Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Recently Flagged Comments

Recently flagged 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.

That's hilarious. There was this guy - right before Regan came along who brought you the absolute worst inflation and an energy crisis that made people wait in lines for hours. It also made people move closer to work because they couldn't afford to drive. Interest rates on a home hovered around 12%. But you'll gloss right over that. No one had to buy Regan, HowfuckinDoody could have beat Carter.

#34 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Allow AI to make you less ignorant:

High gas prices during Jimmy Carter were mostly driven by global oil shocks and long-running energy problems that started before he became president " though some of his policies and political decisions affected how Americans experienced them.

Here's the short version:

The roots predated Carter.
The worst spike happened during his presidency.
He wasn't solely responsible, but he also didn't fully solve it.
What caused the gas crisis?

Two major international oil shocks were the main drivers:

1973"74 Arab oil embargo
During the presidency of Richard Nixon, Arab members of OPEC cut oil exports to the U.S. after the Yom Kippur War.
This caused:

fuel shortages
long gas station lines
rapidly rising prices
inflation

The U.S. economy entered the Carter years already struggling with energy dependence and inflation.

1979 Iranian Revolution
During Carter's presidency, the Iranian Revolution disrupted oil production from one of the world's biggest exporters. Even though the actual global oil supply loss was moderate, panic buying and market fear drove prices sharply higher.

This triggered the famous gas lines Americans associate with Carter.

Problems that existed before Carter

Several deeper issues had built up over decades:

U.S. oil production had peaked in the early 1970s.
Americans were using larger, less fuel-efficient cars.
The economy depended heavily on cheap gasoline.
Federal price controls on oil and gas (begun before Carter) distorted markets and contributed to shortages.
Inflation was already high before Carter took office.
What Carter did

Carter actually pushed major energy reforms:

created the United States Department of Energy
promoted energy conservation
encouraged solar and alternative energy
supported fuel efficiency standards
began deregulating oil prices in stages

He famously gave speeches warning Americans that dependence on foreign oil was a long-term national problem.

Some economists argue that continued price controls worsened shortages temporarily, while others say sudden deregulation would have caused even sharper price spikes.

Why Carter still got blamed

Presidents usually get blamed for economic pain happening on their watch, even when causes are global.

Carter faced:

inflation
recession
unemployment
the hostage crisis in Iran
visible gas lines

All of that combined into a public sense that the country was in decline, which hurt him politically.

Historical consensus

Most historians and economists would say:

Carter did not create the underlying energy crisis.
The crisis was heavily tied to international oil markets and earlier policy choices.
Some policies during his administration may have worsened or prolonged shortages.
He correctly identified long-term energy dependence as a major vulnerability years before it became widely accepted.

So the fairest answer is: high gas prices under Carter were largely the result of broader global and structural problems already underway before he took office, though his administration became politically identified with the crisis because the worst visible shortages happened during his presidency.

Judge Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in
1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of
occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision,
sometimes on the merits, sometimes in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a
decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least
two reasons.
Judge Thomas: Senator, I think that the Supreme Court has made clear that the issue of marital
privacy is protected, that the State cannot infringe on that without a compelling interest, and the
Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the woman's right
to"as a fundamental interest a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Judge Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Judge Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Judge Coney Barrett: I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law.

The Supreme Court stopped being a respected institution bringing solemnity, dignity, and legitimacy to the government when over half the sitting justices were revealed to be just another pack of lying, conniving, grifting political players.

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."

#16 | #17


click image for larger view

:-)

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

Why do they want to be out of Canada?

In a word? Oil, they think they can make more $$ using the resources that are available to them, and quit supporting the East coast socialist.

Questions is why would you want to be in Canada, GDP per Capita it ranks as the 51st State. But if Alberta is released the GDP per Capita could raise its standard of living.

The provinces in the east rank really really low.

Canada's richest province is not 'poorer than poorest' US state
factcheck.afp.com

Again Missippi seems to be outpacing the most liberal places in North America.

I wonder if they've considered the difficulties of foreign trade, as they would become a landlocked nation.

Easily, go through the US, as much of its trade (crude) is with the US, it over 88% of Alberta's exports. Major export routes include pipelines to the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2) and Gulf Coast (PADD 3).

Drudge Retort

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