ah yes. the famous leftist agenda of having all citizens treated equally under the law as the constitution demands. that makes the conservative agenda what exactly?
and you seem to have no clue as to the facts of the case.
here's the rundown: -IRS is tasked with approving 501() tax exemptoin applications -IRS had a backlog -IRS tried to shortcut determinations for 501(c) groups, the NON-POLITICAL group category by searching for political terms in group names -this is because groups didnt want to have to file under 501(d) because (d) requires disclosure of donors while (c) does not (thats why its explicitily for political groups) -IRS did this to both conservative AND liberal groups -Congress critter Issa tried to paint it as being conservatives only by manipulating hte investigation and only pointing out conservative groups -IRS never actually disapproved any conservative groups -IRS did disapproved a few liberal ones
-the whole scandal was manufactured conservative bullshit that came about because the IRS tried to do its job and actually enforce the law as written, albeit with a misguided shortcut.
SJWs: people who fight for civil rights and equality, things that conservatives are some how opposed to. Religious Right: people who fight to impose their religious views on the rest of society, a thing that the Constitution is opposed to.
these things are not equal. and you are a moron for trying to make it seem so.
this is just your typical textbook example of a conservative interpreting "disagreement, arguing, or counter protesting against racists is silencing them", misinterpreting the freedom to speak, as either a freedom to be heard or a freedom from criticism, or both.
besides, what's wrong with making racists and nazis go away and crawl back into their holes? they can spew their shit all they want.
they're just such snowflakes they cant handle the the fact that most people disagree with them, and so they complain, as you are, that they are being "silenced" because they dont understand the actual rights at play.
how about when sanders was saying "he's more to fight ISIS in the past 6 months than Obama did in last 8 years"...
ignoring both that ISIS is only like 3 years old, AND Trumps super secret "plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days" is just to keep following the plan Obama was already following.
is there a point to you post, or were you simply trying to use deflection of one obvious case of protected speech that SCOTUS got wrong (and indeed was overturned later) to try and impugn a separate situation that is not protected speech, aka the straw man fallacy?
as your helpful link points out, people shouting fire in crowded theaters or other gatherings had, at the time of that case, killed hundreds of people in the ensuing panics. thus the Justice in the case was not creating the reference for the first time (as you seem to want to imply), but pointing it out as something the people of the time would be commonly familiar with as a kind of speech that is dangerous and not worthy of protection.
upfront, more expensive. but total cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle? same or less. and subsidies can help poor purchasers too, not just wealthy. your hypothetical falls apart.
heck, they also then have to deal with black lung, and a medical system, both private (from their employers) and public that doesn't really support them or get them the care they need. then, saddled with an inability to continue working due to the condition (hell, an inability to breathe, having to fight for every incomplete breath!!), they all to often slide into (or further into) poverty, which further exacerbates the problems of the region.
The Obama administration was marked by a guy pushing society away from what might have been good ideas by his insistence on bucking consensus instead of contributing to it.
No, the Obama Administration was marked by a guy being opposed on the basis of his skin color, by a congress that intentionally abdicated its responsibility to govern, yet who had a job to do, so he went about doing it the only way left to him.
it'd be nice if all the toddlers in the room helped pick up their toys and straighten up the room at the end of the day....but when they don't, it still needs done, and so the job then falls to the adult in the room.
the EPA is an independent federal agency, bound by law establishing its charter to work to improve and protect the environment in order to protect the public health. the Clean Power Plan falls under that jurisdiction.
there are only 76,000 coal industry workers in the country. that's not just miners, but everyone in the industry: office workers, sales staff, equipment mechanics, etc. actual miners are only 50k.
its a dying industry. destroying the environment for the sake of an industry smaller than the year round ski tourism industry is hardly sound economic policy. there is not and never was a war on coal. coal was killed by free market forces, not governmental ones.
advancing coal industry objectives is a detriment to the economy and the public health. advancing green energy industry is both a much larger economic stimulus (employing more than 10x as many people), its also better for the public health and as a result less of a drain on future economy as fewer people will be sickened by the pollution from burning coal.
there is no reason to favor the coal industry. not in economic terms, not in labor terms, and not in terms related to public health.
the ONLY reasons to favor the coal industry is out of some misguided left/right partisan stupidity, or being one of their paid shills. both of which apply to Pruitt.
bullshit. spending is spending whether its invested or spent on consumer goods.
the richer people are, the the smaller a % of their income or wealth they spend. poor people spend 100% (or greater, thanks to credit) of their funds, ie, every dollar. the top 1% spends on average only 32 cents of every dollar.
in total, the majority of funds in teh economy, driving demand and driving job creation, come from the bottom 90% of americans. not the rich. and hte rich DO hoard their money. their spending is not the engine of hte economy, and they dont create jobs out of hte good ness of their hearts. it is done in response to consumber demand for goods beyond their current ability to provide. thus they create more jobs to meet that demand.
Slashdot Mirror
ah yes.
the famous leftist agenda of having all citizens treated equally under the law as the constitution demands.
that makes the conservative agenda what exactly?
and you seem to have no clue as to the facts of the case.
here's the rundown:
-IRS is tasked with approving 501() tax exemptoin applications
-IRS had a backlog
-IRS tried to shortcut determinations for 501(c) groups, the NON-POLITICAL group category by searching for political terms in group names
-this is because groups didnt want to have to file under 501(d) because (d) requires disclosure of donors while (c) does not (thats why its explicitily for political groups)
-IRS did this to both conservative AND liberal groups
-Congress critter Issa tried to paint it as being conservatives only by manipulating hte investigation and only pointing out conservative groups
-IRS never actually disapproved any conservative groups
-IRS did disapproved a few liberal ones
-the whole scandal was manufactured conservative bullshit that came about because the IRS tried to do its job and actually enforce the law as written, albeit with a misguided shortcut.
"barely caught a news story" ... what fantasy world are you living in?
SJWs: people who fight for civil rights and equality, things that conservatives are some how opposed to.
Religious Right: people who fight to impose their religious views on the rest of society, a thing that the Constitution is opposed to.
these things are not equal.
and you are a moron for trying to make it seem so.
and while we're at it lets talk about the lizard nazis beneath antarctica and other bullshit.
this is just your typical textbook example of a conservative interpreting "disagreement, arguing, or counter protesting against racists is silencing them", misinterpreting the freedom to speak, as either a freedom to be heard or a freedom from criticism, or both.
besides, what's wrong with making racists and nazis go away and crawl back into their holes?
they can spew their shit all they want.
they're just such snowflakes they cant handle the the fact that most people disagree with them, and so they complain, as you are, that they are being "silenced" because they dont understand the actual rights at play.
still delusional.
so what youre saying is, is that your delusions are still intact.
how about when sanders was saying "he's more to fight ISIS in the past 6 months than Obama did in last 8 years" ...
ignoring both that ISIS is only like 3 years old, AND Trumps super secret "plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days" is just to keep following the plan Obama was already following.
undeniable video that of course you are completely incapable of actually providing or proving hte existence of.
is there a point to you post, or were you simply trying to use deflection of one obvious case of protected speech that SCOTUS got wrong (and indeed was overturned later) to try and impugn a separate situation that is not protected speech, aka the straw man fallacy?
as your helpful link points out, people shouting fire in crowded theaters or other gatherings had, at the time of that case, killed hundreds of people in the ensuing panics. thus the Justice in the case was not creating the reference for the first time (as you seem to want to imply), but pointing it out as something the people of the time would be commonly familiar with as a kind of speech that is dangerous and not worthy of protection.
once again you prove that you know nothing.
you forgetting to consider how much less the Danish drive in general ?
upfront, more expensive.
but total cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle? same or less.
and subsidies can help poor purchasers too, not just wealthy.
your hypothetical falls apart.
once again you have confused your delusions with reality.
size of workforce != amount of coal being mined.
there's these things called mechanization and automation....
heck, they also then have to deal with black lung, and a medical system, both private (from their employers) and public that doesn't really support them or get them the care they need. then, saddled with an inability to continue working due to the condition (hell, an inability to breathe, having to fight for every incomplete breath!!), they all to often slide into (or further into) poverty, which further exacerbates the problems of the region.
the delusion is strong here.
The Obama administration was marked by a guy pushing society away from what might have been good ideas by his insistence on bucking consensus instead of contributing to it.
No, the Obama Administration was marked by a guy being opposed on the basis of his skin color, by a congress that intentionally abdicated its responsibility to govern, yet who had a job to do, so he went about doing it the only way left to him.
it'd be nice if all the toddlers in the room helped pick up their toys and straighten up the room at the end of the day....but when they don't, it still needs done, and so the job then falls to the adult in the room.
speaking of delusional people who belong in an adult daycare center....
SSSSHHHHHH!!!!!
You fool!
Now they're going to come for you!
FLEE!
except it's not an executive order.
the EPA is an independent federal agency, bound by law establishing its charter to work to improve and protect the environment in order to protect the public health. the Clean Power Plan falls under that jurisdiction.
there are only 76,000 coal industry workers in the country.
that's not just miners, but everyone in the industry: office workers, sales staff, equipment mechanics, etc.
actual miners are only 50k.
its a dying industry. destroying the environment for the sake of an industry smaller than the year round ski tourism industry is hardly sound economic policy. there is not and never was a war on coal. coal was killed by free market forces, not governmental ones.
advancing coal industry objectives is a detriment to the economy and the public health.
advancing green energy industry is both a much larger economic stimulus (employing more than 10x as many people), its also better for the public health and as a result less of a drain on future economy as fewer people will be sickened by the pollution from burning coal.
there is no reason to favor the coal industry.
not in economic terms, not in labor terms, and not in terms related to public health.
the ONLY reasons to favor the coal industry is out of some misguided left/right partisan stupidity, or being one of their paid shills.
both of which apply to Pruitt.
but was the remote back there?
precisely.
and more simply, how do you justify MS removing anything from MY computer?
bullshit.
spending is spending whether its invested or spent on consumer goods.
the richer people are, the the smaller a % of their income or wealth they spend.
poor people spend 100% (or greater, thanks to credit) of their funds, ie, every dollar.
the top 1% spends on average only 32 cents of every dollar.
in total, the majority of funds in teh economy, driving demand and driving job creation, come from the bottom 90% of americans.
not the rich. and hte rich DO hoard their money. their spending is not the engine of hte economy, and they dont create jobs out of hte good ness of their hearts.
it is done in response to consumber demand for goods beyond their current ability to provide. thus they create more jobs to meet that demand.
You don't see Democrats saying "that was a great Republican idea, let's keep working on that" very often either.
Romneycare.
Obamacare.
Carbon Credits.