February 27, 2006

NC Legislature Excuses

The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) just made a discovery! They just discovered that big, heavy trucks damage paved road surfaces! Wow! Someone call the press! Oh, I guess they already did...

There's no word on how much money the NCDOT spend on this exhaustive study. And of course, being a government agency, their next suggested step is obvious: fine working people to get more money to fix the roads.

Oh, but want to see a real interesting number? This "report" claims that these trucks do approximately $77 million a year in damages to roads. And yet the Democrat-controlled North Carolina legislature votes each and every year to take tens of millions of dollars OUT of the fund that repairs roads!

In other words, we already had the money to fix all these roads -- it was already collected in taxes -- but the NC Legislature stole the money to NOT spend it on the roads. Democrats in North Carolina are directly responsible for the crappy road conditions -- NOT the trucks!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 26, 2006

It's Over

Tonight at 7pm EST you can view the tape-delayed closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Despite the controversy, utterly moronic statements made by some members of the US Press, and Olympic-sized whiners, they were very entertaining. Again, I love watching the actual athletes who are NOT professionals -- they really do work hard and put it all on the line.

The US finished in second in the medal count, with 25, 9 of them gold. Germany owned the games with 11 gold medals and 29 total. I didn't watch all of NBC's coverage, but I sure racked up the hours.

And since the US has NEVER won a medal, EVER in the biathlon, I think I need to start training for the 2010 games. Heck, who wouldn't like skiing and shooting? And so what if I'm just using training as an excuse to ski and shoot?

Posted by: Ogre at 10:22 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Ogre's Outdoors

This is becoming more of a trend as Spring rears its ugly head in North Carolina -- Ogre outdoors for the weekend, inside little. Yesterday I spent a good portion of the day working on this:

So, I got out the saw and started cutting and adjusting. Now (despite how the holes look in the picture), the house it set up with 3 bird apartments that are closer to an actual useful size. I'm not sure anyone but the purple marlin will want to live so close to anyone else, but I'll put out the yarn and see who grabs it up...

Posted by: Ogre at 06:15 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 25, 2006

War on the Automobile

The Charlotte Observer, a local paper that absolutely hates freedom and anything associated with it, continues it's war on the automobile by calling for California-style rules on cars in North Carolina.

The Observer editorial staff hates cars. They honestly and seriously want to eliminate automobiles from the state. Why? Because cars support freedom and they despise freedom. Cars give mobility to people and allow people to move and escape from totalitarian regimes, like the one that the Observer would have in Charlotte.

Just one sample from the article that shows how much that staff will do and say anything to advance their anti-freedom agenda:

It may come up with a proposal to require that lower-emission vehicles be sold in this state.

Good. It's time the General Assembly seriously considered ways to clean up vehicle emissions and give consumers more choices.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:03 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 24, 2006

King of the Ruins!

I'm King of the...

Ruins?

Posted by: Ogre at 08:05 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 the photo is missing something....perhaps a flapping red cape!

Posted by: ktreva at February 25, 2006 03:09 AM (e8b4J)

2 Kuzco is surveying his aged kingdom, and keeping a lookout for his friend, Pacha. All the while, wary of Izma and Kronk, who are intent on causing him sufficient harm to render him incapable of reigning in his own kingdom.

Okay, yeah, I've waxed too much poetic on a Disney cartoon, but you didn't give me much choice here.

Posted by: Stevin at February 26, 2006 05:32 AM (LfL8N)

3 Actually, Stevin, I think this was a shot from PlayLlama....

Posted by: Ogre at February 26, 2006 02:22 PM (CyQ4M)

4 Somehow I suspect that that pic is actually Evil Glenn in a llama suit, staring down at the blogosphere...

Posted by: Harvey at February 28, 2006 04:07 PM (ubhj8)

5 Could be, rabbit. Could be...

Posted by: Ogre at February 28, 2006 04:34 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Littler Bird

Know something that's fun about watching birds? They don't yell about every little thing that Bush does.

(Click to Enlarge)

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the type of birds here?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:05 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Which Way Did He Go?

So does this mean you're supposed to put it in reverse?

(Click to Enlarge)

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Your Mail WILL Be delayed

Thanks to yet ANOTHER entry in the lawsuit lottery.

It seems a woman got home from the welfare office somewhere. When she got home, she looked at the mail on her porch and attempt to step over it to unlock her door. She instead, stepped on a letter and fell. Therefore, according to the morons on the US Supreme Court, she is now entitled to piles of taxpayer money.

So, let's look at the logical results of this crap.

1. The US Postal Service will have to pay out piles of money. They will have to spend (and have already spent) tons of cash defending the lawsuit, even if they win. If they lose, they will have to pay out truckloads more cash to the woman who won the lottery lawsuit. And where does the US Postal Service get money? From taxpayers and people who pay to mail things.

Result from 1: Higher taxes, more government waste, and higher postal mailings costs.

2. The Postal Service will have to take "remedies" to ensure this doesn't happen again. If they do not, the next time someone slips on a letter, they will have to pay out MORE cash.

Result from 2: More postal regulations and restrictions -- if you don't have the right size and shape mailbox, they will not deliver your mail. If they have a package that doesn't fit in your mailbox, instead of leaving it, they will have to hold it and you will have to pick it up in person.

Great. The only way these morons who start these lawsuits with the sole intention of getting a lottery-sized winning is to seriously and heavily penalize both the person who brought the lawsuit AND the scum-sucking lawyer who represents them. No, I didn't say to limit lawsuits -- let anyone sue for anything -- just when you lose, you, AND THE LAWYER have to pay.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:43 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Iraq Motive Unknown?

I sometimes -- okay, quite often -- have to wonder if the people who write articles for the formerly mainstream media have brains. That thought is often followed up with another, similar thought about their editors -- do the editors really read all these articles and approve them?

Case in point -- I'm reading an article on Fox News about the recent rioting in Iraq. In the blurb on the front page (what do they call that -- the teaser?) and in the story, it says:

The motive for the killing was not immediately clear.

Hello?

McFly?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

The next thought is to wonder if these people are intentionally dense or just playing dumb. The situation is really very simple. Someone tell the Fox News writers to head on over and read this before they write the next article about something which they are clearly ignorant.

In Iraq there are competing factions. The two largest are the Shiites and the Sunnis. The Sunnis are friends of Insane dictator Saddam. They hate the Shiites. While Saddam was in charge, the Sunnis ruled the country and killed Shiites whenever they felt like it, with the approval and direction of Saddam.

The U.S. entered the country and stopped the blatant slaughter of thousands of innocents. They got the people to make an uneasy truce -- the Sunnis hoping they could get control of the government once again. They did not.

So, the new government ends up being made up of a majority of Shiites. And that really annoys the Sunnis, who had been enjoying majority uncontested rule for decades. They are at relative peace, perhaps because they're finally all sick of the dying and the killing.

Wednesday comes and the Golden Dome gets destroyed by someone. It may have been some radical Sunnis, or it may have been al-Queerda, trying to stir up some killing. The Shiites have finally had enough of being killed and start fighting back, attacking their enemy of so long -- the Sunnis.

So, what's the motive? These people have been fighting for decades. Saddam's iron fist isn't in charge, so now the Shiites can actually fight back without being shot with chemical weapons, so they are.

Feel free to yell about this being America's fault in the comments, I will be sure to laugh at you for missing the entire post and the part about these two groups of people having been at war with one another for decades.

In addition to these two groups, there is another group, basically in the north, that doesn't like either one of these two (the Kurds).

So, what's the solution? When people are willing to die for their radical causes, there's not a lot that can be done. One idea is to go ahead and split the darn country up into three countries and let everyone have their own country. That would work fine for the Kurds (at least until they were taken over by Turkey), by the Shiites and the Sunnis would argue, at gunpoint, over who gets what land.

Is it a bad situation? You bet -- it's horrible. Blame it on the US? Sure, but if you do, then you'd also blame Cain and Abel's little spat on George Bush, too, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Ogre at 12:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Jim Black Breaks the Law

I just read an excellent article responding the North Carolina House Speaker Jim Black's clear and blatant breaking of the law:

Black’s response is that new election laws are needed. “I think we need to clarify the laws and the rules,” he told members of the Board of Elections.

I really hate the idea of term limits. I like to believe in people. But total B.S. like this really bothers me. People like Jim Black have been in the legislature so long, passing all the laws they want for their personal use, rather than for the public good, that they honestly believe they are completely and totally above the law. And in cases like this, where the Democrats pass and enforce the law, they clearly ARE above the law.

But I think this points out that term limits really are needed. Otherwise Democrat legislators will continue to break the law and call for more laws. Go read the whole article.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 23, 2006

Floor Sweeping Methods

Spurred on by Harvey of Bad Example, I shall attempt to write an

intriguing essay on floor-sweeping techniques.

The first brooms, of course, were simply made of a number of coarse materials, such as straw, bound together. There have been improvements on that design, but the same basic design can still be found today, mass-produced and sold in big chain stores.

In 1878, Melville Bissell invented a "carpet sweeper" to attempt to get rid of the dust in their crockery shop. It worked well on dust, but it didn't do much to really clean the carpets, and required the worker to be on their hands and knees. It was also expensive and difficult to assemble.

The first vacuum cleaners were actually invented for use with steam engines on the railroad. The steam from the locomotive was used to generate suction through a hose that was used to clean the dust out of the railroad cars.

Nearly every household today has at least one vacuum cleaner of some sort -- yet they also still have brooms for sweeping the floors. Why? Because it's much easier to get out a broom and a dustpan for a quick cleanup than to lug out a heavy vacuum cleaner and plug it in.

So what method of using these archaic inventions (the broom) works the best? The biggest problem with using brooms comes from the intended use of them -- to clean up dust. In many cases, dust is actually very light, so when pushed across the floor, it tends to rise and float in the air for a period of time from a few moments to a minute.

In addition, corners seem to present a rather difficult challenge in floor-sweeping. Large amounts of dust and other materials seem to collect in the corners, and only certain types of specially-designed brooms, or a special floor-sweeping technique seems to work at removing the dust from those hard-to-reach locations.

Searching the various internet search engines gives very few useful results on actually HOW to sweep the floor. Apparently, it's such a basic task that anyone can do it -- but have you ever watched a 4-year old try and sweep the floor?

When sweeping, it helps to have a broom that's a good length -- it should be no taller than your shoulders. The best way is to lightly grasp the end of the broom -- the end without the straw, Patrick -- in one hand and hold the middle part of the broomstick with your other hand.

You need to guide the broom with the hand at the top end, while powering the broom in a sweeping motion with the other hand. At the end of each stroke, be sure to keep the end of the broom near the floor, or you will throw dust into the air, making a possible re-sweeping necessary.

Start at one end of the room, in the corner, and sweep towards the other end. Be sure to turn the broomstick so a pointed corner of the straw will reach deep into the corners of the floor. If you have a large or wide area to sweep, sweep in lines, pushing the dirt and dust along the floor.

Once you have swept all the dust to one end, turn 90 degrees and sweep the dust into one large pile -- once again being very careful to control the dust and dirt to ensure you do not push it too hard and push the dust into an area that has already been swept. Your goal here is to make a small pile of dust -- small enough that it's width is less than that of the dust pan.

Use the broom to sweep the dust into the dustpan -- but be sure that the dustpan is at an angle above that of the ground -- two people may be required for this step. Once you have swept one pile into the dust pan, back the dust pan up slightly and sweep again, as some dust is small enough to slip below the edge of the dust pan. Continue and repeat until you cannot see any more dust under the dustpan.

Be very careful, also, when emptying the dust pan -- it is full of dust (hence the name), and careless dumping will spew that dust back into the air, necessitating the need for sweeping once again.

There are other ways and methods, but most other ways all require some sort of liquid or electrical power -- and I just don't have all that fancy stuff in a cave...

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Christian? Not allowed in government.

And no, that's not using government time or money to attempt to spread your religion, it's BEING Christian. The Department of Children and Family Services in California has decided it will simply not permit you to work for them if you are a Christian -- no matter how good work you do with them. Simply put, if you go to church on Sunday, that's enough to get you fired.

Jacqueline Escobar, an intern to DCFS, was fired because she openly spoke about her religion WHEN SHE WAS NOT WORKING. She was also told to sign a document that said she had "an inability to separate her religious beliefs from her role" as an intern. She refused to sign.

I'd love for someone to go to the DCFS and see if there is anyone there that doesn't murder. If there is, those people aren't correctly separating their religion from work. Oh, and there better not be a single person working there with a dot on their forehead from any Indian religion. Robes? Yarmulkes? Are all those banned as well? Not likely.

Only the Christian religion, NOT EXPRESSED at work, but by simply BEING a member of that one religion, is not allowed.

So, if you are a Christian, and actually believe your religion, you are not permitted to work for the government in CA. Apparently the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applies to blacks and muslims.

A lawsuit has been filed, but it will likely be settled and the anti-Christian hate-mongers who fired her will very likely be promoted instead of fired. But no, Christians aren't hated and aren't persecuted, ever -- at least that's what the left claims.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:07 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

ACLU & CAIR Suppressing Christians

For a year now, Stop The ACLU has been bringing information to you about the evil ways of the ACLU. We've been telling you about their war on religion, the Boy Scouts, Christmas, religious icons in public, the 10 Commandments, children, and the United States. But are you listening?

Judging by the comments that we receive, I'd say the only people listening are our own members and those who are poised to argue the ACLU cause. But we must have some readers who are in shock or out-right disbelief that any organization called "American" Civil Liberties Union would be fighting for causes contrary to the best interests of this nation. But they are.

Their latest alliance is with CAIR (Council on American - Islamic Relations). Op/Ed writer Sher Zieve had this to say in The American Daily.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Lincoln County, NC, hates freedom.

Not a shock there, but Lincoln County, NC wants to raise your taxes -- without calling it a tax increase:

A proposed ordinance aimed at managing growth in Lincoln County has generated heavy opposition from home builders and real estate agents, who plan to pack a public hearing Monday.

If I own land, I can build whatever I want on it. Anyone who prevents me from doing so it restricting freedom. That's "managed growth." Those who support "managed growth" are socialists, plain and simply.

In a free country, government responds to the people. In socialist and communist government, the government tells the people what to do. ANYPLACE there is "managed growth," the government is telling the people what they are permitted to do with their own personal property.

So, if YOUR government supports "managed growth" in any way, shape, or form, they are using the violent force of government to completely and totally suppress freedom -- whether they admit it or not.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:03 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 They don't support managed growth in any way shape or form in Palm Beach County... or S. FL for that matter. Not that I can tell.

Posted by: Bou at February 23, 2006 12:10 PM (iHxT3)

2 It's a big one nationwide -- it's also known as "smart growth."

Now I'm not sure about Palm Beach County, but I know places like Coral Springs, FL, planned every single building before one brick was laid there -- but that's a different issue -- if you buy knowing what you're supposed to build, that's different than we have here, where people who have owned land for literally hundreds of years are suddenly told what they will be permitted to build or not build.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 12:22 PM (/k+l4)

3 C'mon Ogre, you know you don't really own the land, you're just renting it from the government. Well at least with the new emminant domain rulings anyway. So if you build something on that land and the government decides to build shopping mall, it would cost them more to give you "fair" market value for it.

Sometimes I start to wonder if you're completely there anymore.

Posted by: Contagion at February 23, 2006 01:08 PM (Q5WxB)

4 I know I live in a dreamland. I do. I dream of freedom and a Constitutional Republic. I'm not sure it will ever be possible in this land, but hope spring eternal...

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 01:57 PM (/k+l4)

5 No regulation at all? So, if you build your dream house out on your land and the next week someone opens up a hog farm 50 feet away - you'd have no problem with that?

And, before you make a smarmy comment, have you ever BEEN to a hog farm, I mean actually BEEN to a big lagoon hog farm? Okay, now you can answer.

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:12 PM (7X7vQ)

6 Managed growth is NOT about regulating hazardous waste. Managed growth is about telling people that they cannot build a house on their own land because the government would rather have an apartment building or a business that would generate more tax revenue. Government is supposed to respond to people, not tell them what to do.

And yes, I have visited and toured hog lagoons in Eastern NC. Nice places.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:22 PM (/k+l4)

7 So, you are for regulation, corporate regulation. You are saying that the government tells people they can't build a house on their own land because they want an apartment building or a business? Are we talking about an empty lot in downtown, or 1000 acres of farm land?

Could you give me an example, seriously, of where this has happened. I can understand the OPPOSITE happening. For instance, you build your dream house and the neighbors decided to put up a 10 story apartment building next door.

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:30 PM (7X7vQ)

8 Davidson, NC is the prime example. The government there wants to preserve farmland. People have owned farmland there for literally hundreds of years -- but the city council has declared that not only are these people not permitted to build or improve their properties in any way, they are also not even allowed to split up and sell their own land!

Charlotte, NC, is also working on this. They are trying to force people to use the trains they are building, so they have declared certain areas as only "high-density" housing. So people there who want to make an addition to their homes are not permitted to -- the ONLY new construction allowed is apartment buildings.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:35 PM (/k+l4)

9 It all goes into Agenda 21. I hate to sound liek a conspiracy theorist, but UN Agenda 21 is responsible for this crap. If I own land and want to build a bigger house that is my business.

Posted by: kender at February 24, 2006 07:55 PM (p63Yb)

10 To be honest, I've never heard of UN Agenda 21, and I'm SURE I don't want to.

But this is certainly an agenda, whether people want to admit it or not. It's socialism and communism. It's anti-freedom. It's part of the goal of those people who absolutely HATE freedom and the American Way.

Posted by: Ogre at February 24, 2006 08:07 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 22, 2006

Beer Warning

Those of you who think it is manly to drink beer may want to take a peek at this research and the warning that comes with it...

From, you know it, Kender.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:02 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Programming Note

Once again, I would like to apologize for all of those wonderful people whose blogs I usually visit. The month is almost over and I'm almost back to a normal schedule. Despite the regular posts you see appearing here, I'm not actually near a computer for about 5-6 hours a day now, which is really annoying. Come Monday, things will be more back to normal, and I should be annoying visiting you all once again!

But probably not this weekend, since the Stormreach Head Start Event starts Friday. What? You didn't know I was a geek gamer, too?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Why doesn't the fact that you are a "geek gamer" and beyond that a D&D gamer NOT surpise me? After all, you live in a cave, so what else is there to do, unless you wired it for power to have a TV (although you do use a PC, so that suggests power, of some sort at least).

Posted by: Smoke Eater at February 22, 2006 08:02 PM (5LGKd)

2 That explains it

Posted by: Lockjaw the Ogre at February 22, 2006 08:19 PM (mAhn3)

3 Methane gas power, Smokey. Methane gas.

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 08:26 PM (2IrwV)

4 I'm getting weirdness, where a future post is pinging blogrolling, and does it again when it gets posted. Strange.

How's the D&D game going?

Posted by: William Teach at February 23, 2006 02:40 AM (V5vwb)

5 Yea an while ure at it..make a pitstop at mine huh huh huh?..lolz

Posted by: Angel at February 23, 2006 03:29 AM (8n9BB)

6 Teach, my future posts don't ping anything right.

And Angel, yours shall certainly be at the top of the list each day!

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 11:05 AM (2IrwV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Utopia -- without blacks

Great. The enlightened who brought us unrestricted prostitution, abortion on demand, and death by doctors now present their next step in the process towards their utopia -- killing all the black people. Seriously. Go read it, it's not some wackos (well, it is), but it's not a fringe group -- it's the government of the Netherlands.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Fair Tax

"I believe that, in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un-American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes are not. The first American Revolution was sparked by an unshakable conviction -- taxation without representation is tyranny. Two centuries later, a second American revolution for hope and opportunity is gathering force again -- a peaceful revolution, but born of popular resentment against a tax system that is unwise, unwanted, and unfair."

Ronald Reagan ("Address to the Nation on Tax Reform," May 28, 1985)

President Ronald Reagan's words can be construed as prophetic in the context of where we stand today in America. Though this rhetoric was uttered some twenty years ago, we are still faced with a bent, battered, and broken tax system. Illustrative of how bi-partisan support can forge something unique and powerful, President Reagan's tax reforms did not just represent a triumph for his Administration. It represented what could be done when Americans decide something must be done. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians can work together for the benefit of America. In continuing with the prescient theme President Reagan espoused, the American spirit is at its most fruitful epoch when Americans stand united; this has been the essence of who we truly are since the inception of this great nation.

The American Spirit has always been one that embraces individual choice and personal freedoms. The essence of who we are stems from our pursuit of happiness, which is why our capitalistic society has always spawned an entrepreneurial spirit ; unequivocal in efficiency and innovation. Though admittedly, we have experienced ups and downs, and times of economic dismay and downturn, nevertheless America has remained the steadfast beacon of hope and freedom the world over because we never lose sight of our ideals and dreams.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Kos Expanded

I was over at Kos yesterday. No, I have NO IDEA why. I think perhaps I was feeling too good after the weekend and needed to read some crap. Perhaps it was because I was feeling rather intelligent and needed to erase and eliminate some brain cells. I don't know why I felt like peeking in a den of total and utter contempt and hatred, but I did. The main post was rather typical of the left (and yes, Daily Kos IS the Democrat party today in America, whether you want to admit it or not).

For some reason, I decided to fix and add a few details and facts to the post. It's kind of long and really annoying, so I'll put it in the extended entry.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:03 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Delved into Liberal World, eh? I am always amazed how they always put idealism over reality. Heck, I'm not sure if they even know what reality is.

Consider Kyoto. They have CONVINCED themselves that Bush pulled us out of Kyoto, completely ignoring that the Senate voted 95-0 against it, and Clinton refused to sign it. But, those facts do not exist in the Loon mind.

And making abortion rare? Baa. They cannot even write what they really believe, re, that they want abortion on demand.

Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 01:10 PM (V5vwb)

2 I guess it would be stupid to add that I hope the drug companies never have to make deals with the government or are forced to sell drugs cheaper.

The drug companies spend billions of dollars in research for just one drug to bring it to market, the prices they charge are to re-coup their costs. If they are forced to sell the drugs cheaper, they might not do research to bring new and life saving drugs to market.

I fear this very much as some of the new arthritis drugs that have been brought to market recently are truely life savers and eventually I will be on them. Without them alot of peoples lives would have ended.

Also, every, every, every drug company have programs that if you can not afford their drugs they will qualify you for a discount program. All anyone has to do is call the drug manufacturer for the details.

Posted by: Machelle at February 22, 2006 01:29 PM (ZAyoW)

3 Do Republicans ever get tired of spouting theology instead of facts?

1. Environment. Please don't tell me you believe Michael Crichton, author, over thousands of scientists that have actual data on global warming? How about this?

2. Medicare. Republicans made their bed, time to lay down. Remember the $11 Trillion budget surplus that Democrats handed over to you? I'm pretty sure that could have been used to fix Medicare and provide a reasonable prescription plan without raising taxes by 50%. BTW, what a misleading stat. The "I'm living off Daddy's money" tax is now 17%, where it used to be 33%. So, firefighters and policemen dying in the line of duty pay more taxes than Paris Hilton - nice moral take there Neocons. Increasing this tax by 50% would raise 17% to about 25%. Still less than a lot of blue collar workers. But, you're a neocon. You don't care about workers, only the aristocracy.
Also - Machelle - each and every large pharm company spend more on overhead (advertising, accounting, admin) than they do on research. Advertising is nearly equal to R&D in many companies. Look it up. If you take away the misleading TV commercials and magazine ads, your drugs would be a lot cheaper.

3. Deficit. This is ALL YOUR BABY. You guys slashed taxes on Donald Trump and Paris Hilton while giving $400 a year back to working people. Our deficit is huge and your solution is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and food programs for the elderly. I am so glad the Republicans are the moral party in America. Let me see, where is that passage...Luke, Mark, ah here it is Bush 11:16
And the poor shall pay for the vacations of the wealthy with their health and very lives.

4. Iraq. Once again you'd rather be loud than right. There is war profiteering going on in Iraq. Hallilburton is sending truckers down death alley with empty tankers and charging the U.S. for "Sailboat Fuel". They are providing rotten food, charging for soldier meals that don't exist, and the list goes on and on. But, you would rather ignore that reality and pretend that we don't want to fight the war on terror. b.s. With the money saved by investigating war profiteering we could provide armor for the troops - why do you hate the troops Ogre?

5. Abortion. Let's be perfectly clear.
* Under President Clinton abortions were decreasing FASTER than under President Bush. President Bush stopped the Clinton plan to decrease abortions. Thus, President Bush is DIRECTLY responsible for MORE abortions being performed in the U.S. every year.
* Republicans want every baby to be born, even if it kills the mother, but then cut the funding to take care of those children. *Republicans are pro-birth, you could care less about life*.

Feel free to spout your right-wing b.s. response, absent any hard data or facts, because after all, you are the "faith" party, so why have data to back up what you believe?

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 01:49 PM (V/N23)

4 Okay, I'm not sure why links no longer work. Did you disable that because I was able to send your readers to actual facts? I'm surprised you have comments at all, given most Republican sites do not allow "citizens" to provide input - kind of like our isolationist President. Don't you find it hippocritical that you push against isolationism at the International level, yet you support a Party that only meets with each other?

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 01:51 PM (V/N23)

5 Pat, there are also tons of scientists who think otherwise, regarding global warming. There is also tons of scientific data, not conjecture and computer models, that shows that the earth is not experiencing global warming.

If global warming is so real, then why are the alarmists now using the term "global climate change?" Could it be because the facts do not fit the hypothesis?

Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 02:06 PM (V5vwb)

6 Teach, I usually leave venturing into the liberal lunatic land up to you. I feel dirty and dumber after visiting them.

Machelle, Democrats/Liberals do not like drug companies making money, plain and simple. I'm not sure if it's just jealousy, or it's more than that. They want to be the sole provider of medicine, and as you point out, if that is the case, people will die.

Robert P, I think you missed the point of the post -- it was describing what Democrats believe, not Republicans. I haven't made any adjustments, as your fantasy-land mind seems to think -- links work now exactly as they have always worked here.

Feel free to speak away, I have no problem letting Democrats show their position and their ignorance of reality. I LIKE it when Democrats are actually honest about their positions -- which almost never happens.

But do, please, watch the language. If you cannot converse in a civil tone, I will just start deleting or more heavily editing your posts.

Now, if you really want them (and you don't), I'll respond, in-kind, to your "statements."

1. Environment. Don't tell me you believe thousands of scientists over thousands of scientists? There is clearly NOT a consensus, even among learned scientists, about the CAUSE of global warming. None. You can believe some, and others can believe others, but someday the fact might have to be faced that we simply cannot know everything.

2. Thank you for making the point of the position of the Democrats -- the only solution is to raise taxes. I don't know if it's jealous here, too, or not. Why do you want to take Paris Hilton's money? By what right?

3. Again, thank you for making the point. The only solution from the left, no matter the problem (real or imagined) is more taxes.

4. Since you are perfect, perhaps you can run the war without any waste at all. No, really, feel free to make your own bid on providing any service you want. And you don't even want to investigate if there is waste! Why do you support wasting money on rotten food in Iraq?

5. I'll have to check on that one, I'm not sure of the actual numbers. I'm pretty sure, however, that Bush hasn't actually performed any abortions, personally, much to the chagrin of Democrats everywhere. I'm sure that Clinton, the first black president, did because you say so.

And that last comment is just typical Democrat -- "the Party that only meets with itself." I know, you'd prefer that Democrats were in power and you think that they should be able to tell Republicans what to do.

Oh, and by the way? Did I ever say that I was a Republican?

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:11 PM (/k+l4)

7 I love Roberts (who I referred to as Pat, my Bad) part about: Republicans want every baby to be born, even if it kills the mother, but then cut the funding to take care of those children.

Maybe liberals shouldn't have babies if they cannot get a job to take care of them. It's not the governments job to pay for the child care, but the parents. But, since most liberals are lazy slugabeds, and expect handouts paid for with tax money from Republicans who actually work....

Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 02:30 PM (V5vwb)

8 But that IS their position, Teach! They honestly WANT to take care of every man, woman, and child in the country. They WANT people to be dependent on them. They measure success by how many people are dependent on government!

And, of course, the only way they can get money to actually support everyone is by taking it from "the rich." So their plan is simple and their war cry is simple. If you oppose them, you want to kill people.

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:34 PM (/k+l4)

9 Ogre: Did I ever say that I was a Republican?

But Ogre, it's obvious that you are a Republican. everyone knows that a vote for anyone but the Republicans is a vote for the Democrats, and since you are obviously NOT a Democrat, you HAVE TO BE a Republican!

Ok, I'll end the sarcasm. Sorry!

Posted by: Echo Zoe at February 22, 2006 02:37 PM (K+h36)

10 so, if I weigh the same as a duck...?

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:46 PM (/k+l4)

11 At least here on this site you are finally speaking the truth. You don't care about the downtrodden, you don't care about those who are down on their luck - It's their own fault.

Now, please have your leaders admit this the next time they are courting the Christian vote, because your point of view is so unChristian it's unfathomable.

Sorry about the language, I'm ticked. What about our Seniors Teach? What about our few remaining WWII vets? Do they deserve to eat? Do they deserve to have health care? If so, why do you support cutting services to them?

Where do you draw the line, just for clarification - who deserves help and who doesn't?

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 02:50 PM (V/N23)

12 Ogre,
When Clinton was in office, VP Gore met with Republican Senators every week. As soon as Bush was elected, Cheney made all trips to the Hill one-sided, Democrats were not allowed to attend. Because of that, every single problem in America can be laid entirely at the feet of Republicans. The Democrats have been blocked from helping.

An unpopular war.

Corruption in Washington.

Poor healthcare.

Medicaid/Medicare cuts.

Veteran's Healthcare cuts.

More arsenic, mercury and other toxins in our water.

The list goes on and on. If you cut the other party out of government, then you have to take sole responsibility for the outcome.

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 02:55 PM (V/N23)

13 You have drawn the line, and it is, I believe the one true difference between Conservative and Liberals -- both groups of people want seniors to eat, health care for anyone who wants it, and other good things.

However, liberals believe all and everything can ONLY be provided by government, while conservatives believe in the free market and freedom of choice. If *I* don't WANT insurance, why am I forced to have it? It's not because I don't care about kids.

As for the Republican/Democrat split, well, Democrats are very reliably liberal -- they will almost always take up the liberal position and support it. Republicans, today, are taking up more and more liberal position.

In my mind, if you support government expanding ANYTHING, you're taking the liberal position. Now where's my chart showing my view on the political spectrum...

Oh yeah, here it is:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/133862.php

(For Robert, if you're interested)

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:56 PM (/k+l4)

14 Each and every one of us with insurance pays $922 a year in extra premiums to cover those without.

Each and every one of us pays extra in taxes for those without insurnace.

Each and every one of us that goes to the hospital pays extra for services given to those without insurance.

The free market system works if it is monitored. If EVERY employer had to provide decent BASIC health care, then it wouldn't be an issue. If Wal-Mart gave their workers healthcare, instead of a PACKET ON HOW TO GET MEDICAID when they went to work there - then maybe we wouldn't be having these conversations.

A recent study in NC showed that something like 60% of Medicaid patients at one hospital were Wal-Mart employees. The free market system works with regulation.

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 03:01 PM (V/N23)

15 BTW,
I'm out of here for the next couple hours, however, I have enjoyed the tail end of our discussion.

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 03:02 PM (V/N23)

16 "What about our Seniors Teach?"

What about them? It is an obvious deflection.

Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 03:47 PM (IRsCk)

17 I would modify your statements, Robert --

Each and every one of us with insurance is forced to pay, against our will, $922 a year in extra premiums, much of which is wasted in bureaucracies, to cover those who may not want insurance. If *I* were giving that $922, I would likely VOLUNTARILY give it to help people, and the entire $922 would reach the person, NOT the bureaucracy.

That's my problem. *I* want to help people, NOT be forced at gunpoint to help them and support useless bureaucracies at the same time.

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 03:58 PM (/k+l4)

18 Testing, one two three....
I just had a long post disappear.

Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 04:28 PM (V/N23)

19 No idea why -- nothing was done on this end. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 08:25 PM (2IrwV)

20 Robert and Ogre - I want you both to go to the web site of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and read some of the charts that compare benefits state to state.

Robert, I don't know where you are, but I bet it's someplace like here in Massachusetts with mandated benefits up the wazoo. For MILLIONS of seniors, the Medicare Part D is a Godsend - I mena think about it - for FOURTY YEARS prescription drugs weren't covered for seniors? The only reason it isn't a bigger 'success' is that AARP Dem lobbyists SAY it's not, and produce phony statistics.

Oh, btw, I AM a Republican - Ogre is not.

HE is a force of nature.

Posted by: Peter Porcupine at February 23, 2006 05:16 AM (NprS0)

21 That's why one of the biggest bills last year in Congress that I REALLY supported (and my Congressman told me was sure to pass, but didn't) was the Health Insurance Act that would have completely removed state mandates! I LOVED that bill!

It was something the federal government actually had the jurisdiction to do, and it was good -- so that pretty much doomed it.

In a nutshell, that bill would have said that if any insurance company met the requirements for one state, no other state could bar it from doing business in their state. My monthly insurance cost estimates would drop from about $780 a month to about $112 per month.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 11:09 AM (2IrwV)

22 Peter,
If it is such a success, how come only 5 million people have signed up, but the government keeps saying 25 million?
Remember, that prescription drugs 45 years ago, well, didn't exist. Also remember that most prescription drugs are post-facto band-aids for conditions that could have been avoided if the country had a health plan that made preventive care available. Type2 Diabetes is one that comes to mind. My sister has great insurance at a company called NewPig and she found out at her yearly physical she was heading towards Type2 land. She changed her lifestyle and now her numbers are looking better. So, no meds for the rest of her life thanks to preventive care. A loss for the Pharm companies, who would much rather she have lousy insurance and end up on their meds for life.

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:18 PM (7X7vQ)

23 Again, that horrible view of people! What makes you think that people really, honestly want other people to be sick and in pain to earn money? Sure, there's some, but there's an exception to nearly every rule.

Is there anyone on the planet that wants people sick and dying? Sure. Is it all, most, or even a few evil corporations? Not likely.

You see, corporations understand the basic rules of economics -- if people die, they will not be able to purchase their product!

As for your sister and preventative care, that's absolutely wonderful! It's a great story and I am honestly happy that she's changed and may have avoided Type 2 Diabetes!

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:25 PM (/k+l4)

24 ALL LARGE PHARM COMPANIES have avoided making new antibiotics because the profit margin is not big enough. Profits over people.

Look, I've interviewed with a number of small biotech firms, they are good people trying to create novel treatments. But, I don't for a minute believe that big PHARM does anything that is not in their own profit interest. This is nothing new, it's capitalism. The problem is that many short-sighted companies don't see how good business practices are good for business.

Take Costco. They pay an average of $16/hour and have full healthcare for their workers. They are ranked 29 on Fortune 500. WalMart pays $9/hour and gives their new workers paperwork to sign up for Medicaid. The difference?

The Waltons have pocketed $75 Billion in wealth, while their employees have healthcare paid by....wait for it....YOUR TAXES!!!

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:40 PM (7X7vQ)

25 BTW, if it's good enough for Wal-Mart, Veterans, Senators, Congressmen, the President, VP, White House staff, Congressional staff, the poor, the handicapped, the blind, the elderly, the very young, pregnant mothers, and the mentally ill - why is it not good enough for everyone?

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:46 PM (7X7vQ)

26 No, that's not profits over people, that's practical reality.

Can we cure cancer? Maybe. How about if we spend $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 tomorrow? I bet we can cure it! Now, since we haven't already spent that money, it must be because we want people dead, not because we simply don't have the money!

If a company doesn't make some money, it doesn't exist. So a company cannot produce a product, even if it might save lives, if they don't exist!

As for the health care problem, that's government creating the problem. Did you know that health care, when provided for employees, was introduced as an INCENTIVE? That's right! Once upon a time health care wasn't DEMANDED as a right!

As a citizen, I have zero obligation to be forced to pay for anything for anyone else. That doesn't mean I don't care, it means I don't want to be FORCED to care -- that's not caring.

When government provides sometimes -- anything -- to someone else, they can ONLY get it by taking it from someone. Government produces nothing -- it can ONLY take.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:47 PM (/k+l4)

27 Who says you have to have it? I'm just saying Medicare should be available for anyone who wants to pay the premiums and get the top flight service without paying 25% for administration fees and executive salaries. The best plan for the future is Medicare available to everyone as BASIC HEALTHCARE, with the option to buy private plans overtop for more specific coverages. But, if you decide not to invest in healthcare, then there shouldn't be any medical bankruptcy. Low cost Medicare for all would eliminate medical bankrupty, thereby saving hospitals HUGE boluses of money from lost income and lowering the cost of services.

No matter how much money we spend, we will never cure cancer. Period. We can only fight cancer.

My whole point was that many businesses don't see how you can have good business practices and still make money. Costco is the perfect example, they are 10 times smaller than Sam's Club, but actually MADE more last year - with higher pay and better benefits.

The government produces the military, the roads, safe transportation, safe jobs, safe drugs, best research in the world, and the best medical plan in the world.

Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:58 PM (7X7vQ)

28 I completely agree -- well, with one exception -- why should government run Medicare? Government is totally incompetent in running ANYTHING. Get government out of it, and it's a wonderful idea.

And the big reason I oppose government from providing basic healthcare to everyone is the same reason that McDonalds doesn't give away Big Macs -- as soon as they started to do it, everyone would want one. Demand would rise. Then McDonalds would run out of Big Macs. They'd be forced to ration them and there would be long waits in line. Those that could afford them, even those who were starving, would have to wait in line...just like everywhere socialized medicine provided by government is tried.

Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 11:02 PM (2IrwV)

29 Medicare spends 3% of its total costs on overhead, private insurance companies spend 25%. TWENTY-FIVE percent. That doesn't take into account advertising. THAT is why government should run the insurance industry.

Imagine a world where roads were privatized. You spend $400 a month for a driving "premium", then extra every time you leave the state. Extra if you drive an SUV. Extra if you drive a truck.

Along come the Democrats saying we can make the roads public. Republicans go bananas. Oh, if the Democrats make roads private the world will end. Businesses will go broke with the taxes!

It's all bull - don't believe it without reading it. The 3%/25% ratio should be enough for you to agree that the government doesn't waste money.
Socialized medicine is not what I am proposing

Posted by: Robert P at February 24, 2006 01:24 AM (V/N23)

30 If government runs it, it IS socialized -- because they cannot lose money, it's impossible. If government needs more money, they just take it.

If your numbers are correct, then Medicare also spends 50% on waste. There is no oversight. No one questions that Medicare is rampant with huge amounts of fraud and waste -- and no one cares.

And in NC, I wouldn't mind seeing roads privatized. The government here is utterly incapable of building roads that are useful (they'd rather build trolleys, museums, and professional sports stadiums), nor can they even spend the money they raise to maintain the roads (over $100 million diverted from gas taxes to the general fund). Yes, private roads would be a boon here.

Posted by: Ogre at February 24, 2006 10:48 AM (CyQ4M)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MORE Education Spending

Despite the FACT that money does not equal education, the Democrat governor of North Carolina continues to raise taxes and spend MORE on education.

Easley (governor, Democrat) said he will only sign the budget if MORE is spent on education. How much more? It doesn't appear to matter, as long as it is indeed MORE.

His "big" accomplishments "for education" are MORE spending in his personal "More at four" program -- which puts 4-year olds in schools, with ZERO measurable gain in education for any participants; and a reduction in class size -- again with ZERO evidence that there are any gains in actual education.

So, the Democrat position is very clear in North Carolina, without any doubt or exception. If you vote for and support Democrats, you are supporting raising taxes and increasing spending on education without ANY evidence AT ALL that there is actually any educating being done with the money.

That is the Democrat position. So, do you feel good voting for Democrats in North Carolina?

Posted by: Ogre at 10:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0698 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0496 seconds, 124 records returned.
Page size 97 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.