Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

Correct, I am not.

 

Just pointing out that the "dear leader" crowd is not anywhere close to "1/2 the Country"

 

The pumpkin got 46.9% of the vote in 2020. SOOPER important correction. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

Link to comment

This gave me laugh. A court in the confused state of California decides a honey be can be a fish for endangered species protection.:laughpound  the legislature should pass a law declaring the honey bee is an endangered species instead of interpreting a law in nonsensical ways? It makes the court look goofy. My wife and I are bee keepers. It takes effort to keep those colonies going. There are times you have to sacrifice a couple thousand to rid the colony of mites. Let’s hope this new protection of bee-fish doesn’t go overboard.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-court-bumblebee-fish-environmental-law

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

On 6/4/2022 at 7:02 AM, nic said:

This gave me laugh. A court in the confused state of California decides a honey be can be a fish for endangered species protection.:laughpound  the legislature should pass a law declaring the honey bee is an endangered species instead of interpreting a law in nonsensical ways? It makes the court look goofy. My wife and I are bee keepers. It takes effort to keep those colonies going. There are times you have to sacrifice a couple thousand to rid the colony of mites. Let’s hope this new protection of bee-fish doesn’t go overboard.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-court-bumblebee-fish-environmental-law

 

If anything, the legislature should amend the original endangered species law to remove the word "fish" since the act was written to protect invertebrates, which the court said also includes non-marine invertebrates since snails for example were already protected under the same act.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article262045952.html

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If anything, the legislature should amend the original endangered species law to remove the word "fish" since the act was written to protect invertebrates, which the court said also includes non-marine invertebrates since snails for example were already protected under the same act.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article262045952.html

Looks like I'm wrong about removing the word "fish", it's more that the California legislature created a confusing definition of fish. Here's a pretty good breakdown:

https://www.loweringthebar.net/2022/06/court-says-bees-are-fish.html

 

Quote

“Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.

Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45.

 

So the court didn't actually rule that bumblebees are fish, but rather that the law had already defined invertebrates as fish and the case before the court was whether that applied to non-marine invertebrates.

Quote

Insects are invertebrates. And this didn’t seem to be limited to aquatic beasts, the court held, because of that goddamn snail, which is terrestrial. Nobody had ever complained about it being on the list. If the Legislature cared about the aquaticness of invertebrates, the court seems to have reasoned, it would have done something about this, but it didn’t. Therefore, nonaquatic invertebrates can be on the list, and that’s what bumblebees are.

 

This is why, at least for purposes of California’s section 45, bees are fish.

 

If you want more, there’s a wonderful discussion of worms on page 34 of the opinion, but I need a drink.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Just now, nic said:

What was it then?

 

 

To investigate links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump's campaign, and also to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

 

Not only is the word 'collusion' nowhere to be found in any of that, as it's a Trump/media buzzword, but Mueller also explicitly did not reach a conclusion on possible obstruction of justice in regards to Trump, operating under the DOJ's legal opinion that federal investigators can not indict a sitting President.

 

Your claim that he was mandated to nail Trump is categorically false and the exact opposite of what was true; it was baked in that there would be no nailing of Trump no matter what from the very start. 

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...