Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Overused labels

  1. #1
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,541

    Overused labels

    In today's political climate it seems that the media and citizens alike are using terms to label huge swaths of Americans. Two that come to mind are fascist and maga Republican. A perfect example of that was today when Schumer was not happy with a supreme Court decision dealing with the EPA and environmental issues. The decision was 9 to 0 as in unanimous. But Chucky wasn't happy with the decision so he decided to label the supreme Court as the maga supreme Court. How misleading. Divisive politics are dangerous. Don't get me wrong it's practiced by both parties but I just thought today was a perfect example from the highest ranking senator in the Senate.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    10-30-01
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    30,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Honda View Post
    The decision was 9 to 0 as in unanimous.
    Which sends a message the opposition obviously doesn't get.

    Hunter
    I don't care if it hurts. I want to have control. I want a perfect body. I want a perfect soul. - Creep by Radiohead

  3. #3
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    I can provide some context. While at USDA, I was involved in mapping wetlands.

    The problem is that in one of the farm bills some time back (think 20+ years), we got word that the EPA was redefining wetlands. In the past, a wetland was a swamp. Pretty straightforward and farmers were not supposed to drain wetlands to create farmland. With a definitional change, any wet spot in a field essentially became a wetland and you needed a plan to protect it. That's why the SC made a point of saying that a wetland had to have a surface connection to a body of water. Wet spots in fields are now back to being wet spots, not federally protected wetlands, and farmers can go back to laying tile to drain them instead of having to interrupt field operations for them.

    Famers will be over the moon about this. The EPA definition was baloney. It was government overreach embodied. There were big penalties for violating the sacrosanct wet spots. So a 9 to 0 ruling is a big billboard to other agencies jerking people around with regulations out the wazoo, such as the definition of "navigable waterways". Once a waterbody is deemed a "navigable waterway", all sorts of regulations rain down on everyone's heads. A navigable waterway can be the creek in your backyard. Or a ditch, depending on the whim of the bureaucrat sent out that day.

    Crazy stuff.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •