Limiting the scope and power of 50 executive-appointed heads of government agencies is quite literally lessening the power of the executive branch.

Why people will claim that Trump is a fascist dictator and then bemoan the proposal to limit executive agency power or cry foul that the SC would shift legislative interpretation away from these agencies and back to the courts (where it belonged) after overturning Chevron is beyond me.

Enjoy arguing with yourself over points I never made

Is it dark in the foxes' den? At least you'll be protected from the falling sky

It would have been less offensive if it didn't have the True Detective name attached to it or if it didn't try to connect itself in terrible meaningless references to the greatness of the first season.

It still would have been a bad show - but at least I wouldn't have been baited into watching it.

Weird way to have a "conversation" by avoiding the question and checking out

So it was completely unbiased and even-handed during COVID?

My issue is with OP spreading propaganda and inflating the significance of P25. P25 exists, but the suggestion that most of it can or would be implemented is fear-mongering nonsense.

You're implying that snopes doesn't already have a history of partipating in partisan hackery though.

Back at it again huh?

I was rooting for the arctic storm to put me out of my misery in True Detective Season 4

Claude erasure is kind of unforgivable given how good Anthropic's latest model is

Babylon 5 exists.

As does Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Sounds like a good time for a rewatch!

https://i.imgur.com/iBsmEgq.gifv 

Of course the homeowner can confront them and can legally have them removed from the property (if they refuse to leave) - but someone leaving a political or ideological flyer that you find offensive isn't a crime or punishable.

To my knowledge there isn't even a city ordinance around distributing leaflets and handbills so not sure what the police would even be able to cite beyond littering - which again has established precedent that it cannot be considered littering.

it isn't a guide either, but that's kind of the norm at this point

Shoulda read it in Frasier's voice since he said the line 😂

You edited pretty heavily after leaving your comment so I'll address your edits separately here:

Extent, not extant.

On mobile and being pedantic is unnecessary.

If you walk into my property and don't leave when I ask you, or with signage, you will be forcibly removed

Yep, we covered this with my initial comment. Your point is only valid after you ask them to leave in this example.

Similarly, you are not legally allowed to leave any written material on private property, when it has been expressly forbidden.

Expressly forbidden by whom? In what way?

The 1st applies only to the government, not on the government's ability to adjudicate on behalf of a property owner.

Agreed, which is why the police (agents of the government ) would not have a legal reason for an arrest because the activity is protected under the first ammendment.

I think I covered the rest in my initial comment and I don't care to continue the point about appealing to a sense of objective morality in order to create a distinction between what I find morally reprehensible and legally protected.

Please tell me where it states that you can

There's established precedent in Schneider v New Jersey, Martin v. City of Struthers and Statesboro Publishing Co. v. City of Sylvania to name a few.

Trespassing and littering/dumping are illegal criminally,

Trespassing is only enforceable if they come back - then it would become Criminal Trespassing. More than likely they're throwing these bags from the back of a truck and never stepping on your property. Read into Statesboro specifically to see why it wouldn't pass as littering.

EDIT: I'm guessing the guy blocked me so I'll leave my followup below

Schneider grad nothing to do with private property. Strike one.

What do you think "door-to-door" means?

Struthers tired that trespassing was the law that should have been used. Strike two.

I never said that trespassing wasn't viable. Clearly a local municipality can't use an ordinance that violates the 1st Ammendment.

Statesboro was against a city ordinance, not against a periphery owner having the right to forbid the act.

So was Struthers. Combined they all can be used as established precedent for protecting free speech that's distrubuted door-to-door and/or left on people's property (Struthers)

The moment a property owner says you are not welcome, the person must leave

Yep, but they have to be given that notice. You can't trespass anyone who rings your doorbell or walks across your driveway.

You're grasping at straws to defend nazis.

It's not grasping at straws and despite what your emotional reactions might be telling you it's not "defending Nazis" either. Did the ACLU "defend Nazis" too?

You don't understand the 1st. You have no right to a 1st amendment on private property, especially when it comes to federal hate crimes

You do in the extant that you can't be prosecuted by the state for distributing political/religious materials to someone. If you disagree feel free to call the police the next time a JW leaves a Bible tract on your door.

Your "objective morals" are irrelevant.

They're relevant in that I'm claiming an action to be "immoral" or "bad" when the people doing this same action may see their actions as being morally good. I have to appeal to an objective standard as a point of distinction. There's not really a way around that.

It's #12

You'd have a point if these people stayed and lingered on the property after being told to leave. Leaving the material in the driveway isn't a crime and is in fact protected under the 1st Ammendment though.

You could catch them mid-act driving around the neighborhood and throwing these bags and call the police on them and there wouldn't be anything the police could do. They could try to hit them with littering but it would almost certainly be dismissed.

Just because it's protected doesn't mean that it's "right" by the way - coming from someone who believes in objective morals at least.

The 1st Ammendment is more than that. "Speech" itself covers many different forms and activities.

Walking on a public sidewalk and handing out political flyers is considered the same as walking on a public sidewalk in a neighborhood and leaving political materials (even if the material itself is offensive and reprehensible).

People have tried to use litter laws to deter this kind of stuff but it has failed every single time that I'm aware of.

It actually is. There's established precedent for political/religious tracks being left in this very way or on someone's doorstep that's considered protected speech.

No Solicitation wouldn't apply either - they're not soliciting anything from you.

Oh for sure. It's just that calling the police to catch them after the fact won't do any good.

I'd love to learn more either here or in DMs personally. I'm really curious in what way your liberal leaning borders on heresy 😂

Did Ratzinger unban the practice of TLM or was it before? I was so curious to learn how much he participated in and advocated for most of the changes in Vatican II and then became more critical of those changes later in life.

I haven't encountered the socially conservative (and conspiratorial) aspects of TLM proponents and wouldn't find that appealing personally. However, I do find the historical connection and mystical beauty of TLM very appealing. I'm much more drawn to the ritual of the mass more than anything else, and I do find that TLM carries out this ritual and tradition in a much more reverant way than any other mass I've experienced before. It's a shame that it would need to be banned to quell social aspects associated with advocates of TLM, but I suppose I could understand the justification and reasoning behind it.

I think ideally it would co-exist with post-Vatican II mass to give more conservative paritioners the option of attending TLM. Although I'm sure there would inevitably be some sort of liturgical conflicts with Easter and Christmas and daily mass as well so who knows.

Anyway, thanks for offering some more context. I find all of this stuff extremely fascinating.