Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cacti

  1. I’m not even sure that state authorities can enforce federal laws, hence the question.
  2. It wasn’t that long ago that Comey wasn’t on most Democrat’s Christmas card list.
  3. Here’s my question: If the purpose of the warrant was not to indict but rather to just secure sensitive documents, wasn’t there another way to repossess the documents other than use the FBI? Specifically, is there any way that the warrant could have been enforced by another federal agency—one that just mentioning their name doesn’t automatically trigger so many people? Or perhaps it could have been enforced by state authorities, even though it originated on a federal level?
  4. Rudimentary life existing in innumerable places (that, of course, is unknown) doesn’t mean that evolution would take the same path as it did on Earth; that is, there’s no evidence to suggest that sapient-like intelligence is a goal of evolution, or even desirable for long-term survival. Stephen Hawking addressed this very issue:
  5. Here’s a dated, but still relevant link I posted several years ago in a similar thread. We just don’t have enough information to put a probability on whether sapient life does or doesn’t exist elsewhere.
  6. That’s true, but as we’ve just seen, SCOTUS can also revoke previous interpretations. I’d rather take my chances with elected representative, who, to some extent can be influenced, as opposed to appointed decision makers who answer to no one.
  7. What’s outrageous is that for nearly fifty years Congress has failed to codify R v W. By failing to do so, our elected officials have shown an amazing lack of conviction and courage. Instead of making law on behalf of the American people, they chose to ‘punt’ that burden to SCOTUS. Blame SCOTUS if you will, but the real villain here is the cowards of Congress failing to codify a decision with which a majority of Americans agreed.
  8. Europe, generally speaking, is stable but I still wouldn’t feel comfortable living in Eastern Europe, especially in those countries that share a border with Russia. And IMO, Western Europe (especially NATO) stability is very much dependent on America’s military largesse and economic assistance via our status as the top importer of EU goods. If, as some believe, America will soon cease to exist as a democracy, then I wouldn’t bet on Europe remaining stable for any length of time. On a semi-related note, you would think it would be stressful living next door to a hyper-aggressive Russia, but evidently the Finns don’t stress out about it, as evidenced by the fact that they are continually ranked the highest in Gallup’s World Happiness Report. The reason I bring Finland in this discussion is because despite the fact that Finland has to contend with a dangerous and unpredictable Russia; and despite the fact that the Finns continually have to prepare to defend their country against a real threat, they seem to manage the stress pretty well. Better than we do, anyway. The danger to their democracy is genuine, whereas some of the so-called threats to our democracy are purely imaginary. Tl;dr. The Finns are better at chilling out than we are.
  9. So in the case of gasoline, are they saying that oil companies are selling to the public at below cost, or that it could be sold on the world market at a higher price, or both? I don’t think either scenario is true, but even if it were, where does the direct government subsidy enter the picture?
  10. Thanks for the link, but I don’t feel better informed (re: direct subsidies) after reading the article. Maybe I don’t understand their methodology, so let’s simplify and use gasoline as an example. Are they claiming that the final price at the pump doesn’t reflect the true cost to the consumer, that the true cost should include a direct/explicit government subsidy which the oil companies receive?
  11. Hundreds of billions, yearly? Educate me on these direct subsidies.
  12. I haven't read the whole thread, so I wasn't aware someone made that claim. Although this is a Joe Biden thread, my remarks weren’t specifically directed at current leadership; rather, they were more or less directed to your remarks: Of course, any rational American leader would have embargoed Russian energy—and encouraged our allies to follow suit—but it definitely was a political decision. It seems to me that you are trying to make a distinction between “just being the face of the nation…who engages in international relations (such as imposing bans on russian imports or negotiating with saudi arabia )” and policy decisions, when there is none. Banning Russian hydrocarbons is a policy, as is making the attempt to mend fences with S.A. in order to increase production. And both will have an effect on prices. To be sure, the embargo isn’t the only reason for the increase in global oil and gas prices, that’s why I said, “not exclusively driven.” BTW, why did you say “if your position is that we should not attempt to severely punish Russia,” when I clearly said “I completely agree with this (embargo policy)? Were you talking to someone else?
  13. Not exclusively driven, but our leadership’s policies undoubtedly have an effect on the oil and gas markets. For an example, you have to look no further than our decision to ban Russian oil, and encouraging our allies to do the same, thus creating an artificial oil shortage and driving the price up (btw, I completely agree with this policy). We are the world’s largest oil producer and, as such, our domestic policies, whether to encourage or hinder oil production, certainly have international implications.
  14. If you’re limiting your statement to Western societies, you’re right. But if you’re talking worldwide, then you’re wrong, at least according to this Pew Research Center poll.
  15. Damn @Brisketexan…such vitriol. Didn’t you get a time-out awhile back for posting something similarly over the top?
  16. Okay, that’s funny. Did you mean it to be funny?
  17. ^^^ Agree. Personally, I prefer Alabama’s one-bullet-point strategic plan, which is: We’re Going To Beat Your Ass.
  18. Not only did Greene and Massie show their ass by voting against the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, yesterday they also voted—along with six other Republicans—against the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, a mostly symbolic bill. Not to be outdone by the extremists on the right, four members of ‘The Squad’ (Bush, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib) also voted against the act. Any explanation as to why four super-liberal members of Congress (particularly these four) would vote against seizing assets from sanctioned Russian oligarchs to be used to support Ukraine?
  19. Give credit where credit is due. Because of Joe’s hard work in crafting and implementing his energy policies, Texas’ oil and gas industry is once again healthy and hiring additional workers. Thanks, Joe!
  20. You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?
  21. As long as mercenaries are in play, I’ve heard that there are a few guys in Afghanistan that are tenacious as hell; have experience in kicking Russian ass; and just might be available to help the Ukrainians—for the right price, of course.🙂
  22. Pro: Every woman of child-bearing years has to birth at least 2.1 children in order for the population to replace itself. The current U.S. rate is 1.7. So, if you claim to be a patriotic American, then you and your wife will take one for Team America and have at least three children. Unprotected sex tonight would be a good start, but future repetition is key.
  23. We ought to make it clear to China that if they provide military assistance to Russia, then we will in turn ratchet up our military sales to Taiwan, including the F-35 and our more advanced anti-ship missiles.
  24. Yes, it is good, but it was better (one of the best in years) until the hard-core CR crowd showed up. Guess they couldn’t help themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...