Well sadly it won't matter because the same court just said we don't have election day we have election as-long-as-it-takes-to-get-all-the-ballots, and adding insult to injury, they wouldn't even view Trumps appeal for that E Jean Carrol trainwreck $5 million dollar civil case, so now Trump has to pay the lunatic 5M, and listen to the media chirp about it until he's out of office.
I think having certain Agencies protected from the back and forth of partisan politics was a great idea. Without that protection now the rules and regulations will swing wildly back and forth between Administrations making it really difficult for businesses to plan ahead or to know what the rules are.
They work at the behest of the President. This is how We The People retain our power. We vote in the President and it should not be blocked by Congress or anyone else who wants to fill his administration with people opposing his agenda.
How exactly are these nefarious civil servants blocking an agenda? The President is there to execute the laws. He does not make the laws. The Civil Service put the laws into rules and regulations and enforce them. So are you saying the President's agenda is different than the laws Congress passed?
Really Bun? Have you ever been in a workplace situation where people failed to work as a team or there where too many employees who don’t share the same goal? Get real. A president has 4 years and obstruction is how the DC entrenched swamp creatures sabotaged President Trump’s agenda on his first go-around.
Yes, Rules and regulations can be slow- walked. Do you have specific examples where Trump is actively attempting to get a Law that Congress passed executed and the Agency is recalcitrant? It seems to me that what Trump is mainly frustrated about is he doesn't want to follow Congress and is trying to force things that Congress did not pass, or he is obstructing Congress.
He’s trying to shut down the Dept of Education, but Congress would have to finish the job. He’s trying to reduce our bloated Federal workforce, but they have civil service/union protections. Our system is intentionally complicated.
Congress made the Dept of Education for a reason. That is not an example of the Agency workers deliberately sabotaging the Law that they function under. Same with the decreasing Federal workforce. The protections are in place by, I assume, Congressional action, so these are workers fighting for their Confessionally mandated rights.
Each Agency had its appointed leaders who could be removed for a cause, not just because you felt so. And there were term limits so allowing for regular changes in leadership. And the Boards had to be a mix of Republicans and Democrats. The steady nature was very valuable. That will be no longer.
That may be, but the lack of accountability disturbs me. Here’s a compromise: I would support the old approach if we de- unionize Federal workers. FDR was vehemently opposed to this idea. Kennedy offered this for Union support in 1960. I think it’s a huge conflict.
Likely a good point, but one I haven't thought about. I do know I am for the Civil Service being based on skill and knowledge and definitely not partisan with just a thin layer at the top that are political appointees who come and go.
Funny the same Justice that Barrett worked for screwed us today. She lied to him also while interviewing..... Check her purse it's been stuffed by the Left....
The Supreme Court is bought and paid for by Big Pharma. They ruled for protecting Monsanto/Bayer against the common man getting cancer from their terrible products
Disagree. Glyphosates have been tested globally for decades with no scientific basis that they cause cancer. That’s why there’s no warning label. That’s why every regulatory body in the world has said they’re safe. A UN group (that bastion of rectitude) said, without evidence, that glyphosates “probably “ cause cancer. Probably? That unleashed the usual avalanche of American lawyers who saw easy money. Maybe they do or don’t cause cancer (when used properly one presumes), but so far there is no science to support this allegation.
As for “terrible products “, talk to farmers. You know, those people you’ve never met that grow your food.
Oh, I’ve never met any farmer. I do not live in an artificial city scape like you. Not like I go right down the road to my local grower or anything 🥱. And most countries have banned it in EU. The UN is not a body that is authoritative in any manner like CNN doesn’t produce news. Tell me please, if you are so convinced about glyphosate, what’s the cause of the exponential rise in gluten sensitivity? You’re so clever, you have all the answers. Riddle me this one, how come my allergic reaction to bread disappears when I ensure my diet contains no glyphosate? Who’s paying you to say these things? Which NGO or Big Pharma/Big Agro associated org? Thanks but you have no standing whatsoever to make any conclusions without personal, physical ailments. Don’t be ridiculous, you’re not taken seriously at all “sea sentry.”
First of all, thanks for sharing the information. Having conversations about data rather than just exchanging opinions is much more productive.
Second, I will attest that I don't know what causes Celiac disease or whether glyphosates are ultimately at fault or not. Who knows? We in the West are suffering from all kinds of affluent society mental and physical maladies that our grandparents never heard of. Something's obviously affecting us and we all want to know what that or those factors is/are.
As for your 2013 study (Samsel and Seneff), it's interesting but it's gone nowhere. The EFSA looked at it and thought it was not a serious study, and various peer review assessments (the next step in science) uniformly shot down the study, citing things like the fact that the authors conducted no actual studies and relied on their own reasoning and statistical correlations (like the charts) which are not always causation. Many of the studies they cited were not specifically related to their thesis. And by shotgunning glyphosate and tying it to cancer, autism, Alzheimers, Depression, intestinal infection deaths, infertility and RA, they kind of give away their sloppy methodological approach. Here is a peer review of their study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5705608/
It has been confirmed that trace amounts of glyphosates can show up in human urine but are quickly eliminated. So that is evidence that it's in the body, and maybe someone will conduct a study attempting to tie glyphosates to human maladies successfully. It just hasn't occurred yet.
As for Celiac, Mayo Clinic and others point out that there are 2-3 HLA genes that need to be present for Celiac disease, so there is clearly a genetic component, though there may be an environmental trigger as well.
I don't work for anyone or represent anyone. I'm long interested in third world agricultural practices from living abroad and I've read glyphosate studies going back to the 1990's as a result. Bottom line: (1) It's a very weak paper and (2) we still have no evidence of glyphosate causing any human malady, though I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility.
That’s a very comprehensive response. I appreciate you taking the time to look through the pertinent info. As someone very engaged in best health practices, and not being someone deeply engaged in peer reviewed scientific papers, I admit to have only skimmed the surface for this theory. However, I love the old ways of creating food and agriculture practices and believe strongly in regenerative farming. Perhaps that’s a strong bias. Either way, our current monoculture approach is unsustainable long term as it depletes the soil entirely. Biodiversity is a complex system that has mutual symbiosis in the growing fields. Contemporary patented chemicals like glyphosate are stop gap solutions that allows a high yield but at a terrible price (perhaps).
I always return to the DDT history and how much worse the chemicals were after it was banned. Parathion being one of them impacting mammals, and Neonicothinoids which collapsed bee colonies. Spraying is expensive. This aspect of pesticides prevents farmers from using them non judiciously. Farmers would not use them if they didn’t need them. In planting trees in the PNW, there are invasive species that kill off timber by shading it out. The seeds of these weeds last for up to 20 years in the soil until the soil is disturbed after timber is harvested. One application of Roundup makes a huge difference in survival of newly planted trees. Scarification of the soil before planting does not stop weeds. To ban Roundup and other sprays would hurt tree farmers which impacts everything from TP to pallets, and a huge amount of chemicals used in thousands of products.
Lying E Jean Carroll could not remember what year the alleged incident took place.
Seriously, can ANYONE think of a reason that Donald Trump would EVER have gone into a department store?
To do what he did, or to take a dump, or both.
Who's spent the last 17 years lying-for-a-living?
She couldn’t remember the dress she wore either.
She could have borrowed a blue one from Monica and blamed Clinton instead. It worked before.
Well sadly it won't matter because the same court just said we don't have election day we have election as-long-as-it-takes-to-get-all-the-ballots, and adding insult to injury, they wouldn't even view Trumps appeal for that E Jean Carrol trainwreck $5 million dollar civil case, so now Trump has to pay the lunatic 5M, and listen to the media chirp about it until he's out of office.
Your bitch funded it, so...
Can't afford to be while paying taxes to support loser zeros like yourself.
I think having certain Agencies protected from the back and forth of partisan politics was a great idea. Without that protection now the rules and regulations will swing wildly back and forth between Administrations making it really difficult for businesses to plan ahead or to know what the rules are.
They work at the behest of the President. This is how We The People retain our power. We vote in the President and it should not be blocked by Congress or anyone else who wants to fill his administration with people opposing his agenda.
How exactly are these nefarious civil servants blocking an agenda? The President is there to execute the laws. He does not make the laws. The Civil Service put the laws into rules and regulations and enforce them. So are you saying the President's agenda is different than the laws Congress passed?
Really Bun? Have you ever been in a workplace situation where people failed to work as a team or there where too many employees who don’t share the same goal? Get real. A president has 4 years and obstruction is how the DC entrenched swamp creatures sabotaged President Trump’s agenda on his first go-around.
Yes, Rules and regulations can be slow- walked. Do you have specific examples where Trump is actively attempting to get a Law that Congress passed executed and the Agency is recalcitrant? It seems to me that what Trump is mainly frustrated about is he doesn't want to follow Congress and is trying to force things that Congress did not pass, or he is obstructing Congress.
He’s trying to shut down the Dept of Education, but Congress would have to finish the job. He’s trying to reduce our bloated Federal workforce, but they have civil service/union protections. Our system is intentionally complicated.
Congress made the Dept of Education for a reason. That is not an example of the Agency workers deliberately sabotaging the Law that they function under. Same with the decreasing Federal workforce. The protections are in place by, I assume, Congressional action, so these are workers fighting for their Confessionally mandated rights.
Bun, get out of your hole on occasion, and I bet you can answer your own questions.
Since you feel strongly about this topic, I figured you would have actual examples.
But what about accountability? Agencies under nobody’s control become a deep state.
Each Agency had its appointed leaders who could be removed for a cause, not just because you felt so. And there were term limits so allowing for regular changes in leadership. And the Boards had to be a mix of Republicans and Democrats. The steady nature was very valuable. That will be no longer.
That may be, but the lack of accountability disturbs me. Here’s a compromise: I would support the old approach if we de- unionize Federal workers. FDR was vehemently opposed to this idea. Kennedy offered this for Union support in 1960. I think it’s a huge conflict.
Likely a good point, but one I haven't thought about. I do know I am for the Civil Service being based on skill and knowledge and definitely not partisan with just a thin layer at the top that are political appointees who come and go.
Most positions in the federal civil service can be replace by AI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpeCNXh0IRU
Remy: Fortnight (Taylor Swift Parody) - ReasonTV
I guess we can all just go hide in our rooms and live on beans while AI runs the world.
I completely agree.
I voted for plunder!
Here is an excellent companion piece to this article:
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/bringing-back-the-spoils-system-yes?r=kyfzz&utm_medium=ios
We’re inching closer and closer to ending the embedded Deep State once and for all. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
We absolutely must overwhelm the voting booth this NOVEMBER! Get out there, bring your friends and family and VOTE RED!
Suzie, thanks! You are in the bullseye again!
Trump is running our government as well as he's running his fake Iran war.
Funny the same Justice that Barrett worked for screwed us today. She lied to him also while interviewing..... Check her purse it's been stuffed by the Left....
Thank God for Justice Scalia.
By the implicit logic of this decision, patronage should be restored and the permanent Civil Service retired.
The Supreme Court is bought and paid for by Big Pharma. They ruled for protecting Monsanto/Bayer against the common man getting cancer from their terrible products
Disagree. Glyphosates have been tested globally for decades with no scientific basis that they cause cancer. That’s why there’s no warning label. That’s why every regulatory body in the world has said they’re safe. A UN group (that bastion of rectitude) said, without evidence, that glyphosates “probably “ cause cancer. Probably? That unleashed the usual avalanche of American lawyers who saw easy money. Maybe they do or don’t cause cancer (when used properly one presumes), but so far there is no science to support this allegation.
As for “terrible products “, talk to farmers. You know, those people you’ve never met that grow your food.
Oh, I’ve never met any farmer. I do not live in an artificial city scape like you. Not like I go right down the road to my local grower or anything 🥱. And most countries have banned it in EU. The UN is not a body that is authoritative in any manner like CNN doesn’t produce news. Tell me please, if you are so convinced about glyphosate, what’s the cause of the exponential rise in gluten sensitivity? You’re so clever, you have all the answers. Riddle me this one, how come my allergic reaction to bread disappears when I ensure my diet contains no glyphosate? Who’s paying you to say these things? Which NGO or Big Pharma/Big Agro associated org? Thanks but you have no standing whatsoever to make any conclusions without personal, physical ailments. Don’t be ridiculous, you’re not taken seriously at all “sea sentry.”
Show me a study that connects glyphosate to gluten intolerance.
You asked for it: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3945755/
OK, digested....
First of all, thanks for sharing the information. Having conversations about data rather than just exchanging opinions is much more productive.
Second, I will attest that I don't know what causes Celiac disease or whether glyphosates are ultimately at fault or not. Who knows? We in the West are suffering from all kinds of affluent society mental and physical maladies that our grandparents never heard of. Something's obviously affecting us and we all want to know what that or those factors is/are.
As for your 2013 study (Samsel and Seneff), it's interesting but it's gone nowhere. The EFSA looked at it and thought it was not a serious study, and various peer review assessments (the next step in science) uniformly shot down the study, citing things like the fact that the authors conducted no actual studies and relied on their own reasoning and statistical correlations (like the charts) which are not always causation. Many of the studies they cited were not specifically related to their thesis. And by shotgunning glyphosate and tying it to cancer, autism, Alzheimers, Depression, intestinal infection deaths, infertility and RA, they kind of give away their sloppy methodological approach. Here is a peer review of their study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5705608/
It has been confirmed that trace amounts of glyphosates can show up in human urine but are quickly eliminated. So that is evidence that it's in the body, and maybe someone will conduct a study attempting to tie glyphosates to human maladies successfully. It just hasn't occurred yet.
As for Celiac, Mayo Clinic and others point out that there are 2-3 HLA genes that need to be present for Celiac disease, so there is clearly a genetic component, though there may be an environmental trigger as well.
I don't work for anyone or represent anyone. I'm long interested in third world agricultural practices from living abroad and I've read glyphosate studies going back to the 1990's as a result. Bottom line: (1) It's a very weak paper and (2) we still have no evidence of glyphosate causing any human malady, though I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility.
That’s a very comprehensive response. I appreciate you taking the time to look through the pertinent info. As someone very engaged in best health practices, and not being someone deeply engaged in peer reviewed scientific papers, I admit to have only skimmed the surface for this theory. However, I love the old ways of creating food and agriculture practices and believe strongly in regenerative farming. Perhaps that’s a strong bias. Either way, our current monoculture approach is unsustainable long term as it depletes the soil entirely. Biodiversity is a complex system that has mutual symbiosis in the growing fields. Contemporary patented chemicals like glyphosate are stop gap solutions that allows a high yield but at a terrible price (perhaps).
I always return to the DDT history and how much worse the chemicals were after it was banned. Parathion being one of them impacting mammals, and Neonicothinoids which collapsed bee colonies. Spraying is expensive. This aspect of pesticides prevents farmers from using them non judiciously. Farmers would not use them if they didn’t need them. In planting trees in the PNW, there are invasive species that kill off timber by shading it out. The seeds of these weeds last for up to 20 years in the soil until the soil is disturbed after timber is harvested. One application of Roundup makes a huge difference in survival of newly planted trees. Scarification of the soil before planting does not stop weeds. To ban Roundup and other sprays would hurt tree farmers which impacts everything from TP to pallets, and a huge amount of chemicals used in thousands of products.
This is great, thanks! I’ll need some time to “digest” this…
Boy Howdy especially with some nut job....