The 24-hour ban was in ATF for making a thread that's already similar to a sticky. He titled it, "What should you do if you have not been banned?" or something to that affect. OP was not thought-out, but ban was overkill.

His thread was a joke. I considered joke-banning him for a few minutes. Then he gets temp-banned for real. SAD!

Sure. The Clean Water Act, which congress passed, gave the EPA jurisdiction over "navigable" waters. The EPA decided by means of an administrative regulation in 2015 that this included adjacent waters and waters with a significant nexus to navigable waters.

That is a significant change to the scope of EPA jurisdiction. Congress arguably has the right to make that change (subject to tenth amendment limitations) but the EPA itself does not. That was a case of deliberate overreach on the part of the agency to expand its own jurisdiction well past what the authorizing legislation permitted. The sixth circuit stayed the reg and Trump issued an EO functionally revoking the rule. I'm simplifying a little bit but what I've articulated is accurate.

That is but one example. I know of at least half a dozen more, some of which are pretty technical and get into Chevron administrative law details not amenable to 2p2 posting. Or LOL superfund, which has not balanced costs with benefits and mostly benefits very expensive lawyers. I'm happy to take this offline if you wish, but this sort of administrative overreach from other agencies (e.g. The department of labor) has gotten 9-0 smackdowns from the Supremes.

I think it is a very bad idea to permit federal agencies to define the limits of their own power. That's not the way it should work.

I absolutely see valid reasons for EPA regulation. I don't know about the coal reg you describe but can likely find it tomorrow and give you my take on it. FYI neither CNN nor the WSJ are ever even close to correct in their analyses of these issues, which are usually far too complex to correctly summarize in a short op-ed.

Oh good, god forbid you should actually list them

I'm limited on time. Community rating and pre-existing condition rules are economically entirely irrational. I can name a stack of similar issues with the ACA but I have not yet put in the legwork to see exactly which of the idiocies the current bill undoes, so I'd prefer to do that before I respond in full. Individual mandate is a horrible idea which acts to transfer wealth from the young poor and healthy to the old and unhealthy, who are often wealthy. That too is perverse.

These individual issue debates are, as I said, beside the point. I'm sure we have policy disagreements across the board. But the left claiming that conservatives have no bona fides is both sanctimonious and incorrect as a matter of fact, and generally constitutes a personal attack -- of which dodgerirish's posts above are a fair example.

Zikzak's questions are fair. Dodger's dickish assertion that I hold my views because I'm priveleged is not. See the difference?

Damn, I was sure I saw a Politics forum somewhere. Two of them, in fact. And some dedicated threads in other forums. Anyone see them recently?

by venice? or someone whose name is at the bottom of this forum?

Nah, this one's way better.

An ATF politics thread could be interesting...

shut up, hat.

****ing obnoxious Americans.

I've been on my phone so I can't check, but I assume venice and not one of the mods of this forum.

Yes it was Venice. It was just a joke guyz, jeez nobody has a sense of humor in Politics Gamma.

In any case, I hope zz knows what to do if he's been banned.

ya this is just incorrect

I was unfairly banned even though I did not break any cite-wide or forum rules.

I PM'ed MrWookie and Mat about it at the time.

Mat, you chose not to weigh in then, but it appears that you are more interested now.

It was in the Trump v Hillary SMACKDOWN thread. Several people had stated that I had to be racist to support Trump. Goofyballer had asked me if there was anything Trump could do or say that would get me to not vote for Trump.

Then Pwn_master posted the following, in post # 31212.

[Emphasis added.]

I replied to this with the following post.

[Self deleted because I don't want to get a perma ban].

Can I post my banned post? I am happy to send it to a mod of ATF to decide. I already sent it to Mat, but I'm happy to send it again.

You can post it here for the purpose of the discussion of moderation.

Thanks Mat.

I then replied:

OK, let's talk about this one. I researched this because I thought it might be the thing that would make me vote against Trump, back to goofyballer's original question to me, is there anything Trump could do.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/ny...pagewanted=all

http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-...ase-1406674229

These are just a couple of sources. Can anyone read these and not think they assaulted Meili? Maybe they left her knocked out, and Reyes took over. I don't know. But they assaulted her, beat her. I feel just fine about them doing 6 years, or 13 years each.

The DA that asked for the convictions to be vacated (Is that really the same as "exonerated"?) said that their confessions were handled properly. Three of them had a parent present for all questioning, from what I can tell. Exonerated? Hell no. Just let off, cuz they did time, and we have clear DNA evidence that someone else clearly raped the victim. That might have influenced the jury - only convict of assault or whatever, so they would need a new trial, but they've already done time (holy run-on-sentence batman).

Just read the Wikipedia entry on this and you'll see they clearly ran around beating people that night. Are we sure they raped her? Are they guilty of assault and battery of Meili? Obviously.

See, I do research like this. Then I come away thinking, hmmm, I reacted because your tone was so strong. But, in fact, Trump is actually reasonable on this issue. It's the liberal media and some posters here who are way out there. Note, I'm saying his recent statements just say they are guilty. I take that as guilty of something severe that night. In my view, that is, at least, assault and battery of Meili.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Of the three whose parents were present during questioning, was there actual questioning before the parents arrived? I didn't find that. Were their bruises on them from police beatings? I didn't find that. Just police threats of violence? I didn't find that.

I read that 23% of exonerations due to DNA testing also include false confessions. I didn't find out what percent of those confessions were with parents present, included lot's of details about the crime scene, etc. Not sure what to make of that statistic.

OK, more research:

How is the Daily Beast as a source?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...park-five.html

"On the matrix of circumstances under which false confessions have occurred, you have a great number in which police misconduct was the decisive factor; you have a lesser number in which some aspect of disability led a vulnerable suspect to confess, under inherently intimidating circumstances. Instances of multiple false confessions are still more infrequent, though a pair of mentally ******ed half-brothers were recently exculpated after serving decades in prison for a murder in Virginia. As for cases of multiple, parentally supervised, false confessions, it’s harder to say. Family members were present for the questioning of three of the five, and they were there for the video recordings. When a teenager is asked about a rape in front of his mother, is he more or less likely to deny it? And when several admit to rape, sitting beside their mothers, sisters, grandmothers, fathers and stepfathers, what do we make of that? On video, Raymond Santana was smug, boastful, and nonchalant by turns, vividly reenacting who did what during the rape. Antron McCray was with his mother for most of his interrogation, his stepfather for all of it. He signed a written confession after an hour and 45 minutes. Even defense counsel would have to acknowledge that there isn’t an abundance of comparable cases in the available literature."

Why aren't these guys out campaigning? Bury Trump, right? Cuz they did it.

It's starting to seem like a limit of the forum software is accountability. There's not really a way to tell why a poster was banned. (or if band have expired, perhaps even who did the ban, not sure on that)

It would be nice if posters could only be banned via posts themselves. Would prevent situations where we're not sure why people were actually banned some six months to multiple years after the fact.

Mods are supposed to leave user notes whenever they tempban someone for that reason, if they don't it's impossible to investigate. Many times we don't because we forget or are just lazy. I find that aggravating but am guilty of it a few times myself.

If this is referring to me, I can provide all of the PMs.

Well, partly you partly leaves, since he had an issue of temp-ban confusion once.

I think we should wait for the okay from mat and/or wookie before posting PMs

Just wanted to highlight that this is garbage posting that starts out from a premise not of independent and objective investigation, but rather with a goal of interpreting every piece of evidence as beneficially to Trump and as biased against the defendants as possible. I'm not sure if the conclusion you reach at the end is that they really did it or just that even if they didn't they still deserve all the jail time, but either way it's downright conspiratorial.

I don't think it's rule-breaking on its own but I think it's possible by this point that you were temp-banned for an overall body of work and not this specific post alone.

I'll at least give you credit that your posting has improved quite a bit since these dark days.

Trump was reasonable on that issue, in the sense that I clearly spelled out. Trump did not say guilty of murder. I take that as backing down from his earlier position, but holding to a still guilty of a serious offense, as I stated in the post.

Sure, my closing remark was a jab. Like that's ban-worthy.

My body of work - if that was the case, show me.