EPTThis court has been kind of unpredictable at times. I think a lot of it will hinge on whether Roberts wants his legacy to be gutting environmental protections. My guess is no, but it's a pretty tenuous thing to bet on.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 898
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
This court has been kind of unpredictable at times. I think a lot of it will hinge on whether Roberts wants his legacy to be gutting environmental protections. My guess is no, but it's a pretty tenuous thing to bet on. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 23 2014 21:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seriously.. Gays have much higher suicide rates than others. You accept that this is not due to some genetic defect, but due to society's lack of acceptance for them. Then lets fucking invest money in gene therapy for them rather than to just accept them. ...males are 3x as likely to commit suicide as females. Lets invest in some gene therapy for them too. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 24 2014 05:26 Sub40APM wrote: ...males are 3x as likely to commit suicide as females. Lets invest in some gene therapy for them too. Yeah and fat guys are more likely to be depressed and suicidal, too. Must be the filthy fat manipulating their brain cells! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 24 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah and fat guys are more likely to be depressed and suicidal, too. Must be the filthy fat manipulating their brain cells! Actually yes. Fat cells have a great effect on hormonal balance and brain chemistry. It's been confirmed multiple times that regular exercise is as good or better an antidepressant than SSRIs. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 24 2014 05:51 IgnE wrote: Actually yes. Fat cells have a great effect on hormonal balance and brain chemistry. It's been confirmed multiple times that regular exercise is as good or better an antidepressant than SSRIs. I think the steady social pressure may be a little more severe than your belly messing with your brain chemistry a little. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
This case is about the Executive Branch’s attempt through procedural manipulation and administrative fiat to create sweeping new regulatory powers over the American economy. Discarding clear limitations established by Congress in the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) has fundamentally transformed two permitting programs designed decades ago andlimited in application to large industrial sources that emit air pollutants. 42 U.S.C.limited in application to large industrial sources that emit air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. These programs, known as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V, were designed to mitigate certain pollutants emitted only from large, stationary sources such as pulp mills and industrial boilers – designated under the act as “major stationary sources.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 7479(1), 7661(2)(B), 7602(j). EPA now unilaterally seeks to expand these programs to include any source of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission.[...] EPA admits that its application of the PSD and Title V permitting programs to stationary sources emitting GHGs creates absurd results – hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sources emit GHGs in excess of the emission thresholds. Moreover, EPA acknowledges that literal applicability of its selfstyled PSD “would bring tens of thousands of small sources and modifications into the PSD program each year, and millions of small sources into the title V program.” 75 Fed. Reg. 31,533 I remember back in the day debating more often laws before passage. What they would change, help/hurt, etc. Now, we are increasingly forced to debate extra-legal proceedings from the regulatory agencies (the 4th branch of govt essentially) that self-appoint wide powers until stopped. Is this the way to govern a nation, legislate from the executive branch's bureaucracy? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 24 2014 06:15 Danglars wrote: The EPA had previously led an attack on the industry. They seized power for themselves in clear violation of the law they're using. The clean air act details the limitations on what they're allowed to police. One of the fun things about laws is debating their effects before passage, and amending in Congress should alterations be required or supported. Off course the liberals at HuffPo will call it an attack, but make no mistake, they were acting outside their authority and brought this upon themselves. From one amicus brief, amicus brief I remember back in the day debating more often laws before passage. What they would change, help/hurt, etc. Now, we are increasingly forced to debate extra-legal proceedings from the regulatory agencies (the 4th branch of govt essentially) that self-appoint wide powers until stopped. Is this the way to govern a nation, legislate from the executive branch's bureaucracy? The hand was more or less forced when one of the branches of government began doing more harm than good to the country. Welcome to a government with a 3rd party (Tea-Party). | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On February 23 2014 07:15 farvacola wrote: You should read Anthony Kenny's "What is Faith?" or something by Richard Swinburne or William Alston if you think that that is the only way for a "proper" rational mind to go about the process of faith. It's neither as limited nor as immature in terms of epistemology as you seem to think. edit: oops misunderstood something Okay I will say that certainly faith can sound like a philosophy, and people to this day still hash out arguments basically unchanged from over a century ago...but anyone who seriously investigates religious arguments will find them lacking either logically or on the basis of evidence. And I will say that categorically. I would challenge anyone to come up with a single good argument (or group if it has to come with others to work) for being religious, from any of the books you've read. I would be surprised if its convincing. Unless you're implying that there's some "other" way for rational people to become spiritual. I am seriously interested in what you would believe replaces logic and evidence just as well (if that's what you're arguing for). But certainly for a lot of misinformed people, or otherwise intelligent folk who don't have time to research the matter thoroughly (or who are susceptible to bias), it can seem like there are good grounds. Also about Descartes, his argument for God was literally a circular argument, I read his meditations. After that point most of my philosophy class wrote him off because it was such an egregious flaw..  . Even though he was obviously a very smart man in other ways. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
e: oh, and there are certainly other ways for rational people to become religious. there is a reason why its a belief and not knowledge | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 24 2014 06:15 Danglars wrote: The EPA had previously led an attack on the industry. They seized power for themselves in clear violation of the law they're using. The clean air act details the limitations on what they're allowed to police. One of the fun things about laws is debating their effects before passage, and amending in Congress should alterations be required or supported. Off course the liberals at HuffPo will call it an attack, but make no mistake, they were acting outside their authority and brought this upon themselves. From one amicus brief, amicus brief I remember back in the day debating more often laws before passage. What they would change, help/hurt, etc. Now, we are increasingly forced to debate extra-legal proceedings from the regulatory agencies (the 4th branch of govt essentially) that self-appoint wide powers until stopped. Is this the way to govern a nation, legislate from the executive branch's bureaucracy? I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but isn't the problem for the petitioners that the Supreme Court already declared "carbon dioxide" to be a gas subject to EPA regulation? If that's the case, then the EPA is going to win unless the Supreme Court reverses itself (unlikely). Roberts will issue the opinion and say something to the effect of "it is the job of Congress to pass laws that limit the EPA." | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 24 2014 09:30 radscorpion9 wrote: edit: oops misunderstood something Okay I will say that certainly faith can sound like a philosophy, and people to this day still hash out arguments basically unchanged from over a century ago...but anyone who seriously investigates religious arguments will find them lacking either logically or on the basis of evidence. And I will say that categorically. I would challenge anyone to come up with a single good argument (or group if it has to come with others to work) for being religious, from any of the books you've read. I would be surprised if its convincing. Are we talking organised religion exclusively? On February 24 2014 09:30 radscorpion9 wrote: Unless you're implying that there's some "other" way for rational people to become spiritual. I am seriously interested in what you would believe replaces logic and evidence just as well (if that's what you're arguing for). Again, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by being "spiritual". If you mean acting without the use of logic or evidence then we are all "spiritual". The end point of all rational thinking is the realisation that the rational isn't enough. (I think I'm paraphrasing Russell there...) | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 24 2014 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: I think the steady social pressure may be a little more severe than your belly messing with your brain chemistry a little. I think you vastly underestimate exercise's effects on the brain and the consequences of carrying a lot of extra fat on everything ranging from energy levels to depression. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Netflix folds. Agrees to pay Comcast. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 24 2014 09:51 xDaunt wrote: I did link the brief that made the case to the opposite. Essentially, they're using provisions that had no business being applied here ... they're effectively unenforceable. If Congress passes a law for permits affecting a major manufacturing machine, starting to cite toasters for noncompliance is a gross rewrite. Here we have rules crafted for large industrial sources. Threshholds in the Act? Sources that emit one hundred tons of air pollutants per year of a single air pollutant from a list, or 250 tons per year of any air pollutant. The Supreme Court very well may say Congress made a law affecting major industrial polluters and the EPA does not have discretionary power to say otherwise. There's the activist members and they'll act on their own motivations making sure to pencil in some attempt at constitutional justification. I think its pretty clear how absurd the current treatment is if the court decided to rule on the text of the law and not their own political leanings. It wouldn't take beyond the first 14 pages of that wide-margin brief to see beyond the terminology of the issues at hand and into the farce of the EPA this time around.I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but isn't the problem for the petitioners that the Supreme Court already declared "carbon dioxide" to be a gas subject to EPA regulation? If that's the case, then the EPA is going to win unless the Supreme Court reverses itself (unlikely). Roberts will issue the opinion and say something to the effect of "it is the job of Congress to pass laws that limit the EPA." | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18199 Posts
On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote: science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move. and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations. bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on. i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. This, and your later line of reasoning, just goes to show you don't really know how the first thing about science, but are good at twisting words to make it sound like scientists not knowing the answer and proposing a potential solution is equal to religion stating that God is the answer. Why is there lightning? Because Zeus is angry. Why does the galaxy spin? Because God made it so. This is far from the same as: Given all the observed matter and energy so far, we would expect the galaxy to spin at speed X. However, it is spinning at speed Y. That means there has to be some matter/force/bleeglefork that causes this difference. ^^ current state of the art. The neatest hypothesis for what this matter/force/bleeglefork is, is that there is a form of matter that we cannot easily observe. The hypothesis goes that not only does this "dark matter" exist, but there is far more of it, than of normal matter. There are quite a few competing hypothesi for what this matter could be and how it could come to exist in such large quantities, but no actual physicist will claim to know what dark matter is. We have so far not found any direct evidence of its existence and there are some other hypothesi that can explain the discrepencies between observed and predicted models of galaxies. Most of those hypothesi have some rather strange requirements that make them less likely to be true than the existence of dark matter (so much so that a large majority of physicists see dark matter as the only likely solution), however we have some good experimental equipment for searching for dark matter. If we do not find any further evidence for its existence, and find evidence for a competing hypothesis, the dark matter hypothesis will go the way of phlogiston, and maybe future generations will laugh at how ridiculous that idea was. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18199 Posts
On February 23 2014 00:24 farvacola wrote: And with this in mind, it ought to become clear why so many brands of face-value, vulgar atheism are met with disdain. I don't think having a proper understanding of scientific theory leads to the conclusion that god doesn't exist. I know plenty of scientists from any number of mainstream religions. Hell, I know some who are proponents of ID (although fairly esoteric variants that put God in the details). I don't know any who take scripture literally, though, because any young earth theory has far too many contradictions and has to invoke "God did it" for things that are explained trivially by an earth that is billions, rather than thousands, of years old. EDIT: catching up on the thread I am understanding your point of view. I fully agree with it, just not with the unnuanced statement you threw out here! | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html - Spending cap for US military lowered from around ~$600B to just under $500B. - Special Operations and Cyber Warfare will go untouched, and will likely see expansion moving forward given the nature of today's military intervention. - 11 aircraft carriers will remain operational, at least for now. - A10 attack jet will be removed from service entirely -- while very effective against ground targets such as Soviet armored columns, it is very unnecessary in the current reality. - National Guard units will transfer Apache gunship helicopters to the Army, and will receive Black Hawk transports in exchange. This will reduce operating costs for the Guard and will expand its domestic utility (e.g. Disaster relief). - U2 spy planes will retire. Behold the advent of the drone. - Personnel will be reduced to lowest level since 1940 to 440,000 active duty. - Some cuts will be made to tax and insurance benefits for military personnel. And at the end of the day, the force will still maintain the capacity to vanquish any adversary in the world. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
What also should be noted is that the Navy's acquisition of new missile cruisers and attack subs wasn't touched. Basically, what we're seeing is the DoD retooling for competition for naval supremacy with China in the Pacific. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Admittedly tank-killing isn't something we really need these days. Sounds like a good plan overall; after all, wars don't need to be won instantly; if the unfortunate should happen and war with china occurs, a naval blockade and embargo is the best plan anyways; as a land war in china would be really hard. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court appeared closely divided on Monday over whether the administration of President Barack Obama exceeded its authority in trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy would seem to hold the swing vote, with conservative justices skeptical of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approach and liberal justices supportive. During a 90-minute oral argument, Kennedy offered some criticism of the government's position but did not indicate which way he would vote. Source | ||
| ||
