OlDawg

I just added a link to the trailer to that post. I thought it was a pretty entertaining flick. Popcorn action movie.

Iran very much in Control - Gen. Jack Keane [Hidden Content]

I don’t know if that’s cool or scary. Getting more like Terminator every day. I saw a movie called ‘Monsters of Man’ a couple years ago. You should watch it. It’s free on Tubi right now I believe.

Don't get me wrong. As a former Navy Diver who was directly involved in multiple activities supporting our SF's--among other hazardous duties--I'm all for an end to any conflict. But, just like many or most serving in this effort, I never wanted to leave any mission incomplete. This appears incomplete. I will also reiterate the impersonal nature of conflict nowadays with AI and drones cheapens human life, and makes it too easy for leaders to enter into deadly actions. If they believe minimal casualties will occur because of tech, it's way too easy to pull the trigger. I subscribe to ShipwreckedCrew. He should stick to legal opinions. That's where his experience lies.

I believe he's on day 40 of 60. You don't get a restart. If there is a 2 week ceasefire, that puts it at day 54. The withdrawal period means no offensive, kinetic action can take place. Also, he couldn't support Israel in any meaningful way--other than intel--without authorization. Basically, he's saying he's done. Now, he's just trying to make a deal. But, he's left himself with no cards. Restarting isn't going to be a go, and the regime still has control.

Not without an Authorization--which won't be coming. POTUS only had 60 days. If ALL nuclear material is recovered, IAEA is allowed full access forever, and verification is a condition, that would be an improvement. But, anyone that trusts the regime without constant monitoring is twice the fool.

This is a mistake. If mission objectives weren't accomplished--which I fail to see how they have been at this point--the 2 week ceasefire will mean POTUS 60 days will run out. An authorization for extended military action of any kind won't be authorized. The Administration has decided polling is more important than completing the mission. Typical. This will go down as another "Mission half accomplished with a lot of wasted money, and some very valuable lives." Shame. If this was going to be the outcome, nothing should have ever been started. Whoever believed an air campaign alone could accomplish the mission of securing/destroying all nuclear material, removing an oppressive, terrorist regime, and making Hormuz an open international waterway devoid of threats against shipping were fools from the start. I don't blame our military. They developed plans per direction, and carried them out with efficiency. I just get tired of weak-kneed politicians starting something they're not willing to finish. There's a reason war is supposed to be difficult to start. I'm afraid all this remote warfare is making things way too easy.

Iranian General’s Relatives Lived Lavish LA Lifestyle While Promoting Iranian Regime Propaganda [Hidden Content]

Where have I heard that?

Can’t post it as I don’t use X. But, saw a funny post from Jon Lovett. In a surprise twist, the Epstein files released the attorney general. lol

I thought both sides argued their cases pretty well. I didn’t agree with some of Wong’s assertions about ‘no foreign national’s children ever being citizens’ because she totally disregarded legal domicile, and WKA relied on domicile. But, domicile seemed to be a question among some of the Justices also. I wonder if SCOTUS tries to find a way to rule that an EO can’t address this question of citizenship without directly addressing constitutionality. Basically, they rule the EO unconstitutional, but don’t really totally close the quandary of the meaning of the 14th. They kind of punt, and hope it goes away for a while. I could see there being multiple decisions using different rationale on this one instead of just a majority and dissenting using similar stances.

6 month bids are at $72. Not the lows. But, certainly not the highs. With current efficiencies, $70's are a good medium between costs for the consumer and margins available for maintenance by the refiners. People forget they have to have room for maintenance. Most of our refineries have been running 110% for a long time with only 'band-aid' fixes. It's akin to running your car at max RPM's for 2-3 years, and never changing the oil. You know it's going down, and when it does, it will be for an extended time because the damage will be magnified. It used to be break even was in the $80's. But, our efficiencies have drastically dropped the number. *The 6 month bid number is global. The other numbers and comments are for the U.S.

Hopefully, he's correct. He is retired. So, not sure how he's getting his info.

What I thought was interesting were the basic arguments. Both advocates were arguing for original intent. They just disagreed on said intent. The real change was the implication. I found the typical sides somewhat reversed. The ACLU typically argues form a 'living Constitution' framework. They believe the interpretation should change with the times. Except, not in this case. In this case, Wong specifically stated that even if Congress voted 435-0 to modify citizenship, they shouldn't be allowed to because of her interpretation of the 14th. This is typically an originalist/textualist argument. The Solicitor General was arguing that times had changed, and the original intent was misinterpreted in earlier cases. So, he was basically arguing that the current times and events showed that the Framers of the 14th wouldn't have meant how it was being applied in the current interpretation. He was using current events to justify meaning, along with historical text and rulings. I just thought it struck me as almost a reversal of argument roles. I'm also surprised Sauer didn't hammer home the point that 'allegiance' also requires agreement from the people of the U.S. more than he did. It's not just a one-way street where the immigrant says they want to be here. The people of the U.S.--via immigration laws--have to say they're willing to accept their allegiance. Until immigration law changes by the People's will through their Representatives, illegal immigrants are just that--illegal, and not supposed to be here. Thus, their children shouldn't be here. If they want to come to the U.S. through legal channels, the People typically welcome with open arms.

Not really. He's using a group of posters on this forum as examples by inference. But, he knows who he's talking to, and so do they and everyone else. I thought the standard was "Do you want the younger viewers of this forum reading this?"