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.

"I'm not Participating in the Elections.

Nobody in either party represents me.

If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a ----.

I'm not voting for people who help Killers.

It's that simple.

#33 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-03 04:43 PM

If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a ----.
If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a ----.
If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a ----.

Is that your belief, Coriolanus?

That if it helps the Republicans, you don't give a ---.

Is that your belief, Coriolanus?

If I didn't respect you I wouldn't care.

I care.

Wow, idk can companies even do this type of thieving?
Posted by oneironaut

Have you never worked for a company that offers a pension? If you have then you would receive periodic pension statements what would tell you to what level the pension if funded. You would know that businesses can adjust funding levels and that plans are often funded at levels less than 100% funded.

The Washington plan, at 110%, is still funded at a level far above most public employee plans which are on average around 80% funded.

Here's what I replied with when Boaz posted nonsense about this several months ago.

"The truth according to the Washington State Council of Firefights, the organization that exists to protect the beneficiaries of the fund, says about the bill.
"Over the decades, LEOFF 1 has become one of the most well-funded public pension systems in the country. Through disciplined funding, strong investment performance, and responsible oversight, the plan reached a funded status of approximately 160%, meaning it holds significantly more assets than actuarially required to pay all projected benefits."
"HB 2034 does not reduce benefits.
HB 2034 does not change eligibility.
HB 2034 does not alter pension formulas or COLAs.
HB 2034 does not eliminate medical benefits.
HB 2034 does not impact LEOFF Plan 2
LEOFF 1 retirees and beneficiaries will continue to receive the pension and benefits they earned through decades of service to their communities.
The transfer reduces the plan's funded ratio from approximately 160% to about 110%"
www.wscff.org

So the system is still overfunded and has no impact on current or future retiree benefits."

Maybe There Is Progress Toward Ending the Iran War

Axios is reporting a scoop that a one-page memorandum of understanding agreed to by the U.S. and Iran may be close. Among other provisions, Iran would "agree" to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment (but wouldn't give up the enriched uranium it has now) and the U.S. would agree to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian funds. Both sides would then remove all restrictions on transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

If this report is true, and if it is ultimately signed by both sides, we would be back to the status quo ante except that Iran would get all its frozen funds back ("pallets of cash") and the U.S. would get a vague promise (that Iran probably has no intention of keeping) that Iran won't enrich any more uranium for some period of time. If this is indeed the deal, any objective observer would score it as...

..."Iran won the war." It got back all its frozen funds in return for a promise it has no intention of honoring, while also learning valuable lessons about leveraging Hormuz and, as a bonus, causing the U.S. to waste tens of billions of dollars.

Of course, Trump will tell his base that this was one of the greatest victories in all of history, greater than Marathon, Gaugamela, Hastings and Agincourt combined. His base will swallow it whole, largely because they think Marathon is a foot race and they have never heard of the others.

So why would Trump accept what is basically a defeat? Because gas prices are going way up and with them, the Republicans' chances of holding the House and Senate are going way down. That's all he cares about. Well, actually, what he probably really cares about is his own approval rating, but that is being dragged down by the Iran War, too. Either way, an end to the war is about the only card he has left to play. So, if Trump turns tail and runs, you can't be too surprised. But again, this is all very preliminary. (V)

Snoofy,

Only one yes, the "didn't oppose" is kind of confusing in your tally.

I would say no weapons until 25(hormones) unless ex-military, feel the same way about trans surgery. I believe a mag max is fine, but no laws on the number of mags you can carry.


It's also true that Originalism is only ever invoked by right-wingers, when they know the outcome they want, but they need to invent a legal rationale from whole cloth.

idk but it would seem to me having this as a "standard" is a good thing, even though you can search for your opinion in historical documents, in that it requires the court to go back and make an argument for their "rational" give some pre-post certification evidence as to why the opinion isn't just made out of whole cloth".

Kagan complains they are amateur historians, but really isn't that what a supreme court judge should do? Look up historical; text, opinions, rulings and interpret it to the context; the difference being the top court, there is no "stare decisis" that the lower courts could used to the satisfaction of the SC.

So they must look at history in some way.
The article you linked to clearly doesn't say any judge invents a legal rational from "whole cloth" .. ie a lie, but vary from traditionalist, or originalism, liquidation.

Also are you saying left-wingers are just making legal rational from "whole cloth"?

If not history, what should in your opinion be the "standard" the judges should use for their opinions? Their feelings? Marxism? Nazism? Or ?? what exactly should they base their opinions on?
Its really not a system of government if you base rights on "feelings" without some reference/argument someone in the past has used or made. "Originalism" encompassing "traditionalism", and "liquidation" seems reasonable for a stable society.

Drudge Retort

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