Going rogue

[The Rabbi]

The IRS spies on us, the FCC monitors the information we watch and the EPA protects bait fish at the expense of humans. I guess it's the brave new world democrats had in mind all along.

Yes, your right to property should allow you to destroy spawning for trout on your own land. absolutely. Why, that's a long held conservative view.

Why shouldn't it? It's called "private property" for a reason.

 

[PredFan]

And now you and the loony inmates are going to taking issue with Marbury v Madison.

More Oh Brother.

Thank god morons like you can't make policy or laws. All you can do is deflect, spin, and marginalize here on a Internet message board. Idaho is not hearing your nutter ramblings.

 

[paperview]

You want to be a little more specific, Jarhead?

 

[bendog]

I have every right to use my property as I see fit, regardless of any effect my use might have on others' property. For this, our forefathers gave their blood.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have every right to use my property as I see fit, regardless of any effect my use might have on others' property. For this, our forefathers gave their blood.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy in full force. Put on hip boots to stay above the bullshit.

 

[paperview]

Here's something to chew on: The federal courts and SCOTUS have all confirmed the EPA's power to regulate.

There IS a court challenge coming up that builds on this

High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions one though.


There is also EPA v. EME Homer.
& Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA is certainly worth watching.

Six reasons why the Greenhouse Gas cases are worth watching

 

[Jarhead]

You want to be a little more specific, Jarhead?

The Scott Walker recall.

It was pushed by the left simply because the left did not like his initiative.

If you were OK with that, then you should be OK with anyone who wants to try to nullify an initiative or law.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Me?

I did not see the recall as "wrong"...I disagreed with the reason they were doing it but the law allowed for it, and American citizens capitalized on it...albeit to no avail.

I see no reason why a state should be slandered for trying to nullify a federal law that directly affects that states citizens.

If the courts allow it, so be it.

 

[paperview]

You want to be a little more specific, Jarhead?

The Scott Walker recall.

It was pushed by the left simply because the left did not like his initiative.

If you were OK with that, then you should be OK with anyone who wants to try to nullify an initiative or law.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Me?

I did not see the recall as "wrong"...I disagreed with the reason they were doing it but the law allowed for it, and American citizens capitalized on it...albeit to no avail.
.

Oh Walker. Like I was supposed to deduce that from the void?

Wisconsin allows for a recall. State law. They had it. It had nothing to do with the Feds.

I see no reason why a state should be slandered for trying to nullify a federal law that directly affects that states citizens.

If the courts allow it, so be it

Slandered?

 

[bendog]

fu off "rabbi'

 

[bedowin62]

fu off "rabbi'

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1 mommy mommy a right-winger is getting the best of me!!

 

[bendog]

naw, he's got nothing.

It may be that Idaho overstepped regulation in this instance. But, no one has a right to destroy a fishery downstream. If you didn't get that in high school, you should have.

PS, but as usual, an interesting thread by Eagle.

 

[Jarhead]

You want to be a little more specific, Jarhead?

The Scott Walker recall.

It was pushed by the left simply because the left did not like his initiative.

If you were OK with that, then you should be OK with anyone who wants to try to nullify an initiative or law.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Me?

I did not see the recall as "wrong"...I disagreed with the reason they were doing it but the law allowed for it, and American citizens capitalized on it...albeit to no avail.
.

Oh Walker. Like I was supposed to deduce that from the void?

Wisconsin allows for a recall. State law. They had it. It had nothing to do with the Feds.

I see no reason why a state should be slandered for trying to nullify a federal law that directly affects that states citizens.

If the courts allow it, so be it

Slandered?

I apologize. I did not mean to put you in a position to "deduce" something from a void. My error. You did not need to be so snarky about it. No harm meant.

My question had nothing to do with state or federal. It had to do with you.

If the law allows it, so be it. That's my attitude....regardless of whether or not I agree with the initiative.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Worked for WV, look at all the low paying jobs and toxic spills they have there. Trading the environment for jobs is retarded, both run out before long.

But until they do, Big Business makes money and really, isn't that all that really matters?

 

[paperview]

The Scott Walker recall.

It was pushed by the left simply because the left did not like his initiative.

If you were OK with that, then you should be OK with anyone who wants to try to nullify an initiative or law.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Me?

I did not see the recall as "wrong"...I disagreed with the reason they were doing it but the law allowed for it, and American citizens capitalized on it...albeit to no avail.
.

Oh Walker. Like I was supposed to deduce that from the void?

Wisconsin allows for a recall. State law. They had it. It had nothing to do with the Feds.

I see no reason why a state should be slandered for trying to nullify a federal law that directly affects that states citizens.

If the courts allow it, so be it

Slandered?

I apologize. I did not mean to put you in a position to "deduce" something from a void. My error. You did not need to be so snarky about it. No harm meant.

My question had nothing to do with state or federal. It had to do with you.

If the law allows it, so be it. That's my attitude....regardless of whether or not I agree with the initiative.

I didn't think it was snarky ( sometimes people here get so sensitive!) but whatever...

I don't get your conflating a state law with the EPA rules and the Supremacy Clause (which is what this will come down to) but again....whatever.

 

[bendog]

The whole thing seems humorous to me. First, I think it's safe to assume Idaho has more at stake economically with fishing and wildlife tourism that mom and pop sucking some water out of a stream to dredge for gold. Frankly, I never knew people did that. LOL

Idaho, like any other state, can implement EPA regulations. Obviously, the regulations should differentiate from the impacts on: a: diverting some water to "pan" for gold, and just put the water back, and b: diverting the water as allowing it to pass through agricultural land with fertilizers or through old mill tailings with arsenic, and then putting it back.

I'd like to think Idaho can figure this one out. LOL

 

[FJO]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

Idiocy is placing some obscure species above humans.
Idiocy is attempts to save species long overdue for extinction.
Idiocy is thinking that the world is suffering from lack of dinosaurs and dodo birds.
Idiocy is calling swamps wetlands.

Idiocy is not realizing that EPA is acronym for Employment Prevention Agency.

 

[paperview]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

Idiocy is placing some obscure species above humans.
Idiocy is attempts to save species long overdue for extinction.
Idiocy is thinking that the world is suffering from lack of dinosaurs and dodo birds.
Idiocy is calling swamps wetlands.

Idiocy is not realizing that EPA is acronym for Employment Prevention Agency.

Idiocy is this ^ post.

 

[candycorn]

You want to be a little more specific, Jarhead?

The Scott Walker recall.

It was pushed by the left simply because the left did not like his initiative.

If you were OK with that, then you should be OK with anyone who wants to try to nullify an initiative or law.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Me?

I did not see the recall as "wrong"...I disagreed with the reason they were doing it but the law allowed for it, and American citizens capitalized on it...albeit to no avail.

I see no reason why a state should be slandered for trying to nullify a federal law that directly affects that states citizens.

If the courts allow it, so be it.

You are correct!

I tend to agree with your sentiment. If the courts allow it, so be it. It would be nice if our lawmakers felt the same way. The court ruled on the ACA but that hasn't prevented legislative opposition.

 

[NightFox]

And now you and the loony inmates are going to taking issue with Marbury v Madison.

More Oh Brother.

Yet again attempting to substitute snarkiness for an argument, I thought for a minute there that you might actually have the ability to apply reason and evidence, apparently I was mistaken.

Pray continue....

 

[The Rabbi]

And now you and the loony inmates are going to taking issue with Marbury v Madison.

More Oh Brother.

Yet again attempting to substitute snarkiness for an argument, I thought for a minute there that you might actually have the ability to apply reason and evidence, apparently I was mistaken.

Pray continue....

Paperview is incapable of formulatig an argument, much less defending it in debate. Like most lefties around here.