pfife

You are selling something - you're selling your opinion that this can't be done b/c of the jurisdiction of the land. We're 3 years removed from a president declaring a state of emergency and used that not to override a law- but to override the constitutional article that the Congress controls the purse. I didn't make the game or the rules, but those are the rules and that is the game- we all saw it with our own eyes.

I will accept that I was right yet again. Thank you. However, it's sad that the board would rather call me names than google the damn quote themselves. And then one poster googled the quote they literally called it a quote from Warren when it was nothing of the sort - it was literally a quote from someone else. The dishonesty is very high in this forum right now - to the point where accurately quoting someone is a "technicality". If it's childish to call it out, so be it. Someone's gotta call out the bullshit. Sad that no one else seems to give a fuck. I guess you all would rather just admit that I'm right. Repeatedly. Regarding something other than me being right.... yet again..... Trump declared his state of emergency on the border wall in February 2019. It was approximately 1 year before COVID was an issue in the US. Why are you referring to COVID as the case for emergency and drawing inferences from that to the current situation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html My argument is the reason for emergency need not even be an actual emergency - as Trump showed. Also- can you post what you're referring to regarding COVID not passing muster in courts as a reason for declaring emergency? Are you referring to Whitmer's power to declare state of emergency re: covid? I also don't know if I can buy what you're selling me on the law here b/c you told me earlier this morning that states had "full authority" - your wording- over these lands and you have since scaled that "full authority" back on at least two different occasions now (this one just above, and one I already asked about) with little to no explanation of this change in your presentation of the jurisdiction of these lands. Under normal circumstances I would buy what your selling no problem, but given your unexplained shifts here, and also that you built it on a false representation of Warren's quote - even after I said multiple times it was not her quote. Thus, I am unable to purchase at this time. Plus I'm a child with no money. Furthermore - what's the downside for trying this, regardless of your shifting notion of who has full authority or not over these lands and your assessment of legal viability of the idea? I'd argue that having a choice to get an abortion in Isle Royal is better than not having the choice whatsoever. The reason I brought up that she said lands and not parks wasn't based on the ability to get abortions in one and not the other - you're the one arguing that front. It was because you and Motown Bombed trashed the idea b/c it meant Michiganders and also Michiganians would have to go to a remote uninhabited island in Lake Superior. That, of course was totally inaccurate based on a total inaccuracy in what she said. Inaccuracies, mind you - pushed by a purported Democrat who purports to not trash Democrats/their voters/their policies (even though I quoted 8 messages of him doing exactly that just today). I'm pretty shocked you decided to eat from his bullshit trough today.

You actually probably are one that voted for the ones that appointed at least 3 of these hacks on the scotus. Given that I am totally fine with your characterization of me. Your judgment..... yeesh Being held responsible is painful and I'm the one blaming the GOP for the GOPs authoritarianism and not the left.

I never said it was my purpose in life- you're lying again. Like the lie you told about not talking about Isle Royal. Like the lie you told about what Warren said. Like the lie you told about me not complementing Nancy on the J6 commish All easily disproven with screenshots and arrows.

I'm much more interested in beating you mercilessly again and again You've had to admit I was right quite a few times since I chose to start acknowledging your existence again.

Yes, I know. I won again. It's too bad you lie so much about what you posted.

Smash the ignore button if you don't like it - I couldn't give a shit less if you do.

What is the only National Park in Michigan?

Yes I am posting on the message board your mastery of the obvious is very impressive congrats on the rare truthful post

Free pass for Republicans woo hoo!

Earlier you said national forests are under the full authority of the states, now you're saying the fed enforces federal statues there which would be different than states having full authority.

or you could blame Republicans for what Republicans did.

I'll do whatever I want until the mods tell me not to then I still might

1) I said the likes of you. 2) I was posting in response to G2, as shown by the quote, who did say Isle Royal. Thus, not lying. Clearly. You should read what you're responding to (which you admit you don't) before responding.

Was it a technicality when you used it?

Again, she didn't speak with insufficient specificity. In the only actually quote found or posted of what she actually said, she said federal lands. A poster here made references to 1 National Park in Michigan, which is not synonymous with federal lands. The poster also directly stated that she said "parks" when she did not. ETA: Furthermore, even though it's a technicality to look at what someone actually said when discussing what was actually said...... she said this in the context of declaring a medical emergency. What is the impact of declaring the emergency on the legal aspects you posted? Since it's already been established that declaring emergency unshackles a president from Congress, as proven by Trump, why would the legal argument you're making persist?

So you werent talking about the only national park in Michigan when you were talking about the only national park in Michigan?

Accurately depicting what a person said isn't a technicality.

She didn't speak with incomplete specificity. The only quote we have of her actually talking was from ABC's This Week (which I posted) - She said land, not parks. As for the point of the distinction - I didn't make a bunch of jokes about the policy being only applicable to Isle Royal so I'll defer to the likes of you and MB for why you made jokes about having to go to Isle Royal for an abortion if you could hypothetically go closer b/c there's no legal distinction between federal lands and federal parks.

Yeah I know I won it. I don't need you to tell me that

You posted 0 sources quoting her as saying national park. Did you read what you posted?

1) the tweet you posted clearly doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs "land". I posted Warren's quote. 2) The WUTV article you posted also doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs. "land". It quotes Caroline Kitchener about national parks, not Elizabeth Warren. I posted Warren's quote. You did not. 3) The KPIC article you posted appears to be a syndicated article that's almost the same as the WUTV article you posted which didn't quote Warren on parks vs. land, both of which are quoting the same person who composed the tweet you posted (and was quoted). I posted Warren's quote. You did not. The word "park" appears in the article 3 times. Once in the title (not a quote) another in a quote from Caroline Kitchener (not Liz Warren), and another time in the narrative of the article which is also not a quote from Warren. Essentially you posted 3 quotes all by the same person that aren't quotes from Warren re: Parks vs. Land - they're quotes from Caroline Kitchener about what she says Warren said. On the other hand, I posted a direct quote from Warren herself appearing on a national TV show. 4) You made a distinction between federal lands and federal parks and said she said one and not the other:

No I just read your posts which you admit you don't do for me