What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
130 Comments
- pinkpackrat, on 01/02/2009, -10/+169Go California!!!!!!
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -5/+67Did you know mormons believe that when you die you get your own planet? Thats why all their churches have spheres on top of them, rather than crosses. True story. I went to Utah and lolled my ass off.
- gattaca86, on 01/02/2009, -4/+57can we sue mormons?
- opticwind, on 01/02/2009, -13/+36Then you're probably a sick *****.
"Man, you know what I could go for? Watching someone I hate get eaten." - Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -0/+21I used to be a Mormon and I can say that Mormon churches don't have spheres on them because they believe they're going to get a planet (also I'm not aware of any mandate of having spheres at all, I assume you're refering to the ball the little angel guy stands on (Moroni) on the top of the temples but that's got nothing to do with planets). Mormons also don't believe they are going to get just one planet but that they are going to get to create an entire infinite universe. It goes well beyond just a planet.
They don't have crosses because they believe that worshiping symbols is idol worship and that it focuses on Jesus's death rather than his ressurection. The odd thing about this is that their temples are covered in symbolism borrowed from the Masons. (Joseph Smith and many of the early church leaders were masons) - yosserhughes, on 01/02/2009, -11/+31Thank God, finally someone with some common sense, these tree-huggers are out of control.
A couple of years ago I bought about a 1000 acres of land just outside of Yosemite and wanted to put a shopping mall there, well of course the Greens moved in and tried to stop me just because it was old-growth forest and there were some weird animals there that you couldn’t find anywhere else: like I care.
Anyway, I hired a big shot lawyer, ($900 an hour, but what the hell, I can afford it,) and we tied them up in court with all kinds of injunctions and ***** like that for months, and while they were busy with that I bulldozed the ***** lot.
Ha ha, come and see it sometime you’ll love it, not even a ***** squirrel to be seen. - valimar77, on 01/02/2009, -1/+21"The rule changes will allow federal agencies to decide if their actions put wildlife at risk, getting rid of the previous requirement of conducting scientific reviews determining if their actions might be detrimental to endangered or threatened species. The Department of Interior maintains that they can make good decisions themselves without scientist’s input."
Inept. - Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -2/+22If they're handling this internally, all of the A.G.'s staff is salaried, so this sort of thing is just part of their job. It doesn't cost California anything extra.
- neognostic, on 01/02/2009, -37/+53I'll be so happy reading the news in the future when the Bush family is found with their carcasses showing signs of being fed upon by wild animals.
- SpookyBoots, on 01/02/2009, -0/+1610 points to scubaman for leaving that church... While the mormons do do a lot of good in the world, that church is messed up. I have so many issues with them it's not even funny anymore. When I wasn't allowed to go to my sister's wedding because she's mormon and I'm not, that was the last straw. ***** 'em.
- BillDauterive, on 01/02/2009, -8/+23Good thing the bushes will be extinct in american politics after Jan 20th. Good luck on that senate run Jeb, you're gonna need it.
- dankers, on 01/02/2009, -0/+14says some dumb hick in the middle of nowhere...
Life is great out here in California, people elsewhere are just bitter and jealous. Anyways keep watching the movies our Hollywood produces and glamoring over all the hot woman that drain from your state to move to ours.
Now back to my job of being the bread basket for the rest of the nation. - erkokite, on 01/02/2009, -5/+19You can always peg a far right partisan by their usage of the term, "moonbat." You don't even have to read the rest of the drivel they spew, which is nice.
- Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -0/+14The Department of the Interior does have the power to act, but if you pull out your old Administrative Law outlines, you'll remember the Chevron Doctrine (sometimes referred to as the Chevron two-step [or maybe that was just my professor]).
Chevron requires us first to look at the challenged rule and first see whether the enabling statute is ambiguous as to empowering the agency to do what it did. Here, the agency certainly has the power to announce its own internal procedural rules, but it could be argued that it doesn't have the power to announce new procedural rules which would essentially gut its ability to carry out Congress' intent under the statute. We could look at the legislative history of the statute or the text of the statute in order to divine Congress' intent. Ultimately, I think a winning argument could be made that while the agency certainly has the power to announce its own procedures, it doesn't have the ability to announce procedures which have the purpose of shirking Congress' will that the ESA be enforced.
The second step of Chevron requires us to examine whether the agency's interpretation is permissible. The agency is given a lot of deference here and there will be deference so long as the agency's actions are not arbitrary and capricious. Here, I'm sure the Department packed the record with all sorts of information. They must, however, show that they considered those 200,000 comments somehow. They must have a reasonable justification for their action. I also see where California could make a pretty solid case here.
What I expect to happen is this -- a District Court Judge will grant a temporary injunction because of the fact that California is likely to succeed on the merits and failure to grant a temporary injunction will result in irreversible and imminent harm. Next, I expect the new Obama administration will start a new rulemaking, have a new notice and comment period, and rescind this rule, mooting the case. - NeiraNiika, on 01/02/2009, -4/+18This is another form of deregulation (like what got us into the economic mess we're in now), but in this case, without scientific oversight, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act. That is the whole point, to get around having to abide by the Endangered Species Act.
Thank goodness California has Jerry Brown for attorney general. - northseed, on 01/02/2009, -1/+14If the proposed changes haven't been enacted yet, couldn't a lawsuit delay them long enough for the next President to nullify them?
I think it'd be about time a president's ability to enact midnight regulations were curtailed. - Ne007, on 01/02/2009, -0/+11ok hitler.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+10You are a racist.
- Pstmann, on 01/02/2009, -0/+10Usually humans define worth based on rarity, unfortunately that rule only extends to something we can own and sell.
- dyau270, on 01/02/2009, -0/+9Can we please just call him "shrub" from now on? Please?
- darladoon, on 01/02/2009, -0/+9unfortunately, your logic has gone astray. of couse, humans will remain on top of the so-called 'food chain'; however, we do know, for instance, that there are numerous organisms, much smaller than ourselves, who play very significant roles in the food chain, and if you eliminate them, it will cause a chain reaction and ultimately affect humans. certain species of frogs and bees, for instance, are vital for human survival.
- kanabiis, on 01/03/2009, -0/+8Yes, we can see how the federal government is a shining beacon of oversight and self regulation.
- NeiraNiika, on 01/02/2009, -3/+11What is the Bush administration making this "tweak" for if it does nothing? This is another form of deregulation (like what got us into the economic mess we're in now), but in this case, without scientific oversight, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act. That is the whole point, to get around having to abide by the Endangered Species Act.
Thank goodness California has Jerry Brown for attorney general. - darladoon, on 01/02/2009, -4/+11yeah, protecting endangered species, so frivolous! we don't need any species, except ***** sapiens sapiens.
- Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -0/+7wineinc -- He just wasn't framing the issue right in his mind. You're right, the Supremacy Clause doesn't really play here. What's being challenged is the sufficiency of the process in the rulemaking and whether the new rule itself is permissible according to the enabling statute and whether the agency in so acting has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
- wineinc, on 01/02/2009, -1/+8@kronzdigg. I've read the article two more times since reading your comment. Can you reference where you found material supporting your "mouse in the woods" remark?
Are you aware that the salmon fishery in California and Oregon has collapsed?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ ...
I don't know for certain that the Bush Administration could have headed off the collapse. But I do know they have been allowing more water to be diverted to farmers and they have allowed farmers to encroach on salmon breeding habitat. The fishery was good for the economy. Spending tax dollars to protect it makes economic sense. - opticwind, on 01/02/2009, -2/+9Yeah, they said that about the Kennedy's after Rob got shot.
- IKORKYI, on 01/02/2009, -2/+9only if they have more than one wife.
- Morticae, on 01/02/2009, -2/+9FTA "Why is it that a “lame duck” leaving office (forever) can push through last minute rule changes that his successor has to either enforce or overturn, wasting valuable time and money?"
Because ***** us, that's why. Haven't you been listening? - avrygoodfrnd, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6California has the eighth largest economy in the WORLD, and is the most populous state in the union.
So, in other words, you're a moron. - Coffae, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6California is reported to have the 7th largest economy in the world including significant areas of trade, production, jobs and financial institutions. What's in your pocketbook?
- ZubZerp, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6"The earth has more biodiversity right now, than at any point in the earth's history"
I'm sorry, but it seems like you're pulling statements out of your ass. - inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6This alone solidifies my intent to move to the state in a year or so.
- wineinc, on 01/02/2009, -2/+8Your reasoning does not hold. You imply other important tasks will suffer if Brown addresses this problem. I am unable to identify a single commonly regarded high priority problem that will lack for resources if he moves forward on this issue. Can you? I can imagine a host of problems Brown might be preventing by forcing the federal government to follow through on its Endangered Species Act responsibilities.
- nedzeve, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6It's true. California pays more into the federal tax coffers than it takes out (California benefits about 75 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/a ... - SouthsideIrish, on 01/02/2009, -1/+7Ah, no they don't believe that everyone is going to get their own planet, and it isn't when they die. There is a little deal with the second coming, and judgment day, and numerous other things, before one person will get one.
- BrogMaN, on 01/02/2009, -0/+6Actually I do want to know, please explain to me some of these "horrible results."
- ctishman, on 01/02/2009, -4/+9...and two hundred years from now?
The natural world is not an inexhaustible resource. Surely you must see this. We must control how much of it we take so that the ability of nature to replenish itself is not upset beyond repair. Consider it long-term financial planning rather than short-term 'profits now' opportunism. - Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -0/+5States have the discretion to choose not to enforce federal laws or pass state laws consistent with federal laws.
Federal laws can still preempt state laws, but they cannot effectively take over the executive function of the states.
The above comment is correct. The feds can still arrest anyone they want to. They just can't count on the state to help them. - Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -2/+7@ThePotatoe
The idea behind the ESA is to give endangered species a chance to survive and thrive. Yes, that sometimes comes at the expense of local industry and development, but you said it yourself -- one thing the United States has a bunch of is land. In most cases, development or industry can use different land and the endangered species cannot.
There are options of course, if, for example, the government needs to build a dam on a certain river to provide water and hydroelectric power to thousands, and there's some endangered suckerfish keeping that from happening.
The Act provides for things like relocation of the species, creating alternate habitat, etc.
Your final comment is absolute hogwash. The whole reason the ESA exists is because prior to its passage, the habitat of endangered species (there was actually, definitionally and legally speaking no such thing as an endangered species prior to the act) was not a consideration. That's why we have the ESA and NEPA today. It is the pinnacle of naiveté to believe that human kindness and warm feelings and sunshine would ever guide human and governmental action where land and resource use are concerned. - Midtowner, on 01/02/2009, -1/+6The money the state is spending on this is either being used to pay staff in the A.G.'s office who will be paid regardless of whether this action is pursued or not or by a private firm retained by the A.G. who is banking on an award of attorneys fees and costs.
In short, this costs the state nothing.
We ought to be grateful to California for holding the Department of the Interior accountable for its borderline fraudulent rulemaking practices. - wineinc, on 01/02/2009, -1/+6@thesoilawyer, can you explain how the Supremacy Clause applies to this? I just scanned the Supremacy Clause wikipedia article. The article explains that the SC makes federal laws and federally ratified treaties take precedence over state laws. California's case is not asserting a conflict of state and federal laws. Instead it is stating the Bush Administration is not following a federal law. The Supremacy Clause does not appear to pertain to this matter.
Do you agree? Is there a vital detail that I'm missing here? - squelched, on 01/02/2009, -0/+5freedom is all I want.. and all I get is the war on terror and the war on drugs
- Zildrohar, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4citation needed.
- czeman, on 01/02/2009, -0/+4It doesn't count when it's due to an earthquake.
- austinwpetersen, on 01/03/2009, -0/+4The digging down of all the comments by the libertarians shows we have a lot of work to do educating our lefty friends. It sucks that they don't read arguments other than their own. It's always the emotional side of things, and never the practical side. It's amazing because they are always complaining about corporatism, but then they say, oh we need legislation to save (fill in the blank) and on the sideline some parasitic corporation is licking its lips just waiting for the law to pass so they can stifle competition. Wal mart is a good example. They have no problem lobbying congress to be able to build on land with "endangered species" but the little businesses and homeowners i.e. "poor people" can't build across from them thanks to the endangered species act. Yeah lefties, just keep pushing for that legislation, your corporate masters you despise are cheering you on every step of the way.
- nedzeve, on 01/02/2009, -0/+4Maybe it wouldn't be so broke if it weren't paying every other state's share of the federal budget.
http://www.trackforum.com/forums/printthread.php?t ... - Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -1/+5Spookyboots ALL churches are messed up. Not just the Mormon church. I'd actually argue that most other churches are more ***** up than the Mormons are having actually been a member and knowing what the people are really like.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -5/+9I guess I'm a sick ***** as well. Personally I was envisioning wild pigs, starting at the feet and working up.
- Solwara, on 01/02/2009, -3/+7There are 19 distinct species of Kangaroo rat, and many are endangered or vulnerable. Each occupies a distinct ecological niche, and just because the genus Dipodomys persists in large numbers doesn't mean the loss of individual species isn't a problem. In fact, it's a very big problem - the kangaroo rat is considered a keystone species, and its loss would have wide ranging negative effects on a plethora of species in its ecosystem. Individual Dipodomys species are needed in particular habitats - it's not a one-kangaroo-rat fits all situation, as much as the web-surfing skeptic would like to believe. Don't try to simplify things to play the detatched observer who thinks he knows more than hundreds of field biologists nation wide after making a quick google search.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is