Comments posted organically
They can't see the forest for that one little tree they want to make a big deal out of.

By Ponderer
June 29, 2022 6:29 am
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

Forget all the evidence that their Orange Lord and Master has committed several felonies. They want to tie their horse to that one small piece of evidence out of an entire Niagara Falls of damning testimony and evidence that might be questionable. As if it negates everything else learned in these hearings. It's so freaking typical. These dutiful cult members have long ago run out of fresh material.

If there are Secret Service agents willing to testify about contradicting Cassidy's testimony, let 'em!

The Secret Service has been put at the full disposal of the investigations and there is nothing stopping any agent from testifying if they have anything at all to add to the hearings. Let 'em! Have at it!

Saying you are willing to testify is a far farcry from actually testifying. But I know you ignoramuses will never understand such complexity.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "They can't see the forest for that one little tree they want to make a big deal out of.":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:42 am

    pb has been saying all along. This Committee, with no members with GOP appointed membership, is a sham and that none of its prescribed testimony can be trusted.

    Yesterday. In the effin moment. pb said that almost all of the MYSTERY witness's testimony is, simply, gossip.

    You watched that porn show, po. I suspect that you were drooling.

    And. The steamiest scene from your political peep show is now proved to be fake.

    pb was right all along.

    And...

    ...you fell for it.

    Hey, I've got some property west of Ventura. If you're interested, gimme a call!

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha!


  2. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 6:47 am

    Let's talk about it again after these witnesses you are pinning everything on actually testify under oath.


  3. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 6:55 am

    And for me, the "steamiest" scene was how Trump was told the people wanting to get into the rally were armed, but he wanted them to be ushered in anyway because after all, they didn't want to hurt him. And he was only going to send them to the Capitol after he spoke.

    The man oversaw a homicidal coup attempt against the United States Government. The whole case is certainly not hanging on whether he choked anyone in a limo or not.

    Well, not for rational people with basic human intelligence anyways.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:58 am

    Let's do, po.

    But, I'll still doubt every word spoken in these hearings.

    I'm waaaaaaaaaay past "beyond a REASONABLE doubt." I'm at BEYOND A (effin) SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

    How bout you?


  5. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:14 am

    And for me, the "steamiest" scene was how Trump was told the people wanting to get into the rally were armed, but he wanted them to be ushered in anyway because after all, they didn't want to hurt him.

    That's porn to rival the classic, DEBBIE DOES DALLAS.

    But, honestly, po, based on what is now known, do you really believe that happened?, because, based on what is now known, it's hard for pb to believe.


  6. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 7:17 am
    My question is that if one side gets a witness to purger herself, they're grabbing at straws and don't have a case. Same as Kavanaugh. If you have to invent it you become the liar.

    The difference between the blind sheep and myself. I hold both sides to the same standard.


  7. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:24 am

    How did she purger herself, od?


  8. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:24 am
    OD

    For me, the biggest question is about the Committee.

    Is it so inept that it doesn't know that you have to vet your witnesses' hearsay testimony, or did they try to foist false testimony on America?

    I wish I could think that they're idiots but, still, they're honest...

    ...but, at this moment, I need proof.


  9. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 7:30 am
    "The Secret Service has been put at the full disposal of the investigations and there is nothing stopping any agent from testifying if they have anything at all to add to the hearings. Let 'em! Have at it!

    Saying you are willing to testify is a far farcry from actually testifying. But I know you ignoramuses will never understand such complexity."

    If you're so stoopid to think that a Federal agency hasn't checked their story over and over again, obviously you're the ignoramus who will never understand such complexities. And when an agency says they are ready to testify, they've brought those people in that can make that happen within minutes. They have already had these agents write out the story and filed it so they can fire them and charge them either in an internal investigation, criminally, or both if they're lying. The agents have done polygraphs regarding their situation, if they've ever lied in court, and a number of other things. Their supervisors and lawyers have already questioned the Agents involved.

    This is a much bigger deal than what you think it is.


  10. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 7:30 am
    "The Secret Service has been put at the full disposal of the investigations and there is nothing stopping any agent from testifying if they have anything at all to add to the hearings. Let 'em! Have at it!

    Saying you are willing to testify is a far farcry from actually testifying. But I know you ignoramuses will never understand such complexity."

    If you're so stoopid to think that a Federal agency hasn't checked their story over and over again, obviously you're the ignoramus who will never understand such complexities. And when an agency says they are ready to testify, they've brought those people in that can make that happen within minutes. They have already had these agents write out the story and filed it so they can fire them and charge them either in an internal investigation, criminally, or both if they're lying. The agents have done polygraphs regarding their situation, if they've ever lied in court, and a number of other things. Their supervisors and lawyers have already questioned the Agents involved.

    This is a much bigger deal than what you think it is.


  11. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:31 am

    Dear GOD I love how you people just make reality up as you go along.


  12. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:35 am

    (That last line was for Hate)

    od, what testimonies or sworn statements from members of the Secret Service have you seen that even suggest she purgered herself? What makes you think that anything the Secret Service has provided to the hearings is in contradiction to anything Cassidy testified to yesterday?


  13. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:36 am

    Greta Van Susteren

    If questioner (Cheney) wants to appear fair to jury (American people), it probably is not a good idea to get caught on camera hugging the witness…already people have very strong feelings - both ways - about this hearing and pics like this don’t help.


    And, there's a photo.


  14. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 7:38 am
    Actually YOU'RE the one making it up. And I never said the rest of it wasn't valid. That's not what this is about. It was the sheep that made a big deal about this, and then she got caught in an overt lie. She was caught lying on the stand. If she can't tell the truth about who spoke to her, she shouldn't be on the stand giving testimony. You're just making a big deal about something in your heart of hearts you "want" to be right (but isn't), it looks stupid. I'd say it isn't a good look, but I haven't seen you any other way, so I don't know that.


  15. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:44 am

    Take Two:

    od, what testimonies or sworn statements from members of the Secret Service have you seen that even suggest she perjured herself? What makes you think that anything the Secret Service has provided to the hearings is in contradiction to anything Cassidy testified to yesterday?

    You seem to think perjury has been proven, but you won't say by what. Could you maybe se your way clear to providing this proof...?


  16. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:45 am

    If you have proof that she wasn't told what she swore under oath she was told, I'm all ears.......


  17. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:48 am

    As I've said. My question is if Ms Hutchinson lied or if Lizzy knew the truth but suborned false testimony...both could be true, of course.

    It would not shock me to find out that the Committee knew the testimony described something that did not happen but tried to trick us all any way.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:00 am

    Check the dates. The poll was taken AFTER Roe was reversed. Likely voters.


    Republicans actually grow a point higher in the YouGov generic ballot since Roe overturned 🤷‍♂️

    Generic Ballot (National)

    Rep 45%
    Dem 40%

    6/25-6/28 by YouGov (B+)
    776 LV


  19. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:06 am

    "
    It would not shock me to find out that the Committee knew the testimony described something that did not happen but tried to trick us all any way."
    -Hate

    Again with the projection.

    You really have to stop judging everyone else by what the Republicans do, Bill. Just because Republicans are devious and immoral enough to do such a thing doesn't mean that everyone must also be doing it.

    And in the face of the fact that you actually have nothing to support anything you're saying, you just look like a babbling fool.


  20. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:14 am

    Whoa, po.

    I'm not being you. I'm saying it's a possibility...

    ...and, it is.


  21. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 8:20 am
    "'It would not shock me to find out that the Committee knew the testimony described something that did not happen but tried to trick us all any way.'-Hate"

    They had already given closed door testimony which was not brought up. That seems to be extremely suspicious to me. And I've been trying to say that but she won't let this go, so I'll keep playing.


  22. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:24 am

    Good point.

    Jonathan Turley:

    If Hutchinson's testimony is accurate, the Secret Service effectively made the President of the United States a captive and refused his repeated, direct orders. The episode is likely to bedevil scholars for years, like much else in Trump’s presidency...

    You Blue MAGA Swampcult progressive wokesters are so wack!

    Do you Blue MAGAs here want us to think that the geniuses on the Committee couldn't figure that out.


  23. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:40 am

    "They had already given closed door testimony which was not brought up." -od

    There have been hundreds of testimonies that haven't been brought up. They are under no obligation to present thousands of pages and hours of sworn testimony. It exists. It can be given to the Justice Department when the time comes.

    Again, what evidence do you have... right now... that Hutchinson was lying? I've been waiting patiently......


  24. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 9:45 am
    The altercation in the limousine that Cassidy Hutchinson described was probably one of the few things mentioned that would not be considered a crime or a very minor crime at worst.

    It's interesting that Trump and his allies are not pushing back against Hutchinson's accusations which would be major crimes including reckless endangerment, sedition, defrauding the public, obstruction of justice, etc.

    Why aren't the Trump forces denying that Trump knowingly encouraged and armed mob to head for the Capitol? Maybe because it's undeniable.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 10:10 am

    It's interesting that Trump and his allies are not pushing back against Hutchinson's accusations which would be major crimes including reckless endangerment, sedition, defrauding the public, obstruction of justice, etc.

    Just curious. How closely are you following what Trump and his allies are saying?

    From my sampling today, they are absolutely rejoicing that what we've all been saying about the Committee has now been demonstrated to be true.

    I don't know what you're hearing from the right but what I'm hearing is what pb has been saying: The Committee, with its prescripted, canned testimony from carefully preselected witnesses is a farce.

    People on the right never took the Committee seriously. Now, we're all convinced that we're justified in rejecting everything that comes out of it.

    There's no pressure to think anything else. Even before yesterday's calamity, GOPs' lead in the generic ballot has been growing and Biden’s negative net approval has nearly doubled since the hearings began.

    If you're expecting to get a comment from GOPs on anything other than disasters like yesterday's, forget it.


  26. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 12:21 pm
    "You're still not reading our posts. At all. She has two strikes. If the Secret Service testifies, they have a lot more sway than she does. And they both (the Secret Service and Ornato) came up with the same story. Like I said before, my guess is that the SS folks have been polygraphed on this. She's a low level without much vetting. It's believability of her and shifty. The dims lied about Kavanaugh through their teeth. Enough to create a story that didn't happen. Would they do it again? Absolutely. Since the Secret Service came out as an Agency, that means something. It means they've vetted their agents and chose to get in this fight. They haven't taken a back seat. If it were the two agents and Secret Service didn't say a word? eh? I might agree with you. How little the sheep actually understand about how the government works.

    My question is; if someone lied to dump pedojoe, you'd call for him to be publicly hung. Right? Ya'lls TDS is getting really being be a PITA. But I guess that's the religion of sheeplism."


  27. by Donna on June 29, 2022 2:51 pm
    I have no idea what you meant by that garble in your last paragraph, but to my knowledge, Ornato hasn't commented publicly on what he said to Hutchinson yet.

    I have a great idea: Why don't you wait until Ornato tells everyone under oath what he said to her instead of jumping to conclusions about what happened and cowardly hurling invectives at Ms. Hutchinson and accusing her of various felonies from the safety the worldwide web?


  28. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:59 pm

    It's so sickeningly Republican for Republicans to try to destroy this brave woman's credibility with their bullshit lies that they pull out of their asses about her, just because they don't like what she's reporting about their Golden Cow of a God.

    Like they did to those poor innocent election precinct workers. They don't care who they gotta destroy to support their lies.


  29. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 3:12 pm

    It's so sickeningly Republican for Republicans to try to destroy this brave woman's credibility with their bullshit lies that they pull out of their asses about her, just because they don't like what she's reporting about their Golden Cow of a God.

    I don't know that anyone here's trying to destroy her.

    pb blames the Committee. Most of her testimony was essentially gossip but that's not Ms Hutchinson's fault. She could only relate stories second and third hand. She was asked to give her "impressions" and to relate people saying "something to the effect..."

    I seriously doubt that she lied about the Secret Service story. She's a fool if she did.

    Clearly, though, something is rotten in the State of Denmark, so to speak.


  30. by Donna on June 29, 2022 3:27 pm
    You're deciding what happened based on what 2 anonymous SS officers said about what 2 of Trump's aides said off the record.


  31. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 3:32 pm

    The whole time we've had to listen to a constant drone from the Trump acolytes about how every revelation that comes out of the hearings "Doesn't prove anything! That doesn't prove anything!"

    But one small piece of the puzzle arises that they think they can quibble about and that absolutely settles the entire matter for them.

    Such dishonest, hypocritical ignoramuses.


  32. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 3:37 pm

    Donna, I am.

    Whatever the truth may turn out to be, by the end of the day, pb's Twitter feed, was exploding over the reports from CBS, NBC, then others, about Secret Service agents wanting to go under oath to contradict the day's testimony...not on the day's testimony.


  33. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 3:42 pm

    The whole time we've had to listen to a constant drone from the Trump acolytes about how every revelation that comes out of the hearings "Doesn't prove anything! That doesn't prove anything!"

    I'll let the Trump acolytes speak for themselves. Because I support Ron DeSantis for President, I'm not seeing anything that will move MAGAs from Trump, not by a long shot.

    Having said that, pb thinks some things have been proven. Just not crimes.


  34. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 5:17 pm
    "But one small piece of the puzzle arises that they think they can quibble about and that absolutely settles the entire matter for them.

    Such dishonest, hypocritical ignoramuses."

    It's only because you keep it going. So you're the dishonest, hypocritical ignoramuse.


  35. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:27 pm

    To save time, I'll simply assume you intended that to make sense, od.


  36. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:06 am

    Byron York:

    This, from politico. Turns out J6 committee did *not* 'reach out to Secret Service in days before it aired explosive testimony' about alleged Trump attack on agent. Did not want to hear USSS side of story.


  37. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:46 am

    Jonathan Turley:

    This is the peril of an investigation that occurs in an echo chamber. Such “gotcha” moments are powerful in the moment but can also be equally damaging if later challenged.


  38. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:53 am

    Jonathan Turley (continued):

    ...It is the type of problem that arises when the focus of a hearing is persuasive rather than investigative. The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.


  39. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:01 am

    Brigitte Gabriel:

    The January 6th Committee has completely fallen apart. Their witnesses have been discredited. Their lies are falling on deaf ears. What a massive flop. The American people couldn't care less.


  40. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:27 am

    Liz Cheney:

    "The reality that we face today as Republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the constitution."

    Her alleged loyalty to the Constitution would mean something were she not the leading force in this Committee which operates in defiance of the principles of our bipartisan representative republic.


  41. by islander on June 30, 2022 6:14 am

    "Donald Trump attempted to overturn the presidential election. He attempted to stay in office and to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power. He summoned a mob to Washington, He knew they were armed on January 6th. He knew they were angry. And he directed the violent mob to march on the Capitol in order to delay or prevent completely the counting of electoral votes. He attempted to go there with them. And when the violence was underway, he refused to take action to tell the rioters to leave. Instead, he incited further violence by tweeting that the vice president, Mike Pence, was a coward. He said ‘Mike deserves it,’ and he didn’t want to do anything in response to the ‘Hang Mike Pence’ chants. It’s undeniable. It’s also painful for Republicans to accept.” *

    * Liz Cheney...Republican...Liz and I have many different philosophical views, but on this matter we fully agree with one another as do the majority of the American people.


  42. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 6:46 am

    isle,

    I don't believe most of that. Testimony suggesting much of it comes from unreliable testimony. What I do believe from Lizzy's Creed moves me to believe what I've been saying since 016: Trump is despicable.

    But, if "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap," or Kammy or Pete or Hillary or Pocahontas is the alternative I'll vote for Trump.


  43. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 7:27 am

    "I don't believe most of that." -Hate

    Bill, we have all fully understood for a very long time that this is your approach to all of reality. You will only believe what you want to believe. Actual reality can go pound sand if it doesn't fit what you specifically require of it. Facts that don't fit your requirements are meaningless to you. And in their place baseless, haphazardly constructed fantasies that suit your needs simply become your reality. We've seen it and sen it from you for many years now.

    You think that by simply declaring someone to be "unreliable", they suddenly just are unreliable. Reality be damned. Truth can go fukk itself as far as you are concerned. The truth in your own demented skull is the only one that matters to you. No one can ever teach you anything you don't want to know. Your mind is a sealed time capsule, never to be opened to add anything to.

    And being put in such a cognitively dissonant state, as these hearings have put you in, has thrust you into panic mode (You may think you're hiding it but you're not). The desperation to protect your own private reality from the unfolding truth is palpably growing exponentially as the reality of what you have chosen to believe becomes harder and harder to maintain in the face of the increasingly overwhelming reality.

    So keep up the calm face if it helps you, but we can see behind it pretty clearly. It's actually pretty entertaining most of the time watching you grasp at imaginary straws to keep your protective facade of delusions intact.



  44. by islander on June 30, 2022 7:42 am

    Pondy, you have accurately described Hate to a tee. He can block out and ignore reality and live his life according to his philosophy that subjectivity is truth, but he cannot escape the consequences of reality.


  45. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 7:50 am

    First, po, and I note this again, still! You liven up the place.

    Second, most of your insults mean, simply that my subjectivity is my truth. Yours is yours, too.

    Then, Re: "Truth can go fukk itself"

    Thanks for not dropping an actual effin F Bomb.


  46. by Donna on June 30, 2022 8:34 am
    There are also people on the left like Hate. Me and a couple others on FB are having an ongoing debate with a Bernie supporter who refuses to vote for any Democratic nominee in a general election he feels isn't isn't progressive enough, Supreme Court considerations be damned. Not that that matters anymore though. We'll be stuck with this Supreme Court for decades to come now, thanks to people like my FB friend who didn't have the forethought to do everything in their power to stop Trump from getting elected and going on to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court.

    Just read an article about how the Supreme Court yesterday curbed the EPA's ability to fight climate change. Yet this Bernie supporter we've been debating has the audacity to claim that the Democrats aren't doing enough to fight climate change! Oh my God, how do you reason with someone that boneheaded?!


  47. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 8:40 am

    I think the EPA decision came out today.


  48. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 1:05 pm

    So... protecting the environment is unconstitutional.

    Oh man. Humanity is so fukked.


    But I guess we should just focus on all the unshackled Profit that is now going to be obtainable for the .01%...!


    It's gonna be the Gilded Age of gilded ages.

    And the last one this species will ever experience.


  49. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 1:18 pm

    po,

    Protecting the environment is a good thing. But, and again, this is a representative republic. You actually seem to like to say it's a democracy...when it suits you.

    It's unconstitutional, obviously, in a representative republic, to protect the environment in a way that the people haven't authorized.

    If I understand the decision, that the ruling.

    Bernie and AOC have not gotten Congress to pass the Green New Deal. Bureaucrats don't get it to foist it anyway.

    You do like your foisting, don't you!


  50. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 1:27 pm
    That's not what the ruling said. It said that a Bureaucratic agency has no authority to evoke it's own law. It's job is to follow the law.

    I've told you in just one case what a clusterfuk they created in Colorado. We got a late snow just before planting. Cattle got caught in the fields. EPA came forth and put an edict on the farmers/ranchers. No machinery could be used to rescue the animals until an EIS was filed (which usually takes 6 months to a year). In addition, they were taking control of the land because there was now standing water on much of it. Therefore, the cattle died in the muck. The EPA THEN came out and fined the farmers/ranchers for polluting the water with the carcasses. Because cattle is a way to stabilize their earnings, many of the farmers lost everything they had BECAUSE of the EPA. It took them until June to get the carcasses out of the clay dirt by that time.


  51. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 1:30 pm

    Disgusting, OD. That's what po opposes?


  52. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 3:47 pm
    Her intent is to allow a bureaucratic agency with absolutely no "right" to make law (it has to be in their charter), that has done that for decades. They don't enforce laws, they make their own to their own petty wants.

    This is what is happening with domestic oil. Sure the lands are "open," but the EPA is putting a 20 year wait on doing any drilling for their own selfish desires that make no difference in the end product. The US/Canada actually have the cleanest oil recovery in the world. It would be better for us to do the drilling than any country in OPEC, Russia, or China.

    The sheeple haven't figured out there needs to be a time to transfer in to another complete energy system. Right now, they put a few hundred thousand folks out of work (coal, oil, etc). I know the "party of the people" doesn't give two shts about "the people" any more, as long as they have their jobs and don't have to deal with the other filth of the world (blue collar workers).

    Right now, if you're a small business owner, or just plain middle class, the GOP should be your vote. This is why the Latinos (mostly Latinas) are doing so well in representing Latino districts.


  53. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:50 pm

    Don't you mean LatinXeses?

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha?


  54. by islander on June 30, 2022 5:06 pm

    Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations.

    A member of Congress proposes a bill. A bill is a document that, if approved, will become law. To see the text of bills Congress is considering or has considered, go to Congress

    If both houses of Congress approve a bill, it goes to the President who has the option to either approve it or veto it. If approved, the new law is called an act or statute. Some of the better-known laws related to the environment are the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

    Once an act is passed, the House of Representatives standardizes the text of the law and publishes it in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The U.S.C. is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. Since 1926, the U.S.C. has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

    Once a law is official, here's how it is put into practice: Laws often do not include all the details needed to explain how an individual, business, state or local government, or others might follow the law. The United States Code would not tell you, for example, what the speed limit is in front of your house. In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations.

    Regulations set specific requirements about what is legal and what isn't. For example, a regulation issued by EPA to implement the Clean Air Act might explain what levels of a pollutant - such as sulfur dioxide - adequately protect human health and the environment. It would tell industries how much sulfur dioxide they can legally emit into the air, and what the penalty will be if they emit too much. Once the regulation is in effect, EPA then works to help Americans comply with the law and to enforce it. *

    * EPA Environmental Protection Agency


  55. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:09 pm

    Good civics lesson.

    So?


  56. by Donna on June 30, 2022 5:14 pm
    Protecting the environment isn't just a "good" thing, it's an essential thing. This is the only planet we have.

    The damage that humans have done to the planet already is mind boggling. If we were a sufficiently evolve species in mind and spirit, we'd pull out all the stops to reverse the damage we've done. But we won't. I think we all know that.

    If all of humanity stopped burning carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow, it would be decades before we started seeing a halt in global warming, and even that's being optimistic.

    But humanity isn't going to stop burning carbon into our atmosphere. In fact, after decades of efforts to reduce the burning of carbon into our atmosphere, atmospheric co2 not only continues to increase, but the rate of increase also continues to increase. We haven't done nearly enough.

    Humanity is in uncharted waters. We don't like to think about it, but it's clear that this problem isn't going away abd will only get worse. It's going to be a rough ride from here on out, and the ride is going to get increasingly rough as time goes on.


  57. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:32 pm

    I was watching THE FIVE tonight. Jesse Watters nailed it. He said that progressives need to learn how to legislate. You've gotten all you have/had getting the courts to foist it...

    ...and, as you say, those days are gone. You can't achieve care of the environment by convincing five judges. You're going to have to do the hard work and win people over.

    The way of this Court is to behave as if our representative republic actually is a representative republic.

    That's what the Roe decision said. The EPA, too.


  58. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 6:56 pm
    Once again, the will of the people is thwarted. We're going to be seeing a lot of that now.

    President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The agency is led by its administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.

    The Supreme Court is expected to release a decision soon on West Virginia v. EPA, a case that could fundamentally reshape the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air pollution and hamper the Biden Administration’s ability to tackle climate change. The plaintiffs — 19 Republican attorneys general working alongside two coal companies — argue that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate power plant emissions and this authority should instead be granted to Congress.

    New polling conducted by Data for Progress and Evergreen Action finds that almost three-quarters of all likely voters (74 percent) are concerned about air and water pollution in their communities. That includes 79 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans.

    Our polling also finds that 63 percent of likely voters are concerned about the Supreme Court removing environmental protections established under the Clean Air Act.

    Furthermore, 60 percent of voters believe the EPA should be allowed to regulate air pollution that contributes to climate change, including 80 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Independents.

    Lastly, after learning more about the main supporting and opposing arguments for the case, 62 percent of voters agree the EPA should be able to regulate air pollution that contributes to climate change.




    archive.epa.gov
    dataforprogress.org


  59. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 7:32 pm
    One of the main things our founders was a country with the rule of law, not rule of the mob. Since you call conservatives "anti constitutional" you should really know far more about the "constitution" you "claim" you hold so dear to your "heart" (much like the tin man).

    All you need to do to make that happen is to change the charter of the EPA. Yes, it's really that simple. Instead of whining about it, do something. That whole post sounded like a mule bitching about food.


  60. by Donna on June 30, 2022 8:14 pm
    What's next to go, the FDA?


  61. by Donna on June 30, 2022 8:30 pm
    Will this Supreme Court eventually prevent the EPA from regulating anything?


  62. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 9:41 pm
    They still can. Within the adherence to laws, regulations, guidelines and specifications relevant to its processes. They just can't make up their own rules as they go.

    "Regulatory compliance is an organization's adherence to laws, regulations, guidelines and specifications relevant to its business processes. Violations of regulatory compliance often result in legal punishment, including federal fines."

    There are several agencies that are regulatory agencies. All of them have to stay within the laws handed down to them from other agencies or congress. So if the green new deal becomes law, they can enforce what is in the law.


  63. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 9:53 pm
    Sorry, the EPA still is a regulatory agency. This issue is over stepping their charter. Their charter also doesn't say they have arrest authority. Therefore, they can't arrest people (I've never heard of them doing that, but it's an example). They can fine. They can audit. I think it's a good idea to have it, and it's done a lot of good, especially in the early days. I remember some of the rivers and run off from factories. Or better yet, the 50 gal drums of chemicals ruining the coastline of CA. There ought to be billions of dollars in that fine.


  64. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 2:37 am

    Once again, the will of the people is thwarted. We're going to be seeing a lot of that now.

    So often, in your mind, po, po's wish becomes the will of the people.

    Dems hold the White House and all of Congress.

    Legislate.



  65. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 6:28 am
    "What's next to go, the FDA?"
    I'm hoping for Dept of Education. They cost a lot, hold no regulatory power, can only "suggest," are of no use for money, considering that goes to the states anyway and is legislated on that level.

    Also, their "suggestions" have actually killed people. They are one of the main reasons shooters like in Parkland and Uvolde were not reported.


  66. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 6:42 am

    No doubt, OD. The court has opened a door.

    There are lots of targets now between the Court's past foists....

    ...and, the actions of unelected progressive bureaucrats.

    Donna is right. A new day has dawned. This Court may, very well, deconstruct much of what progressives have built through unelected judges and bureaucrats.

    It has to be a sinking feeling because they couldn't ever get votes for this malarkey.



  67. by Donna on July 1, 2022 7:24 am
    od: Your second paragraph in your last post. I haven't heard that one before. How is the Dept of Education responsible for the Parkland and Uvalde mass murders?


  68. by islander on July 1, 2022 7:36 am

    ”Her intent is to allow a bureaucratic agency with absolutely no "right" to make law (it has to be in their charter), that has done that for decades. They don't enforce laws, they make their own to their own petty wants.”,/b> ---OD

    “Regulations set specific requirements about what is legal and what isn't. For example, a regulation issued by EPA to implement the Clean Air Act might explain what levels of a pollutant - such as sulfur dioxide - adequately protect human health and the environment. It would tell industries how much sulfur dioxide they can legally emit into the air,”---EPA

    “Sorry, the EPA still is a regulatory agency”---OD

    Apologies accepted ! 👍



  69. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 10:36 am
    None offered. I worked for a regulatory agency. Everything we did we had to work with domestic and global banking partners, congress, and the White House. You're still making things up as you see fit.

    As you noted, all regulatory agencies are required to stay within the PURVIEW of the law. SCOTUS stated they were acting outside the purview of the law and they couldn't.

    purview noun
    pur·​view | \ ˈpər-ˌvyü
    \
    Definition of purview

    1a : the body or enacting part of a statute
    b : the limit, purpose, or scope of a statute
    2 : the range or limit of authority, competence, responsibility, concern, or intention
    3 : range of vision, understanding, or cognizance

    merriam-webster.com


  70. by Donna on July 1, 2022 12:55 pm
    "I've told you in just one case what a clusterfuk they created in Colorado. We got a late snow just before planting. Cattle got caught in the fields. EPA came forth and put an edict on the farmers/ranchers. No machinery could be used to rescue the animals until an EIS was filed (which usually takes 6 months to a year). In addition, they were taking control of the land because there was now standing water on much of it. Therefore, the cattle died in the muck. The EPA THEN came out and fined the farmers/ranchers for polluting the water with the carcasses. Because cattle is a way to stabilize their earnings, many of the farmers lost everything they had BECAUSE of the EPA. It took them until June to get the carcasses out of the clay dirt by that time." - od

    I couldn't find anything resembling your story anywhere. Got an article link?


  71. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 5:11 pm
    Locals were told by the feds not to put it in.


  72. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 5:13 pm
    Oh, and honestly, no one would give a flying fuk about the farmers anyway. They've learned to deal with this bullsht. It happens all the time. Not newsworthy.


  73. by Donna on July 1, 2022 7:12 pm
    Locals were told by the Feds not to put it in? Oh come on. I'm not buying it.


  74. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 10:39 pm
    "od: Your second paragraph in your last post. I haven't heard that one before. How is the Dept of Education responsible for the Parkland and Uvalde mass murders?"

    They set up the circumstances to make it possible. Since then most places have learned (kind of) and hopefully we can start sharing information.
    A couple of years prior to Parkland, DOE (Education, energy has nothing to do with this) sent out a "plan" for dealing with students without shaming them, putting a "status" on them, not creating a police file on them, etc. That district chose to accept this methodology. What this does is protect them by pawning any blame off on DOE. It's what a lot of government offices do. Nikolas Cruz (shooter) was in lots of trouble both with the law, his parents, and at school. There were lots of red flags regarding anger issues, drug abuse, that sort of thing. According to this methodology, none of the issues were reported. Had the issues been reported, it would have saved 17 people.

    IN FAIRNESS TO PARKLAND. To the liberals, this sounds like a "good" plan. We are now realizing that it actually assists these shooters to gain weapons (not an issue with Parkland, he stole his mother's gun), and comes as a complete surprise to anyone that didn't really know him. The police did not have any of the information from the school. Strangely, the methodology is still out there, and I think still endorsed by DOE.

    Parkland, and now Uvalde are the reasons why legit gun owners have been begging for a legal cross talk of information. There's a lot of push-back on it.


  75. by islander on July 2, 2022 3:02 pm
    OD wrote: “None offered. I worked for a regulatory agency. Everything we did we had to work with domestic and global banking partners, congress, and the White House. You're still making things up as you see fit.”

    As long as you are using this to bolster your argument, can you tell us what regulatory agency, and just what “you personally” did as far as working with the white House, congress. and domestic global and banking partners?



    And no...I don’t “make things up”


  76. by oldedude on July 2, 2022 3:19 pm
    I worked for FinCEN. We did global and domestic banking, assisted with sanctions, and helped bring Chapo in to know how much money he had in the bank to seize.


Comment on: "They can't see the forest for that one little tree they want to make a big deal out of."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

The FBI Pays Trump a Little House Call
Dungeons & Dragons by Ponderer     August 9, 2022 6:26 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [1 views]


Did the US media overhype the 'betrayal' and fate of Afghanistan interpreters?
Media by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 5:03 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [88 views]


List of Tax Hikes in Democrat Reconciliation Bill
Politics by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 9:29 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [127 views]


Trump complained U.S. generals lacked the loyalty German generals showed Hitler, book says
Military by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 8:00 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Donna (1 comments) [7 views]


Lizzy's daddy: 'Never Has America Faced A Greater Threat Than Donald Trump,' Says Guy Who Started Two Wars And Shot A Dude In The Face
Politics by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 3:25 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments) [39 views]


Joseph R. Biden ranks with FDR and LBJ in legislative achievements.
Government by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 2:16 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (4 comments) [45 views]


Olivia Newton-John, singer and actress, dead at 73
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 1:08 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Donna (1 comments) [28 views]


Senate Republicans managed to score points for their side today.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 7, 2022 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (9 comments) [104 views]


Trumpy voter fraud 'expert' under investigation for scheme to seize and tamper with voting machines.
Crime by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 12:00 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [18 views]


White nationalist PM of Hungary Viktor Orban received a standing ovation after his speech at CPAC yesterday
Dinosaurs by Donna     August 5, 2022 10:20 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (47 comments) [401 views]


Crime selectors, pages, etc.