
sheeeit
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
Had a discussion about this years team versus original dream team. Question was who would make the original dream team from this team and who would they replace. The only ones I think make it from this years team are James, Durant and Curry. I think they replace Magic, Bird and Stockton. Possibly Edwards over Pippen but I don't think people realize how amazing at defense Pippen and Jordan were together.
-
Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.
First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case: The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance. For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA. The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them. In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors. In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them. This existed for many years. Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels. The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable".
In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron. What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron. What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".
Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron? Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type? Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.
At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case. Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years. Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game. This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish.
It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency. Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.
On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed. The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power. And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them. I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:
I understood what you meant. Your comparison was silly. Suggesting they are similar is silly. Hence my reply.
What is more likely? The shooter was trying to impress Jodie Foster, or an immature narcissist, or maybe, just maybe, the shooter actually believes Trump is a threat to Democracy? My point is there are conspiracy theories about why Oswald shot Kennedy or Hinckey shot Reagan because there wasn’t an obvious reason.
Is anyone having trouble coming up with a motive of why someone would try to assassinate Trump? Everyone knows why
Holy shit. Seek help. Honestly.
-
37 minutes ago, SKJ said:
In talking in reference to where Trump was facing
Whoosh
-
45 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:
He committed no crime.
It was a horrible accident.
People need to stop saying shit about what happens on a set when they don't have nor want a clue.
Should they have followed SAG guidelines? The crew.
-
I must’ve been under a rock, but I did not realize that the trial actually started. I spent a few minutes reading through some articles. I admit I never actually thought this would get to a trial. I actually think he will plea before there is a verdict.
-
2 hours ago, statsman said:
He stayed on scholarship, ate with the team, practiced with the team, stood on the sidelines. He was even mentored by Borden, while Molitor had to flee campus.
It’s old news but Mixon was suspended for the season. Did not practice, train, eat or attend any team activities.
-
1
-
-
-
36 minutes ago, Foosters said:
I'll posrep all of his posts on this thread if he can just explain why RFK's pro-Putin, anti-science, and anti-Semitic positions are not disqualifying.
In any other election they would abolutely be disqualifying. But what to do when you only have 3 choices and all of them have disqualifying issues. Trumps are the most disqualifying. Between Biden and RFK I am leaning towards RFK. He has positions that I think are incredibly stupid but he at least has explanations for them. As far as I can tell RFK is not clinically mentally impaired. Biden is. We have all seen family/friends in this state. He is going to be 10x worse a year from now and I can not imagine any scenario he makes it for 4 years. So when he inevitably has to go it will be a massive shit show and horrible for the country. We will wind up with an unelected POTUS and the fallout will be devastating. We can easily withstand 4 years of RFK. Some of his positions are ridiculous but none of them would have even a .000001% chance of getting approved by congress or the courts. He gets a lame duck 4 years and then hopefully the parties run solid candidates in 2028.
-
21
-
-
24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
Umm, actually, it isn't. We don't have any definitive evidence what happened to his body. Most likely it ended up at the bottom of the ocean and consumed by sea life. But, it could also have floated to shore and been eaten by cannibals. Again, you're making a mountain out of a very modest embellishment of his family's history. Of the list of top offenses by a sitting President, I'd wager it rates slightly above eating fancy mustard, slightly below wearing a tan suit, and at least 100,000,000 spots below almost every single thing Donald Trump did or said as President.
Like I said I do love this place. The fact that you even typed "But, it could also have floated to shore and been eaten by cannibals" is just proof of how deranged some of you get. So a plane goes down and the lone survivor gets rescued many hours later. There are no other bodies around. They search the area for hours looking but find nothing. But you suggested that sometime later the body came loose from the wreck and washed up on a beach. And further that some cannibals found it and decided to eat a many days old dead and decomposing body that was completely infected. You truly think that is possible? Even cannibals dont eat many days old rotten infested human remains. LOL
-
10
-
-
23 minutes ago, immamac said:
Yeah but why is this a thread and not in the Joe Biden or presidential election thread.
OK My bad on that. Feel free to move it.
-
7
-
-
28 minutes ago, immamac said:
what exactly did you start this thread for?
Joe Biden has mush for brains, noted.
Anything else in particular here of note?
Like I said. I saw something about this on tiktok, which is not exactly a bastion of truth and accuracy. It sounded so over the top crazy that I decided to look it up and found out that it was, in fact, true. I found that simply amazing. This isn't I graduated in the top half of my law school or some other Biden embellishment. For me, telling a family story abou fucking cannabilism that is so easily disproven is a mental acuity line being crossed that I had never seen before from Biden. I can not invision any politician (even bat shit crazies like MTG or SJL but certainly not a head of state) short of maybe Kim Jong telling a story involving cannabilsm that was so easily proven to be untrue. I don't follow this stuff as closely as most of these guys do. I knew Biden was losing it a bit and have seen clips of him looking confused etc. And most politicians will embellish their own history including academic prowess or business prowess or athletic prowess or whatever. I undertsand why they do that to make themselves look better. To me, this was different. It was Fonzi jumping the shark.
If you were talking to some old man and he told you his uncle was shot down in WW2 over new guinea and that they never recovered his body because of cannibals, your first thought would probably be that that is an amazing story. If you then looked it up and you found that the story was not true and that cannibals had nothing to do with not recovering the body you would probably think that that old man had completely lost it. Why bring up cannibals at all? You for sure would not think that old man was the POTUS.
-
11
-
-
10 minutes ago, Red Five said:
I'm going to take this as a "yes". You created a situation in your head where Biden was "allowed" to tell the story, but was told UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES! was he to use a certain word. But then he did! Can you believe it??
(all made up)
Nice dodge. Only two things are possible. His staff wrote his remarks and included the word cannibal (which seems highly unlikely because his staff is not senile and would be able to easily fact check the story and know that there was no possible way that cannibals played any role whatsoever in the body recovery of his uncle and they would know that if he used the word he would come off as a senile old man which they are trying desperately to avoid) or Biden went off script. Lets assume Biden told his staff the story because how else would they even know about it? I find it hard to believe that when he told his staff the story that he left out the cannibal part and hopefully even the craziest of you would agree that the staff would not include the word cannibal in his prepared remarks. Heck maybe he didn't tell them about the cannibal part and just sprung it on them live. I can not imagine the instant dread felt by every member of his team when they heard him say it.
So that is why I think he was told not to use the word cannibal. If I am wrong then the alternative is 100X worse.
-
7
-
-
25 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:
When all you're left with is faux disdain, you should drop out of the argument.
When you come into an argument and mis represent what the other sides argument is and then use the wrong clip to further your argument and then go full retard about someone that wasnt even the subject of the argument then the kindest thing anyone can do for you is offer faux disdain.
-
1
-
7
-
-
16 minutes ago, Red Five said:
Did you just make this up?
He was working from a prepared speech. It was written down. Are you suggesting that his staff does not proof read his prepared statements multiple times? You think he wrote it himself and hid it from everyone? Do you think the word cannibal was written on his paper he was referencing?
-
7
-
-
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
Good god you're such a moron. Shot down vs crashed during WW2 in such a minor fucking detail and hardly the point of the story. It matters in not the slightest. Everything else was demonstrably correct. At the very worst, we are dealing with a slight bit of exaggeration in a family story from 80 years ago. Again, Biden was fucking 2 when it happened.
In your mind, that makes the guy that thinks vaccines are evil the better candidate.
Stupid is as stupid types. "everything else was demonstrably correct". Your words. What was demonstrably correct about "they couldn't find the body because there were cannibals for real in that part of new guinea" Yes they couldn't find the body and yes there were cannibals in that part of new guinea. Those two statements are demonstrably correct. But "they couldn't find the body BECAUSE there were cannibals" is demonstrably incorrect.
Lets play this out a bit. Do you think Biden has told that story before and been corrected by his staff or do you think that was the first time he ever told the story publicly?
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:
If I ask @fattyflattie about his relatives from 80 years ago, I'm quite certain he will not get the details 100% historically correct. But that would not be a sign that @fattyflattie is mentally infirm. Essentially no one would pass the test you're apparently asking of Biden. This is stupid. And you fucking know it.
Still laughing. The attempted spin from you and Roma is impressive though. Lets pretend FF did have the exact same family story. Then FF got into politics. Then FF was runninmg for relection for POTUS and everyone thought he had mental issues. So one of the biggest issues his campain is trying to deal with is to not let him seem like a dementia patient. If FF still told the story and used the word cannibal it would absolutely be a sign that he was mentally infirm. Especially considering that there is undeniable information that is easily found by a 10 year old that the story waqs untrue.
His entire staff is engaged in trying to not let him look like a senile old man. I am sure they told him he could use the story about his uncle dying in the war and how it would be used to show how bad Trump is. But they told him, under no ciscumstance can you utter the word cannibal. But he did.
-
10
-
-
40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
I'm trying to understand why specific details about a relative from 80 fucking years ago could ever be a major gaffe. I know my grandfather served during WW2. My understanding is that he was a medic. But I haven't checked his service records or anything, I just have stories from family. And my grandfather actually came back from the war to share his stories. I'm sure not everything is accurate, and it really isn't important that it be 100% accurate. Biden is relaying family history when the family member in question was never available to provide the story directly. And Biden was just fucking 2 when his uncle died.
Things he got wrong:
(1) He got the date his uncle joined wrong, which frankly just seems like a mouth moving faster than brain moment since he just switched D-Day and December 7th.
(2) Maybe the exact role his uncle served, although the phrase "flew single-engine planes, reconnaissance flights over New Guinea" doesn't imply he was the pilot on that particular flight or really necessarily a pilot at all. He did serve in the Army air forces, so if he wasn't a pilot, he may have been another crew member on reconnaissance flights.
(3) "Shot down" - wrong based on army records (although those aren't always known to be 100% accurate).
Everything else seems to be correct. The plane went down off the coast of New Guinea. New Guinea is an area known to have cannibals.
What exactly do you think qualifies as anything above a "a slight miss" here?
If this is a gaffe, what is quoting Robert E. Lee as saying "Never Fight Uphill, Me Boys"? or thinking airports existed during the revolutionary war?
29 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:This is funnier than anything you've posted. You use quotes after you say the words are not exact. I watched the ABC tape, and he says the plane went down in an area of cannibals. His remains were never recovered. Of course, this is just a wind up before he recalls Trump calling veterans losers and letting drizzle prevent him from joining other world leaders at a ceremony honoring America's dead.
How much of that type of benefit do you give a man who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, was later found to have raped E. Jean Carrol who was among many women who came forth with stories of his abuse and harrassment, stole from a children's charity, failed at every business he tried, and lies about his devotion to the Bible to vote Trump in as president in the first place?
You can add criminal attempts to sway states to send false electors, a taped conversation of him threatening an elected GOP official if he didn't come up with 11,000 votes, oh! and the fucking insurrection attack on the Capitol. Why don't we throw in stealing and sharing highly classified government secrets and having his son-in-law collect billions from Saudi and UAE?
I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt, but fuck you and fuck your complicity in destroying this republic.
Negged for the reasons above, of course.
Just too funny and perfect.
Dahobbs- Even when I was high I did not think anyone would try this line of spin. Sorry I underestimated you. Of course this was a "family" story. I am sure Biden has told it many times. The issue is that he has been in government forever, has been a senator forever, the vice president and now president. Google has been around for a while now. It is absolutely impossible that he has not been corrected on the story numerous times over the years by his staff. Yet in a heated campain where his mental state is a huge issue he still said it again. The reason that is so bad and so indicative of his mental state is that everyone, except apparently Biden himself, knows the story is bogus and, most importantly, knows that it is easily refuted. Like I said, if he just never says the word cannibal this story never gets traction. When he said cannibal it immediately sensationalized the story. But he said it anyway.
I love this too. "(3) "Shot down" - wrong based on army records (although those aren't always known to be 100% accurate). " LMAO. You do realize that one man did survive the crash right? He was able to tell what happened. He was rescued at sea. Every member of Biden's team knows this.
Roma. As always, I appreciate your important service to the board.
-
1
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, dieucla98 said:
Quit using "I'm high" as an excuse. You are who you are, high or not.
Excuse?
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
Well, actually no. I may be an above-average student of WWII history, but he did not say he was eaten by cannibals. He said he was shot down on NG, which is a slight miss, and that there were cannibals on NG, which is 100% true.
Compared to some of the shit Trump has said, about current events, on a near daily basis, it's kind of a gaffe.
There were and are cannibals on the island of New Guinea. They even caused a variant of CJD because of it. Mad cannibal disease.
6 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:Hopefully, @sheeeit, you’re sober enough to evaluate Joe’s exact quote:
”And Ambrose Finnegan — we called him “Uncle Bosie” — he — he was shot down. He was Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force. He flew single-engine planes, reconnaissance flights over New Guinea. He had volunteered because someone couldn’t make it. He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of cannibals in New Guinea at the time.
They never recovered his body. But the government went back, when I went down there, and they checked and found some parts of the plane and the like.
And what I was thinking about when I was standing there was when Trump refused to go up to the memorial for veterans in Paris, and he said they were a bunch of “suckers” and “losers.””The WH is spinnng the story to say cannibals were a reason Joe’s uncle’s body was never recovered, but the only source suggesting cannibals ate Ambrose was the
3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:Biden didn’t say anything untrue.
The internet has weaponized stupidity.
flower blooming in your mind.
I love this place sometimes. There are 2 different clips of this. One where Biden is walking and talking with the press and one where he is inside giving a riveting campain speech. I quoted the speech where he was inside. I posted it twice. You guys keep quoting from the impromptu speech outside. In the official speech he gave inside his exact words (still laughing that someone called me out for saying almost exactly because I eliminated the weird pauses) were the following-
"And he got shot down in new guinea and uh they never found the body because there used to be uh a lot of cannibals for real in that part of new guinea"
Spin away.
-
8
-
-
13 minutes ago, Your Mom said:
I watched. He never said his uncle got eaten by cannibals.
You watched this clip? What do you think he said? https://apnews.com/article/biden-uncle-world-war-ii-cannibals-trump-4f3b7d1c988e041fbc07f60f952ca95f
-
1
-
12
-
-
1 minute ago, Your Mom said:
Quoting what someone ALMOST said… that’s an interesting take.
Jesus. Don't be that guy. I'm high. I was typing as I listened to the clip. Its 99% his exact words minus a huh. Or watch for yourself and have an actual interesting take.
-
13
-
-
8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:
@sheeeit sounds like a sucker and a loser.
He didn’t say his uncle was eaten by cannibals, dumb ass. He said his uncle went down in an area inhabited by cannibals.
Watch the clip. His almost exact words were "he was shot down in new guinea and they never found the body because there used to be a lot of cannibals for real in that part of new guinea"
Hell I wasnt even wanting to comment on the fact that in that little clip he said his uncle was 1) a pilot-he wasn't 2) that he volunteered for this mission because soomeone else couldnt go- he was simply a courier/passenger on the flight 3) that he was shot down- his plane had engine failure over the ocean and no shots were fired 4) he said that later on he had people down there that found some of the airplane- the plane is at the bottom of the ocean. If that is all he said, I would have never even thought to fact check it. But he claimed cannibalism. Everyone is going to fact check it.
I assume his team at least sort of went over this story with him beforehand. I can not believe that the word cannibal came up in the briefing. How could it? They all knew the story was wildly innacurate from the get go but it seemed harmless enough so they just assumed they could spin it. I mean its just as tragic to go down over engine failure in a war as a passenger. But when he said cannibal every wingnut, myself included, was going to look up the story. And, of course, fox news and Trump and the GOP will have an absolute field day with it and there is no defense.
-
1
-
15
-
-
1 minute ago, achooloco said:
No, I would think even a senile old coot is better than a treasonous shit heel rapist that is just as dumb but just has the benefit of not constantly battling his tendency to speak with a lisp.
Biden is in cognitive decline but he at least is a patriotic American. Trump is just a traitor and that is currently twice as stupid as Biden but is also nearing the cliff of dementia ever day.
Wait, you are not a Trump supporter? How did I miss that?
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:That’s not what he said you moron
LOL. Maybe you are the high one. Watch the first clip. That is exactly what he said.
-
9
-
2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.
in Cloak Room
Posted
Well he did say the Taliban was a "medium" threat in Afghanistan after we pulled out in 2021 and said it would take at least 2 years for them to take over. It took 10 days.
He said Kyiv would likely fall in 72 hours if Russia invaded. Its been over 2.5 years.