StickThatClutch

Members
  • Content Count

    6,353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About StickThatClutch

  • Rank
    Icey Hott Stunna

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    B5234FT
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Worldwide

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I gotta a humidor full of fake Cubans I can trade you for VS - straight up.
  2. Jupp, I'm still trying to figure how to get my light sweet crude out of Tajikistan.
  3. Yeah, but the newer locations are more remote and harder to move product to the consumers?
  4. How'd you figure this out? Its not so much oil is going to be gone. Just harder and harder to drill and distribute.
  5. Haha. Yeah. If I trip to downtown LA I take the train. It actually cost more than fuel. Probably takes more time too. I figure at least I won't get hit by an uninsured motorist. Driving is definately easier and many cases cheaper. But if we continue down this path its just gonna hurt harder when we can't be doing this anymore.
  6. OCTA is running mostly LPG/Methane. But bike is even better. Just makes long trips a pain.
  7. Everyone is getting ripped a new one. Stop buying oil. Take the bus.
  8. I'd still rather be Tom Delay than 99.9% of the members on this board. :lol:
  9. We had a little hiccup out here in the SoCal refineries when there was the blackout 2 weeks ago. Quite simply we all use too much gas. That's why prices are going up. No one is willing to give up their cars. They are willing to bee-itch and moan till no end about the price of gas though. <_<
  10. Ahh the Governator spawns his peers in a call to action. And they said Regan would never be elected President. An actor - come on!
  11. All the homeless people in LA are filling up local hurricane refugee centers. Then the refugees bee-itch about how the government doesn't provide space for them. Too many people are taking advantage of a bad situation.
  12. Yeah, but therein lies a rub. If let's say the President were to step in the Padilla case it would be a huge infringment of the seperation of powers. Padilla's issue is a judicial issue not one of the executive branch. Like I stated earlier, the President's implied power on this matter (his ability to detain a combatant under the joint resolution) was legistalitvely given to him - he did not create it. So historically, it would be a gross misconduct for the executive to step in at this point. There is a legal remedy waiting in the wings. The case will be heard. The only problem at this point i
  13. Padilla was appointed counsel on his behalf that filed a court motion in the 2nd federal district appeals court. But prior to his filing he was moved to SC which lies in the 4th district. Thus, the appeal did not have jurisdiction and was not heard. Thus, there has a been a motion in the 4th district to hear the case. Lawyers on Padilla's behalf have tried to bump this up to the Supreme court so that they can get an overarching remedy. Problem is that the USSC is now in recess and next term Padillas case may not fit on the docket. There is a good chance Padilla won't be able to have his case h
  14. Actually the way that congress defined a Enemy Combatant under the joint resolution allowing the President to hold people under this definition allows Padilla to be held in this state. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0011113-27.html The real issue here is the Padilla is a US citizen. If he weren't there wouldn't be such a brewhaha over this case. Under the joint resolution he can be held but under the constitution there are some issues. The problem is which supercedes the other in this case. In theory your constitution rights should be overarching in this respect. However, there