2022 SCOTUS rulings

Political discussions
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SeattleGriz »

UNI88 wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:06 pm
SeattleGriz wrote:
I would have to say too much is a bad thing, but that's the rub, as the datasets we use for public consumption are junk.
So if too much CO2 is produced, more than plants can use, the excess CO2 could be considered a pollutant? We shouldn't be talking in absolutes.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by UNI88 »


SeattleGriz wrote:
UNI88 wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:06 pm So if too much CO2 is produced, more than plants can use, the excess CO2 could be considered a pollutant? We shouldn't be talking in absolutes.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.
We already know that humans are pollutants. Look at the Anacosta River and the wasteland that is DelMarVa. :D

Why can't excess CO2 be a pollutant? And if we want to limit human breathing then the focus should be on countries with high populations.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SeattleGriz »

UNI88 wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:49 pm
SeattleGriz wrote:
As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.
We already know that humans are pollutants. Look at the Anacosta River and the wasteland that is DelMarVa. :D

Why can't excess CO2 be a pollutant? And if we want to limit human breathing then the focus should be on countries with high populations.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
I think it could be a pollutant at high levels, especially as it also is due to the combustion of fossil fuels, but in my opinion, we have no clue where that limit is.

This goes back to my statement on datasets. Have you seen the crap we use? It's a joke and I'm not confident at all it is even in the ballpark.

To build off what you said. It's the Earth's way of limiting population. Too many mouth breathers raise temperatures and thus kills off mouth breathers. :lol:. Voila. Problem solved.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by BDKJMU »

If you believe CO2 is a pollutant, then you are a hypocrite if you don't just kill yourself..
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by Pwns »

Image
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by AZGrizFan »

Pwns wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:03 pm Image
Sounds legit. :lol:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SeattleGriz »

BDKJMU wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:47 pm If you believe CO2 is a pollutant, then you are a hypocrite if you don't just kill yourself..
Hey. Not liberals, you! Only people like John Kerry get to fly in personal jets. The libs love that stuff.

The fact Leftards aren't up in arms, speaks volumes. Fucking hypocrites.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SDHornet »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:10 pm
SDHornet wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:16 pm Interesting thread...

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.
Cry more, shitlib. 8-)
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SDHornet »

HI54UNI wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:09 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:10 pm

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

Cry more.
Damn, you beat me to it. :lol:
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SDHornet »

BDKJMU wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:19 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:02 pm The thing with saying it is OK for the Louisiana legislature to have just one Black majority district is an example. Louisiana is one third Black. That's math. To me, what the Louisiana legislature did in creating a situation in which only 1 of 6 Congressional districts is majority
Black is clearly a violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's really blatant and obvious. But this Supreme Court is going to allow that situation to prevail during the next Congressional election.
No its not. If 2/3 of the population of a state was non black, and 1/3 was black, and they were spread throughout the state, and the districts were drawn randomly without regard to race, you could easily have only one district that was majority black, or even zero.

And what you are proposing is packing more blacks into fewer districts, which actually gets more blacks elected to Congress, but fewer democrats, and more republicans.
When the statistics guru fails a real life statistics question. :rofl:
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by Winterborn »

To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by BDKJMU »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:00 pm To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.
So the more Co2 emissions the better for plant growth, including pot. So if you care about the environment, and pot, you should be for more Co2 emissions.. :coffee:
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by SeattleGriz »

Winterborn wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:00 pm To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.
Good post. Thank you for the information.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23231
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by houndawg »

AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:04 am
Pwns wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:03 pm Image
Sounds legit. :lol:
Oh please, Abraham Lincoln warned us about the dangers of suspending disbelief on the internet. :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23231
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by houndawg »

SDHornet wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:52 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:10 pm

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.
Cry more, shitlib. 8-)
Somebody's feelings are hurt.... :cry:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59295
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by kalm »

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:00 am Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 14410
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by Skjellyfetti »

"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by BDKJMU »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:18 am
kalm wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:00 am Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"
Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:25 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:18 am
How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"
Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.
:lol:

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by BDKJMU »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:47 pm
BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:25 pm
Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.
:lol:

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.
Keep
Image
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote:
UNI88 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:47 pm Image

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.
Keep
Image
When did we switch the topic to trump's claims that the election was stolen?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59295
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by kalm »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:25 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:18 am

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"
Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.
They’re different but both are shitty. :coffee:
Image
Image
Image
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9609
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by Baldy »

kalm wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:00 am Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

:lol:

Why block it out? It was all public information at the time.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59295
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2022 SCOTUS rulings

Post by kalm »

Baldy wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:36 am
kalm wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:00 am Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

:lol:

Why block it out? It was all public information at the time.
Because it’s the ethical thing to do. Why make it easier?
Image
Image
Image
Post Reply