Ogre's Politics & Views
December 02, 2005
Punish Illegals
Back in 2001, Malaysia tried a solution to deal with illegal immigrants in their country. I can't find any follow-up data on how well it worked. Anyone opposed to giving that a try in America?
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I like Jerry Pournelle's "bounty on illegals" idea (first ennunciated several years ago and restated last week at Chaos Manor in Perspective) coupled with Dafydd ab Hugh's (Big Lizards Blog) "walls and gates" concept, which includes specific prescriptions on genuine assimilation.
http://jerrypournelle.com/
http://biglizards.net/blog/index.html
Both EXCELLENT places to lurk while people a LOT smarter than I (and a very few not-so) discuss issues like this from many different angles.
Posted by: David at December 03, 2005 06:52 PM (ACL5/)
2
BTW, I wouldn't be qaverse to flogging repeat offenders...
;-)
Posted by: David at December 03, 2005 06:53 PM (ACL5/)
3
Neat sites, David, thanks for the links!
Posted by: Ogre at December 05, 2005 01:22 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Government is Happy
Why? Why is government happy? One of two reasons -- money or power. They've either increased their money supply (so they can spend more), or they've increased their power -- at the expense of freedom. And these two go hand-in-hand, as if they take money from people, they increase their power.
This year the government
took more money then they thought they would get -- $71 MILLION more than expected. Don't hold your breath for the refund -- they've likely already spent it.
Worse, the news report says, "The extra revenue is largely because of increases in money from corporate and personal income taxes."
LARGELY? No, you idiots, it is 100% from increases from taxes -- that's the ONLY way government gets money is via a tax. That's $71,000,000.00 that could have been spent by the people who earned it -- who are out that money now.
And the shysters in the government won't even feel bad about taking all that money from the people.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
All NC Children Now Safe
Well, at least according to the North Carolina General Assembly, anyway.
You see, yesterday, December 1, 2005, a new law
went into effect that BANS 7-year old children from driving ATVs. Older children are restricted to smaller, "less-powerful" models.
Aren't you glad that there's so little for police to do in North Carolina that they have time to wander around the backyards and forests of the state to check all people riding ATVs to ensure that none of them are 7 years old?
And I'm sure these new enforcement officers will be checking birth certificates for those who "appear" too young to be on the 250cc models as well.
Folks, laws that sound good but absolutely cannot be enforced are worse than useless -- it completely undermines the system of laws in this country. If there are more laws than can be enforced, it creates a system of selective enforcement -- those charge with enforcing the laws pick and choose which ones they, personally, want to enforce on any given day.
Are there ANY statesmen left in this country? What a wonderful world it would be if we could elect statesmen who were interested in government and politics rather than politicians that are ONLY interested in keeping their own job (no matter the costs) and spending money (no matter the reason).
Posted by: Ogre at
10:08 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: vw bug at December 02, 2005 09:14 PM (BAHyt)
2
So, will kids 7 & over be required to carry ID with them now?
Posted by: Harvey at December 03, 2005 10:53 PM (ubhj8)
3
Well, Harvey, they're going to have to find some way to prove they're old enough to drive, won't they? I wonder how soon it will be before the state starts issuing ATV driver's licenses to kids... if they pass the safety course and pay the state fee!
Posted by: Ogre at December 05, 2005 01:07 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 01, 2005
Hump or Death
Regular reader and commenter (yet blogless) tomslick12 (there's 12 of them?) makes a suggestion for voting -- which I think will apply in the 2008 presidential election, unless some drastic changes happen.
I still think Klinton will be the Democrat nominee, but it might be Dean. I don't know who the Republican candidate will be, but McCain is convincing a few. I don't see anyone standing up yet to really take control (I do hope it will change). Somehow I see the Presidential ticket in 2008 looking something like this:
President of the United States (Select one):
[ ] Death by Burning (R)
[ ] Death by Drowning (D)
[ ] Guaranteed losing vote (I)
Posted by: Ogre at
07:00 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Na, I don't think it will be Hillary, half the country hates her and she is not even running plus she does not appeal to their base since she is a neo-con. I expect a nasty scene at the DNC when they announce their candidate because we all know that Hillary wants the nomination. If you are the betting type we could have a wager. What would you bet that she makes the final two?
Posted by: Mindflame at December 01, 2005 08:05 PM (kJZEb)
Posted by: vw bug at December 01, 2005 10:55 PM (BAHyt)
3
OK. I'm lost. I'm trying to get the title to fit the post. Is it just too late and my brain quit? Where does the humping come in?
Posted by: Bou at December 02, 2005 05:21 AM (iHxT3)
4
I'm hurt that you say my independant vote is a gaurenteed loser. We had Jesse Ventura as Governor!
Posted by: Contagion at December 02, 2005 04:04 PM (e8b4J)
5
I still have my money on it being Kerry vs McCain. Dean is a possibility, maybe Senator Gone, I mean Breck Girl, damm it, John Edwards. Fingers do not want to cooperate with brain.
Posted by: William Teach at December 03, 2005 01:58 PM (AkiXU)
6
Sorry, Bou, it was an obscure Mel Brooks reference.
Contagion, we're not going there, are we?
And Teach, stop scaring it, you're scaring the children! Besides, the Republicans get to pick someone, too.
Posted by: Ogre at December 05, 2005 12:53 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stop the ACLU
Today I just didn't have the time to get things together and put up the usual anti-ACLU rant. I guess to be more "positive," I should instead call these rants the pro-freedom rants, since 99% of everything the ACLU does is designed to destroy freedom -- hating Christianity is just a byproduct of that action.
Instead, I'm sure, as is the case nearly every other day, the folks over at the
Stop the ACLU blog are sure to have some good information up there. If you've never taken the time to visit that blog, head on over -- even if it's just for a minute. They really do have accurate, factual information about the the ACLU is doing -- even if it usually is bad news for lovers of freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:09 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
World AIDS Day
Well, I think this post is going to annoy some people. Keep in mind that Ogre isn't really here right now, he's off skiing, but this post should be posted automatically on Thursday. He'll respond to all comments when he returns!
Today is World AIDS Day. According to the
claptrap press release emailed from my college, I'm supposed to talk about HIV and AIDS to work towards stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS.
Ok, you folks asked for it.
STOP HAVING CASUAL SEX! STOP PUTTING YOUR THING WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG! STOP HAVING HOMOSEXUAL SEX!
Well, if you listen to me and only have sex within the bounds of a normal (heterosexual) marriage, the occurrences of both HIV and AIDS will drop dramatically. Heck, if you even just limit yourself to one sex partner for life, the damn disease will be reduced!
Now, feel free to bash me for being full of hatred, but the facts are the facts. A reduction in "free" sex WILL reduce those diseases, whether you want to admit it or not.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You know the disease is a serious problem for people who did not have it coming, like orphans of victims and women who were rapped as is not at all uncommon in Africa. Sure here in the States we don't deal with the risk factors enough but global there are a lot of people suffering who are not at fault.
Posted by: Mindflame at December 01, 2005 08:11 PM (kJZEb)
2
So if I stop having casual sex does it mean I must have formal sex?
And how does one have formal sex? Do I need to dress up for it? Or is it invitation only?
Hmmm ... I will need to think about it.
Posted by: Machelle at December 02, 2005 04:29 PM (ZAyoW)
3
That's right, Mindflame, but that's the VAST minority -- and if the others would stop, this disease really could be reduced to nothing.
Machelle -- apparently you have never been invited...
Posted by: Ogre at December 05, 2005 12:55 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
$600,000 Oysters
According to the laws of supply and demand, oysters should get a lot cheaper in North Carolina very soon. The North Carolina government, apparently because it has nothing better to do with $600,000 of taxpayer money, is going to start raising oysters -- up to 10 million of them.
So, if the supply of such an item increases so drastically, the price should drop (assuming demand stays the same), right?
Well, basic economics only works when not interfered with by government. You can be sure this will be another government program that will need $800,000 next year, and another $1,000,000 by 2007. And you can bet if they only get $790,000 next year, the Democrats will call that a "cut."
All I can say to this is WHY, WHY, WHY?
What is this desperate need for oysters? Would there be no oysters if the North Carolina government doesn't use hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise them? I absolutely do not understand how ANYONE can defend such an incredible waste of money.
If YOU want to raise damn oysters, YOU raise them -- and stop FORCING me, at gunpoint, to pay for someone else raising them with ZERO benefit to me!
Posted by: Ogre at
10:10 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 30, 2005
Drinking Funnies
From VW Bug, who apparently has more jokes than even she can post on her Wacky Humor for Dreaded Wednesday, a few gems about drinking:
"Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams If I didn't drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, "It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
~ Jack Handy
I like and support capitalism.
"When we drink, we get drunk. When we get drunk, we fall asleep. When we fall asleep, we commit no sin. When we commit no sin, we go to heaven. So, let's all get drunk and go to heaven!"
~ Brian O'Rourke
Well, I've never heard it put quite that way before...
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Hard to argue with that one.
mmMMMmm....Beer
~Homer Simpson
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I can't argue with Ben Franklin. I mean, he is the father of our nation. A brilliant man.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 07:36 PM (LfL8N)
2
Just go with the flow....
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 07:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
Hee hee hee. Nice to see you liked it.
Posted by: vw bug at November 30, 2005 11:41 PM (Xl/Yt)
4
That Ben Franklin quote is a classic amongst Early American re-enactors. It's quoted at just about every event I do.
Posted by: Contagion at December 01, 2005 01:51 PM (Q5WxB)
5
And Contagion, *I* can certainly understand why!
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:34 PM (uSCkp)
6
http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/kiln-suit/ samus aran in bathing suit http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/pennsylvania-parkinsons-disease-law-suit-lawyers/ fire entry suit http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/mini-thong-suits/ bathing suit anzu mazaki http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/bathing-suit-anzu-mazaki/ fire entry suit http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/fire-entry-suit/ period suits http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/samus-aran-in-bathing-suit/ women in birthday suits http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/pennsylvania-parkinsons-disease-law-suit-lawyers/ pennsylvania parkinson's disease law suit attorneys http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/index.htm mini thong suits http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/mini-thong-suits/ kiln suit http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/california-parkinsons-disease-law-suit-attorneys/ bathing suit anzu mazaki http://ecfbxon.sisadmn.com/index.htm kiln suit
Posted by: bathing suit anzu mazaki at December 25, 2005 09:24 AM (4ILld)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oddy's Anniversary
Today is Oddybobo's 9th wedding anniversary.
First, let me offer my congratulations. That's really awesome in a day and age where marriage vows are less and less important to some. Many groups are working to completely destroy the idea of marriage, so for two people to honor their commitments for so many years is truly good.
Next, let me offer a present. Oddy claims that the 9th anniversary gifts are supposed to be drugs, whips, chains, and other assorted oddities. I think she got the anniversary gift list mixed up with her Christmas list...
The traditional gift (and I'm a traditional kind of Ogre) is pottery, so I present to her my gift on the occasion of her 9th wedding anniversary:
Posted by: Ogre at
03:46 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OOO, a Chia-Homer, does he drool too? *donuts . . .*
Posted by: oddybobo at November 30, 2005 04:47 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Yes. Yes he does.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 04:58 PM (/k+l4)
3
I would have opted for the Chia-Scooby. Not only does it grow a beautiful green greatdane-fro, but it also solves mysteries.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 06:27 PM (LfL8N)
4
As long as it's pottery, it counts for the anniversary!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 06:38 PM (/k+l4)
5
YOu won't believe this, but last year, all my boys wanted for Christmas were Chia Pets. So we owned three. Lovely.
Posted by: Bou at December 01, 2005 03:48 AM (iHxT3)
6
I will admit it. I'm a little disappointed. I was thinkin' it's be a pottery llama. But this is still nice. *grin*
Posted by: Tammi at December 01, 2005 12:59 PM (fG4Jz)
7
Yes, Bou, after reading about your kids, I WOULD believe it!
And Tammi, I looked for one, but I just couldn't find one -- I don't know why...
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:44 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Show me your papers
Have you seen this story yet about the woman who was forced to show her identification to ride a "public" bus? I've used this image in posts before, and unfortunately, it's getting too common.
This woman is defended by the ACLU -- so I'm already very suspicious of the case. However, on it's face, a woman ejected from public transportation for refusing to show id is just plain wrong.
However, I don't think any rights have actually been violated here. If the bus service is being provided, don't you have to follow the rules to use that service? My solution is the right one: don't demand id for a "public" bus -- get rid of the damn public bus and the problem goes away.
Once again, this is an example where government is the cause of the problem and MORE government involvement will make the problem worse, not better. You have NO right to me buying you gasoline and buses so you can get anywhere you want to go.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:05 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
don't you have to pay to ride the public bus? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by: oddybobo at November 30, 2005 03:23 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Yes, I do, dammit, and I don't even ride the bus.
Oh, you meant the people who ride the bus who pay 1/100th of the cost of the actual ride while I pick up the rest of the tab? Yes, yes they do.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:31 PM (/k+l4)
3
Of course, that bus reduces your costs -- by creating less traffic congestion letting you drive your car where you're going faster, burning less gasoline, causing less damage to the roads thereby keeping your gasoline taxes lower, and allowing people to burn less gas thereby keeping gas prices lower.
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 30, 2005 05:55 PM (LQJdM)
4
Just a minor correction:
The bus creates MORE congestion because it takes wider roads to travel upon, moves slower, and takes up more space when changing lanes, blocking other traffic.
The rest of your statement, as written, is actually true (and I can't tell if you intended it that way) -- in my car I AM going faster, burning less gasoline, and causing less damage to the roads.
So, if it's worded as you intended, the more people that ride the bus, the better off I am -- except for the fact that I have to PAY for them to ride the bus, so my costs are higher than they would be without the bus.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 06:57 PM (/k+l4)
5
I'd ride the bus, but the homeless guy with the foody beard and the bird-like snore is disconcerting. I'll just drive myself, thanks.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 07:47 PM (LfL8N)
6
My snore does NOT sound like a bird!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 07:56 PM (/k+l4)
7
The lady, just like the rest of us, supports public transportation through her taxes therefore is entitled to use the system without reserve (I own it therefore I use it as I please).
The real problem, whether supported by ACLU or not, is that government has created the scenario from the futuristic novel "1984" (futuristic when I was a kid).
So, either we agree that government has the right to ask anyone at any time for papers, thus we are required to carry papers as in all of Europe, or we do not agree thus government under no circumstances can ask for papers for utilization of public services.
This is the question. Do we want Big Brother or not?
Posted by: David Anderson at December 01, 2005 01:23 PM (SoNKe)
8
If you really did own it, David, then you'd be correct. However, in today's society, YOU and The Government are no longer one and the same. If government owns it, YOU do not.
And we are very, very rapidly moving to being required to carry our papers everywhere. There are court cases now, such as this one, that will determine if we are indeed required to carry identification everywhere. I think freedom will be on the losing end of this battle.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:47 PM (uSCkp)
9
http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/painted-pin-patterns/ safety vial access pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/picture-of-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey/ kenwood wiring harness pins http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/mardi-gras-jester-lapel-pin/ access your account pin information balance http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/index.htm access your account pin information balance http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/safety-vial-access-pin/ safety vial access pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/pin-tail-on-donkey-page/ safety vial access pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/picture-of-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey/ email address associated with my blackberry pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/free-10-pin-bowling-game-online/ email address associated with my blackberry pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/kokopelli-pins-and-broaches/ pin tail on donkey page http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/safety-vial-access-pin/ mardi gras jester lapel pin http://xxyrfmd.seizmo6.com/kenwood-wiring-harness-pins/ free 10 pin bowling game online
Posted by: pin the donkey game picture at December 25, 2005 06:35 PM (QWf3f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Layout?
Did you notice?
Posted by: Ogre at
10:56 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes - and I like it.
As cool as the other one is - it was very hard for me to read. This, this works perfectly for me. And I do realize it is alllll about me. Right? *grin*
Posted by: Tammi at November 30, 2005 12:24 PM (xNIYr)
Posted by: Jo at November 30, 2005 12:25 PM (xlos6)
3
Yes, Tammi, it's ALWAYS all about you!
Thanks, Jo!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 12:28 PM (/k+l4)
4
I guess with the new formats I will have to change my computer again. I get a "change the resolution on your monitor" error.
Posted by: Travel Italy at November 30, 2005 02:03 PM (SoNKe)
5
The green and the blue are very... who am I kidding. I'm color blind anyway.
Posted by: Contagion at November 30, 2005 03:01 PM (e8b4J)
6
Sorry about that, Travel Italy -- the last layout was made for 800x600 monitors, but this new one is just plain too wide to fit on those. I put the redirect to the old layout in there so people who wanted to continue to read would be able to without a strange (and mashed) layout.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:02 PM (/k+l4)
7
Well how'd you know they were green and blue then?
(Actually, I did consider color blindness when designing this layout. That's one of the big reasons the text is black on white. The only place I think color blind people might have a little trouble is the blogroll section on the right, as it's a bit of blue on blue).
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:05 PM (/k+l4)
8
Open wider? I have to open wider? Geeze, who do you think you are??? An ogre? I thought only my dentist would ask me that. GRIN.
Looks very festive. Nice.
Posted by: VW Bug at November 30, 2005 04:12 PM (Xl/Yt)
9
Open.
Say Ah.
Say AH.
Say ARRGGGH.
Thanks.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 04:16 PM (/k+l4)
10
Looks good. I like it.
Posted by: joated at December 01, 2005 04:19 AM (6krEN)
11
yeah i like it, makes the page load easier, and makes it so that it dosent slow my machine down any more.
Posted by: chris at December 01, 2005 06:26 AM (ZvsM5)
12
Thanks joated. And glad to hear that, Chris, I was going for quicker load time on this one -- and now the slowest loading part (the blogrolls) are last to load on the far right.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:45 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What gang problem?
On Monday afternoon in Charlotte, NC, there was a gang confrontation that resulted in a shooting. But you'd never know it from the news reports.
12 men were "shopping" in the mall. Does anyone believe that, even for a second? It's rare you'll find 2 men shopping at the same time, much less 12. That's a gang, for those of you who need a clue.
There was an argument and a fight. One gang member pulled a gun and fired. Everyone ran away. The one who got shot ran away. When he was admitted to the hospital, the police questioned him -- he is absolutely refusing to name anyone or provide any assistance to the police in the shooting. This IS gang violence.
But in the PC news stories, it's "an altercation." It's a "minor brawl."
Charlotte police have a "Public Information Officer." This officer send other officers to stores "to reassure customers and employees following the incident."
In other words, the police are being dispatched to tell people that there was NOT a gang fight in the mall! George Orwell, how right you were.
Also, for those not familiar with the area, this is a mall where fights and gunfights are actually commonplace. There are a number of gangs that use public transportation to meet at the mall.
In the words of an employee at the mall, "You'll see fights every other day. The guys, they usually take it outside."
Yeah, there's no crime problem in Charlotte. Nice clothes, emperor.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:03 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 29, 2005
Santa?
My old pirate pal William Teach supplies us with directions to this quiz:
I love you. You're santa but you still manage to be
a pirate. You're crazy enough to throw a couple
of yo ho's in the general xmas-ness
What kind of Santa are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
He claims he only took the quiz once to get his piractical result...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:02 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yay! I finally like my results. Heh heh heh. I got, "Naughty Santa". That should make up for frickin' Yoda... Bah!
Posted by: Bou at November 29, 2005 09:41 PM (iHxT3)
2
I got Naughty Santa too, Big surprise there! HA!
Posted by: ODDYBOBO at November 29, 2005 11:19 PM (6Gm0j)
Posted by: William Teach at November 29, 2005 11:47 PM (AkiXU)
4
Ogre - I'm going to either have to accept my quiz-a-holic nature, or find a way to keep you FROM FINDING THESE! That said, I'm at school, so I'll take the quiz later.
Posted by: Smoke Eater at November 30, 2005 12:23 AM (kvpK7)
5
Bou, combining Yoda and Naughty Santa in the same sentence is just not right. Stop that.
Oddy, I'm absolutely SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell ya!
Grog is good. Very good.
Smokey? Quizzy... here's the quiz... take the quiz...
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 01:17 AM (uSCkp)
6
I refuse to put this up at my site because I look NOTHING like that woman. Ohhhh... I got:
you are one Naughty Santa. Your Santa suit is no doubt skimpier than all the rest, you are prolly sexy though I'll give you that... You're fave catch phrase this year will be "Come over here and sit on me lap"
Like I should bother taking it... I should have just said "See Bou's answer"
Posted by: VW Bug at November 30, 2005 02:35 AM (Xl/Yt)
7
Every time. Whenever one of you takes a quiz, just sign it with both your names -- it'll save time.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 02:58 AM (uSCkp)
8
Yo-HO-HO! It's the pirates life for me. But I'd rather have the naughty santa sitting on my lap instead of the freakish elf looking thing.
Posted by: Contagion at November 30, 2005 03:03 PM (e8b4J)
9
I don't think you're supposed to notice it's face...
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:06 PM (/k+l4)
10
YO HO HO! A pirate santa's life for me! MMMMM, grog, rum, and pirate booty (and I ain't talking gold, heh heh heh!)
Posted by: Smokey at December 01, 2005 02:35 AM (K7uqT)
11
She has a face? Well, I'll be danged, she DOES have a face! Well, live and learn!
Posted by: Smokey at December 01, 2005 02:39 AM (K7uqT)
12
I wonder what grog is like with rum in it...
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:37 PM (uSCkp)
13
http://igaaeo.herip6.com/dickinson-cosmetic-surgeon.htm antiaging lip balm lip mask http://igaaeo.herip6.com/cosmetic-makeup-foundation-compact-mirror.htm cosmetic surgery for the man http://igaaeo.herip6.com/creme-lipstick-lip-gloss.htm cosmetic makeup foundation compact mirror http://igaaeo.herip6.com/beautiful-new-lip-makeup-colors.htm liquid eyeliner mascara applicator http://igaaeo.herip6.com/bay-city-cosmetic-surgeon.htm antiaging lip balm lip mask http://igaaeo.herip6.com/cosmetic-surgery-for-the-man.htm bay city cosmetic surgeon http://igaaeo.herip6.com/beautiful-new-lip-makeup-colors.htm dickinson cosmetic surgeon http://igaaeo.herip6.com/refillable-face-makeup-compact-mirror.htm refillable face makeup compact mirror http://igaaeo.herip6.com/antiaging-lip-balm-lip-mask.htm cosmetic surgery for the man http://igaaeo.herip6.com/creme-lipstick-lip-gloss.htm cosmetic surgery for the man http://igaaeo.herip6.com/liquid-eyeliner-mascara-applicator.htm cosmetic makeup foundation compact mirror
Posted by: lipstick eye shadow color palette at December 26, 2005 12:33 AM (PzJsF)
14
http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/creampie/ latina teens black cock http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/latina/ gay cowboy hunks http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/hairy/ black porn stars male http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/toons/ owl and the pussy cat and other short stories http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/pussy/ celebrities naked gallery http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/teen/ stories forced gay http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/amateurs/ creampies near slut http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/bizarre/ pussy sex pregnant nude http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/cumshot/ very hairy butt http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/asian/ vanna white feet in pantyhose http://rzusxq.bestbustypics.com/shemale/ gay cowboy hunks
Posted by: scat clips free at December 26, 2005 04:22 AM (UzSWo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carnival, carnival!
Time for more reading fun!
I'd like to point my readers first to the
Tarheel Tavern, hosted by
Slowly She Turned (man, I crack up every time I read or type that blog name.
See here for why).
The Tarheel Tavern is a blog for and about North Carolina bloggers. Even if you're not from (or near) North Carolina, head on over and read, if you've the time -- plenty of good stuff there all about the Turpentine State.
The
Carnival of Liberty is up as well. This is a collection of blog posts that are all concerned with and about liberty. Absolutely excellent stuff on this one, as usual.
This week's
New Blog Showcase Carnival is... well, I don't know where it is... oh wait,
there it is! Only a day late
That's always a fun carnival because it highlights new blogs that have appeared. Do head on over and read the latest entrants into the blog world!
Posted by: Ogre at
06:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Who's Alive?
This week for the Christian Views Symposium (sponsored by Cross Blogging, the letter "A", and the number 
, Lennie asks quite a question.
Now, I'm going to provide my answer to this one. However, the more I see, read, and talk to people, the more I realize that most people are completely locked into one point of view on this issue and NOTHING will change their view.
Ok, that's fine. If you've already got a position, and you're not interested in changing your position, it's a (somewhat) free country. If your position is opposite mine, please don't take this time to rant and rave and tell me how wrong I am. Count me in the camp of having made my mind up and you're not going to change it.
This issue is quite a sensitive one, and by answering the question, I'm probably going to lose some readers. Well, if that's the case, then that's the case. Blogs are about opinions, so I'm giving mine. I might regret posting this, but what they heck, right?
Ok, on to the question (with lots of
context about it here):
1. If a fetus (baby) is incapable of living outside the womb, do you believe that it is okay to have the choice to abort it? Please explain.
2. If your answer was no… is there ever a time when the choice to abort is okay? Please explain.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:15 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well. I'm a woman, and a mom, but my own viewpoints seem to diverge greatly from those of most women I know.
To me it's a no-brainer that life begins at conception. There. That's out of the way.
Roe/Wade should never have been entwined in the S. Court to begin with, I'm sick of it being the primary issue every blasted time there's an S. Court nominee (as if no other issues exist in this world), abortion has zero to do with the Constitution and vice-versa, and it should be returned to the individual state legislatures and their residents to decide, which they are PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING. Sorry. Sore subject.
Now. Here's a little story I rarely tell. In 1977 I had one. I have regretted it all my life. I was in the 1% failure window while on the Pill (no, I did not forget to take it.) I have a lifelong heart condition which said that pregnancy could kill me. Believe me, I remembered to take it. Sword over head.
Here's the thing - I felt then and I feel today that it was all too easy for me to obtain. I got earfuls from feminist medicos (1977, remember, the zenith of Rabid Feminism) that I should be ever so grateful for the safe option. I received zero counseling about other options. I received only the most cursory look at whether or not my health could actually sustain a pregnancy.
I also inquired about getting my tubes tied - I was trying to be responsible - every medical person I spoke with refused me based on my age and having not had children yet - the very thing they themselves were telling me I should/could never do. So - the medical establishment knows I have a heart condition making pregnancy unwise - yet they would not give me the most sensible solution to the problem. Years later I went on to have one successful pregnancy, (again while having been on birth control - I would have gladly died trying it rather than ever have another abortion) and I'm ever grateful to God, the angels, whomever pulled the spiritual strings for that.
I make zero excuses for myself, this is not a blame-the-system diatribe. But I was very young, I'd done everything right in terms of prevention, and I could have used much more constructive guidance. Instead I was zipped through the whole process quicker than it takes to get anything done at the DMV. I'm the one who has had to live with the regrets, and it's a very high price to pay, I can assure anyone.
I don't want to see a return to back-alley butchers. I don't want to see free-for-all abortion either. I'd like to see carefully-weighed cases each and every time, and limited frames of use. I'd like to see people using birth control more effectively to begin with, which they obviously are not. I'm in a tiny minority for whom it frequently fails.
Gah. Now I don't know if I've even answered the damn questions. This subject . . .
Anyway. We need to dial back the whole thing considerably, trim it down, keep safe abortion available for some cases. But it's being used as post-brith control these days, and I'm sick over that.
Posted by: Laura at November 29, 2005 05:23 PM (tV5tG)
2
We diverge in our opinions a bit. But for the most part I am against abortion. I, however, refuse to get involved in what someone else wants to do with her own life and the consequences that fall from the decisions she makes. It is not for me to decide, or to judge.
Now, as to the medically necessary question. I had a friend who was pregnant and developed a very aggressive cancer. She needed to begin treatment immediately. She could not receive treatment without first terminating her pregnancy. Now, she could have stuck it out, but all the opinions she got were that she would likely die prior to the birth of her child. Her choice was to terminate her pregnancy. The cancer, the treatment and the trauma her body sustained have left her sterile. She lives with the decision to choose her own life over the potential that she might bring a child into the world before succumbing to cancer. But, in her case, I guess it was medically necessary. She is alive today, but dead inside.
Posted by: oddybobo at November 29, 2005 06:07 PM (6Gm0j)
3
Yes, this is why judgments, imo, shouldn't be leapt to. The situation you've described is not uncommon and it is a terrible, terrible burden of decision. Your friend has my sympathy and my empathy.
Posted by: Laura at November 29, 2005 06:29 PM (tV5tG)
4
Thanks for answering Ogre. It was actually my wife, Lisa, who asked the questions this week.
Posted by: Lennie at December 01, 2005 03:01 AM (3eRXR)
5
So it was, Lennie. I read that, but forgot it when I started typing up this response!
Thank you Laura and Oddy, for sharing such heart-wrenching stories. That's one reason I hesitate to even post on this topic -- it will ALWAYS bring out extreme emotional positions becuase that's the nature of the topic.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:39 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
1st Amendment and Schools
The whiners are out again, this time complaining that there is no free speech in schools. Guess what? They're right. There IS no free speech in schools -- and there's NOT supposed to be!
Freedom of speech is an individual right that you can choose to exercise when you want to -- keeping in mind that all rights have consequences when you choose to or not to exercise them.
In the case of schools, their primary mission is supposed to be education (I know I live in a dream world, but once upon a time, in a land far away, schools really did have something to do with education) -- and anything that interferes with that mission cannot exist. So when "free speech" works to undermine the education process, the free speech loses.
What? That's not fair? Tough. Think about how it would be if that were not the case. I would be free to walk down the hallways of any school, yelling about anything I wanted to -- free speech, right? Your individual rights to free speech end, especially in a school, when your exercise of them makes other functions impossible -- and if government didn't have a monopoly on education, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've always taken Freedom of Speech as a time sensitive freedom. There are appropriate and inappropriate times for such speech. IE classrooms, courtrooms, the middle of movies, etc. If you have something to say, you have the right to say it... but not when it is disrupting the main activity of what is going on.
I was on my schools paper, the school paper is an educational paper. It's to teach the basics of journalism. It is not to get the next big "scoop" or story.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:52 PM (Q5WxB)
2
Good point -- the purpose of a school newspaper is not to exercise freedom of derogatory or inflammatory speech!
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
3
Once upon a time, I was not a conservative. I was also very naive about the ACLU. I became quite disgusted in High School at the fact that I was taught over and over again how great the Bill of Rights are, but was denied those rights from 7:00 AM to 2:30 PM, the time they most mattered to me.
My Junior year, I was given en assignment in English class to do a 5 minute speech, on anything I wanted. I decided to do it on Free Speech. I researched long and hard all I could about freedom of speech, and even looked into several SCOTUS cases. The day came that I had to give the speech. I wore a T-Shirt that said "Phuc Censorship". I was docked points because my 5 minute speech was 14 minutes long. I was told to turn my shirt inside out, and then later had it confiscated (I was told I could pick it up at the Vice-Principle's office at the end of the day - When I went there and she wasn't there I just took it).
I was so upset that my rights were trampled that I called the ACLU seeking help. They referred me to the MCLU (Minnesota CLU). The MCLU wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. They said the judiciary precedent was not in my favor.
Looking back, being older and wiser, I am surprised the ACLU didn't jump on that one. I got into trouble for wearing a distasteful t-shirt to school. Since the ACLU loves things that are in bad taste, I don't understand why they turned me away.
In the end, I am a wiser person, and am glad they didn't touch it. The problem isn't that schools limit speech, it's that government schools exist at all.
As far as the time issue, that sounds great, but the schools go out of their way to make sure there isn't an appropriate time to speak when they know that speech will run contrary to their liberal agenda. The only way to get true freedom of speech in regards to government schools is to get out of them.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 29, 2005 04:09 PM (K+h36)
4
You are dead on target with this one, Echo. I love that line: "The only way to get true freedom of speech in regards to government schools is to get out of them."
I asked the ACLU for help once -- with the red-light cameras. They wouldn't touch that one, either.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 04:25 PM (/k+l4)
5
The only Free Speech that a student is entitled to is critisizing the gov't. Other then that, they need to go back and read the 1st Amendment. It just amazes me how many of these Dem Surrender Monkey's yap on about Free Speech, but couldn't cite or find the First Amendment.
Posted by: William Teach at November 29, 2005 04:41 PM (TFSHk)
6
Free speech to those loons include the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere, without ANY consquences, AND with financial support of that speech by the government... as long as your speech has nothing to do with Christianity or anything good.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 04:45 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Government Employees
Word on the street is that government employee health care costs are high. If you're a government employee in North Carolina, you have NO IDEA how good you have it.
News reports claim that recently the insurance costs for government employees who want to insure their family have RISEN to a whopping $480 per month. Man, what a damn DEAL!
Seriously. I just checked with the people where I work. For an employee to add their family to the health insurance, it's $780 per month. I asked an employee of one of the big banks in Charlotte their costs -- $340 per paycheck (2x per mo) -- or $680 per month.
But the NC government, with so many damn (mostly not essential) employees, gets to force insurers into lower rates -- so at $480 a month, they are FAR below the private sector. If you're a NC government employee and you think you're getting screwed on health care costs -- try getting a real job and see what it costs you.
Oh, and when those of us in the private sector stop working? 0% coverage for the vast majority of us. When those in many areas of NC government stop working? Up to 100% coverage for life. Yeah, YOU'RE the ones getting the raw deal.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:07 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
My Dad will agree with you on that but don't forget that all state employees are not paid their private sector equivalents. Although the retirement is quite nice.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 29, 2005 12:14 PM (/k+l4)
2
I agree -- most are paid MORE when you consider all the benefits (and yes, massive retirement benefits).
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:18 PM (/k+l4)
3
GREAT SCOT! What the hell is going on in NC that their Health Care costs are THAT high.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:54 PM (Q5WxB)
4
It's called state-mandated coverages that force insurers to only be allowed to sell acres of insurance if you want any.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:00 PM (/k+l4)
5
There is a catch to that price though. If you have someone else on it it goes up $200 or $300. Also when it was underwritten by BlueCrap & BlueSh*t they would hardly cover anything.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 29, 2005 02:52 PM (/k+l4)
6
Again, it's a sweet deal for state employees. $480 per month is the maximum cost for state employees who include their entire family! The $200 increase is from $180 or $280 -- the cost for a state employee to insure themselves.
Other places of employment will typically add $400-$600 for covering families.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 28, 2005
Mythical Characters?
Smoke Eater, the quiz-o-holic of the blogosphere, sends a quiz about mythical characters:
What do you know, I'm the same as him.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:04 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't know if I should be scared or if you should, seeing as we think alike. Maybe the rest of the world should COWER IN FEAR, for there are TWO of us on the planet at the same time!
HA HA HA! Merry Christmas Ogre!
Posted by: Smokey at November 28, 2005 03:38 PM (K7uqT)
2
Yoda... unbelievable... I got Yoda! Wonder what Bou will get.
A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light.
Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not - for my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life greets it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, and binds us. Luminescent beings are we, not this crude matter! You must feel the Force around you, everywhere.
Posted by: vw bug at November 28, 2005 08:28 PM (Xl/Yt)
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at November 29, 2005 02:49 AM (hxRR8)
4
Yeah, I got yer back, Smokey!
And VW, just email her your results and be done with it.
Thanks for stopping by, Dan!
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:13 PM (/k+l4)
5
Yoda. Dammit. I so wanted to live on the edge and be something different. And it didn't even ask me if I was small! Sheesh.
Posted by: Bou at November 29, 2005 12:34 PM (iHxT3)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:51 PM (/k+l4)
7
Aragorn... hmmm... that' can't be right.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:55 PM (Q5WxB)
8
Is there a "dark" Aragorn?
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:01 PM (/k+l4)
9
Actually, Aragorn does have a dark side, seeing as he decided to be a ranger in stead of leading, until the end of course, and anyone with a sword can be as dark as they want, I guess.
Posted by: Monty Leverett at November 29, 2005 02:03 PM (y2PwN)
10
Contagion: The Dark Aragon.
ROFL.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:56 PM (/k+l4)
11
I guess it's better then being the "Dork" Aragon
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 07:50 PM (Q5WxB)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Guard Our Borders!
More on my previous post about the 14th Amendment from the Guard Our Borders blogburst:
Right now, if an illegal immigrant makes it across the border in time to have a baby, that child is automatically a U.S. citizen according to current law. Never mind that it's completely against the point of the original Constitutional amendment. We're dealing with "living documents" and all that, right moonbats? Freedom Folks explains.
This language was added to the constitution after the Civil War to provide protection against blacks being denied their rights as newly recognized citizens. The widespread abuse of this misinterpretation is a crime we have allowed to go on for far too long. It should never have been interpreted as an invitation to sneak into the country to give birth as a way of circumventing the process of legally attaining citizenship.
Apparently someone in Congress finally woke up and smelled the day laborers. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) is
sponsoring a bill that would deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. Well, God bless that man. May his tribes increase (especially if they end up being productive members of society).
Of course, something as 'radical' as limiting citizenship to actual Americans who have chosen to give their allegiance to the United States of America couldn't go without being panned by the pro-immigrant lobby.
"It would be just wrong for us to deny such a basic right to just this population," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good post.
I just have to wonder if any response or comment on this subject from Bush was triggered by his current job approval rating.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 01:56 PM (xNjHI)
2
Thanks. If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win -- no matter their party. I mean a real stand, promising a fence, deportations, and punishments for criminals. That's a winning issue and NO ONE will touch it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 02:41 PM (/k+l4)
3
"If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win"
I think you are right. And not only me.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal" label and appeal to traditionally Republican states."
Bush is long overdue to take a stand on this. He can't continue to "give the farm away" and still call himself a conservative. The whispers are out there though. It seems some immigration policy changes are coming our way soon. And the sooner the better.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 03:20 PM (xNjHI)
4
Wow. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would actually vote for Clinton if she honestly declared that she would start mass deportations and would build a fence. Of course, I'd have to believe her, which is nigh impossible...
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:12 PM (/k+l4)
5
GASP - Don't ever say that. I almost fell out of my chair.
The Clintons are as shrewd as they come. They will say absolutely anything to get elected. Not that they are any different than the vast majority of politicians.
It just seems to me that even if HC would seal the borders, the forced march towards socialism would far outweigh any successes with the border policy.
Then again, our choices really suck. It is like voting for death by burning or drowning.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 29, 2005 01:22 PM (xNjHI)
6
Now that's a good one to remember at election time! Select one:
Death by burning (R)
Death by drowning (D)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Take special note of that second phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
The Supreme court incorrectly ruled that illegal aliens who give birth in this country create citizens. The law states all persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Currently some members of Congress are making moves to correct this mistake by the Supreme Court. They are correct and should be supported. This move is not anti-children, anti-immigrant, or anti-anything. Instead, this move is pro-freedom, pro-law enforcement. Remove some of the incentives that others pay for and there will be a reduction in criminals entering this country.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:06 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I agree in theory, however, simply being within the borders of this country gives rise to jurisdiction, legal or not, so the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Amendment, all those years ago, was actually correct. I do, however, support this push to change the interpretation.
Posted by: oddybobo at November 28, 2005 10:48 AM (6Gm0j)
2
Well, their interpretation was based on slaves being denied citizenship -- and then that decision has been applied to criminals (illegals) who enter the country. That's the part about it that's wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 10:52 AM (/k+l4)
3
The equal protection clause.....ah yes....if it was applied (equally) across the board, it would be marvelous. It is conviently brought up when it serves an agenda, but often is ignored. You can probably think of a few cases.
Anyone who breaks a law to get to a place to be protected by the same law giving body, should forfeit any recourse against or in that law giving nation.
I say.....Go back and sue us from your own nation. Tie up your nations courts and charge it to your nations taxpayers.
My rental is about up, I want to thank you. This has been the most successful rental of mine, ever.
Catch you around....the web
Posted by: web_loafer at November 28, 2005 11:07 AM (c90cK)
4
Good idea. I'd love to see the courts of the US tell illegal aliens that they cannot participate in the court system because they're not allowed to -- that would be awesome. And yes, I CAN dream!!
And thanks for the rental!
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 11:14 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 128 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3224 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3057 seconds, 128 records returned.
Page size 84 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.