It's a Democrat's fault that the army pays $800 for a hammer, the farmers are given welfare, and truckers make $100k a year?
Why?
Last edited:
It's a Democrat's fault that the army pays $800 for a hammer, the farmers are given welfare, and truckers make $100k a year?
Thanks dude! You made me shoot soda out of my nose when I read this.It's a Democrat's fault that the army pays $800 for a hammer, the farmers are given welfare, and truckers make $100k a year?
Why?
Yup! It has been illegal for quite some time. The thing that really put the spot light on this was the chemicals that were being used for. Some of these chemicals consisted of natural gas or propane. In the HVAC field, they call that Boom gas. It gets its name for obvious reasons.
""It is illegal to import certain refrigerants into the United States because of their documented and significantly greater contribution to climate change," said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim, of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division..."
![]()
San Diego man is first in U.S. to be charged with smuggling greenhouse gases
A man in San Diego is facing more than a dozen charges for illegally smuggling hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, into the U.S. from Mexico and selling them for profit.www.cbsnews.com
I'm pretty sure if we eliminated Trump appointees, it's still a 6-0 win.I was in a meeting today and a person, who is obviously a democrat, was triggered by the supreme court to not allow Trump being removed from any ballots. She complained about how non bi-partisan the supreme court is. I had to remind her that they court voted 9-0. She replied "yeah, but how many of those were appointed by him?" We all started laughing and another employee responded "not all of them, meaning even the democrat appointed ones voted in Trumps favor." She got mad and left the meeting.
I'd have to re-read it, but I thought it was said the dissenters went with the majority simply so it would be an across-the-board vote.I'm pretty sure if we eliminated Trump appointees, it's still a 6-0 win.![]()
So they didn't stand on law but bent to peer pressure of appearances...I'd have to re-read it, but I thought it was said the dissenters went with the majority simply so it would be an across-the-board vote.
Not too mention...ruling for that reason shows something lacking from any judge that did...Could be, but they wouldn't make that public, since in essence that would be the same as dissenting.
There are a total of 9 justices on the supreme court. 6 were put in by republicans and 3 were put in by democrats. The democrat appointed ones have shown they have no problem voting against the other side.I'd have to re-read it, but I thought it was said the dissenters went with the majority simply so it would be an across-the-board vote.
There are a total of 9 justices on the supreme court. 6 were put in by republicans and 3 were put in by democrats. The democrat appointed ones have shown they have no problem voting against the other side.
Seems like it was more of a concern of Republicans having another freak out if they didn't get their way, like Jan 6th:So they didn't stand on law but bent to peer pressure of appearances...
So some judges didn't vote based on how they interpret the law? If that's the the case they need to goSeems like it was more of a concern of Republicans having another freak out if they didn't get their way, like Jan 6th:
"'The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,' Barrett wrote in her one-page opinion."