OlDawg

Obama and his ilk follow the liberal mantra of believing you should “legislate from the bench”, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of Marbury vs Madison and the Constitution. That’s why—IMHO—liberals are having such a hard time with the current SCOTUS. They got used to decades of the courts doing their dirty work. What they miss is, the current Chief Justice is one of the biggest offenders of Marbury vs Madison. While he preaches “judicial restraint”, he created the legal justification for Obamacare out of whole cloth & bailing wire.

You're fine. I'm following. But, I have to get to making Mama supper here in a sec, so I'll make this one quick. SCOTUS followed original intent by protecting the minority and affirming equal protections. Brown followed the 14th, and reneged Plessy. Not all originalism interpretations favor what most consider 'conservative' tendencies. If interpreted using originalism without judicial bias, I'd argue the Constitution is actually a very liberal document. It provides and protects rights. It doesn't limit them.

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it. Whether they think they know better or not. Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law. The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, State's Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments. If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority. If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government. NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

“As intended” means exactly what it says. The original intent. Otherwise known as originalism. Any other type of interpretation is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution because you don’t like what it says and means. The Constitution doesn’t change with the times, and was never meant to do so. As you say, the framers were thoughtful. They thought of a way to adapt the Constitution to new situations. The manner is done by the same method as was used to create the Constitution. “By the people” through Amendments.

Darn it! Foiled again. Well, at least all that toilet paper I bought will come in handy for a large profit again. There will be a run on it any day now by all the Karens due to Iran blocking traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and restricting the supply. I made sure they all knew about it on TikTok.

I used mine to have my name painted on a Tomahawk. Pretty sure it’s already been delivered. But, I never got a read receipt.

Still feel the same? I see no quit in this man.

Just me. Years of experience. Much of their profit also comes from technology licensing. The energy business is very cyclical and capital investment intensive. There’s a reason oil is called ‘The Widowmaker.’

I won't dispute the high cost. But, to clarify, deployment of naval vessels is typically calculated in a different manner. If they weren't in this theater, they would be somewhere else on maneuvers. None of these vessels would be just sitting in dry dock. So, the expense is the difference between where they would have been vs. where they are now. Also, hazard pay isn't guaranteed. Sounds strange, but not everyone in a combat zone qualifies. Even then, it didn't use to be that much. A couple hundred bucks if I remember correctly. But, it was tax free. On oil, it had the largest gain, and the largest drop in history within 2 days. Point out both. Not picking at you. Just clarifying.

1. Yes 2.No. High end estimates are $2 Billion/Day. 3. No. March 2022, oil was over $120/bbl. 4.Yes 5. I believe I read 7 lost with around 140 injured. Only 2 were serious. I can’t say on the last thought. Could very easily be a homegrown sympathizer.

I just have to say what is—hopefully—obvious to everyone. We probably can’t count the number of bots trying to influence opinions. Don’t make yourself look foolish by spreading without verifying.

My personal goal is to make it through this situation--and for a time following--without an enemy sympathizer/jihadist deciding that one of the refineries right outside my back door is as good a place as any to create some pain. Sorry. But, I don't trust the rent-a-cops to guard my ham sandwich.

My personal belief is the 'new leader' is merely a puppet for the IRGC. As I said when this started, air power alone will not get rid of them. They have nothing to lose as they have no place they can go that would be safe for them, and no country is going to take them willingly.

I hate to say it, but he'd be really impressive if he actually knew what he was talking about. In the distillation process of oil, lighter gases are drawn first. Gasoline, kerosene, and diesel is last. It's the dregs. Diesel is always more expensive because of the extra processing it takes to make it ULSD (required by him & his cohorts in government) for pollution control. Most gasoline stations aren't owned by the oil companies. Haven't been for decades. They set their prices based on their supplier's cost forecasts. Their suppliers (jobbers) are the middlemen. Typically, not the oil companies unless it's one of the few stations that are still company owned. The price of fuel rises before people think it should because the station owner doesn't want to go negative on their balance sheet when they have to purchase their next load. The oil in the pipeline is a load of crap as well. The oil is at a terminal. There are limited number of terminals, and pipelines connect the country and some refineries. There are a limited number of refineries, and not all refineries can refine every type of crude. Some states have no capability to receive crude via pipeline, nor a refinery to process it. When the gas in your tank was bought depends on the turnover of product at the service station where you filled up. Oil refining is the 2nd lowest margin business out there behind grocery. Both have margins below 5%. Much of the cost we pay are actually taxes and fees. The national average taxes levied from the Feds and States runs around $0.55/gallon. Seems like a nice fella'. Just needs to get his info correct where he can be taken seriously. He should have talked with someone with experience in the business before spouting the 'company line' of price gouging. If he was serious about cutting the cost of gasoline and diesel, he'd be for providing a tax holiday for however long the price per barrel is elevated because of the Iran conflict. THAT would be the largest, quickest, and easiest way to provide a discount and benefit the consumer.

That matches the historical pattern of the Georgia 14th Congressional District. Combined, the Republican candidates received 61% of the vote.

Conservatives could do a lot worse than picking representatives like the Senator and Congressman from Kentucky. They actually represent what true conservatives/libertarians should be trying to accomplish. Fiscal sanity, personal liberty, limited government, and adherence to the Constitution as it was intended. Just my opinion of course.

That's a shame. Massie is more of a Libertarian Conservative, and more someone my speed. Epstein files are causing issues for Trump. But, it's not Massie's fault. [Hidden Content]

16 Republican candidates, 3 Democratic candidates, 1 Libertarian candidate, and 1 Independent candidate. [Hidden Content]

The highlighted and bolded was that way because it was the title of the article. I thought it was almost hilarious, and showed the ridiculousness of polls if one actually read—and comprehended—the data. Of course, what was the first thing you responded with? A poll. 🤣

Because it shows that even supposedly reputable polls are wacky. Plus, I wanted to post it. Is that a problem?

If you read the poll I posted above, you’ll see why I don’t. Supposedly, Dems are looked at worse than everyone except Iran. But—it goes on to say—people still want them to take control of Congress. So, people are purposely voting for someone they say they approve of the least? A great example of why polls are useless. Or, people are just dumb.

[Hidden Content]

Yes you have. Celebs seem to be involved quite a bit. I’ve read and heard on local news where they’re very concerned about it during the World Cup.

Kind of ties into the sex trafficking topic. Brothers convicted in New York. Real estate brokers to celebrities. [Hidden Content]