LosLobo

The Norway model works fine, but only because of its unique conditions: a nationalized oil industry, a small population, high taxes, and a disciplined government that keeps political hands off the fund. The U.S. has none of these. The SWF is built on state-controlled oil profits, with Equinor (67% state-owned) and a 78% tax on petroleum. The U.S. has no nationalized oil sector—profits go to private companies. Norway’s 5.5 million people benefit far more per capita, while the U.S. has 330+ million, making a similar fund far less effective. The state is funded with a 38.2% top income tax and 25% VAT. The U.S. has no federal VAT and a lower top tax rate (37%)—raising taxes for an SWF isn’t politically viable. It ranks #4 in least corruption, while the U.S. is #24—an American SWF would be far more vulnerable to political interference. Norway ranks #2 in HDI (Human Development Index), reflecting its high life expectancy, education levels, and standard of living, with universal healthcare and higher education provided at little to no cost. In contrast, the U.S. ranks #21, relying on private wealth, employer-based systems, and student loans. Norway controls nearly 2 million barrels/day, ensuring public benefit, while the U.S. produces 12M+ barrels/day, but profits stay private—a key difference. And no, it is not socialist. Norway operates a mixed economy: capitalism with state ownership in key sectors. Private businesses thrive, economic freedom is high (#12 globally), and the welfare state is funded by high taxes, not socialism. Different systems, different realities. This model works for Norway, but it wouldn’t work in the U.S.

Yet, Bernie Madoff, the biggest fraudster in financial history, was already a multi-millionaire before he started his infamous Ponzi scheme.

'And Trump will use this money for the benefit of the masses, not greedily horde it for himself'. Right! Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are meant to boost national wealth, but they can be ripe for abuse. Due to their secrecy and lack of oversight, SWFs have often been used for corruption, fraud, and political manipulation. How SWFs Can Be Misused: Financial Secrecy: Lack of transparency makes it easy to hide illicit transactions. Political Leverage: Investments are sometimes used to influence foreign governments or reward allies, and sometimes friends. Fraud and Embezzlement: Officials may funnel funds for personal gain, luxury purchases, or political campaigns. Notable Examples: 1MDB (Malaysia): Billions were misappropriated from this SWF, funding luxury goods and political campaigns, leading to one of the largest financial frauds in history. Russia: The lack of transparency in Russia’s SWFs has led to accusations of financial secrecy, with funds used to consolidate wealth among the elite. Germany and Hitler: During WWII, Hitler used Germany’s economic assets to fund the war and personal luxuries, with much of the wealth looted from occupied countries. A significant portion was hidden in secret Swiss bank accounts, making it difficult for post-war governments to trace or recover. MBS and Kushner: Saudi Crown Prince MBS invested $2 billion into Jared Kushner’s firm, raising concerns about political influence and personal enrichment. Conclusion: While SWFs can benefit a nation, they can also be used for fraud, corruption, and political gain. Transparency and oversight are crucial to prevent these funds from being exploited for personal or political enrichment. The big question is can you trust a convicted criminal and known fraudster?

With all due respect, I just couldn’t help myself with an ad hominem… It’s pretty clear you’re full of it, Yellowtail—your name is conclusive evidence of verbal diarrhea.

I believe in different strokes..... --think you missed the irony of my post.

Clearly, 'The Grinch Who Stole Christmas' isn't your vibe. Maybe you'd prefer something more straightforward, like a boring documentary?"

Obviously, Trump was more popular than Biden—he won the election, duh! Who would have thought Murdoch, aka 'Das Reichsleiter' of the MAGA propaganda wing, would be on his knees, giving Trump more moral oral support? The poll came just days after the inauguration when the "sheep" were all in—now, the honeymoon period is over, and reality will set in with buyer's remorse. “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” Trump said. After the election, Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker, “I won on groceries. We’re going to bring those prices way down.” Now, inflation is rising, making it unlikely the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates soon. Grocery, gasoline, and rent prices continue to climb, worsening financial strain for families and businesses. In January, meat prices rose by 0.6%, and egg prices surged by 15.2%. Meanwhile, Trump seems more focused on deals with Musk and plans for Greenland and Gaza than tackling food price hikes. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/trumpflation-trump-slammed-for-blaming-biden-after-he-breaks-day-one-promise-to-bring-prices-down/ar-AA1yUNCs https://x.com/DVNJr/status/1850528968144814369

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

Your nice precis of Article III seems to have omitted most of the relevant facts. Article III Judicial Branch Section 1 Vesting Clause The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. ArtIII.S1.1 Overview of Judicial Vesting Clause ArtIII.S1.2 Historical Background on Judicial Review ArtIII.S1.3 Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review Read on....... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-1/

Your response sidesteps my argument and serves up a mixed salad of logical fallacies: False Dichotomy: You’re acting like only SCOTUS can settle national issues, but district and appellate courts have jurisdiction over federal matters. It’s not either/or. Appeal to Authority: SCOTUS isn’t the only court with authority. Lower courts handle federal law all the time before SCOTUS gets involved. Strawman: I’m not saying a district judge can override the president on everything. They can block unlawful presidential actions, especially if there’s abuse of power or a constitutional violation. Slippery Slope: Claiming that district judges ruling on national issues leads to chaos is unfounded fear-mongering. Hasty Generalization: Disagreements between circuits don’t invalidate a district judge’s ruling. The system resolves those through appeals, not by breaking down. In short, federal judges can rule on national matters, and district judges can stop presidential actions if they overstep. You’re making this unnecessarily complicated.

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

The answer is, yes! Federal judges have jurisdiction over matters that fall under federal law, regardless of their location.

Ah yes, the old "separation of powers is just a suggestion" routine, a blatantly unconstitutional stance that undermines the separation of powers. Courts have always checked executive overreach, including against Trump himself. Vance’s rhetoric signals authoritarian intent. Meanwhile, Elon Musk isn’t fighting censorship or government efficiency—his raison d'être is now securing privileged access to sensitive government data, turning his protest into a bid for insider influence rather than a principled stand. Ultimately, Vance is laying the groundwork for a Trump dictatorship where the law only restrains the powerless.

I am particularly interested in good Netflix Thai-subtitled movies and TV series, as there doesn’t seem to be many recommendations here or commercially except for Netflix itself. Maybe the audience here could help more in this field from time to time, as I’m sure I’m not the only one with this interest. I know I could download movies and add the subs myself for more content, but I just want an easy approach. Appreciate any assistance.

In the midst of the award season—Critics Choice, Sundance, BAFTAs, Grammys, Oscars, SAG, and the Emmys—we’re drowning in top-tier movies and TV series. Kicked off my weekend binge with Paradise (2025) and just wrapped Episode 4. Solid choice—this one's making my weekly roster! Episode 5 drops Monday. Shoutout to @recom273 for the tip! https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/popular-tv-shows/ https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/popular-movies/

Wow, something is really wrong—not just with Trump's numbers but with his innuendo that Bobby can fix it. In 2000, the CDC reported the autism rate was 1 in 150, not 1 in 10,000—a wild exaggeration. The rise in diagnoses reflects improved screening, broader diagnostic criteria, and increased awareness And no, this has nothing to do with RFK Jr.’s anti-vax pseudoscience, which Trump is now dog-whistling to with his misleading autism numbers. As for where Trump got his stats? Probably from his study—you know, the one with the gold throne where he keeps his classified documents. https://www.axios.com/2025/02/04/trumps-autism-rfk-jr-confirmation

Ah, you must be talking about Dr. Ronny Jackson, Trump’s former White House physician-turned-MAGA congressman. He’s the guy who claimed Trump had "incredible genes" and could live to 200. Since then, he lost his shot at becoming VA Secretary after reports surfaced that, while at the White House, he was nicknamed "The Candyman" for handing out prescription drugs without prescriptions, drinking on duty, and even crashing a White House vehicle while drunk. The Pentagon’s Inspector General later confirmed much of it in a report. And yet, he still has his medical license—because accountability is for other people, apparently.

I found Episode 1 particularly interesting -- most of it was set in Bangkok.

Ah, an ad hominem slur—textbook logical fallacy and a subliminal admission of surrender. When logic fails, the failed resort to insults. Thanks for confirming my point so effortlessly.

Murdoch of the New York Post is once again offering Trump unwavering, unquestioning moral oral support. Trump’s latest proposal to deport Gazans is classic historical revisionism, repackaging ethnic cleansing as a “humane” solution. It twists forced displacement into voluntary relocation while distorting Palestinian ties to the land. The claim that Jordan should absorb them ignores their right to self-determination, just as the argument that many Palestinians “immigrated” there warps history. Equating Western refugee policies with Israel’s mass expulsion is pure misdirection. Trump’s record speaks for itself. His reckless U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem—most sacred to Arabs, Christians, and Jews—stoked tensions and likely fueled today’s war. His original Deal of the Century Middle East peace plan, favoring Israeli annexation over Palestinian rights, collapsed on arrival. Then his is Abraham Accords, which boasted of “peace” between nations never at war, further sidelined the Palestinian issue. Now, his call to deport Gazans follows the same pattern: prioritizing Israeli expansion over Palestinian rights to existence. Ethnic cleansing, no matter the spin, is indefensible.

I must admit they do shape their own policies and procedures but that was the original issue. After telling me twice that they would convert a visa exempt to a non-O, they later informed me that that would be breaking the law and to either apply in my home country or go to another Imm office. Though since getting my visa elsewhere they have been more helpful.

A profound analysis straight from Palookasville—where big dreams of intellectualism crash into the brick wall of reality. A classic tale of overconfidence, miscalculation, and self-inflicted failure. Just like Trump. As a movie fan, why not list your location as Capitol City? You know, the town from Idiocracy.

Reminds me of this cartoon about MAGA's, released the week before election.

Thanks for your response. I am going to try to do it myself in September or earlier. I am sure most Immigration offices are very caring and flexible but my IMM doesn't seem to be set up for these issues. I have even heard anecdotal reports of applicants for visas having to be wheeled into IMM Bangkok in hospital beds.

Thanks Jack, I plan to contact the IMM office here soon and ask for a comprehensive list of all their requirements, including lodging date timings. Yes, the review seems a good idea at least you have a better idea upfront of the likelihood of approval, so you can put plan B into action instead of having to wait weeks. Though they still have the opportunity to reject it.