along with it are red states though so I guess maybe they will repeal it. You can't give someone something and then take it away. You can definitely take away something you never gave a person and get away with it on the other hand.
On Thursday night, CNN hosted a Paul Ryan town hall, during which a man who identified himself as a small-business owner and longtime Republican told Ryan that Obamacare had saved his life.
7 more days until we will see much will power to pull this off congrssional GOP has. Mainly congressional GOP since
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/g … are-233576Republican governors who reaped the benefits of Obamacare now find themselves in an untenable position — fighting GOP lawmakers in Washington to protect their states’ health coverage.
This rift between state and federal GOP officials is the real battle on Obamacare at a time when Democrats have only marginal power in Congress. The voices of even a handful of Republican governors intent on protecting those at risk of losing coverage could help shape an Obamacare replacement and soften the impact on the millions who depend on the law.
Not surpirsed the state governors don't want to repeal the ACA. Especially the states that went through with the Medicaid expansion. It was a good deal. Such a good deal that even Chris Christie went along with it.
Most of the places that didn't go along with it are red states though so I guess maybe they will repeal it. You can't give someone something and then take it away. You can definitely take away something you never gave a person and get away with it on the other hand.
OkDilbert_X wrote:
Those are specific, trivial issues which have been dealt with.
Where is the general groundswell? Its not the average person - its corporations wanting to cut their costs and increase pollution.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
actually the second link was strictly about where the legal battle is waged - it's not even a lawsuit questioning the authority of the EPA or a specific rule.
I think strict interpretation of the constitution is as stupid as it gets. Sure, you can use previous writings of the founding fathers as reference to try to understand their thought process and what they intended, but it's still just interpretation. The reality is the constitution is a 200+ year old document and there's no point in pretending it can't be malleable.
I think strict interpretation of the constitution is as stupid as it gets. Sure, you can use previous writings of the founding fathers as reference to try to understand their thought process and what they intended, but it's still just interpretation. The reality is the constitution is a 200+ year old document and there's no point in pretending it can't be malleable.
Is it really any more stupid than piling judgements upon bad prior precedent? The main point of originalism is that it bypasses case law precedent. I know, for example, that you want Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific overturned. Good luck with a practitioner of judicial deference or a justice that defers to precedent, which is generally what you'll get with a progressive judge (because it's the only way for many government programs to continue existing).
Last edited by Jay (2017-01-13 19:18:41)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
can we all just remember that two pages ago jay, the constitutional originalist with a poster of scalia above his bed, just completely dismissed an originalist reading of the emoluments clause in the constitution. i posted a report from the brookings institute – that venerable progressive hotbed – that even spoke about the framers' historical context. but no, jay said a very clearly phrased and defined clause didn't apply to donald trump and he should go to court when the issue of his conflicting business interests arises.Jay wrote:
Is it really any more stupid than piling judgements upon bad prior precedent? The main point of originalism is that it bypasses case law precedent. I know, for example, that you want Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific overturned. Good luck with a practitioner of judicial deference or a justice that defers to precedent, which is generally what you'll get with a progressive judge (because it's the only way for many government programs to continue existing).
can we all just remember that when this fucking dumb asshole starts talking about case law and courts being a lousy way to settle environmental disputes.
Why do you post if you have nothing to contribute except ad hominem attacks? Just stop. It's boring.uziq wrote:
can we all just remember that two pages ago jay, the constitutional originalist with a poster of scalia above his bed, just completely dismissed an originalist reading of the emoluments clause in the constitution. i posted a report from the brookings institute – that venerable progressive hotbed – that even spoke about the framers' historical context. but no, jay said a very clearly phrased and defined clause didn't apply to donald trump and he should go to court when the issue of his conflicting business interests arises.Jay wrote:
Is it really any more stupid than piling judgements upon bad prior precedent? The main point of originalism is that it bypasses case law precedent. I know, for example, that you want Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific overturned. Good luck with a practitioner of judicial deference or a justice that defers to precedent, which is generally what you'll get with a progressive judge (because it's the only way for many government programs to continue existing).
can we all just remember that when this fucking dumb asshole starts talking about case law and courts being a lousy way to settle environmental disputes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i've just been discussing constitutional law for two pages and when confronted with an argument you say
so it's rich that you're giving out fine points in debating technique.Jay wrote:
ok
Wait a minute, weren't you the one saying not to worry about anything and let the courts handle everything?Jay wrote:
OkDilbert_X wrote:
Those are specific, trivial issues which have been dealt with.
Where is the general groundswell? Its not the average person - its corporations wanting to cut their costs and increase pollution.
The system works just as you like it, what are you griping about again?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-01-14 04:42:12)
Fuck Israel
You're as much a constitutional law scholar as I am, not at all. I said I don't care if he keeps his hotels and you ranted for pages. I still don't care.uziq wrote:
i've just been discussing constitutional law for two pages and when confronted with an argument you sayso it's rich that you're giving out fine points in debating technique.Jay wrote:
ok
I don't know why you're all trying to put me in a position to defend the guy. At best, I've said I like some of his cabinet picks, but I guess that's a strong enough endorsement to make me the antichrist. Whatever.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i'm putting you in a position to prove your position as a constitutionalist. the constitution says something very clear about how trump should divest of his business interests, and yet you 'don't care'. for some reason you talk about the wastefulness of 'preventative policing' and 'paranoid progressives'.
I prefer it when Jay just replies with "ok", its the only consistency his posts have.
He posts his opinions (fine) but when questioned on them or the constant contradictions we get an "ok". Then usually a complete change of topic.
He posts his opinions (fine) but when questioned on them or the constant contradictions we get an "ok". Then usually a complete change of topic.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +651|4036
jay is sort of like trump. he can never not have the last word or admit he was wrong. instead of just disengaging from a conversation, he doubles down on the stupid until he ends up contradicting himself from just a few days ago