The Goat Pen

perhaps

just wasting time til 4 oclock posting deadpool thoughts about ya all

course if you all were dead what would I do between 7 and 4

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Professor Tiger wrote:JD, did the CA state legislature pass that law criminalizing speech that expresses misgivings about AGW?

This new liberal religion is getting all Torquemada on its heretics.

As usual, RWNJ bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/california-to-jai ... -skeptics/

On 4 June 2016, the web site Red Flag News published an article reporting that California had introduced a law under which the state could "jail anyone who questions man-made climate change." That article drew on one published by Washington Times under a markedly different headline, one asserting that the "California Senate [had] sidelined [a] bill to prosecute climate change skeptics":

Social media rumors that the SB 1161 would result in jail time for "anyone who questions climate change" escalated when radio host Glenn Beck published a blog post on 2 June 2016 claiming that:

Despite the misleading statements or implications of some headlines and articles on this subject, SB 1161 didn't apply to private individuals, nor did it specify that criminal penalties (including imprisonment) should be applied to climate change deniers. It sought to modify California law to allow the government to pursue civil claims under California's Unfair Competition Law against businesses and organizations that have disseminated misinformation about anthropogenic-induced climate change (even if the statute of limitations for such claims has expired):

No provision of the bill mentioned or alluded to jail time, nor were individual citizens targeted by its proposed actions. And irrespective of those oft-reported inaccuracies, the issue is moot because the bill was not taken up by the California state senate and therefore was not enacted as law.

crashcourse wrote:perhaps

just wasting time til 4 oclock posting deadpool thoughts about ya all

course if you all were dead what would I do between 7 and 4

I wish you were dead in a pool.

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:JD, did the CA state legislature pass that law criminalizing speech that expresses misgivings about AGW?

This new liberal religion is getting all Torquemada on its heretics.

As usual, RWNJ bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/california-to-jai ... -skeptics/

On 4 June 2016, the web site Red Flag News published an article reporting that California had introduced a law under which the state could "jail anyone who questions man-made climate change." That article drew on one published by Washington Times under a markedly different headline, one asserting that the "California Senate [had] sidelined [a] bill to prosecute climate change skeptics":

Social media rumors that the SB 1161 would result in jail time for "anyone who questions climate change" escalated when radio host Glenn Beck published a blog post on 2 June 2016 claiming that:

Despite the misleading statements or implications of some headlines and articles on this subject, SB 1161 didn't apply to private individuals, nor did it specify that criminal penalties (including imprisonment) should be applied to climate change deniers. It sought to modify California law to allow the government to pursue civil claims under California's Unfair Competition Law against businesses and organizations that have disseminated misinformation about anthropogenic-induced climate change (even if the statute of limitations for such claims has expired):

No provision of the bill mentioned or alluded to jail time, nor were individual citizens targeted by its proposed actions. And irrespective of those oft-reported inaccuracies, the issue is moot because the bill was not taken up by the California state senate and therefore was not enacted as law.

I stand by my statement. I didn't say anything about jail time or individuals who dare question the holy edicts of the man-made global warming cult. Instead, it's about a law that criminalizes free speech by doubting man-made climate change if it is uttered by corporations. That is the most ridiculous attempt to limit free speech in our lifetimes. If the conservatives ever take over the government, maybe they should pass laws that criminalize free speech by AFL/CIO, NOW, NARAL, NAACP, BLM, NYT, MSNBC, WaPo, Greenpeace, etc. They should be legally punished for all the "misinformation" they have been peddling all these years. Since those utterers of unauthorized speech aren't "individuals," you'd be okay with that, right?

Professor Tiger wrote:

crashcourse wrote:perhaps

just wasting time til 4 oclock posting deadpool thoughts about ya all

course if you all were dead what would I do between 7 and 4

I wish you were dead in a pool.

That should have been "in a pool, dead".

Another day, another judicial rebuke to President Obama’s contempt for the rule of law. On Wednesday a federal judge struck down an oil and gas drilling rule imposed with no statutory authority.

In 2015 the Bureau of Land Management published new regulations about well construction and water management for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that takes place on federal and Indian lands. The BLM asserted “broad authority” to control oil and gas operations on the basis of laws that were passed in 1920, 1930, 1938, 1976 and 1982 and were allegedly ambiguous. Thus the agency said it deserved the benefit of the interpretive doubt that the courts call Chevron deference.

Abusing Chevron is an Obama specialty. But BLM’s overreach was notably egregious because Congress passed an energy law in 2005 that stripped the executive branch of fracking jurisdiction and gave that power to the states.

The BLM argued that Congress’s choice didn’t matter because the bureau wasn’t mentioned by name in the 2005 law. That claim inspired Judge Scott Skavdahl of Wyoming—an Obama appointee—to conduct a remedial seminar in the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Under the BLM argument, Judge Skavdahl writes, “there would be no limit to the scope or extent of congressionally delegated authority BLM has. . . . Having explicitly removed the only source of specific federal agency authority over fracking, it defies common sense for the BLM to argue that Congress intended to allow it to regulate the same activity under a general statute that says nothing about hydraulic fracturing.”

Judge Skavdahl also rebukes the administrative agencies that “increasingly” rely “on Chevron deference to stretch the outer limits of ‘delegated’ statutory authority by revising and reshaping legislation.” He reminds that agencies derive their “existence, authority and powers from Congress alone,” and that Congress’s “inability or unwillingness to pass a law desired by the executive branch does not default authority to the executive branch to act independently.”

A President who rewrites inconvenient laws ought to alarm Americans of all political persuasions. Principled decisions like Judge Skavdahl’s help restore the constitutional norms that Mr. Obama has done so much to dismantle.


..bout time someone stood up to the WH, f'ing repubs won't do it...

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Yeah. So?

"I didn't say anything about jail time or individuals who dare question the holy edicts of the man-made global warming cult."

It's always humorous to watch the adherent of one cult that issues holy edicts rail on another one for doing the same thing...

So you agree that the AGW movement is a cult? That's progress.

Like most cults, the AGW cult even has a leader - Al Gore - who indulges in great wealth while requiring his followers to live in communal penury, and the followers are fine with that.

10ac wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:

crashcourse wrote:perhaps

just wasting time til 4 oclock posting deadpool thoughts about ya all

course if you all were dead what would I do between 7 and 4

I wish you were dead in a pool.

That should have been "in a pool, dead".

Fair. But cut me some slack - that was my first crack at the "I wish you were _____" meme. It's sorta the new "Hitler in the bunker."

Certainly it doesn't rival your breathtakingly unfunny flights of long-winded sarcasm that you (and you alone) mistake for wit...

I wish you took a long flight .... off a cliff.

deadpool was better

your regressing

Round 'em up

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpspro ... 3720-1.jpg

Jungle Rat wrote:

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Yeah. So?

That explains a lot. Well some.

Did you live under power lines too?

Nope. Just your mom.

The limeys don't do much right, but they did ok this time, taking their country back....they're now official racists like us!!!llll


[img2]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... om.svg.png[/img2]

Wow. The Empire Strikes Back.

So will your 401k