daz28

I think maybe the difference is one is crude oil reserve and the other is a petroleum reserve. It looks we have plenty of oil on hand, and maybe it's just not refined yet. Either way, the 'deletion of our SPR' is purely political, because we have RIDICULOUS amounts of oil reserves AND some of the largest untapped oil fields. If we ever needed to ramp up for war, we could be swimming in it rather quickly. Also, our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, can increase production tomorrow if need be.

There's a large difference between calling it illegitimate, because of the Russian interference, which WAS happening, and setting up a plot between states and with congressmen to change the outcome. I got no love for the democrats in 2016 or Hillary, so that's moot. I would have rather had anyone than trump, but I'm just glad the legit winner took office.

Which is our crude oil reserve. Changing a word in it is only semantics, and the name change was likely due to cold war fear mongering. If you do visit the chart on Macrotrends(from the EIA) check out our oil exports chart that is there also. Our oil exports went from 5 million barrels in 2016 to 10M barrels in 2020. Why did we export double the amount of oil we were shipping out, while we were crying for oil independence at the same time. Also, there is a chart of Saudi oil production, which shows very clearly how they've been manipulating production to keep prices high.

That's when they named it SPR. Surely our crude oil reserves existed before that, and they kept records since at least 1900 that I can find. Google: U.S. Crude Oil Reserves-110 Year Historical Chart

Answer for Julie: because you're a hack, who's just spitting out any tidbit that you find peculiar to feed the frothing mouth breathers.

Except the article is incorrect. Google: U.S. Crude Oil Reserves-110 Year Historical Chart A prosecutor(of the court) decides if charges are brought(law implemented). Not hard to understand. Instead of telling me I'm wrong, tell me WHY I'm wrong. It makes for a much healthier debate.

No, but they are what we have to work with. The right has everyone thinking the judicial system is going rogue against them, but I'd argue they're finally just not sweeping everything under the rug anymore. If the final result is politicians being held accountable, I'm ok with that.

Possibly. They certainly do have a hard on for trump. Not saying he didn't do what they claim, but the last 10,000 congressional investigations have gotten us virtually no justice at all for anything. If anything, all of this partisanship might actually end them covering up for one another constantly. It's the only positive I can come up with out of this whole division debacle.

Is there a reason I'm not attending one right now? If the judge and grand jury felt that he was protected under the PRA, the case would already have been dismissed. In fact, if it were as clear as you're claiming, they wouldn't have even had an investigation.

This is true, but the SOR levels have been traditionally low. They're higher now than during the cold war. It was actually Obama who started raising them. By any historical standard they are not low.

That's not for you, me, Fox news, or trump's lawyers to decide. That's up to the courts who define and implement the laws.

What is spectacular is that they are hearing a case of whether the fake electors plot was a duty of the president, or if he's immune from attempting to steal the election. Spectacularly stupid, and also spectacularly bold.

I'm not fine with it, but I find the rationale reasonable. The rationale WASN'T that he's too senile, it's that a jury/judge would sympathize BECAUSE of that. Go ahead and twist it, though. Anyone with top secret documents they shouldn't have should be charged, but if it's all for nothing a trial makes no sense. See, this is how people who aren't disingenuous post! They literally have video of the files being transported and first-hand witness testimony to corroborate that. What planet are you on today?? They had a grand jury, and now a judge will decide if it should be dismissed. That's how the justice system works. Not everyone agrees with decisions, but they are what they are, and we have to accept them. If there's any monkey business, hopefully it is discovered.

Let me guess, the pine tree flag reminded Mrs. Alito of the nostalgic air freshener that hung in her daddy's 1963 AMC Rambler. Purely a coincidence that it appeared on Jan. 6th. The SCOTUS is part of the slow-moving coup. It's clear as day to anyone who isn't blind or dumb. I wonder if Lenny will think this was ok, too?

Did you read my post, or just miss this one part: I'm all for charging Biden, but the SC already decided it was a losing proposition. Then I went on to explain why Trump obstructing the attempts to regain them was such a horrible idea. Let me ask YOU this: Should he have concealed his attempts to conceal his attempts at keeping the documents after they were requested to be returned? Do you think it would be great if he got off on a technicality? Not only did you selectively ignore what I said about Biden, but you also glossed over the entire portion about 'your side'.

You say that, because you equate all bad things, which allows you to support one side. You do it with pretty much everything. I'm all for charging Biden, but the SC already decided it was a losing proposition. He fully explained his reasoning. On the other side, you have Trump openly obstructing. LITERALLY attempting to hide them from attempts to return them to where they belong. The worst part of the whole thing is that MAGA is hoping he slides on a technicality.

I know you're being facetious, but I just wish BOTH sides would understand that he shouldn't be cut for thinking it's 1950, OR if he wants to wear a rainbow patch on his jersey. We have open active threads on this very forum of people disparaging the LGBTQ community, with posters who post bigoted crap, and get mad when their opinions/concerns are openly stated. These same people are STANDING WITH BUTKER, when it comes to him spreading his religious beliefs. It's straight hypocrisy AND bigotry.

This is where it all goes south FOR BOTH SIDES. Andy and Pat are both right that there are diverse opinions, and they should be respected as free speech. The problem is the far right AND left get happy when it goes south for the guy/company whose opinion they don't like costs them publicly or financially. Now, that comes with the caveat that a company can and should be able to make the appropriate decisions on how their employees stated opinions may effect their overall business.

You had all of this right up until you said this part, "Remember how the left and the feminists told us all how hard it is being a stay at home mom?". Replace the word mom with parent, and you're right back on track. Also, you got feminism a bit backwards: Feminism- the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Now the left will swoop in and tell us "it's hard and a full time job being a stay at home mom/dad!". ---Do you disagree with this statement? You really think it's playing video games and watching cartoons? How hard do you think kicking the football is????

Here's the Doc classic once again. All bad things are equal, so I'm allowed to support one side.

I posted it because some people seem to forget what those duties are, so while he didn't implicitly state each of them, by saying homemaker, he certainly meant all of those duties.

You don't believe that the core responsibility of a judge is honesty? While he surely has a right to lie, it destroys his integrity. Have you ever heard of cannons, which are a part of a code of ethics for judges? You're usually reasonable, so this surprises me. Completely not related, but I'll bite. Was there more misinformation about 2020 being illegitimate than 2016? Who spread that misinformation leading to a fake electors plot and an insurrection. despite losing every legal challenge? Politicians being honest? LOLOL

Because he knows he can be a bigmouth whenever he wants, and they don't care if he makes excuses when he changes his mind after the fact. He's their messiah. He will simply say the lyin' commie deep state media can't be trusted.

If there's no crowd cheering on his lies, and they cut off his mic when his turn is over, then there's ZERO chance he debates. Jake Tapper debunking every lie? C'mon man.

No Doc, the problem lies in that you equate all bad things, and think that gives you fair standing to accept the stance of one of those bad sides.