Thought Terminating Cliches

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 185
#151
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Ending oil is a local phenomenon with Biden's administration at the helm.
No that's not true at all.  First of all every Democrat presidential candidate in 2020 committed to reaching 100% renewable energy within the next 20 years or so. Some were more ambitious (delusional) in their goals than others. 

And second of all sustainable energy and low-carbon solutions top national and corporate agendas all over the world. It's  not a uniquely American thing - I'm not sure why you think that. Nineteen countries in Europe accelerated their decarbonization in response to Covid-19, Russia's aggression and the current gas crisis. The EU is already beating its renewable energy targets, and under the latest plan they will reach 63% of renewables by 2030, so they're only getting more and more ambitious in shifting away from oil. The same thing is happening in Asia. In fact renewable energy in Asia Pacific has mostly outpaced that of Europe and the U.S. in recent years.


The most callous President, 
Lol, stop.  


the most uncharismatic, the most demented,
If Biden is so demented then how is he single-handedly responsible for everything that's going wrong in this country? It sounds like he has a lot of power and influence despite being so cognitively impaired. 


I do not understand why he just does not reverse his policies.

You don't? It's the same reason Republican politicians won't shift their policies on abortion despite what the majority wants: they're doing what's in their political self interest. Remember that in 2020 almost 90% of Democrats considered climate change a significant threat, and Dem voters along with left leaning independents are the people that candidates like Joe Biden are campaigning to. The WashPo recently had an article about how voters are caring less these days about the burning planet, so Dems may very well change their messaging on this issue. They're already shifting strategies cuz of U.S. court rulings and other current events. 


let Alaska increase the oil coming from the pipeline, we can return to energy independence and all of this inflation will reduce dramatically.
He is already going against what he campaigned on (which is politically problematic) as his administration recently drafted a plan to increase offshore drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. He's called for more oil output. 


For those of you out there who believe in "green new deal" or clean energy, think of this, our consumption has not reduced
I don't support the GND but bow would you propose that we encourage less oil consumption? You'll probably ignore this question but I'm curious what you think. 


Joe and his Eco Team that doesn't mind putting the cart before the horse and watching us suffer. Notice how they aren't suffering.
Is that why the GOP won't help their constituents get healthcare - because they don't mind watching people suffer? Half the country has medical debt (I'm still opposed to national healthcare btw - I'm just making a point about these appeals to emotion in saying that Biden wants people to suffer). Obviously Biden doesn't want people to suffer. Obviously the economy being bad isn't good for the incumbent party even though they usually have very little influence over the economy. 

I'm curious, when you say 'they' aren't suffering who are you referring to? And also, when you lament the amount of money being pumped into the economy over the last decade which is very significant re: inflation, how much blame do you ascribe to Trump and the GOP for that? The national debt under Trump was MASSIVE even before the pandemic, and that will have an impact for years to come. Coupled with the spending + tax cuts, Trump's Congress oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase under any president despite Trump's promise to reduce it. Man it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people get amnesia when it comes to economic and monetary policy (which most people confuse and don't understand anyway but I digress). 

Anyway there's no doubt the country would be much better off if we scaled back government to give people more economic and personal freedom, but unfortunately politicking always gets in the way of that. 




#152
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
❤️ ❤️❤️
#153
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Of the world's largest economies, none have tried harder to fight climate change than Germany. In 2011, former Chancellor Angela Merkel announced an unprecedented Energiewende ("energy transition") plan to slash her country's greenhouse gas emissions and usher in a new green economy. A decade later, electricity prices are skyrocketing while Germany is finalizing a new natural gas pipeline with Russia. With the news that Germany will miss its emissions reduction targets for 2022 and 2023, the Energiwende can officially be declared a self-imposed climate disaster.

Turning the world's fourth-largest economy—one that emerged from the ashes of World War II on the back of its coal, steel, and auto manufacturing industries—green required radical transformation. In a sense, Germany's proposed 21st century economic transformation would require undoing its 20th century economic miracle.

Germany was already reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before 2011, so it came as a surprise when Merkel announced that her government would "end the use of nuclear energy and reach the age of renewable energy as fast as possible." The Energiewende's goal of reducing emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 was ambitious, but it was the prospect of achieving this goal without nuclear energy that truly turned heads. By shuttering nuclear plants and scaling wind and solar, Merkel made a poor bet that a green economy could run on wind and sunshine alone.

After a swath of decrees and guidelines, as well as tens of billions of euros in subsidies for, and investment in, renewable projects, Merkel boasted about creating hundreds of thousands of green-collar jobs. Many Germans embraced this vision for the future, taking pride in their nation's turn toward an economy powered by nature. Yet it quickly became apparent that while the Energiewende plan offered vision, it lacked sound strategy.

Bureaucracy slowed the construction of necessary infrastructure for storing and transporting new renewable forms of energy. And suddenly Dunkelflaute—a term used to describe periods of low energy production when the sun failed to shine or the wind didn't blow—entered the German vernacular. By 2019, the Federal Court of Auditors declared that the 160 billion euros ($180 billion) spent over the last five years were "in extreme disproportion to the results."

By the tenth anniversary of the Energiewende, the scope of the project's failure became clear. The year before, German leaders had celebrated renewables reaching 46.2 percent of national electricity consumption due to favorable weather conditions and lower demand. But in 2021, this trend reversed. During the COVID economic bounce back, energy demand exploded while wind power production decreased by 25 percent—leaving coal and natural gas generation to fill in the gaps.

German households have the highest electricity prices in the world, but many Germans are still committed to their utopian vision. Last fall, voters pushed out Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats in favor of a coalition led by the center-left Social Democrats. This wasn't a refutation of the Energiewende though, since it appears that Chancellor Olaf Scholz will double down as he has expressed interest in being known as the "climate chancellor" and supports policies including an EU-wide carbon price.

The Energiewende has consequences beyond German borders too. The country can't meet its energy needs with domestic wind, solar, and coal production. So Germans are eagerly awaiting the completion of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will deliver natural gas from Russia. It will pump fossil fuel into Germany while lining the pockets of Russian oligarchs with cash. Those excommunicated nuclear plants would have provided emissions-free energy without any reliance on Russia.

Meanwhile in Brussels, Germany's new Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck wants to force the Energiewende plan on the rest of Europe. He recently rejected the European Commission's plan to label nuclear energy "green," saying the move "waters down the good label for sustainability." As long as Germany is miscategorized as the global climate leader, other nations will follow its mindless model.

German technocrats' hubris has produced a coal renaissance and a dangerous dependence on Russian natural gas. The rest of the world should not take advice from them.

Out of the trillions of dollars squandered through this wealth shuffle, not a single molecule of China's and Africa's increases in yearly CO2 were even considered as an "offset"
#154
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10


Germany will significantly increase its use of highly polluting coal to preserve energy supplies ahead of the winter as Russian cuts to gas exports threaten shortfalls in Europe’s largest economy.

The German government said on Sunday it would pass emergency laws to reopen mothballed coal plants for electricity generation and auction gas supplies to industry to incentivise businesses to curb consumption. The move illustrated the depth of concern in Berlin over possible gas shortages in the winter months.

“This is bitter but in this situation essential to lower the use of gas,” said German economic minister Robert Habeck, a member of the Green party.

Russia cut capacity on the main gas export pipeline to Germany this week by 60 per cent, sending ripples across the continent as western officials became convinced that Moscow is weaponising its gas exports in response to EU sanctions following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Italy, which has also seen gas supplies from Russia fall, is expected to announce emergency measures in the coming days if supplies are not restored.

Habeck said Berlin was working on a new law to temporarily bring back up to 10 gigawatts of idle coal-fired power plants for up to two years; that would increase Germany’s dependence on coal for electricity generation by up to a third.

“The situation is serious,” said Habeck. “It is obviously [Vladimir] Putin’s strategy to upset us, to drive prices upwards, and to divide us . . . We won’t allow this to happen.”

The plan is at odds with Germany’s climate policy; it aims to phase out coal by 2030 as it is much more carbon-intensive than gas.

Germany’s three remaining active nuclear power plants have a capacity of 4Gw and are scheduled to go off the grid by the end of this year. Their lifespan will not be extended as the government has concluded the technical and safety hurdles are too high. (but green energy isn't???)

Prior to Russia’s invasion in February, Germany imported 55 per cent of its gas from Russia.

In recent days, Russia’s state-controlled gas exporter Gazprom has reduced supply volumes through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline that runs through the Baltic Sea to Germany, blaming Canadian sanctions that left pumping equipment maintained by Siemens Energy stranded in Montreal.

Germany and its allies in Europe have rejected Gazprom’s claims, arguing any technical issue was a pretext for Moscow’s retaliation against EU sanctions. Gazprom has not utilised alternative pipeline routes to make up for the supply shortfall through NS1.

European gas prices, already running close to record levels, soared further last week in response to the latest supply cuts.

Rising energy prices are stoking inflation and a cost of living crisis across Europe, which central banks are struggling to address without tipping the region’s economy into recession.

German chancellor Olaf Scholz called the country’s dependence on Russian energy “a mistake of Germany’s economic policy” and told newswire DPA that previous governments missed out on creating alternative gas supply routes.

Germany plans to install four floating liquefied natural gas terminals and has prioritised refilling gas storage tanks that can be used in winter. Currently they are 56 per cent full, and Habeck wants to reach 90 per cent by December.

“We need and we will to do everything to store as much gas as possible,” said Habeck, calling it the “highest priority” and adding that “it would really be a tight squeeze in winter otherwise”.

Germany aims to reduce normal consumption by about a fifth without resorting to rationing, while increasing Norwegian pipeline supplies and LNG imports.

Germany literally destroys green energy sources like nuclear and replaces it with coal, and is still considered the world leader. HA!

Some serious propaganda for idiots.
#155
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Germany has the highest electric prices in the world, but their relatively high wages offset the burden for consumers. It's worse for people in Eastern Europe.

I've always been pro nuclear. Germany and the few other countries in Europe still hostile to it are gonna be left behind. The EU just voted to allow natural gas and nuclear energy to be labeled as "green investments" too, so Europe continues to lean into nuclear as they (and everyone else) move further away from petroleum and coal. That's just the way of the future whether people like it or not. 

#156
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
The EU just voted

Lol, 20 years too late. This is why you can't depend on the central planners to preserve anything much  less a planet.

When I was a lot younger, I was trained and certified to work on NAVY nuclear reactors. The disconnect from educated people and the masses on nuclear energy is astounding.
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
That's just the way of the future whether people like it or not. 
LFTRs use liquid-fluoride salts as both a coolant and as a carrier for the thorium and thorium-derived fuels. 

LFTRs operate at near atmospheric pressure offering unmatched safety and greatly simplified reactor designs. 

In particular, ambient or low reactor operating pressures means no risk of high-pressure atmospheric releases and no need for massive containment structures that can withstand high pressure.

LFTRs high temperatures (650 C) enable greater thermal-to-electric conversion efficiencies and use of more compact power conversion systems. 

Use of thorium fuel in a LFTR generates orders-of-magnitude less mining waste and long-lived transuranic waste than existing light-water reactor (LWR) technology.  

Thorium is abundant and inexpensive and LFTR’s liquid thorium fuel is easily produced, compared to costly, complex fabrication of solid fuel rods used in legacy water-cooled reactors. [**]
#158
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
This is why you can't depend on the central planners to preserve anything much  less a planet.
True but fossil fuel companies have been some of the biggest opponents to nuclear for obvious reasons. 
#159
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
True but fossil fuel companies have been some of the biggest opponents to nuclear for obvious reasons. 
All the more reason to eliminate the EPA, all regulatory agencies, and have the states govern them by repealing the commerce clause.

There should be no market barriers that can be bought and sold by the highest bidder.
#160
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It would not be a good thing to repeal the Commerce Clause.

You don't have to worry about the EPA and other regulatory agencies anymore since the SCOTUS has rendered them impotent.

#161
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You don't have to worry about the EPA and other regulatory agencies anymore since the SCOTUS has rendered them impotent.
They will always have some power to decide between the haves and have nots.

There should be no market barriers that can be bought and sold by the highest bidders.

#162
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It would not be a good thing to repeal the Commerce Clause.
What exactly do you think would happen in todays global economy if the commerce clause were repealed?
#163
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There should be no market barriers that can be bought and sold by the highest bidders
Let me expand on that. There should never be a system where central planners have the right and the authority to take with brutal force from the minority and give to the majority under Democratic Socialism.

Wickard V Filburn should be considered the most heinous policy in all of American Government up there with the Japanese internment and trail of tears.

All of which were the result of "Democratic Socialism."
#164
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
They will always have some power to decide between the haves and have nots.
All politicians do


There should be no market barriers that can be bought and sold by the highest bidders.
Yes but I do like the Clean Water Act lol 


What exactly do you think would happen in todays global economy if the commerce clause were repealed?
A lot more lawsuits and a lot more monopolies. But it's not just about the economy. Without the Commerce Clause the FBI wouldn't exist. Federal crimes like human trafficking couldn't be investigated. How would the DOJ prosecute crimes like wire fraud?  All of that is done under the Commerce Clause.

Look up Dormant Commerce Clause. It protects the free market by not allowing states to punish or create barriers from out of state businesses. For example 20 years ago I could order wine directly from a winery in New York but not from California (the CA winery would have to sell it to a NY wholesaler who sold it to a retailer who sold it to me).  The court held that these laws violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state wineries. There are lots of examples like that which  punish businesses and consumers.  





#165
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me expand on that. There should never be a system where central planners have the right and the authority to take with brutal force from the minority and give to the majority under Democratic Socialism.

I don't see what this has to do with the commerce clause but yes I oppose socialism and democratic socialism.  


Wickard V Filburn should be considered the most heinous policy in all of American Government up there with the Japanese internment and trail of tears.
Agree to disagree lol 


#166
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
All politicians do
I was referring to regulatory agencies. The constitution limits what the government can regulate.

Yes but I do like the Clean Water Act lol 
I'm sure most people do just like every state has a law against rape. Let the states manage it where the regulatory agencies are not easily purchased.

A lot more lawsuits and a lot more monopolies. 
Lol, more lawsuits mean less monopolies. More regulations, lawsuit protections, and barriers to the market mean more monopolies, but you already know this.

#167
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
It protects the free market by not allowing states to punish or create barriers from out of state businesses.
Look up Wickard v Filburn. This is clearly not what the government is using the clause for.

The clause does not say the federal government has the power to deregulate. If it did, then I would be all for such a clause.
#168
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I don't see what this has to do with the commerce clause but yes I oppose socialism and democratic socialism.  
Wickard v Filburn via the Commerce clause is the reason why the government has the authority to use the full force of the federal government to take from the minority and give to the majority in countless instances today.

At least the government apologized for Japanese internment and Trail of Tears.
#169
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I was referring to regulatory agencies. The constitution limits what the government can regulate.
Yes, regulatory agencies have the power to decide between the haves and the have nots, but going forward they will have far less power in that regard. Per the SCOTUS ruling in June the agencies are no longer able to implement regulations unless Congress has explicitly voted for them. In other words there will be no new regulations considering Congress can't agree on dick. 


Let the states manage it where the regulatory agencies are not easily purchased.
It gets a little murky when it comes to pollution which is why I think the Commerce Clause can be invoked in some situations. One state's pollution can affect another's pretty directly, and I think we both know a lot more people in this country deny the dangers of dirty air and water than deny the morality of rape. Pollution is one of the things I've always thought libertarians and especially an-caps didn't have a sufficient remedy for. 


Lol, more lawsuits mean less monopolies. 
What makes you say that? Look at Monsanto. 


More regulations, lawsuit protections, and barriers to the market mean more monopolies, but you already know this.
Yes I'm familiar with market functions, but what does that have to do with the utility of the Commerce Clause to thwart lawsuits by establishing what is and isn't allowed as far as state regulations on out of state businesses?  That is a good thing.

You haven't explained why New York should be allowed to prohibit me from ordering wine from a California winery, or why New York should be allowed to prohibit a ferry boat business from New Jersey to transport citizens to NY (Gibbons v Ogden). It's specifically because of the Commerce Clause that NY's regulations and monopolies in these cases were deemed unconstitutional.

 
Look up Wickard v Filburn. This is clearly not what the government is using the clause for.

The clause does not say the federal government has the power to deregulate. If it did, then I would be all for such a clause.
I  just gave you two examples where the dormant commerce clause was used to protect citizens and businesses from excessive regulation, and there are plenty more examples. Just because you aren't familiar with them doesn't mean they don't exist. Google it. 


Wickard v Filburn via the Commerce clause is the reason why the government has the authority to use the full force of the federal government to take from the minority and give to the majority in countless instances today.
I'm familiar with the case and obviously I think the ruling was dumb as hell. Haven't you ever seen me bitch about Gonzales v. Raich? The decision was predicated on Wickard. Justice Scalia, god smite his soul, totally abandoned his originalist interpretation of the constitution and agreed that people should not be allowed to grow medical marijuana for personal consumption in states where it's legal (California in this case) because that might impact the prices of pot on the illegal drug market across states. Eye roll. 

But just because a SCOTUS decision has utilized shitty reasoning doesn't mean the basis for their ruling isn't a justified principle or should be totally scrapped. Consider that anti-choicers believe Roe v Wade was a horrible decision while still recognizing the basis of the Court's rationale (the right to privacy and due process) as reasonable and good aspects of the constitution generally. 
#170
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
And you've ignored the fact that the Commerce Clause is what allows the DOJ, FBI and other federal agencies to go after crimes like wire fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.  

There are good reasons not to repeal the Commerce Clause just because the Court under FDR was cray cray. 
#171
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 Pollution is one of the things I've always thought libertarians and especially an-caps didn't have a sufficient remedy for. 
When you gave central planners under Democratic Socialism that power, they can label anything as pollution to justify the taking from the minority and giving to the majority. Including Co2. We don't need that kind of "murkiness"

What makes you say that? Look at Monsanto. 
Explain please?

And you've ignored the fact that the Commerce Clause is what allows the DOJ, FBI and other federal agencies to go after crimes like wire fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.  
So what? We can live without things like the Patriot Act. A right to Privacy should make the commerce clause illegal.
#172
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I  just gave you two examples where the dormant commerce clause was used to protect citizens and businesses from excessive regulation, and there are plenty more examples. Just because you aren't familiar with them doesn't mean they don't exist. Google it.
The problem is with the language. When the Commerce clause was written, regulation then meant deregulation today. 1984 hijacking of the language happened in FDR's time.
#173
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain please?
You said more lawsuits mean less monopolies. Some companies use lawsuits and the threat of litigation specifically to protect their monopolies, like Monsanto. 


When you gave central planners under Democratic Socialism that power, they can label anything as pollution to justify the taking from the minority and giving to the majority.
No they can't. I think the constitutionality of administrative agencies is an interesting debate, but not when it relies on hyperbole. 

One of my favorite things to say to people who advocate for eliminating all federal agencies is to tell them we should start with ICE lol. "Well, that's different..." 


So what? We can live without things like the Patriot Act.
Highlighting one law you don't like doesn't explain how we would prosecute federal crimes that you do believe warrant prosecution without the Commerce Clause, nor does it  negate that the Dormant Commerce Clause is a constitutional barrier against state regulations used to discourage and punish interstate commerce. 


A right to Privacy should make the commerce clause illegal.
Just wrong, sorry. 


Wickard V Filburn should be considered the most heinous policy in all of American Government
It genuinely and truly boggles my mind that the government telling someone they can't grow wheat is somehow more egregious to you than the government telling someone they can't make decisions about their OWN BODIES. Wild. 
#174
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
A right to Privacy should make the commerce clause illegal.
Just wrong, sorry. 
Well this is one of the things both coal and I disagree fundamentally on. Especially regarding post 172.

#175
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
eliminating all federal agencies is to tell them we should start with ICE lol. 
I'm ok with this. States can manage their own border and immigrant security. ICE is more likely under the current administration to prevent states from doing this than helping.

If California wants to shelter and house the globe, at least it's localized to that state instead of a sweeping federal policy that hurts all states.
#176
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
#177
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
It genuinely and truly boggles my mind that the government telling someone they can't grow wheat is somehow more egregious to you than the government telling someone they can't make decisions about their OWN BODIES. Wild. 
Where do you think it starts? Give an inch, take a mile. It's not about wheat, it's about centrally planned power and control over individuals. It's not just your body the government is after, or your wheat.
#178
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh huh. None of that word salad explains or justifies why the government telling someone they can't grow wheat is somehow more egregious than telling someone they can't have a procedure done on their own bodies because other people don't like it.

I've already said that the Wickard decision was bad. Do I think it's on par with the Trail of Tears and Japanese internment camps? No. Criminalizing abortion is more analogous to those things (though still not as bad, obviously) considering it involves the government  controlling people's bodies. 
#179
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Any government seizure is bad. The precedent for the seizures is the worst.
#180
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The point I'm making is that government seizure is bad and some government seizures are worse.  

Judges are beholden to the Constitution, not precedent.