Ogre's Politics & Views
January 16, 2006
Charlotte Observer Hates Free Speech
You might think that a newspaper would be on the front lines of supporting the clear right to freedom of speech in North Carolina. If you did, you would be wrong. The Charlotte Observer last week clearly outlined their position: free speech is bad.
lawmakers ... should toughen it [the law] by prohibiting all gifts and solicitations. They should prohibit registered lobbyists from making political contributions and raising cash to help fund election campaigns, and make it illegal to for politicians to pocket campaign contributions for personal use.
That's right, the Charlotte Observer says that YOU should not be able to give any money to lawmakers for any reason. You should not be able to give money to help someone with an election. And if somehow a legislator manages to get some money for an election, they should not be able to spend it without asking the Observer for permission first.
So, why the hatred for freedom? Well, that's the Observer's position. One of the workings of communism is that there is a class of people that are "above" the rest of the people -- there to tell everyone else what to do because they won't do it themselves. That's the position that the Observer takes. Remember that, when you read a Knight-Ridder paper -- they honestly believe they know better than you, and you should not have freedom of any kind.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
UH, who says I read ANY news paper? (or watch "network news" for that matter).
Posted by: Smokey at January 16, 2006 10:22 PM (K7uqT)
2
That makes you smarter than the average bear!
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Although I won't (and can't) debate that the paper is pobably leftist I think the suggestion is that 'registered lobbyists' shouldn't be able to give gifts and solicitations (whatever that means) to politicians. Which I have to say, I whole heartedly agree with. Lobbyists (special interests) are one of the most dangerous groups around. When the average citizen gives a donation to a politician it is generally because you believe in them and their platform. When lobbyists donate it is to influence them to do their bidding which usually conflicts the politicians constituents. For if the people really wanted what the lobbyists wanted then there would be no need for the gifts (bribes?)
Posted by: Johnny Uno at January 19, 2006 05:22 PM (ovA1+)
4
I don't see any problem with lobbyists at all. It's the politicians that are corrupt -- and the absolutely BEST way to fix this is to reduce government!
If they don't have anything to "sell" to the lobbyists, there would be no lobbyists to "buy!"
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:43 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lawmakers want Cash
Once again, to illustrate the total uselessness and incompetency of North Carolina Democrat Party-led government:
State lawmakers this week demanded Gov. Mike Easley give more money to energy assistance programs, and a spokeswoman for Easley said the governor would work with them.
So, why do they need more money for the energy programs? Because governor Easley and
Jim Black raised taxes on all forms of energy January 1, in the middle of the winter.
So the government needs more money to give away to it's subjects so those subjects can pay more taxes to the government, who doesn't have enough money to give to the peons to give to the government.
Welcome to the U.S.A. today.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:52 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
January 15, 2006
U.S.S. Clinton
USS William Jefferson Clinton CVSU-812
This is the first ship of its kind in the U. S. Navy designed to reflect the Clinton legacy of budget cuts. Constructed from recycled aluminum, the vessel is completely solar powered. While its speed is classified, it is rumored to be above .5 knots. Eventhough the carrier cannot launch or recover aircraft, it does present a menacing appearance.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:07 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Buwaaahahahh... that's classic...
I wonder how hard the thing blows...
Saw ya on the Wall Of Blogs at the BloggingMan 2007 site! Glad to have you on board!!
You planning on attending?
I'll buy ya a beer...
Keep up the good work Ogre!
Posted by: Peakah at January 16, 2006 02:24 AM (LxGm9)
2
Oh, I wish I could! I'm way out on the east coast -- too far for me.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:29 AM (+Gl1m)
3
Must have been designed as environmentally friendly by AL Gore. He invented envrionmentally friendly design, you know.
Posted by: PVB at January 16, 2006 04:54 PM (Ct8/l)
4
I heard he invented something...
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 05:12 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Just Wondering...
When Pat Robertson said that
Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America,"
he was roundly attacked and
told he was offensive by everyone from the President's Press Secretary to every media outlet on the planet until
had to apologize --
Are people angry at him for suggesting that Sharon was wrong for giving away land or because he suggested that God might actually punish people who do wrong?
And yet when actual government officials in Saudia Arabia, when speaking of 345 people killed, say things like
This was fate destined by God
and
it cannot stop what God has preordained. It is impossible;
that no one says a word at all?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
His insanity is disconcerting to rational folk. He should stick to helping the lower middle class find Jaezus and feel better about their diminishing plight. Either that, or get whisked away to God with his 100 thousand raptors.
Even conservatives are calling him a kook. His time has come and gone.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 15, 2006 03:08 PM (NBy2A)
2
Disclaimer: I am NO fan of Rev. Robertson.
Christians are held to a higher standard - it's that simple.
It doesn't bother me that we're not more critical of the Saudis. It would freak people out to find out the finer points of Wahhbism which is the controlling influence over Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 04:54 PM (XK1Nc)
3
I'm just wondering what is was most about that statement that bothered people. Is it that people are offended that God might actually punish people on Earth, or that Robertson said that Sharon was being punished.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:28 PM (+Gl1m)
4
And good point, Justin.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:28 PM (+Gl1m)
5
But don't you see, Ogre, we Christians are supposed to let anyone spit on us, call us names, NEVER are we to suggest that ANYONE could be punished for anything, and we are not to question another religion or tell anyone about ours.
As for your question on Saudi Arabia, don't forget that they are part of the "religion of peace" and therefore are not questioned on anything. Wouldn't it be interesting what pelosi, boxer, feinstein and clinton would have to say should if they had to live over there?
Posted by: Smokey at January 15, 2006 08:09 PM (K7uqT)
6
So Smokey, is the offensiveness the idea that God might actually punish people who oppose him on earth, then?
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 08:10 PM (+Gl1m)
7
"Is it that people are offended that God might actually punish people on Earth,..."
I'd say a definite yes on that. Robertson takes more of an Old Testament view toward God which most people want to forget. According to the OT, when Israel first approached the land God set aside for them, 12 spies were sent in to check it out. 10 said forget it, we'll never beat those Canaanites. 2 said go for it. Because of their negativity, Israel wandered 40 years in the desert until the "negative" generation died off. The Book of Judges is all about the years Israel "forgot" about God, was punished, remembered, forgot again, got punished again, etc. etc.
We Christians prefer the "gentle Jesus meek and mild" image, forgetting we should read/learn from the WHOLE of scripture.
Naturally people hate the idea of being punished for what they do "wrong." It's not fair, for some reason. That's why so many try to get our courts to sanction what they know (in their secret hearts) is just plain wrong.
Posted by: harrison at January 15, 2006 08:47 PM (rRtlD)
8
I tend to agree with you, Harrison -- people are offended by even the IDEA that God might punish people for wrongdoing today.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 09:23 PM (+Gl1m)
9
I think Pat's statement is troubling also in that it limits God. Pat says that Sharon was "dividing God's land" well all land is God's land. If you believe that God wants the Jews to have all of historical Israel, right now, by taking it by military force from the Palestinians that it is still 'the Jew’s land'.
Pat's statement is sort of comes out God = Zionists. Which really bothers me. It also bothers me that he feels willing to say what God’s will is. If Pat Robertson knows what God’s will is than he is a prophet and he should not have apologized. But because he did apologize we know that was just his own opinion and that makes him a false prophet and an embarrassment to Christianity.
Pat Robertson is the left’s favorite Christian leader. The fact that he makes statements similar to these coming from Iran makes me sick at heart.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:04 AM (SlODe)
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:42 AM (+Gl1m)
11
The reason for all the venom is twofold.
1) Pat Robertson counts around here. Who cares what some Saudi cleric says? Probably didn't make the news.
2) We're Christians. We're supposed to be above vengeful thoughts. Turn the other cheek, remember?
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 16, 2006 11:52 PM (ZINSp)
12
Vengeful thoughts? But does that mean that God cannot take his vengence on anyone on Earth today?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:39 AM (+Gl1m)
13
All land may belong to God, Mindflame, but accordin' to Scripture, He set Israel apart as His Special Place. He did all sorts of not-nice things to the Israelites who defiled/betrayed it.
Small Town--if Christians are always supposed to turn the other cheek, then what the heck was Jesus doin' in the Temple tossin' around those moneylenders?
D'ya'll realize the Bible (OT/NT combined) has more references to God's Wrath than to God's Love? Just askin'.
Posted by: Harrison at January 17, 2006 01:25 AM (EjqGT)
14
And that's what bothers people SO much, Harrison, I think.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 10:59 AM (+Gl1m)
15
Harrison,
Jesus was punishing people who defiled the temple not seeking to benefit Himself in anyway. When He personally was attacked He did not resist evil. If you were going after people who misuse the Church and God's word for personal gain you will not hear a peep from me. (That was not what Pat Roberson was doing)
We are supposed to turn the other cheek, the wrath belongs to God. If you really want to hurt someone then be meek and loving as they mistreat you. You will heap burning coals on their head. Jesus told us we don't have a right to vengeance.
Who is to say what God's will was in this matter? Don't you remember how the 'friends' of Job judged him for his troubles saying he must have sinned against God to have these troubles. They were wrong to do that and Pat Robertson is wrong to accuse Ariel unless God Himself told him to do so. I think Ariel is suffering from being old and overweight, who is to say that God did not delay the sickness as opposed to cause it. In general Christ makes it clear it is not our place to condemn or find cause for the misfortunes of others. (Luke 13:1-9)
In the Old Testament God regarded the lives of the peoples who lived in Palestine. He made His people wait in Egypt until the peoples had become sinful enough to disserve being conquered by Israel. Israel was given the land not because they were good but the people their were evil. Also when the Israelites tried to go and conquered without the strength of the Lord they failed. Right now Israel is a secular nation, that practices irreligion, abortion and all the evils for which the destroyed the Canaanites, Amorites and others so many thousands of years ago. The Lord did not tell Israel that this was the time to take the land and Israel has rejected God and become a secular nation. I don’t see how anyone could say that it is God’s word for Israel to wipe out these people, many of whom are pious Christians.
It is even more bizarre to say that God is punishing a fat old man with a heart attack when all Ariel Sharon was doing was making definable borders for the Palestinian ghettos. Israel could kill all the Palestinians, or they could give them citizenship, but if they do neither these people have to be somewhere. That somewhere is what Sharon was building a wall around. There is not religion in this is just hatred and a feeling of entitlement. Both the militant Islamic followers andthe Zionist are more interested in their racist land grabs than they are in God. Well God will not be reduced to a political tool.
Pat Robertson has dishonored the Christian community (as Ray Nagin also has) and quite simple sounds like a Ayatollah.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 05:20 PM (SlODe)
16
So, in your opinion, Mindflame -- and I'm not asking you to pass judgement or condemn anyone here on Earth -- does God currently punish people? And I mean today, here on Earth. Is God's wrath felt today?
If so, how would we know it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:33 PM (/k+l4)
17
I think feeling God's wrath here on Earth is one of the best things that can happen to a person. If you respond to it well maybe you wont feel God's wrath for all of eternity. That kind of punishment is a blessing and a sign of God's special favor. (Rev. 3:19)
God ,of course, could punish today in the physical world, I think he does. But we are warned not to look back on bad things that happen to people and say "That was God's judgment for X". The book of Job warns against this, the Psalms warn against it and Luke 13, warns against it. We don't understand God's motives and we don't know the secret details of peoples lives. Even if we knew that Ariel Sharon was suffering from the wrath of God (rather than the natural result of being old and fat) then it would be wrong to think that we could read the mind of God enough to say why. There are some Ayatollahs who believe that God is punishing Sharon for not pulling out of more terrorizes.
Of course we have had prophets, real ones, who have said "If you don't stop doing X, than Y will happen."
That is pretty different from what Pat Roberson, Ray Nagin, and the Ayatollahs have been doing. Because they all came along after things have happened and said that they happened because people did not do as they say.
The short answer, Yes, Ogre, I think that God does from time to time show his wrath on Earth but I think it is impossible (and blasphemous) to interpret that wrath if we are not personally the target or directly informed by God about it.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 10:32 PM (SlODe)
18
And I tend to agree with you. I think he does show his wrath. And I certainly agree that our tiny minds will never fully comprehend all that he does.
I just wonder if we shall see prophets in our lifetime that will be able to see His works directly.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 11:04 PM (+Gl1m)
19
Thats kind of a weak comparison. The media cant really be expected to track down every random, dumb statement from random officials of other countries. And of course, the reason it got play here and in Israel, is because Pat Robertson has long been a political powerhouse for the evangelical base of the GOP. The Saudi Officials you mention, are not. Well, actually, you could argue they are also, but not in a good way.
I thought Robertson's statement was incredibly inappropriate. If you are a family member of Sharon, do you want to hear that crap? How about some good, christian support for a family in their time of need. And Robertson's statement seemed politically expedient- he saw an opportunity to use Sharon's stroke to pimp his own views on the West Bank. Conservatives and the White House were right to condemn it.
If Clinton or Jesse Jackson or anyone else had said it, it would have gotten the same coverage and I would have claimed that it was inappropriate and rather selfish.
Posted by: Stacy at January 17, 2006 11:24 PM (4RpL0)
20
And somebody questioned how feinstein and hillary "would like it" if they had to live over in Saudi Arabia- what does that have to do with anything? If you want to find someone who spends more time with the Royal House of Saud than almost anyone in politics, it's the Bush family, so I am not sure what your point is, other than the usual "I hate the dems so I'll make this factually-irrelevant
statement that makes no sense."
Saudi Arabia is a terrorism apologist who had more of a hand in 9/11 than any other country. They are anti-west and anti-semitic but you wont see the Bushies doing much or saying much about it. They're pals. And they protect the Saudis every chance they get.
So, I think your outrage is misplaced.
Posted by: stacy at January 17, 2006 11:30 PM (4RpL0)
21
I think you're incorrect in saying that if Clinton or another Democrat had said it that the treatment from the press would be the same. I present Mayor Nagin as a prime, current example.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:35 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 14, 2006
Kyoto Treaty is Dead
Supporters of the Kyoto treaty, give up. When NPR runs a segment that shows that Kyoto is as dumb as everyone else knows it is, it's time to give it up.
The Ugly American has a
post with all the details. It seems that scientists just now discovered that plants produce methane. And one of the requirements of the Kyoto treaty is to reduce your country's methane levels.
So, loony environmentalists, in order to effectively comply with Kyoto, each country needs to raze their leafy plants and trees. Nice.
Can you say, "NATURAL PROCESSES?"
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:04 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In the last chapter of "Slander", Ann Coulter said the left was clinging to charges that man causes "global warming" because it was the only issue in which it would take Republicans a thousand years to prove them wrong.
Well, it looks like the schedule's been moved up, LOL.
I guess now they'll have to find a way to blame greenhouse gas production by trees on Bush.
Posted by: Seth at January 15, 2006 05:36 AM (eAUyf)
2
I remember just a few years ago, it was all blamed on cow farts -- so in order to stop global warming we had to stop eating beef. Yeah, that one got them real far, too.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:02 PM (+Gl1m)
3
There could be man made parts to global warming, however, from alot of reading I have been doing into this subject, they may be offsetting the potential for another mini ice age, such as the Earth had between the 1400's and 1800's. My opinion has changed from believing that it is happening to "I'm not sure." Too much conflicting evidence. The leftoids need to stop with the hyperinflated rhetoric and concentrate on true science.
Anyhow, cow farts. Didn't Pelosi author that study?
Posted by: William Teach at January 15, 2006 02:17 PM (V5vwb)
4
No, Pelosi's study was cow patties...
And yes, there's SO much conflicting evidence, I don't think we'll ever be able to determine the solution. For example, when clearcutting was going on at a huge rate in central and south America, the global amount of evil ozone was reduced -- so should we clear-cut all trees to save the ozone layer?
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:33 PM (+Gl1m)
5
I read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear" over Christmas, and started doing more research. You remember that I used to believe that it was happening. Evidence changes that.
I think that one of the problems we see is that the global warming believers rely on computer models, rather then hard scientific research. They also miss the point that the Earth is always in flux. Plates move, volcano's go off, ice melts, etc. The Sun puts out more radiation or less. It could be a good year for plankton or a bad year, meaning more CO2 to O2 or less conversion.
The true believers do not want to hear anything to the opposite, or that even says "we do not really know." If man is creating issues, I would like to know. Flourocarbons were bad. That was proven. What is happening with CO2, methane, etc, is unknown. But it cannot be discussed with the True Believers, just like one cannot discuss politics with Surrender Monkeys rationally. Which is a shame.
Posted by: William Teach at January 15, 2006 03:27 PM (V5vwb)
6
Very true that evidence changes things. After reading that book, all I have to say is "Hockey Stick Graph."
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:29 PM (+Gl1m)
7
why dont you all stop talking about cow farts and who studied them or not - get off your computers and DO something about it? instead of talking?? When has simple discussing who is right or wrong ever done anything?
Hitler was wrong about what he did - but he didnt sit around and talk he did something!
need i go on?
Posted by: roxy at June 20, 2006 12:37 PM (BWVLv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Truth about Government Regulation
In case you're wondering who in the world supports all those moronic endless pages of government regulation, wonder no more. A varied group in New Hampshire showed up to a hearing to support stupid regulations.
So, who showed up to claim that barbers should have 1,500 hours of training before you're ALLOWED to cut someone else's hair? Why barbers, that's who.
Who showed up to demand that manicurists be required to have 300 hours of training before being permitted by the all-powerful state to clip someone's fingernails? Why the manicurists, that's who.
Do you see the pattern? Government regulations are used as a hammer to restrict competition. They are used by unions and others in the businesses to make it more difficult for other people to compete with them -- and that's completely and totally WRONG.
In this case, some
Free State people tried to get the law to be more freedom-friendly. One person was actually arrested and sent to jail for cutting someone else's fingernails without a state license.
They tried to get the law fixed, but they were shouted down by people who hate freedom and competition. It's capitalism to attempt to reduce your competition so you can profit. It's totalitarianism to use the government to do it.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:09 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm a nurse.
I've seen at least four people die - DIE - from a pedicure.
That's because they were diabetics with poor circulation. You nick one of their toes in the wrong place, and it's gangrene city.
I dunno - maybe you don't need 200 hours training to be a barber or a manicurist.
But maybe you do. I would have a look into what that 200 hours is spent learning before making a judgement.
Posted by: The Small Town hick at January 14, 2006 11:46 PM (RmWaw)
2
Not me. I choose freedom over safety.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 12:57 AM (+Gl1m)
3
I would choose not to go to someone who does not have a certification.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:08 AM (SlODe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What is a Right?
Blogless Steve, when commenting on my recent post about the morons scum-suckers socialists trying to crush Wal-Mart, when asked why he didn't like freedom, said:
the freedom to not be able to afford proper medical care? the freedom to have to run to emergency care even for small issues because of an inability to afford a physician?
Contagion tried to give a simple answer with
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privilege.
Steve didn't get it.
Folks, something cannot be a right if it requires something from someone else. In order for you to have medical care, SOMEONE ELSE must provide it for you. Someone else's labor MUST be used. That's taking. When government forces it upon someone else, that's the same as stealing.
Rights are things YOU have. Rights are things YOU can do. I have the right to freedom of speech -- and that requires nothing, not even listening, from anyone else. I have the right of freedom of assembly. You do not have to provide me a place to assemble -- you need do nothing for me to have and exercise that right.
I have a right to life -- it requires you to do nothing for me to be alive.
When people try claiming things as housing and medical care as "rights," it shows that they have no concept of rights. If something that requires someone else is a "right," then rights are determined by government, exercised only by force, and quite literally anything can be determined to be a right.
Remember folks, government CANNOT grant rights. Rights are granted by a power much higher than government will ever be. Government is only capable of taking AWAY rights -- and that's almost never for good.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:18 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I do not think health insurance is a right. I do think that since companies eliminate compettition through "consolidation" that in fact they become monopolists. In the financial world we call it "pricing power". If we are increasing pricing power we are in fact eliminating compettition. This works both on the sales and cost of goods sold side of the equation.
The way I perceive this "battle" is an attempt to limit pricing power on the cost of goods sold (employment wages) position.
I am a free market proponent and have to say that I am leaning toward the legislative solution in order to protect "compettition".
Posted by: David at January 14, 2006 02:53 PM (Jdbsc)
2
How does punishing a private company and making goods more expensive for EVERYONE increase competition?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:58 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Through consolidation Walmart and other national retailers have created monopolies. We take on monopolies continuously because increased compettition results in lower prices. The idea that today's products cost less from the mega retailers does not take into consideration price/quality ratios. Two simple examples: the Tshirt you bought in 1970 would last for 100 washings and cost 5$ the same Tshirt today last for 10 washings and cost 3$.
Housing is another example, since 1964 the HB industry is 25% less productive, that means the same house, using relative dollars cost 25% more.
Increased compettition always results in lower prices, contraction of compettition results in higher prices.
Our perception is that the products at Walmart or Target cost less, I propose that they actually increase cost by reducing quality.
Posted by: David at January 14, 2006 03:40 PM (Jdbsc)
4
I'm curious. To the people that think Health Insurance should be a privilege, who should pay for it? or are we just not going to pay the doctors, hospitals, staff and labs?
If those of us that worked hard to get a good paying job are expected to pay extra so Joe and Jane Poorhouse have insurance, why should I work hard to make more money and try to better my life if I'm going to be punished for it?
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 07:54 PM (e8b4J)
5
And in a free market, David, you don't have to buy the lower quality item if you don't want it!
If Wal-Mart is a monopoly, then break them up -- don't punish them financially.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:04 PM (+Gl1m)
6
Actually, Wal-Mart DOES have excellent health coverage, you just have to be *full time* to get it...
What a lot of folks don't understand is this, Wally World goes thru a lot of *Temp* help, not from *temp* services but from folks that need a job, ANY job, and they need it now, and have no intention of staying to begin with...
My wife is in *upper middle management* for a company that is contracted to Wal-Mart and we have a lot of serious dealings with Wal-Mart directly and thru some friends that are both former *upper* management with Wal-Mart...
The benefits are unsurpassed, but like anywhere else, you have to EARN them, and a lot of folks want instant gratification...
Ogre, I found you thru GM's blog, he's a great guy and on my blog roll, I came in to see your place, saw THIS and just had to post... Take care...
Fred
Posted by: TexasFred at January 14, 2006 11:17 PM (qX3iX)
7
Thanks very much for stopping by, TexasFred! Any friend of GM is a friend of mine and quite welcome here!
And yes, people refuse to admit that employees of WalMart actually WANT to work there. No one is forced at gunpoint to work for WalMart! When one opens up, there's a HUGE line of people wanting to work there -- part time OR full time.
I know a person who's an employee there. They do occasionally complain about the hours. I simply tell them, "Why don't you find another job?"
The answer? "Oh, that's too much work, I don't want to do that."
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:58 AM (+Gl1m)
8
Interesting that I've been hearing about monopolies, decreased competition, and consolidation for decades but somehow we have more companies every year.
It reminds me of the folks worrying about how much Rupert Murdoch owns of the media (2%), and hankering for the good old days of competition when there were three networks, a similar handful of movie studios or news magazines, and a couple of dominant newspapers.
David, what you see is real, it's just not the whole story.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 15, 2006 04:06 AM (bfKow)
9
But it's just not fair, you see, AVI. They have MORE than I do, so I want some of it...at least that's the primary motivation that I observe from the anti-WalMart crowd.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:00 PM (+Gl1m)
10
Yep, I have a right to healthcare, no matter who pays for it. And they better fix me up good, because if they don't, I have a right to sue the pants off them. That'll show 'em.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 02:17 PM (YudAC)
11
And you certainly have the right to sue them so you don't have to work!
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:34 PM (+Gl1m)
12
I pray you get cancer and have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on medical bills. I hope it is painful, too. I hope you have a thousand surgeries and your life is ruined because of your medical bills. Then maybe you think differently.
And I am not even one of those "liberals" you call scum everyday.
Posted by: Robin Hood at January 15, 2006 10:29 PM (3Xdjc)
13
Wow. I cannot imagine how horrible your life is, filled with such utter hatred and evil.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 10:38 PM (+Gl1m)
14
And no, most liberals I know are just confused and misguided, not filled with utter hatred (although there are many on the left who are filled with such hatred).
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
15
Oh, c'mon, Ogre, that guy just 'outed himself' as just like all the rest of the people you call scum every day. C'mon. You know you want to say it.
Liberal scum!
ah that made me feel so much better...you liberal scum. Gosh I said it again! That guy was liberal scum! bwhahahaha
And the curse he put on you--I hope he was stirring his cauldron full of bats wings and frogs eyes when he was saying it to you.
Liberal scum...
Posted by: Cao at January 16, 2006 01:59 AM (RyucI)
16
I just can't help but feel sorry for someone who is really filled with so much hatred in their life. It's really, really, sad.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:08 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Blow to Freedom
Good Hope Hospital's appeal has been denied by North Carolina's appellate court. It was a split decision, so the case will go to the state supreme court automatically, but the hospital is just running out of time.
You see, Good Hope Hospital, 3 years ago, decided they wanted to make some changes. The hospital was a little run down with some old equipment -- the building is 93 years old. So they wanted to renovate and build a larger building.
The state said No. The state decided that they didn't want the hospital to update their equipment because the hospital "hadn't shown need."
In 2004, a law judge (whose decision is not binding on the state) ruled in favor of the hospital. The state ignored him and ruled against the hospital. They appealed to the appeals court that just denied them.
Oh, and at the same time, the federal government has warned the hospital that if they do not upgrade and update their equipment, they will not be able to provide any services for Medicare or Medicaid patients -- and if the supreme court does not hear the case very soon, the hospital will go bankrupt -- which is apparently the goal of the state.
So yes, the federal government says that the hospital's facilities are outdated -- so outdated as to be unsafe. But the state says the hospital hasn't shown proper "need" to renovate and expand.
What a crock. This is just another example of the total pile of crap that appears when government gets involved in something. The state shouldn't have ANY say in who renovates their own property. The feds shouldn't be paying billions for health care. It's all wrong.
Anyone know where I can find a free country?
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Could it be that there was a nearby competitor to Good Hope that didn't want them to expand?
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 16, 2006 02:49 AM (Le59Z)
2
Could be a nearby competitor with more legislative and bureaucratic donations...
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:54 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 13, 2006
mmMMmm...Chicken
This evening, I'm going to Kentucky Fried Chicken to buy a big bucket of chicken. I don't usually get chicken from KFC -- in the south, Bojangles usually does much better. But all the morons bringing KFC to my attention has just made me hungry. I suggest you help KFC and go buy a bucket today.
Maybe we should have a blogospheric-wide "Buy a KFC Bucket" day...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:09 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh yes... I think it is time I have some KFC. What bozos...
Posted by: vw bug at January 13, 2006 10:07 PM (4oOot)
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 10:41 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Wow, on a fluke we wen tto KFC for lunch today. I love their honey BBQ wings. Now I'm really glad I did. I never thought Pam Anderson was attractive, now she just seems like an idiot on top of it. Hey, she is blonde!
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:37 AM (e8b4J)
4
I had a whole bucket of wings today.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:30 AM (+Gl1m)
5
Wish they still served that Rotisserie Gold they had a few years back.
Posted by: Seth at January 14, 2006 02:48 PM (ACq/K)
6
Pam Anderson should be sued for continued cruelty to her boobs. If chickens were subjected to all the constant medical attention her boobs get PETA would have a case for animal cruelty.
I think we should start a "Free Pam's Boobs" campaign.
Everybody chant with me: Free Pams Boobs Free Pams Boobs
Posted by: kender at January 14, 2006 04:59 PM (k5SaN)
7
Free Boobs! Free Boobs!
What?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
8
I agree, KFC is a great American company with a delicious product. In addition, the endorsement from PETA of KFC already brings me by there about every couple of weeks or so.
Posted by: Kevin at January 15, 2006 04:20 AM (0ozWZ)
9
Oh and I had a 2 piece original white meal today there.
Posted by: Kevin at January 15, 2006 04:20 AM (0ozWZ)
10
I have absolutely GOT to plan a day and spread it throughout the blogosphere...
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:02 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Impaler for Governor?
Oh boy. The President Bush haters have a new champion. Jonathon Sharkey wants to become president and violently murder President Bush. Oh, but first he wants to be the governor of Minnesota so he can practice brutally murdering criminals in public.
His socialist policies on taxation (tax the rich, give to the poor, no refund checks) and health care (pay more if you earn more) should make him popular in that state. The ACLU might also like his stance on religion ("I despise and hate the Christian God the Father. He is my enemy.") and Democrats are sure to love his giveaways ("helping Minnesota farmers with state grants and tax-breaks, so they can keep their farms, and make a significant profit.").
Well, I do try and make Friday posts more entertaining than the rest of the week...
Posted by: Ogre at
07:03 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I should have drank more before reading that... It still pissed me off.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:38 AM (e8b4J)
2
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll get about 2 votes.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:32 AM (+Gl1m)
3
His policies seem pretty sound. If I was a minnesotten I probably would vote for him.
Posted by: Lucy at January 15, 2006 10:22 AM (c1U4q)
4
You've got plenty of time to move there, Lucy, before the election!
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:03 PM (+Gl1m)
5
Gee, it kind of makes you miss Jesse Ventura.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 16, 2006 02:53 AM (Le59Z)
6
At least he was entertaining.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:54 AM (+Gl1m)
7
Well, he does support capital punishment.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:17 AM (SlODe)
8
I never said he was all bad -- just a couple beers short of a six-pack.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
If you would like to read a stunning, accurate, detailed, well-done tribute to the current sitting senior senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, please be sure to head on over to Social Sense. Mustang has an excellent tribute to the man who has been in the U.S. Senate for 30 years.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:08 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Government Employment
Government continues to grow, no matter what you might see or hear. It is way beyond control and likely cannot be stopped. And I can back up those statements with hard numbers.
Did you know the average salary of a government worker is $36 per hour, while the poor slob that actually works for a living in the private sector's average is only $24 per hour?
Can someone please explain to me why the number of government employees in education has increased by 22% over the last 10 years (to over 8.5 million), but the actual population of schools has only increased by 9%? And yet, the students with "high school diplomas" are dumber than ever?
And does anyone else see a problem with the idea that the number of people receiving welfare benefits has fallen 66% since 1994, but the number of government employees to administer that system has INCREASED?
(Numbers from
The Cato Institute).
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Jealous Socialists Hate Wal-Mart
Do why do people hate Wal-Mart so much? I think it's primarily because of their success -- everyone that hates them is jealous that one company should do so good. Well, to those people, I say, "Screw you."
In MD, the legislature just overrode a veto by the governor and passed a new law that requires large companies (ONLY Wal-Mart in MD) to set aside 8% of their payroll costs to buy insurance for workers. I'm not sure why the legislature of Maryland thinks they have the right to do that, but I'm not an expert on the MD Constitution. Apparently there's a clause in there that says laws can be passed to punish businesses.
Now, if I were Wal-Mart, with all the assets they have, I'd do one of two things right away -- only in Maryland:
1. Cut all employees salaries by exactly 8%. The legislature wants to force them to pay 8% from the salaries? Take it from the employees -- the people with the power to get the morons out of the legislature.
Or
2. Close all Wal-Marts in MD indefinitely. Just shut all the doors, all at once, all of a sudden -- no warning at all. Then see if any people complain to their alleged representatives in the legislature.
(H/T to
Michelle Malkin).
Posted by: Ogre at
02:51 PM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Big Business vs Small Business.
Democrats are for Small Business, Republicans are for Big Business.
No big mystery.
Personally I do not think Big Business needs help, but as long as you do...go for it!
I'm more of a David than a Goliath.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 13, 2006 03:55 PM (ELJo9)
2
This isn't about helping big business, it's about severely punishing those who succeed because of jealously.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 03:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
I would shut it down. Send a press release stating that other companies are suddenly being given an unfair business advantage and that the extortion of the legistlature will not be tolerated.
Start liquidating merchandise by having it hauled out of the state and sold elswhere, even if it was at a loss.
Then watch the local economies go nuts when there is a lack of items and the true free market takes over and people are paying thrice the price.
Posted by: kender at January 13, 2006 05:50 PM (K27Zg)
4
Also, I'm not sure how you see that Democrats support small business. Democrats are huge union supporters -- and unions crush small businesses. Democrats are big on government regulation -- which not only destroys small business, but also reduces competition, helping big business. Democrats love enormous amounts of government spending -- and government contracts usually support and strengthen big business. I don't actually see any support for small businesses by Democrats at all.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 08:06 PM (/k+l4)
5
Ogre, by attacking small business via red-tape and supporting big business via reducing competition the Dems also tell all the "little guys" that they "are for the little guy." I wonder if all the little guys are aware that they aren't being kissed while they get screwed by the Dems?
Posted by: GM Roper at January 13, 2006 10:41 PM (RBjnG)
6
I would think stores like Wal Mart would close up; after all the motto of their business is to keep prices low...how can they do this when the socialists come up with stupid laws like this?
If I were the big whig at Walmart I would close shop in MD...then we'de see 17000 people umemployed and needing help. Sheesh.
Posted by: Raven at January 13, 2006 11:52 PM (8xpPC)
7
Anonymous,
Two things are wrong with your statement.
1. Democrats aren't for any business (big or small) unless it's one that offeres laborers sweat equity.
2. The reason people go into business is to make money. Why start a business if you don't want it to grow and maybe, someday, become a big business?
Posted by: LASunsett at January 14, 2006 12:16 AM (G/2V5)
8
Actually I hate Wal-mart. I won't shop there, call me a socialist if you want, but I don't like them at all.
This, however, is bullshit. Health Insurance is a priveledge not a right.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:53 AM (e8b4J)
9
Mr. Ogre -- I find this whole exercise intriguing. By simply mentioning Wal-Mart, I am participating in good ol' free word-of-mouth advertizing for them...even if it is negative, since folks like you will come along, defend them, and make yourself into a loyal customer of their chintz. Not much to brag about, really. And note...most of the institutions youze guys defend are big business, not small business; big religion, not small religion; big sports, not small sports; big cars, not small cars. In other words...quantity, not quality.
Small business thrived under Clinton, and has suffered under Bush. Even some big businesses are beginning to suffer under Bush. The economy rises because they know now they can chunk pensions. Not all small businesses want to become big businesses. Sustainability and, again, quality, being prized over growth.
Republicans are the brave defenders of the rich and big. Democrats are the brave defenders of the poor and small. Including business. Not exclusively, and not always...just in general.
Wal-Mart doesn't need your defense. They are fair game.
Oops...gotta unplug. My birthday storm approacheth!
Peace
Dave
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 14, 2006 01:29 AM (dre4x)
10
I'm not sure you answered the question. I gave examples where Democrats support big business at the expense of small business. And no one here was actually supporing Wal-Mart -- one person even said they HATE Wal-Mart and don't shop there, but this is still WRONG.
Government telling private business what they can do with their profits is WRONG -- I don't care if it's Microsoft or a Lemonade stand.
Democrats, as I have pointed out, are NOWHERE NEAR defenders of the little guy. They do, however, operate as you did in your response -- you just claim they're for the little guy, and therefore it must be true, right?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:29 AM (+Gl1m)
11
government, rather than forcing a horrible company like walmart to provide health benefits, should be finding a way to provide health care for all americans. walmart is a horrible corporation for numerous reasons, among which one can count its terrible treatment of employees. the issue here, however, highlights the need for a true national health care program.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 02:51 AM (2MgCT)
12
Gah!
That's even WORSE, Steve! What's wrong with FREEDOM?????
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 03:01 AM (+Gl1m)
13
It is truly a sad state of affairs when government assumes control of private business. Oh, what the hell am I saying...government does everything else so very well.
Posted by: GBlagg at January 14, 2006 04:09 AM (vAHKC)
14
the freedom to not be able to afford proper medical care? the freedom to have to run to emergency care even for small issues because of an inability to afford a physician?
what freedom are you talking about?
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 04:55 AM (2MgCT)
15
People please. I'm going to make this simple.
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege.
Get over it, I don't even want to think what my cost of business would be with all the regulations the damn dems want. Everytime a government regulation is passed on health insurance, the cost of said insurance raises.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 05:14 AM (e8b4J)
16
"Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege. "
we should make hospital visits and police protection PRIVILEGES.
the same way a dictionary and education seem to have been PRIVILEGES contagion didn't get hah.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 06:18 AM (2MgCT)
17
Steve -- something cannot be a right if it requires taking something from someone else.
I'll explain more here:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/151554.php
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:18 PM (+Gl1m)
18
anonymoses said : "big religion, not small religion". so is this person advocating we all join a cult? Just wondering.
BTW, I hate walmart, but not because of their business practices. I don't like most of their merchandise, (mostly crap) BUT I simply despise the gutter dwelling scum that shop their out of necessity. I am in L.A., and the class of people we get in the walmarts here are scary....depending on area it is either ghetto, barrio or trailer trash.
I simply choose NOT to shop there and deal with the people that frequent that store. Same reason I will pay more for groceries and other goods. I choose to pay more to avoid dealing with people I would rather not associate with or be around.
*disclaimer for braindead readers of this comment section* Yes, I am being elitist...it is my right as an American, and if you don't like it too bad.
Posted by: kender at January 14, 2006 06:11 PM (k5SaN)
19
Oh yeah, the quality of stuff there really stinks, too. It's less expensive because it's cheap!
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:40 PM (+Gl1m)
20
I share Kender's elitism. I know from experience that there is little to no commonality with the Wal-Mart class, and have to shield my eyes on those rare occasions I make a purchase there. Like Steven Wright, I have a fear of widths, and the corpulence of shoppers there is legion, massive and mechanical.
My preference is to shop locally, and it doesn't much matter if the owner is a Democrat or a Republican.
I'm too lazy this morning to provide proof of Democrats supporting small business. Prehaps you should go to Boston, San Francisco, Manhattan or other groovy places and note the thousands of democratic-owned small businesses for yourself. Or recall the pullulation of small businesses under Clinton's watch.
Sure, some big businesses are run by Democrats. Berkshire-Hathaway, Bank of America, Ben and Jerry's, etc. And some small businesses are run by Republicans. But small businesses haven't been growing and thriving under Bush like they thrived under Clinton. I know more than one small business owner here in Charlotte who are disappointed, to say the least, in their poor choice of vote...after they had helped elect the very party who has caused all their pain.
Democrats don't instinctively hate big business. But we do see big business as not being immune from scrutiny or competition.
But alas...dinosaur companies will go the way of other dinosaurs. They are the plantations of today.
In the early days, Bush Inc. made promises, and many people bought into their blather. But time has shown Bush Inc. to be, mediocre, corrupt, greedy, cheating liars who only care for those who least need it. A reverse Robin Hood. The poor get to die and go broke so the rich may have more money and power.
There is no oblesse oblige in this corrupt and egocentric gang. Nor is there in defending them.
Look at the record. The Bush record is abysmal. The stock market bubble will burst once people realize it is buoyed by the giddiness of being able to shed pesky pensions. People like for their company to honor their contracts.
The backlash has only just begun...
But keep waving the pom-poms! I'm a big fan of bathos.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 15, 2006 03:44 PM (NBy2A)
21
The pullation of small businesses under Clinton's watch?
Might that have something to do with the 1997 tax cut he signed into law. One of the provisions was a cut in personal capital gains - something that was be useful for investors in both small and large businesses.
Wait though, was it a Democratic Congress that gave him that? No, it was a Republican one. The Democratic Congress was the one that gave us a tax hike in 1993.
Also, during the Clinton Administration the Republicans allowed for regulations to be cut. If you read George Stephanopolis' book, you'll find that the Left (including George) was against much of the deregulation that happened in the 90s. A Democratic Congress was not about to let the bureaucracy that was built over their decades of rule be messed with.
Finally, if there were increased regulations added without Congressional approval, they were done in a way to make a political problem for the following adminstration. Take for instance, the new
Mercury rules. The Clinton Administration supposedly enacted these rules; but they weren't finished or announced until after the 2000 election - yet before Bush's inauguration. This way, any changes to make the new rule, oh, technically feasible would be the Bush Administration's problem. If he messed with these "rules of the Clinton Adminsitration", he could be considered hostile to the environment; but if he didn't, businesses would suffer. Nevermind that it hasn't been until the Bush Adminstration that Mercury emissions have been regulated at all. That isn't an "isolated example". A diesel engine put in an American truck was no cleaner January 19, 2001 than it was in 1993. Why is this? Because Bill Clinton didn't want to upset Detroit (more the unions than business). However, new particulate rules put forward during the Bush administration put our diesel engines close to that of the remainder of the Western World.
I'll "C" my way out of the "A & B" conversation; but I thought it could use a few facts.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 04:49 PM (XK1Nc)
22
I forgot that I can't work HTML into my comments. Here are the references:
1997 Tax Cut: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Mercury Regulations: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032904.html
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 05:00 PM (XK1Nc)
23
That's right -- when Bush cut taxes, it was only the rich who got a break -- of course it was only the rich who PAID damn taxes!
It's kind of hard to give a tax break to people who don't PAY taxes, isn't it? But I suppose that doesn't matter to Democrats -- Democrats can only talk without showing any results or anything concrete.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:33 PM (+Gl1m)
24
Where is the pullulation of small business under Bush? Republicans are now running every branch of government. You'd think things would be utopian, listening to you guys. But things are pretty stagnant. And although the DOW inches up now and then, it always seems to slide back down. And even on the up days, more and more companies are breeching their contracts and rendering pensions obsolete.
Anything to make the books APPEAR happy. Enron all over again.
Here's a simple task. List the 5 positive changes the Bush Administration hath brung.
Face it. Bush and Co. are MEDIOCRE. Bush thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job. But Brownie was just as mediocre as the rest of the team.
>
Show me the results or anything concrete that Bush has brought to the table. Democrats are not in power. Clinton left America financially strong. Bush and Co. have been stealing it ever since. And now they are getting caught. I hope they all fucking rot in Hell for all their murdering and destruction...and glaring incompetence.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 16, 2006 11:36 AM (dre4x)
25
Ok, we're wandering far off track here.
The point of this post is that the Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact, whether you want to admit it or not. This moronic law only serves to punish WalMart for doing well. It can only result in bad things for everyone concerned -- WalMart can raise it's prices, or it can stop doing business in MD. Neither is a good result, and Democrats are the ones who passed the stupid law.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 11:46 AM (/k+l4)
26
I'm sorry, but "Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact" is just silly. If everyone that works for Wal-Mart has good, appropriate health care...the success can be counted in the millions of people...or however many people are employed by them. Success is way more than just the executive bottom line.
Good information is a major key to success, correct? Well, look at who frees up the information, and who hides and distorts it.
Clinton and the Democrats worked tirelessly to bring information of everyone, by focusing on the spreading of the Internet.
Bush has done nothing to add to this. In fact he has subtracted from it. Secret meetings, wiretapping, on and on.
The only good success is based on good information. Not opinion. Not misinformation. Not wishful thinking. Not secrecy.
Democrats want everyone to succeed, so long as success does not mean diminishing success for another. Good air, good water, good land and good works are as important as good information, and Democrats are the protectors and stewards of all of these important aspects of success and life.
Republicans are mired in Maya.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 16, 2006 03:54 PM (dre4x)
27
How does everyone succeed if some people are forced to pay for other people?
If WalMart has to raise their prices by 8% to pay for the new healthcare, everyone who shops at WalMart has to pay more and WalMart will have to lay off 8% of their employees. So no one will benefit! Even those who get health care will end up having to pay higher prices at WalMart for their own goods!
From what I see of Democrat's actions, they want some to succeed, but only at the expense of another.
If they want everyone to succeed, they should get the heck out of the way and let the free market work. In the free market, when one succeeds, everyone does. In the government market, one can only progress by reducing someone else.
For example, when a new innovation is developed that makes plastic cheaper, everyone benefits from the lower price of plastic. But when government decides that plastic should be cheaper, it interferes with the free market and actually makes plastic scarce -- which punishes everyone.
If there were people with leadership at WalMart, they'd do what I suggested and show the Democrats in MD how wrong they are.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (/k+l4)
28
a bit late in this respose but....
Anonomouse, when government mandates (regulates through legal channels) that a business spend it's money a certain way, (i.e. healthcare) that is called "FASCISM".....look it up.
So now, with all of the morons on teh left screaming that Bush is a fascist, don't you find it ironic in the least, and hyposcritical in the highest form that it is DEMOCRATS that are enacting FASCIST POLICIES????
You guys are perhaps the most retarded creatures that have ever retained the ability to vote. Go wring out your drool bib and have your mommy get your juice and tell you a story.
Posted by: kender at January 18, 2006 12:17 AM (8iNM6)
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:28 AM (+Gl1m)
30
Sorry. I thought I was talking with adults here. I guess I was wrong. Being in my 50s, I find talk of drool bibs and mommies to be, well, ironic. Especially coming from a child.
And a turd-obsessed child at that.
At least the host has his wits about him, which is why I enjoy talking with him...
But first, here are 14 characteristics of fascism:
-Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
-Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
-Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
-Supremacy of the Military
-Rampant Sexism
-Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with National Security
-Religion and Government are Intertwined
-Corporate Power is Protected (Wal-Mart)
-Labor Power is Suppressed
-Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
-Obsession with Crime and Punishment
-Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
-Fraudulent Elections
In other words...BushWorld.
So, Kender...how does it feel to be a fascist?
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:05 PM (J5SQf)
31
Mr. Ogre -- You want the free market to work? Without check?
Well...work to end corporate welfare. That will take care of the biggest chunk.
Back to Wal-Mart...
I don't hate Wal-Mart. I think it presents a challenge to small business. And if the small, mom and pops can't rise to the challenge, perhaps they deserve to fail. Fuck em!
McDonalds has raised the standard for smaller burger stands in speed, quality, cleanliness. We no longer accept fillthy bathrooms and long waits.
The mom and pop store needs to do something different and better. Better coffee, better music, candlelight, free shoeshines...whatever. If they sit on their asses and complain...let them fail.
Dinosaurs have weaknesses that small businesses can and should exploit. By doing so, everyone benefits. Wal-Marts get to stay in business, catering to low-quality folk, of which there are plenty. And smaller store can cater to quality folk...who often have more money.
I don't envy Wal-Mart. I see them as a necessary catalyst for change.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:16 PM (J5SQf)
32
I am with you absolutely 100% on ending corporate welfare. EVERY time I see government giving money to companies, I always point it out and complain -- that is wrong, wrong, wrong (which is why I identify myself as a conservative and not a Republican).
And with WalMart, if they're doing something wrong, make them stop. But earning money isn't wrong, so punishing them for earning money IS.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 02:28 PM (/k+l4)
33
When Big Box developers like Wal-Mart move into a town, buy off the town council, put mom-and-pop out of business, don't sell domestic goods, create traffic snarls, discriminate against homosexuals and liberals, etc. I hate them.
The free market tells me that there's nothing I can do about it except decline to shop there. I decline to shop there.
There's a Wal-Mart going in on the west side of my town. 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved to make room for it. The area is being rezoned to make room for it. The nearby hamlet of Candler's small businesses are doomed. I'm celebrating this why? Because the free market's so darned awesome?
4 years ago Wal-mart wanted to put a Supercenter on the site of an old bleachery on a river here in my town. The town rose up, and the city council denied the corporation's wishes for land variances. Then, when the furor passed, the council reexamined it, passed it, and the Wal-Mart went in, violating innumberable enviornmental restrictions and city mandates. Now the traffic is so snarled that the nearby residents who led the campaign against the place are choosing to move away rather than have their quality of life diminished by the hordes who thoughtlessly choose this store over the local businesses that would actually use their profits in our town.
Why do I hate Wal-Mart, let me count the ways...
Posted by: Screwy Hoolie at January 19, 2006 09:43 PM (Xsox3)
34
Don't confuse the free market with socialism! If 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved, that is NOT the free market, that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If government officials are being bought off, that's NOT the free market, that's corruption. If WalMart is violating city mandates and regulations, that's criminal or civil violations, and NOT a free market.
If WalMart does enough damage, people will stop going there. Right now, they provide the lowest prices and tons of jobs, so the majority likes them.
I'm not supporting ANYTHING illegal that they do -- if they break the law, I'll be the first to ask them to be punished. I strongly oppose them when the city tries to use zoning and "condemnation" to put them in place -- it's wrong, no matter what the reason.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 09:48 PM (+Gl1m)
35
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I haven't been up to anything recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
Posted by: Kaka55164 at July 19, 2006 08:26 PM (vR5/R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Illegal?
The lawsuit over the lottery in North Carolina continues, as the state races to take money from people before a judge can put a stop to it. Lockjaw the Ogre (yes, there's two Ogres in NC) has more details that clearly outline where the passage of the law was illegal.
What's really interesting is the
lottery lobby's Democrat's defense of their clearly unconstitutional actions:
It’s the difference between getting a chance to get money and getting money.
- Rep. Bill Faison, D-Orange
So, in Mr. Faison's world, the NC lottery MIGHT not actually result in any money actually being received by the state. Seriously, that's his argument.
The North Carolina Consitution is clear. It's just as clear that the Democrat-run legislature broke the rules. It's doubtful they will have to answer for it. So what's the point of having a Constitution again?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:05 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But aren't laws meant to be broken... by politicians?
Posted by: Contagion at January 13, 2006 01:42 PM (Q5WxB)
2
Laws are only for the common folks -- they never apply to member of the royalty (aka politicians).
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 02:02 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Observer Agenda
On the political agenda for the Charlotte Observer for 2006: removal of freedom, total prohibition.
Seriously, consider that for a moment before you read another word in the Charlotte Observer. We are told over and over again that there is no media bias. We're told that news reports are unbiased reporting of facts. We're told they have no agenda. Here the Observer clearly admits that they DO have an agenda -- and it's horribly anti-freedom.
The Observer is happy those those in traffic accidents are not drinking. Note they make NO mention of how many people are dying in traffic accidents -- it doesn't matter to them if there are more deaths in traffic accidents, only that there are no people drinking who are in accidents (whether it is their fault or not, also has no bearing on the Observer).
At the very start, the Observer admits that their goal is no drinking.
In addition, they want more traffic checkpoints where you can be searched without a warrant. They want to confiscate personal property of those who have a beer. Yes, if you have one beer and blow higher than the Observer's suggested "lower than 0.08" BAC, you should have your car confiscated -- not temporarily, but stolen from you completely -- for ONE beer.
The Observer viscerally HATES freedom and everything that goes with it. Alcohol is just one part of freedom that the Observer hates, private property is another. Keep that in mind if you find yourself reading the "unbiased" Charlotte Observer.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:02 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
January 12, 2006
Internet Explorer 7.0
I've obtained the elusive IE7.0 Beta 1. I was anxious to test it and see what it does. Working with web design and security, those were the two areas that I was mostly interested in.
First, the good news -- the security in IE appears to be excellent. Recent reports and reviews I've read indicate that it's a huge improvement, and it's supposed to be a bit better than even Firefox now.
Next, the bad news -- as of this release, there appears to be no change in browser standards. Unless they've got more tricks up their sleeves, it looks like the next version of IE will not be compliant with the official standards. That stinks.
I haven't really had time to do speed tests to see how it performs vs. Firefox. It does have the tabbed browsing everyone loves, so that's certainly a plus...
There's also a menu option for managing add-ons, so I'll be checking to see how possible it is to write add-ons (I need that spellchecker!).
Posted by: Ogre at
10:48 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Trench at January 12, 2006 11:59 PM (GG13q)
2
I wonder how many things they stole from the other browsers besides tabbed browsing and add-ons?
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 13, 2006 01:15 AM (5+Jvh)
3
I forget about Opera sometimes. I used to use it a lot...
And AbitratorofAll -- I'm sure they stole everything that everyone likes. Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me. I just don't know why they wouldn't steal useful stuff (other than they want everyone else to do things THEIR way).
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 11:01 AM (+Gl1m)
4
They'll have to do some major improvements to pull me away from Opera. Even with all of the addons I've put in Firefox, it still doesn't come up to the feature-set I've come to appreciate as a regular Opera user.
I constantly make use of several great Opera features, such as:
The best tabbed browsing I've used
Easily toggled and configurable auto-reload
Excellent form-filling features with the wand and personal info.
Quick toggling of image-loading on a page-by-page basis
Zoom in and out with + and - keys
Excellent keystroke-based navigation and tab management
Two of the neatest features I use are more complex. For instance, when I'm reading a blog, I hit space-bar to page down. When I get to the bottom of the page, and hit space, Opera will load the next page of older articles. That's reall cool.
Also, if I load a directory of images, and click on the first image, that image will load. To view the second image, I would normally have to click "back" and then click the next image in the list. In Opera, I just hit space.
Yep, IE7 might be better, but I doubt I'll make the switch for primary use.
Posted by: Lockjaw the Ogre at January 13, 2006 01:37 PM (mAhn3)
5
I'm going to have to play with some of those features -- I wasn't aware of all of them. Of course, IE could include them and it might take years to find them...
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 02:01 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU Hates Jesus
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city council after city council over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.
Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently
there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of
Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over
115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:02 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Seth at January 12, 2006 06:42 PM (8Tq4X)
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
Sorry buddy, I hate jesus too.
well, not really but I thought you needed an extra perk today.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 05:19 AM (e8b4J)
4
Gee, thanks, Contagion.
If I wasn't such a happy-go-lucky guy, I'd count on you whenever I needed a blood-pressure increase...
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:21 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Your Papers, Please.
It's time. Freedom is completely gone in Ohio.
I know some Republicans will call me a right-wing wacko for this one, but I'm opposed to the
random ID checks now "legal" in Ohio. Sorry, I fought in a war to stop people from being able to arrest me for not carrying my papers. I'll fight again.
I have to admit, I already refused to enter the state of Ohio, and not just because it's the home of the Buckeyes (Go Blue!). Their gun laws have been notoriously bad -- so bad that if I were driving in the area, I'd go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid the state. This just gives me another reason to avoid it.
Any crap about "safety" and "terrorism" is complete B.S. You can't take my rights away from me because it makes you feel more safe. It's plain wrong, but as mentioned in the article, hardly anyone opposed the law. I guess that's what you get with government education -- too many people actually believe that government grants rights, so they can take them away. Morons.
And strangely enough, the ACLU, bastards that they are, are opposed to this law -- but NOT because of the random ID requirement! They're opposed to the part that when you get a driver's license, you have to sign a statement that swears you're not a terrorist!
The only hope for freedom today is
The Free State Project. Read their site. Consider it. Join them.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:06 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Harvey at January 12, 2006 04:22 PM (ubhj8)
2
Ogre,
I agree with you about the papers, but can you imagine them telling you that you have to carry a condom? Their actually trying to do that in Colombia and I'm sure liberals will have nothing but praise for that law....
I had to blog about that one.
Posted by: Louisiana Conservative at January 12, 2006 05:18 PM (RAvIF)
3
What I can't understand is people being ok with it... if you've done nothing that violates law, then no policeman has the right to ask for your identification. That's bull. Yet, most Americans are okay with it. They're like "what do you have to hide?"
stupid sheep.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 12, 2006 06:36 PM (vR7Sl)
4
This kind of thing would only bring us one step closer to the communist state the liberals are so desperate to turn us into.
Posted by: Seth at January 12, 2006 06:51 PM (8Tq4X)
5
A BIG step closer, Seth -- but you only have to show your ID if the police suspect you of wrongdoing -- oh, or may be a witness to a potential crime that may be committed...
And LC -- when I read that, I thought you meant Columbia, SC! I guess you're not allowed to be Catholic in Columbia (South America) any more.
And Birdwoman? Be quiet and get back in the line!
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
6
(slightly OT here)
Ogre,
You're a Michigan fan? Isn't that one of those unpardonable sins? I'm sorry...we are going to have to disagree here on the merits of that team up north. I really enjoyed watching the Wolverines struggle this past season.
Most other Buckeye fans did too. Ohio has many stupid laws, including this one. I should know, because I'm from there. But at least they don't have a car tax.
Go Buckeyes!
Posted by: Lisa at January 12, 2006 11:48 PM (kDqEb)
7
This is the same state that gave us Terry Stops. (See Terry Vs. Ohio)
I need to do some more research, but I'm pretty sure that back int he 70's the supreme court ruled that asking an individual for ID, when not performing a licensed activity, was unconstitutional.
Cops would have a field day with me in Ohio for this.
Posted by: Contagion at January 13, 2006 12:06 AM (e8b4J)
8
I do remember Terry Stops -- another reason to avoid that state like the plague.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 11:01 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Barn?
Ok, so you haven't heard about enough utter waste in government today? How's this?
Rockingham County commissioners are weighing a ten (m) million dollar commitment for a proposed equestrian center intended to draw horse enthusiasts to the area.
That's right. It's not enough to pay for rich professional team owners to have multi-million dollar stadiums, the government is now actually considering building a giant BARN to "attract people."
What in God's name are these people thinking? Can someone find me a place in any Constitution that says government's job is to "attract people?" But the county was "awarded" $1.5 million -- and YOU paid for it -- it's part of the TOBACCO LAWSUITS!
Oh, but that's not enough -- the General Assembly (remember them? They cut the budget "to the bone"?) also contributed $1,000,000.00 for the damn BARN.
Holy crap. Total B.S. like this really makes it very hard to have any faith in government ever getting fixed again. I just can't get over this one. THE GOVERNMENT is building a $5 million BARN!
Any time ANY government asks for a single dollar more, just remember THIS is what they're doing with the money. It's NOT for the children, for education, or ANYTHING else. If they want more money, tell them to reduce damn BARN funding for the rich! What a crock of you-know-what. Damn.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sadly, if they didn't do this people would complain that the local government isn't doing enough to attract people to the area. You can deny it, but you know it's true.
Posted by: Contagion at January 12, 2006 01:32 PM (Q5WxB)
2
It's very scary when stupid people get what they ask for.
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 01:56 PM (/k+l4)
3
Your just jealous cause you didn't ask for it first!
Posted by: Oddybobo at January 12, 2006 04:00 PM (6Gm0j)
4
And I can't afford any horses to put in the "free" government barn...
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:44 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More on the NC Gas Tax
One Joseph Freddoso, chairman of the Regional Transportation Alliance, reveals his strong support for socialism in N.C.'s roads need all the gas tax they get, as published in the News and Observer of Raleigh.
In the article, Mr. Freddoso strongly supports increased gas taxes. He even goes so far with his support as to suggest that a 3-cent cut in the gas tax would take $3 BILLION from the state's roads. Mr. Freddoso is not clueless, so he must just be dishonest.
He actually states that reducing the gas tax by 3 pennies (which JUST increased a few days ago) would "irreparably harm transportation in North Carolina." Yes, you read that right -- the state would simply fall apart if the 3 cent increase that's been in place for less than 2 weeks were removed.
Way down at the end of the article, he reveals that he's not clueless, just socialist, when he says, "I do agree with those who object to transportation taxes and fees being used for purposes other than transportation."
So he KNOWS the gas tax isn't going to be used for transportation, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't increase the gas tax. You see, if only 10% of all increases in gas taxes go to roads, then we should just increase the tax even MORE so that we get enough for the roads -- instead of actually following the North Carolina Constitution and using the gas tax for roads.
But feel safe,
subjects peons lower-class citizens people of North Carolina -- a
committee is meeting! Oh, but that "Special Committee" on the gas tax?
the committee does not have any power
So you'll get nothing. Just pay your taxes and shut up, let the royalty in the legislature tell you what you want and need.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:03 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 119 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0812 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0625 seconds, 159 records returned.
Page size 120 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.