Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Heck, kid. Nobody knows what in the world you are referring too, including you. You are not smoking rabbit tocacco while you are off for summer break from school are you? It will rot your brain little guy.That isn't what I was referring to when I said I proved him wrong, moron. Thanks for jumping in to confirm your idiocy.Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.Wickard v Filburn was the USSC interpretation of the commerce clause as White 6 tried to inject past your shield of ignorance.I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.
That's right, run away like a scared little puppy dog.Go tell mommy you made a booboo again. You'll be alright, kid.No, moron. You're confused, as usual.What is it you thought he posted and that I thanked him for posting? You certainly don't get participation points just for dirty name name calling.I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.Huh?Interesting. Was unaware there were those kinds of twisted legal gymnastics in commerce regulation way back then, to give dominion over everybody and everything. Thanks for posting it.The commerce clause give the feds the authority to regulalate things like tariffs or other controls that states try to impose on other states. It was never concived of as giving the feds the authority to regulate every nut and bolt on every product.
Educate yourself.
Start here:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
I'm referring to this, dumbfuck:
Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California
Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution.
www.nytimes.com
What makes you believe I give a flying fuck what some hacks said about the commerce clause? Supreme Court judges are appointed to rule the way the man who appointed them wants them to rule. You cited the single most absurd and obviously wrong ruling the SC ever made.
OK. Was there something in the times article you didn't like? markle asked who was rejecting trumps pollution rules. I posted the link. You didn't like it and said I was lying, though I didn't write the times article. Nostra didn't think the times link was a good source, I guess because it was the times. So I popped in a few more from different sources also about rejecting trump attempts to roll back environment regulations, fuel efficiency, etc, that I didn't write either. So I obviously didn't lie, but I am used to your goofy kid attacks. Heck I just took you back off ignore a week or two ago and here you launch laughable attacks, like a goofy bomb thrower. I don't think EPA regs have harmed me any and have actually improved life by improving water, air, fuel efficiency, spurred innovation, enhanced product quality. You guys just seem glad when he rolls back regulations, any regulations whether you are impacted or not, just because it is cool. A couple of people have pointed out problems with your thinking. You ignore them and don't even read the link they post and when I thank them for the post, not even talking to you, and you respond to me with a "Huh" showing you cannot even follow the conversations people are having. The poster even comes back to explain your error. I think you may have made a baseless attack on him also, although I am not sure. Spotted somewhere else where you said I was running from you, I guess because I went to mow the grass before it rained, though I had no popup alerts before I left. Nobody answers to you kid. You have an avatar of an impudent little kid and it appears that you are one or think like one. Normal people do not take you seriously. I think it best for a couple of weeks or so that you go back on time out to IGNORE. Bye.Heck, kid. Nobody knows what in the world you are referring too, including you. You are not smoking rabbit tocacco while you are off for summer break from school are you? It will rot your brain little guy.That isn't what I was referring to when I said I proved him wrong, moron. Thanks for jumping in to confirm your idiocy.Kid, you are confused again, responding to the wrong poster. Frackapisa told you to educate yourself so you would not be so uninformed on commerce clause, and Posted Wickar v. Filburn. I was just lightly following, but took time to read the reference, finding it interesting. Try to keep up. Jeesh.Wickard v Filburn was the USSC interpretation of the commerce clause as White 6 tried to inject past your shield of ignorance.I'm not talking about the Commerce clause, dumbfuck.
I'm referring to this, dumbfuck:
Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California
Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution.
www.nytimes.com
Nobody answers to you kid. You have an avatar of an impudent little kid and it appears that you are one or think like one. Normal people do not take you seriously.
Always wondered where that came from. Never kept up with soccer news. Kids are something. They get a lot easier after you get them out of college, most of the time. Thanks for that tidbit also.Nobody answers to you kid. You have an avatar of an impudent little kid and it appears that you are one or think like one. Normal people do not take you seriously.
View attachment 346226
Mikey Wilson (Middle Finger kid)
A photo taken of a young fan of the Dutch Feyenoord Rotterdam soccer team in 2002 shows a boy showing support for his team in a very startling way.
He picked his avatar well.
If you want to argue semantics you can start a new thread. As you mentioned, you could be struck by lighting, but people survive that event. It's a matter of statistical consequences, not direct cause and effect.
Lead Levels Below EPA Limits Can Still Impact Your Health
Even tiny amounts of lead in the water can cause IQ deficits in children or high blood pressure in adults.www.npr.org
Please show us all where in this article it says DOES cause low IQs in children and high blood pressure in adults. Not that it can, but it DOES cause problems.
I CAN be struck by lightening. I could be killed in a landslide, an earthquake or forest fire. Personally, I'll take those chances. Will you?
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization state that a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or above is a cause for concern; however, lead may impair development and have harmful health effects even at lower levels, and there is no known safe exposure level.Cute try!
It is all about semantics and that article was purposely written that way so that folks like you would point to it and say YEAH, WE NEED...ZERO PERCENT LEAD, which is a total lie.
IF those pleading that case had anything, anything at all, to back up their allegations, they would have provided those facts. They did not because it does not exist.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization state that a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or above is a cause for concern; however, lead may impair development and have harmful health effects even at lower levels, and there is no known safe exposure level.
Except jobs. China realized that making laws to please environmental nuts costs jobs.Being environmentally friendly to air and water costs nothing.
Lets's start from the top.Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
That's utter bullshit.The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization state that a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or above is a cause for concern; however, lead may impair development and have harmful health effects even at lower levels, and there is no known safe exposure level.Cute try!
It is all about semantics and that article was purposely written that way so that folks like you would point to it and say YEAH, WE NEED...ZERO PERCENT LEAD, which is a total lie.
IF those pleading that case had anything, anything at all, to back up their allegations, they would have provided those facts. They did not because it does not exist.
So? Who is proposing to allow 10mcg/dl?Lets's start from the top.Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
10mcg/dL causes IQ loss of 5 points in chiildren.
Lets's start from the top.Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
10mcg/dL causes IQ loss of 5 points in chiildren.
Lets's start from the top.Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
10mcg/dL causes IQ loss of 5 points in chiildren.
How many kids have that level, or more, of lead?
www.phi.org
There are limits to what I can find, and such inverse studies are rare. But what I could find includes:Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
There are limits to what I can find, and such inverse studies are rare. But what I could find includes:Please show us where, in your original source, the more than six million people (out of 330 MILLION) who have water containing lead BELOW 15 parts per billion of lead in the water have blood lead levels above 10 μg/dL.
Your source could not, you cannot.
USA Today investigation found 2,000 public water systemsacross the US with elevated lead levels that exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency limit of 15 parts per billion — 350 of which serviced elementary schools or day cares.
