OlDawg

Tax the Rich? Extreme Mamdani estate tax proposal goes right after New York’s middle-class families [Hidden Content]

No problem. Liberals love them all. People who hate the Administrative State have a different opinion. They all used the Administrative State to bypass the Constitution, and created agencies that basically do not report to the people. It's only grown since then to the point where I'm not sure anyone really knows how many government agencies actually exist. All we know is it's layers upon layers.

Truman was one of--if not the worst--POTUS in U.S. history. He basically created the Administrative State. We owe our current massive bureaucracy and the inability to fire government employees to Truman. You can put FDR & Wilson on the list as the precursors. But, Truman expanded to the nth degree. All were progressive liberals who believed in big government.

As usual, he speaks without thinking much of the time.

There's actually some pretty big legal and humanitarian differences between calling something a conflict or operation vs calling it a war. Seems trivial. But, it's not. Also, the POTUS can't declare anything a war. Only Congress can do that. That's why I've been calling it a conflict.

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.