Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

#5

He did... bigtime.

"Russia launches massive Christmas Day attack on Ukraine"

www.nbcnews.com

Zelenskyy punched back:

"Putin humiliation as Zelensky unleashes Brit Storm Shadow missiles in Christmas Day strike' & takes control of Kupyansk
The Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery, a critical facility, was reportedly hit by..."

www.the-sun.com

A lot of people are reacting emotionally to the idea of oil tankers being seized, but most of the outrage comes from not understanding what is actually being discussed.
So let's slow this down and explain it clearly, legally, and step by step.

This is not war.
This is not piracy.
This is judgment enforcement " the same principle used every day when courts seize bank accounts, property, aircraft, or cargo from someone who lost in court and refuses to pay.

1. What Venezuela did (the part that always gets skipped)

In the 2000s, under Hugo Chvez, Venezuela seized oil projects owned by foreign companies, including major U.S. firms such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

This wasn't a policy disagreement.
It was expropriation:
Contracts were broken
Assets were taken
Compensation that had been agreed to was not paid

That is not controversial. It is historical fact.

2. What the courts decided

Those U.S. companies didn't complain on social media.
They went to international arbitration and U.S. courts " the proper legal venues.

They won.

The rulings were:
Final
Binding
Enforceable

Venezuela lost and was ordered to pay tens of billions of dollars in damages.

3. The real problem: Venezuela refused to pay

Here is the key point most critics ignore:

Venezuela refused to comply with the court judgments.

In any legal system " domestic or international " when a party:
Loses in court
Owes a judgment
Refuses to pay

... the law allows creditors to seize commercial assets belonging to the debtor outside its borders to satisfy the judgment.

This is called judgment enforcement.

Countries do not get a free pass simply because they are countries.

4. Why oil tankers even enter the conversation

Venezuela's primary commercial asset is oil.

Oil moves on oil tankers.

Those tankers:
Carry state-owned Venezuelan oil
Are commercial property, not military or diplomatic assets
Can be lawfully seized by court order in cooperating jurisdictions

This is no different in principle from seizing:
A bank account
A plane
A shipment of goods

Calling this "piracy" is legally incorrect.
Piracy is theft without lawful authority.
This is court-ordered seizure to collect a debt already ruled on.

5. The math everyone avoids

Let's use conservative, realistic numbers so no one can claim exaggeration.
Estimated unpaid court judgments: ~$35 billion
Oil price used: $62 per barrel
Typical large oil tanker (VLCC): ~2 million barrels

Value of one full tanker:
Gross value: ~$124 million
Net value after realistic court-sale discounts: ~$115 million

Now do the math:

$35,000,000,000 $115,000,000 300 tankers

That's where the number comes from.

Not one tanker.
Not ten.
About three hundred.

One tanker only covers about one-third of one percent of what Venezuela owes.

#5 To save the life of the mother?

That was never intended as an excuse.

The goal remains: 0 abortions*

* well, 0 legal abortions, of course:

ABSOLUTE 100 % TRUE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION

In the entirety of modern human history, no woman has willingly sought an abortion for a wanted child. Not at 9 hours. Not at 9 days. Not at 9 weeks. Not at 9 months. Not ever. WITH ONE VERY IMPORTANT EXCEPTION

But, in the entirety of modern human history, and for many individual reasons, women have sought to terminate the pregnancy of an unwanted child.

Each reason is as individual as the woman seeking to terminate the unwanted child. Sometimes the pregnancy is a result of rape or ------. But whatever the reason, no law or religious dogma has ever stopped women from seeking an abortion for an unwanted child. Nor will it. Not now, not ever.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT EXCEPTION: The most tragic abortions are for women carrying a wanted child but find out that their personal health is at risk. Or that it is an ectopic pregnancy. Or their chance for a future child is jeopardized. Or, the wanted child has no chance to live outside of the womb.

The last scenario is especially hideous: The prognosis for Potter's syndrome is very poor. Most babies with this condition do not survive beyond birth due to respiratory failure. IOW, the mother holds her newborn child while the child SUFFOCATES TO DEATH IN HER ARMS... AND THERE'S NOTHING SHE CAN DO ABOUT IT BUT WATCH HER BABY DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. This can go on for up to 45 minutes, sometimes even longer.

These are tragic circumstances that, yes, sometimes only become apparent at close to 9 months. This is a fact, a very tragic fact, but a fact, nonetheless. It is also a fact that an abortion is sometimes the only option available for the woman and her family.

Nothing " NOTHING " anyone can say will alter these...

ABSOLUTE 100 % TRUE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION

#59 Blatant lying?

Blatant lying?

Blatant lying ... like this???????????

-------
It has been suggested that Trump's apparent "avalanche of lies" consists of ------- rather than of lying as strictly defined.[26][27] According to Harry Frankfurt's influential 2005 book On -------, the liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it, while the ---------- does not care whether what they say is true or false.[25] Eduardo Porter writes in The Washington Post that Frankfurt's ----------- definition fits Trump: "To subvert the truth, you must first know it, or at least think you do. That's not Trump's game."[27] For example, Trump does not, in Porter's argument, have to check US unemployment or inflation statistics to assert that "we inherited from the last administration an economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare", because for -------, the facts do not matter. On the contrary, by ignoring the facts, ------- has the power to guide group beliefs in a politically desirable direction and thereby to shape group identities.[27] As early as 2015, Jeet Heer wrote that Trump's propensity to ------- is not an aberration in his party: "Over the last two decades, the GOP as a party has increasingly adopted positions that are not just politically extreme but also in defiance of facts and science".[26]

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy