Ogre's Politics & Views
October 07, 2005
"Special Days"
This week's Tarheel Tavern is going to be featured at Nothing Could Be Finer this weekend.
That blog is operated by Stephen Burr of Charlotte (I think). Now that name sounds very familiar. I wonder if he ran for elected office in Charlotte some time in the past...
Yes, there it is. He ran on the Libertarian ticket for NC House district 103 in 2004. 1,087 votes. The Republican in that won got 18,195; while the token Democrat got 12,463. And Stephen thought that was a "good showing." I don't know -- it was a huge loss, Stephen. I guess it's a good start, but the Libertarians need a lot more than a "start" now.
I do commend you for trying, Stephen, and being willing to fight the cesspool that is the North Carolina Legislature. Please do try again, even if you have to run as a Republican to get elected and then switch your affiliation once you're in!
But the point of this post is that Stephen's 6th wedding anniversary. Congratulations, Stephen! Everyone head over to
his blog and wish him a happy day! Therefore, he's made the "theme" (optional) of this week's Tarheel Tavern "Special Days."
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thank you very much for the kind words, and for mentioning my blogsite.
Now, as for whether 3.4% of the vote in 2004 was a good showing or not, look even further back to 2000, in the District 6 Co. Commission race. I only got 2.7% of the vote there. So, over 4 years, my vote percentage went up 26%!
If I get the same increases in vote percentages and run for office every 4 years, why, I'll break the 40% mark (enough to win in a 3-way race, theoretically) around 2048. And I'll only be 76 years old! Woo hoo!!!!! ;-)
Later,
Cicero (aka Stephen Burr)
Posted by: Cicero at October 07, 2005 04:56 PM (S35wq)
2
I certainly don't think you should give up, I just want to find some way for you to WIN on that ticket!
Posted by: Ogre at October 08, 2005 07:49 AM (iJFc9)
3
LOL! South of the Border signs, huh? And South of the Border was actually in South Carolina. We were only home to the signs, not even privileged to claim the place! I laugh because one of my dirty secrets is that I worked there one summer in the late 70s.
I love the politics in N.C. - so wonderfully weird and strangely balanced, most years! I remember my daddy voted for Mondale and Jesse Helms in the same election. That's North Carolina politics for ya. Purple state.
Posted by: Laurie at October 10, 2005 04:37 PM (hT4+I)
4
Mondale and Jesse Helms? Laurie, was your Daddy a moonshiner?
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at October 10, 2005 05:06 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Statutory Rape
Do you vote Democrat? Do you support Democrats? As most of my regular readers know, I'm not a big fan of Democrats or Democrat-supported policies. I attempt, via this blog, to point out the problems and shortcomings of those Democrat policies. Here is yet another example.
The Democrats run the County in Mecklenburg, North Carolina. They decide what goes on in all aspects of government in the county. They decide what crimes get money for prosecution and which crimes will be ignored.
From 2001 to 2004 one hundred and eighty-three GIRLS age 16 and under got pregnant -- from men age 20 and older. In case you didn't see that the first time, that's 183 young girls in middle school or just starting high school that got pregnant by adult males.
Each and every one of those incidences was a felony. Keep in mind, of course, that the 183 there were just pregnancies that resulted in live births -- not the number of times a young girl was raped by an adult male. How many prosecutions were there? Less than 70.
Clearly there is a major problem here. In addition to the 183 live births, there are many others that have abortions, and even more that just don't report the incident. Girls aged 10 to 14 are not supposed to be having babies, much less the relations that lead up to babies! In Charlotte, they are, and they are with men much older than them.
So what do the Democrats want to do about it? Absolutely nothing. County Commissioner Norman Mitchell: "I don't want to waste the community's time on one item when we have a lot of items before us." Apparently he views stopping statutory rape as a waste of time.
County Health officials: "these girls aren't stupid." Yes, the County actually believes that 10 year old girls have sex with adults because they want children and that they're able to make that decision because they're not stupid. The officials certainly are.
Why the lack of willpower to actually enforce the law and protect 11 year old girls from being raped? It seems that the vast majority of the victims are black or Hispanic. According to government officials, this is a "cultural thing," so it should be allowed.
Hey, if we can ignore crimes if it's a cultural thing, my culture doesn't support paying taxes or driving the speed limit. Others' cultures support beheading infidels. Guess we have to ignore all those violations of law, too, don't we?
While at least 183 actual crimes have been committed and there is clear evidence of the crime, and there are likely hundreds more incidents of raping children, the Democrats on the County Council refuse to do anything about it.
Bill James, a Republican on the council, proposed a few simple steps that could help save this children from a lifetime of difficulty. He's been completely ignored by the Democrats.
So, Democrats on the County Council, while they can find time to support and build sports stadiums and raise taxes, somehow cannot find time to help poor blacks and Hispanic children who are raped. Nice job, Democrats.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am absolutely speechless by this. Completely appalled. Feeling glad I live in Florida... again...
Posted by: Bou at October 08, 2005 10:04 PM (5JHEt)
2
That would be the same Bill James who is notorious for making racist remarks about blacks, wouldn't it? James' game is to feed his constituency of unreconstructed rednecks a regular diet of abuse of blacks. Keeps'em mollified while they wait for the South to rise again. Surely, no one is foolish enough to believe that his interest in the topic is benign. Which might be why his racist blather is being ignored.
Local governments have limited ability to enact legislation in regard to health and crime. The proper venue for this issue is the state legislature.
Nor is it a 'black and Hispanic' issue. Older men are disproportionately fathers of teen's babies regardless of race. The current high profile case is out of Kansas. It involves a white 20-something male with a penchant for 12-14 year-old girls.
Posted by: June Gordon at October 08, 2005 11:20 PM (BbT7B)
Posted by: Sissy at October 09, 2005 10:15 AM (27GT7)
4
It's one thing to know this stuff is happening -- it's absolutely INCREDIBLE that the Democrats on the city council DEFEND it!
Posted by: Ogre at October 09, 2005 06:57 PM (iJFc9)
5
Um, June? No, it's NOT Bill James saying these things -- IT'S THE DEMOCRATS ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
It is DEMOCRAT Norman Mitchell who said considering spending any time or money on prosecuting criminals who commit statutory rape is a "waste of time."
And NO, June, as the numbers will clearly show, even if the facts are racist in this case, the vast majority of confirmed cases of statutory rape are committed by blacks and Hispanics. I'm sorry that you don't like the numbers, June.
Posted by: Ogre at October 09, 2005 07:05 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Money Can't Buy Jobs
The state legislature of North Carolina gave Dell, a privately owned company over $250 million. And for those not familiar with how governments work, the state could only give that money to the private company after they took it (by force) from the state's taxpayers.
The state claimed that they were giving all that money to the business (and not to other, smaller businesses) because it would generate jobs that would "help everyone." However, as the Dell plant opens it's doors, the "5,000 to 6,000" jobs that were being purchased by the state (that's around $45,000 per job paid by the state) have yet to materialize.
So far, there's been 135 permanent jobs at suppliers for Dell and about 350 at Dell itself. That's the state paying over $515,000 per job. What a deal.
But, don't worry,
reports claim that the jobs will be created...some time in the next 20 years.
Why won't government only do things that government should do and stop trying to social engineer the entire country? It's morally wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:05 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
October 06, 2005
Carnival, carnival!
Have you seen this week's Carnival of Liberty? It's up at Eric's, and it's good. Sure, it's long, but if you want news and views that are freedom and liberty-based, this is THE place to go in the Blogosphere.
Seriously, there's tons of good stuff there. You should be reading it every single week.
Oh, and the late New Blog Showcase did finally show up at
Steve The Pirate's. Something about computer trouble or something, I wasn't really paying attention...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:23 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
ACLU and Suicide
This week's topic for the Stop the ACLU Blogburst is the ACLU and "assisted suicide." I've been debating how to approach this one because of the situation. It's in the news now because the case from Oregon that's at the Supreme Court.
The case that is before the Supreme court, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with assisted suicide. Keep that in mind -- absolutely nothing.
The case that's before the Supreme Court is about the rights and freedoms of people to make laws that apply to themselves, or if one person appointed to a federal position can nullify any laws passed by a majority of people.
So the ACLU is supporting the case, but not based on it's merits -- they are supporting the case because they support assisted suicide (which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the case in front of the Supreme Court).
Posted by: Ogre at
02:14 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ogre - The incapacitated have these decisions made by next of kin - greedy or not - NOW because they decide when/if to pull the plug. What the Oregon law would do is allow them to be proactive, rather than just be a 'DNR' and choose to die.
As long as the decision remains with the person, I don't have a problem with it.
I DO have a problem with the Feds trampling on state's rights.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 06, 2005 02:36 PM (8DsKX)
2
I'm in a bit of an ethical dilemma, is it wrong to wish that those in the ACLU would practice doctor assited suicide? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by: oddybobo at October 06, 2005 02:41 PM (6Gm0j)
3
Right, Peter, that's my point. If allowing a doctor to actively cause a death IS a valid choice of a person, then ANYONE who can make decisions for that person (or who the state determines who can make that decision) can now kill people. I don't see any way for that sort of decision to ONLY remain with the person under our system of laws.
And Oddy, they, like most on the left, only want rules and things that apply to OTHERS, not themselves...
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 02:50 PM (/k+l4)
4
Thanks, this one was a tricky topic to tackle, you did great.
Posted by: Jay at October 06, 2005 03:33 PM (2FcUc)
5
Thanks, that's why I was a bit late than normally -- I just wasn't sure how to hit this one for awhile.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 03:47 PM (/k+l4)
6
I think this case can put Roberts in a tricky situation. It should be a State's Right thing, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments. However, the drug being used is a federally controlled substance, making it against federal law. Roberts could end up "legislating from the bench" on this one. Were it me, I would say that Oregon is able to allow assisted suicide, but cannot use a federally controlled substance. Which would lead to "how do they do it?" If it is going to be done, it should be done humanely. And, what if Oregon comes up with an alternative that is humane: does the Fed government outlaw that method?
Posted by: William Teach at October 06, 2005 04:08 PM (IRsCk)
7
Yup, it's a tough one. The feds will not give up. This could be similar to the CA and Marijuana one -- CA wants to allow it, but the feds don't. End result COULD be -- go ahead and do it -- the Oregon officials won't arrest anyone, but the federal government might.
And if the feds revoke the doctor's license and Oregon has any guts, they'll issue a state doctor's license. Now THAT would be fun.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 05:35 PM (iJFc9)
8
I am not familar with the case you mention (perhaps you could give a link to an article from a news source?), so I won't comment on the specific issue. However, I will comment on a logical fallacy in your argument.
**Ogre Said**
***You see, if a person is allowed to have a doctor kill them, it will be very clear and obvious that if a person is incapacitated, that whoever has power of attorney for that person will then be able to make that exact same decision. Then you've moved down that infamous "slippery slope."***
The "slippery slope" argument has to have three things to be a valid argument. (1) A first step which may or may not be undesirable. (2) Solid chain of evidence that it inevitably leads to the next step, and that step inevitably leads to the third, and so on. And (3) a final result that is clearly undesirable.
The second claim is the one you have failed to prove. You show no evidence that this one step will INEVITABLY, without a doubt, lead to subsequent steps. You have stated the equivalent of "if I let my son throw a snowball at his sister, it's just a slippery slope until he becomes an axe murderer." Or another example, "if we deregulate gun ownership, it's a slippery slope until the country is in a state of anarchy."
Neither my hypothetical statements nor yours ("if we allow assisted suicide, it's a slippery slope to killing incapacitated relatives for their inherritance") includes a direct link between the initial thing, and the final thing. None of the statements can be considered "proven," none of the hypothetical worst-case conclusions are proven, until that direct, inevitable, unstoppable connection from the first item to the last is demonstrated, and neither of us have done so with our statements.
Posted by: zandperl at October 06, 2005 08:10 PM (KHEUn)
9
I'm not sure why you say that a slippery slope argument requires inevitability. In my view, that's the point of a slippery slope argument -- it MIGHT lead to the result, if you progress down the pathway. Clearly this might lead to that result, as can be illustrated with the Schiavo case. However, if the only way you can have such an argument is with total, absolute certainly, than I'm not sure there's anything that can be a slippery slope argument -- except perhaps government expanding and taxing more.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 08:24 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Clinton and Greta
On October 24, 2005, Bill Clinton had an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. Once again, I know many of my good readers here at Ogre's Politics and Views do not have the time to read all the news and information that exists. So we're happy to provide a summary and translation of the transcript.
*** BEGIN TRANSLATION OF TRANSCRIPT
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Oh (swooning), oh, oh. (deep breath, pause) OH. Dear, sweet, honorable Mr. Wonderful...err, I mean, Mr. President...
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEST PRESIDENT THAT EVER EXISTED AND WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD: Please, call me Bill.
GRETA FAINTS.
*** 3-minute pause for technical difficulties
Posted by: Ogre at
08:56 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Holy crap! Bill Clinton is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter all the time. Are they cousins or something?
Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 06, 2005 09:23 AM (K+h36)
2
Scary, isn't it? It's the non-tie "casual" look that he's going for, too, I think.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
3
Mop in aisle 3 please, I mean mop in studio 3 please.
Posted by: Tomslick at October 06, 2005 04:18 PM (xNjHI)
4
What color dress was Greta wearing that day?
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 05:35 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Retroactive Tax Increases Okay
According to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the North Carolina Legislature CAN pass laws that are applied retroactively. Their logic? Who knows?!?
At
issue is a tax increase that the legislature passed in 2001 that raised the income tax rate, but the law was applied to a time period BEFORE the law was passed (for example, the law was passed in March, but the increase was applied to January and February).
As a side note, this higher income tax rate (8.25%, highest in the southeast) was supposed to be temporary for 2001 and 2002 during the "recession." It's been passed again and again since these Democrats are absolutely addicted to spending money, so that the most recent "extension" of the "temporary" income tax now extends to 2007.
The Appeals Court ruled that this was fine. The decision will be heard before the North Carolina Supreme Court. If the decision is left this way, the state has found an incredible new sources of utterly unlimited funds.
The legislature could simply raise everyone's income tax rate by 0.1% -- but apply it retroactively back to 1980. Suddenly everyone would owe and absolute TON of taxes with no way to pay it. But hey, the state will have all the money they need, so it's just fine, isn't it? I'm sure it's for the children.
This is what you get when you elect Democrats to run the state. Don't like it? Get the Democrats out of office at the state level.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:03 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
October 05, 2005
Muppet Quiz
I saw this quiz over at Bou's. I think this one is right on the nose...
You are Statler or Waldorf.
You have a high opinion of yourself, as do others.
But only because you are in the balcony seats.
ALSO KNOWN AS:
Those two old guys in the box.
SPECIAL TALENTS:
Heckling, complaining, being cantankerous
QUOTE:
"Get off the stage, you bum!"
LAST BOOKS READ:
"The Art of Insult" and "How To Insult Art"
NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT:
Their pacemakers.
What Muppet are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is getting a little bit rediculous, what's next, what Futurama character are you? Or which Griffin are you? (Tell me what show that is from)
Posted by: Smoke Eater at October 05, 2005 06:58 PM (K7uqT)
2
HA HA HA! I'm ANIMAL! WOMAN, WOMAN, WOMAN! HA HA HA HA HA!
Posted by: Smoke Eater at October 05, 2005 07:00 PM (K7uqT)
3
Did this one a while ago. For some reason I ended up as Rowlf the Dog. Go figure...
Posted by: Harrison at October 05, 2005 07:32 PM (rG3j1)
4
Whoa, there's a futurama quiz? Neat!
Smokey, I think you're Brian Griffin.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 08:38 PM (iJFc9)
5
This does not surprise me...
Posted by: Bou at October 05, 2005 10:30 PM (5JHEt)
6
I told you, it just seemed to fit.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 10:34 PM (iJFc9)
7
I like your blog. Want to trade sidebar links?
http://www.ravingconservative.com
Posted by: Daniel Levesque at October 06, 2005 02:33 AM (KKY6Z)
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 05:38 AM (iJFc9)
9
Actually I see myself more as Stewie, VICTORY IS MINE!
Posted by: Smoke Eater at October 06, 2005 09:41 PM (K7uqT)
10
Yeah, but victory never actually IS his...
Posted by: Ogre at October 07, 2005 05:37 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Miers nomination
I haven't weighed in yet with my views on President Bush's nomination for the supreme court. I've had my opinions (naturally), I just haven't voiced them here. I didn't want to jump the gun or post information without supporting data and more information, and I just didn't have the information.
However, this week's
Christian Views Symposium is going to force my hand. The questions this week are:
1. Are you dissappointed in this selection? Why or why not?
2. Was this selection a brilliant move or a gutless capitulation to the Democrats? Why or why not?
3. Does this appear to be a lack of leadership on the part of President Bush?
4. If you are not happy with the Miers pick, who would have been your choice?
Each week, the Christian Views Symposium posts a question for readers to answer. You can answer on your own blog or in the comments section of the question posting. The questions are open to everyone, not just Christians. Feel free to join in!
Also, Lennie is looking for future hosts for the Symposium. If you're interested in hosting,
head on over and let him know.
Well, here goes nothing.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:02 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There is just no accounting for good taste.
I haven't weighed in on the nomination either, but feel she will end up mirroring Justice O'Conner.
Posted by: oddybobo at October 05, 2005 01:39 PM (6Gm0j)
2
I just don't know what to think about her. I just don't like the way Bush did it. Maybe it was a brilliant move, but we're not going to know for years.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 01:48 PM (/k+l4)
3
Ogre -
To me, being a conservative means having principes. We don't all agree on a particular issue, but we do act and respond in a principled way.
Miers was a political choice. Clements or Brown would have mirrored what are reputed to be her views, but have both appellate records, and published thoughts. Miers has neither. The media has been reduced to looking for old City Council records to divine how she thinks.
We have THREE MORE YEARS. Why not choose the stellar, best-qualified candidate NOW when there is still time to fight? If this were 2007, and Stevens had died, I'd be more sympathetic to a 'quick and dirty' nominee. But NOW?
Mosey over to my blog - I've written quite a bit more on this.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 05, 2005 03:01 PM (8DsKX)
4
I think being a conservative not only means that you have principles, but that they are specific principles. Stalin and Pol Pot had principles, too.
I agree generally with what you've said -- I'm not opposed to Miers, as I don't know anything about her. I'm opposed to the way Bush did this, making it look like conservatives are to be shunned in public and cannot be known.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 03:07 PM (/k+l4)
5
Ogre, you hit the nail on the head! I posted on my own blog about how Bush has essentially betrayed his conservative following with this nomination. She could turn out to be a Thomas or Reinquist...or conversely she could turn out to be a Souter or Ginsburg.
As far as your comments on the difference between conservative (or Constitutionalist) judges and far left whacko judges, I think you're right on! I'm done with the GOP and with Bush unless they pick a fantastic candidate in 2008 my vote won't go towards the GOP (and of course I'd never vote Democrat). Great post my friend!
Posted by: Everyman at October 05, 2005 05:29 PM (A/oHQ)
6
I'm not abandoning Republicans, but at the same time, I'm not blindly supporting them. I'd like to find some conservatives to support, but the Republican Party is doing like the Democrat party -- it's wandering away and leaving me.
And I don't think even Clinton could find a better way to divide Republicans. The best thing is the timing on this one -- the Republicans have a year to do something to unite Republicans before the next mid-term elections and 3 years to unite us before the next presidential.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 05:48 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Silver Lining in New Orleans
I'm an optimist. No, really. I am a complete and total optimist. I really do seek out the good in things, wherever it can be found. I do it probably more often than I should, especially when it comes to trusting people, but that's the way I am.
Now hurricane Katrina was bad. Really bad. But there's almost always some good that can come from bad things. I read this morning something
really good that's a direct result of the hurricane.
3,000 New Orleans City Workers will be laid off.
Hooray! This is great news! In fact, it may be the ONLY time government at any level has gotten smaller in the last 100 years! I certainly cannot remember ever reading any report of any reduction of any sort at ANY level of government in my lifetime! Have any of you?
Even stranger, the employees laid off are "non-essential." Well, idiots, if they're not essential, why in the heck were they employed? "Gee, we don't really need anyone here to do this job, but we've got all this tax money and we need to spend it, so I'll hire you to stand there and hold the wall up."
There's a silver lining to every cloud.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:05 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now I've commented here before so you know I respect your views Ogre, but I think you are wrong to consider the 3000 laid off employees in New Orleans as non-essential. I believe Mayor Nagin was referring to employees whose jobs cannot be performed at present when he referred to them as nonessential. Few cities, bar perhaps Chicago and Tammany Hall New York City of the olate 1800s, have 3000 excess employees that serve no purpose. I believe they were simply people who couldn't do their duty because of the disaster and who couldn't be paid because of lack of an economy. CHEERS!
Posted by: Joseph (OK Liberal) at October 05, 2005 10:49 AM (ueATj)
2
*I* didn't call them non-essential, Mayor Nagin did.
But I do think most cities of any size have 3,000 excess employees. They might have a purpose, but I would suggest whatever they're doing is not a good or correct use of government.
Thanks for stopping along!
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 10:59 AM (/k+l4)
3
Sigh. I will open mouth and insert foot... so there are now going to be 3000 more people on welfare? I would rather have them doing something in the government.
Posted by: vw bug at October 05, 2005 11:23 AM (mD8Rg)
4
ooOOOooo...now that's a tough choice. Would you prefer these people work for government or welfare?
Me, I'd prefer they go find jobs. If absolutely forced to choose, I'd choose welfare because that's cheaper than employment (and can be ended quickly if the right people ever get elected).
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 11:59 AM (/k+l4)
5
I'm curious as to what function they filled prior to the lay off. As for the reduction of government... the city in which I live did that just last year, by about 500 workers.
Posted by: Contagion at October 05, 2005 04:17 PM (Q5WxB)
6
Really? Seriously? The city actually reduced itself by 500 workers? Surely they hired another 1,000 the next day.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 05:03 PM (iJFc9)
7
You haven't been keeping up with the Detroit fiasco lately have you?
Otherwise you would have known that the City of Detroit has not only layed off plenty of city workers but they are also laying off police and firemen.
Should be interesting come Halloween. If you look to the north and see a orange glow, then you know it's Detroit burning up on Devil's night.
Posted by: Machelle at October 06, 2005 01:27 PM (ZAyoW)
8
Then who else did they hire, Machelle? I've seen cities lay off police and firemen only to hire social workers and garbage men. I can't imagine any city actually reducing overall head count AND payroll -- simply cannot imagine it.
Of course, Devil's Night is when Detroit is SUPPOSED to burn, isn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 02:23 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
But Charlotte's Getting One...
Yesterday, William Teach mentioned the Triangle Transit System and pointed out some of the problems with it.
Now I read
an article in the News Observer that actually complains about the train system! Someone needs to get over to the News Observer and let them know they're not toeing the line! If Raleigh wants a train system, they're going to have to learn from Charlotte - lie big, and lie often.
When the "Transit Authority" (Note: NEVER create or trust any "authority" as they are completely unelected and completely irresponsible with ZERO responsibility) sold the people on the train, the cost was "no more than" $100 million. That was 10+ years ago.
The cost now? AT LEAST $750 million...with reduced service. And they haven't started building yet, so construction prices WILL go up more. Oh, and the land purchased for the train? The Transit Authority appraised the land for $9 million. What did they pay? $24.5 million. Yes, government at it's finest.
Why should you care? If you're in the U.S., you're paying for it. The federal government keeps getting its fingers in the way. Trains do not work without MASSIVE density -- which does not exist anywhere in North Carolina.
That won't stop government from wasting literally billions of dollars -- and it will continue to cost tens to hundreds of millions every year it's in operation. And that's just wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:02 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So... Charlotte's changing its name to North Haverbrook? :-)
Posted by: Harvey at October 06, 2005 06:52 PM (ubhj8)
2
The vote will be this fall...people have to select North Haverbrook or Ogdenburg.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 07:01 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 04, 2005
Miers' Gay Sensationalism
Drudge is reporting in giant headlines a link to Time article that claims
she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians
This is being spun as the idea that she is pro-gay and anti-family by various sources. However, if you look at the
actual questionnaire, a completely different picture appears.
The questionnaire specifically asks,
Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?
Miers' answer: Yes.
Therefore, she's pro-gay and anti-family, according to the spin. However, take a peek at the very next question:
Do you...support repeal of...code which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men?
Miers' answer: No.
The answer to the first question depends on your meaning of "civil rights." I support civil rights for anyone and special rights for no one. So I would answer "yes" to the first question as well.
However, if you ask me if I support gay marriage or any other special rights for some, I'd say no, as it appears Ms. Miers would as well.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:55 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry fall under "special rights for some?" Isn't NOT allowing gays/lesbians to marry granting special rights to everyone else? It's like restricting blacks from voting or people with blue eyes from carrying firearms.
Posted by: BKFreshBoy at October 04, 2005 03:22 PM (Xdg4t)
2
That's not the point of this post, so I'll save that rather long discussion for another time. Basically, it breaks down to granting rights for actions of people (having blue eyes is not an action, being black is not an action).
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 03:29 PM (/k+l4)
3
Come see my blog for who should be nominated instead of Miers!
Posted by: patd95 at October 04, 2005 04:46 PM (ogWpI)
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 05:16 PM (iJFc9)
5
Ogre - you know what interests me? The remark by the gay group that they could not understand why she had bothered to respond.
I ran for office - more than once - as a Republican, and I ALWAYS wasted a day talking to the Teacher's Union and such, knowing I had NO chance for an endorsement. I did it out of courtesy, as they have a right to have their questions answered from a candidate.
The idea that you answer questions only if seeking endorsement is a wrongheaded one.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 04, 2005 05:48 PM (8DsKX)
6
True, and Peter, if you look down the form, there is a question that says "Do you Seek Endorsement?" and Miers answered, "no."
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 08:04 PM (iJFc9)
7
Get a clue.
She's 59, never married, and supports gay rights but not gay marriage (a lot of gays don't).
The woman's a lesbian.
More like Souter by the minute!
Posted by: Ralph Stroup at October 05, 2005 02:19 PM (LQJdM)
8
ROFL! You got me there, Ralph!
Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 02:22 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Federal Troop Mission Creep
This week, the Homespun Bloggers want to know:
What are your thoughts about this mission creep for our military, especially in a time when we're at war with a major portion of our forces engaged?
This is Homespun Blogger Symposium number XXXV -- that's 35 for those who are Roman-Numeral impaired. Each week the Homespun Bloggers ask a question for members to answer (or not answer) on their blogs. Feel free to
read about them and join the group.
My answer, as usual, is in the extended entry below:
Posted by: Ogre at
10:59 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
AMEN!
We need to form a civilian rescue corps, perhaps, to aid in these situations, but it i TOTALLY out of the miitary's mission
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 04, 2005 05:50 PM (8DsKX)
2
They're not trained for it! They don't learn in boot camp how to distribute food!
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 08:05 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New London, Part II
Welcome to America, post-Kelo v. New London. In this, new America, property rights do not exist. And if you don't have rights to property, what rights can you possibly have? Your guns can be taken if you don't have a right to property. Your church can be taken. Your printing press can be taken. Is there anywhere left on this planet where men can be free?
In
this case, the Florida city of Rivera Beach has decided that they want to build a yacht club. The fact that the land they want to use is currently occupied by private citizens only slows them down a little.
The 6,000 mostly black people who live in that area are going to be tossed out on the street so the city can have a billion-dollar yacht club. Over 2,000 homes will be simply confiscated by the government so that the government can GIVE the land to a private individual.
Nice country, huh? Oh, how I yearn to be free.
Unrepentent Individual has
more.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:05 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Not to sound racist, but maybe displacing these African Americans will give the movement against this behavior a kick in the pants . . . you know, Jesse Jackson and his crew can set up camp and talk about how its oppression etc . . . Can't be oppressing so maybe it will be the catalyst for the U.S. Govt. to put a stop to it and reverse Kelo!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 04, 2005 09:42 AM (6Gm0j)
2
That is a method that's being brought up to oppose this nastiness, unfortunately. I don't see Kelo being reversed any time soon -- you know how much the Supreme Court absolutely hates to contradict itself (at least obviously).
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
3
That is because the Prez, forgot about me again!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 04, 2005 11:19 AM (6Gm0j)
4
I emailed him and dropped your name...
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 11:54 AM (/k+l4)
5
I live 10 minutes from Riviera Beach. Y'all don't know the whole story. It is front page news here every week.
First... white people are not claiming imminent domain. Black people run that town. It is the black people selling out other black people.
Second... it goes far beyond a yacht club. They're claiming imminent domain far and wide throughout Riviera Beach... taking land from many many black people, NOT just those effected by a Yacht Club. It is far worse than y'all know. They're talking about taking land and building a big frickin' Aquarium that would rival Miami's.
Third... it is making us all sick. All of us.
Fourth... Riviera Beach is one of the scummiest communities around. It is full of drug dealers and whores. I send my kids to private school because I was zoned to have my kids BUSSED into that school district. Over my dead damn body was I having my kids in school with those kids. It's our ghetto.
But... it doesn't make imminent domain right.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 01:18 PM (5JHEt)
6
Here's a link showing you what is under potential imminent domain. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbccentral/content/news/special_reports/riviera_beach/
From this link, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/09/16/c1c_rbviking_0916.html
you get this quote: To do so, Riviera Beach has tied its future to a plan designed to lift the entire city out of economic doldrums. Five CityPlaces, complete with the Palm Beach County Convention Center and hotel, could fit neatly in the project area. It will take 15 to 20 years to complete. It involves the biggest potential eminent-domain action since 1954, when Washington, D.C., displaced 5,000 residents.
We're talking about a helluva lot more than a frickin' Yacht Club. The guy you linked should do his damn homework. Especially since his blog claims that white people are taking the land from the black people. Black people run Riviera Beach. They're behind this project.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 01:26 PM (5JHEt)
7
Thanks for the very accurate updates! I missed where the other blog mentioned it was whites taking from blacks, I had the idea that it was political blacks taking from others.
And you're so right -- even though that place is a total cesspool, it doesn't make stealing right, even if it is the government stealing.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 02:11 PM (/k+l4)
8
Oh wait, now I see what he's saying re: blacks vs. whites -- it may be the blacks that are throwing out the blacks, but the end beneficiaries of the conglomeration will be white people.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 02:12 PM (/k+l4)
9
Here's the URL for their city council... not a white person on it. http://www.rivierabch.com/page.asp?PageId=44
He's being arrogant. He has no clue who is getting that money and who is going to benefit. That is a black run city. Period.
Furthermore, I find it funny as hell that he doesn't even live down here yet he can claim what he has claimed. He doesn't know our politics. None of those folks know our politics.
I have no problem them saying, "Imminent Domain is bad... look what's happening to Riviera Beach" as my husband and I have had the same discussion. Good people are going to lose their homes. It is wrong. Their homes are going to be TAKEN and if you think they're going to get fair market value, you're wrong. They're about to get screwed.
BUT, to claim a rascist slant to it... that makes me ill. They need to live down here, live our politics and read our newspapers before they go screaming, "whitey makin' money off the black people" in any shape or form.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 03:45 PM (5JHEt)
10
Without knowing most of the intricate details, I'm sure it's about money. The city council pushing it may be getting actual cash kickbacks, and if they're not, I'm sure they are absolutely drooling over the potential new tax income that they will get to spend.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 03:48 PM (/k+l4)
11
It's all about money. Politics in Palm Beach County, are all corrupt. Corruption knows no skin color.
They say it will bring much needed jobs to the area. As you described it accurately, it is our cesspool. No jobs, no nothing down there. But its just wrong. Where in are these people going to go?
To tell you how bad it is. the Catholic Diocese just closed the local Catholic School there. Nobody would drive their kids to go there... even if it was surrounded by chain link. The Diocese got tired of subsidizing the school and closed the doors. The kids were sent to our school and neighboring Parish schools. (GREAT kids, by the way. It's been a real pleasure having them in our school on many fronts.)
Anyway, its real simple for people to claim rascism on any account. This is not one of them.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 04:26 PM (5JHEt)
12
Let the comparison of Palm Beach to New Orleans begin!
As for the jobs, that idea is crap. Does anyone really believe that the current residents are going to get work from this thing? First of all, where will they live, since the city is throwing them out on the street!!!
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 05:12 PM (iJFc9)
13
You are absolutely correct. Not one person they are displacing is going to get a job out of this.
Here's another thing. The City Council wants to revitalize this area as has been done with others nearby. They can build what they want there, but the bottom line is, one block over will still be crack houses and whores. It won't be safe at night. The scum will still come back.
Here's the crime stats for Riviera Beach in 2002: http://rivierabeachfl.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
It compares to the National average. Scary stuff... and I hear 2005's numbers are worse. Now... where's all that scum going to go? You can move them off all that property... but they aren't REALLY going away.
They can shine that area as much as they want... but I'm not going to do business there and I'm not taking my family either. ESPECIALLY not at night.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 08:56 PM (5JHEt)
14
Ready for the WORST news, Bou? The scum will move. You're 10 minutes away. If this goes through, at least half of them will move to YOUR town. Seriously. If this continues, and I were you, I'd be putting my house on the market before they start moving -- because they WILL move.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 09:29 PM (iJFc9)
15
They can't afford to move into the neighboring towns. There will still be areas they can live around where they are reclaiming. I guess they'll just be packed in closer.
Palm Beach County... I think it is the oddest place I've ever lived. In one second you can be in Yuppieville... the next you're in a ghetto... and then just 2 seconds later... you're on Palm Beach amongst some of the biggest wealth in this nation.
Posted by: Bou at October 04, 2005 11:11 PM (5JHEt)
16
Or they'll take over other areas. All it will take is a few people willing to sell to them.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 11:15 PM (iJFc9)
17
BTW, missed this post some how. Bou hit it on the nail... and Ogre, they can't afford to buy in WPB. A $100k house is now selling for $400k. I doubt they'll get the appropriate amount of money... I do not know where they will end up, but this is not good. And some of those people are older people who have lived there all of their lives. This is just not right.
Posted by: vw bug at October 06, 2005 01:57 PM (mD8Rg)
18
VW, specifically when I mentioned them moving, I was talking about the scum that Bou mentioned. They're not going to buy a house, they're going to search for and find abandoned houses and take them over -- just hope none of them are in your neighborhood. The ones who have houses now will, as Bou pointed out, likely live in apartments for a long time.
Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 02:29 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Useless Spending in NC
Governor Easley let a bill become a law this past weekend while giving the usual insane reasons behind it. He had the choice to sign the bill and make it become law right away; veto the law, in which case it would go away; or ignore the law and it would become a law without his signature. He chose the last option.
The law shows again the insanity of the people running North Carolina. The law was created to fund cleaning up contamination at an industrial site in Transylvania County. It was done to attempt to bring in a Japanese company. The company has since decided that it's not going to relocate to that county. Therefore, there's no reason for the state to pay for the cleanup, right?
Wrong. Instead of vetoing the extra expenditure by the state government that will net zero cash, zero jobs, and zero benefit, Easley let the bill become law so that government could continue to spend money as fast as they can confiscate it from you.
This is your North Carolina Democrat Party in action.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
October 03, 2005
Carnival, carnival!
Pointing out a few carnivals:
The Tarheel Tavern is up at
Captivated by Mandie this week. Short and sweet.
The
New Blog Showcase Carnival is supposed to be up at
Steve the Pirate. Hey Steve, wherefore art thou?
Finally, a new carnival this week, the
Carnival of True Liberties is up. It's brand new, so head on over and take a peek.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:02 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Christianity = Hate Speech
Well it's been on it's way, but it's finally happened here in America. In Canada, Christianity has been outlawed and people are being fined and put in jail for being Christians, under the auspices of "hate speech." Now America can join the anti-Christians of the world since now there's been a high-profile firing for being Christian.
At issue is an outfielder from the Washington Nationals and a volunteer chaplain. They were discussing Christianity. Since they did, the volunteer was
fired, and the outfielder was forced to apologize for being Christian.
No, neither person has been arrested, at least not yet. And if the outfielder were not a good player (apparently), he would likely be released by the team because it's not politically correct today to be a Christian.
The team president, Tony Tavares, is investigating the "preaching of hatred." It turns out the volunteer chaplain who was fired is also an FBI agent. I'd be willing to be that agent's career is over -- there's no room for Christians in government, according to the ACLU and others.
Tavares said that he can have his beliefs, he just cannot express them. After all, he's a chaplain, and chaplains shouldn't be expressing any religious beliefs. Tavares also said that while he doesn't want to change anyone's religious beliefs, he just doesn't want any chaplains to have any in his organization.
There's no word on the punishment for bringing a Bible into the Washington Nationals locker room.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There is some subtlety required when spreading one's religion. Chaplain Jon Moeller told outfielder Ryan Church that his Jewish ex-girlfriend was going to Hell. If a Muslim said that a Christian was going to Hell, that would likely be considered a Bad Thing to say as well. I do agree with you that the actions taken by the Washington Nationals were somewhat drastic, but the chaplain's words should've been kept more private between himself and Church.
On the other hand, I'm surprised you didn't take Church to task for his comment that he had no clue that non-Christians were going to Hell.
Posted by: zandperl at October 03, 2005 04:41 PM (KHEUn)
2
Zandperl-
Sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. Until recently, subtlety in spreading religion has been up to the person doing the spreading. It has never been illegal to say anything religious, subtly or bluntly, nor should it ever be. The only restraint that anyone is required to practice is to keep their religion-spreading non-violent.
Hey, if you don't want to hear about Jesus, walk away, but I am not required by law to keep quiet.
Second, Muslims say that Christians are going to hell all the time. As a Christian, that doesn't bother me one bit. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong that opinion is.
Where I disagree with Ogre is, the first amendment is supposed to guarantee freedom of association. The Nationals should be allowed to choose to associate themselves only with non-Christians if they wish. Just like I should have the right not to employ anyone I choose not to associate with. In practice Ogre is right though, since the Freedom of Association hasn't been recognized in this country since before the "civil war".
Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 03, 2005 04:54 PM (K+h36)
3
Christianity has outlived it's purpose in this world. I'm glad people are finally able to get the stuff out of the workplace and halls of government. 2000 years of crimes against humanity, war, hatred, repression - I'm sure that's EXACTLY what Jesus had in mind.
Jesus is surely ashamed of those people who use his name to justify the pure pile of crap that Cristianity became 300 years after he died, and has remained.
Jesus never claimed to be god - tat was decided by a vote! A frigging vote by a bunch of politicians is the basis for your reality.
So so stupid.
Posted by: J Christ at October 03, 2005 06:49 PM (TJRMe)
4
Sorry Zandperl, can you please point out the passage in the first amendment that guarantees freedom of association and prejudicial hiring practices?
By the way - here is the exact text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Hmm, I guess the framers forgot the part that said, "Congress shall allow small minded bastards to only employ those people that go to their church."
Posted by: Zandperl's Mom at October 03, 2005 06:54 PM (TJRMe)
5
Zandperl, I'm with Echo -- nearly every religion believes that everyone who doesn't agree with them is going to some sort of hell. It's insane to ask them not to say so.
However, Echo, I didn't say that the Nationals couldn't do it -- they certainly are free to do it. I just point it out because I've not seen any other such high profile person be fired for being Christian. At the same time, Congress has passed laws that clearly conflict with free association -- "fair labor" laws.
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 08:20 PM (iJFc9)
6
"it's not politically correct today to be a Christian."
Since when? I read that 80% of Americans are Christian. How could it possibly be politically incorrect to be a member of the majority?
"there's no room for Christians in government, according to the ACLU and others."
Obviously you disagree with this, but how could you cite this as an example of the turning of the tide? It is such a ridiculous misstatement. The majority of US leaders are Christians, including the President, who refers to God in every speech he makes.
I can't imagine Chritians feeling persecuted in a country run by Christians.
Posted by: JJ at October 03, 2005 08:42 PM (b+m2C)
7
Well, the example above shows how it's politically incorrect. Even if 80% are Christians, this is a country that is ruled by the minority, not the majority.
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 09:14 PM (iJFc9)
8
I'm sorry, but that's just a retarded statement-"this is a country that's ruled by the minority and not the majority"--Since when. If that we're true, Bush sure wouldn't be President, The Poor would be in charge of the government, Gays would be able to marry and tell heterosexuals they can't etc. What example do you point to, to back up that assertion? Also, Christians have been running this country since it's inception, and most especially in the last 6 yrs., so trying to trumpet them as some poor,persecuted minority is really lame.
Posted by: Leo at October 03, 2005 09:36 PM (BFfUN)
9
No, Christians haven't been running this country. Just because Bush is a Christian, doesn't mean the country is run by Christians, unless you really think the country is run by the President.
If the majority ruled, blacks would still be slaves, and women wouldn't be able to vote. Courts are in place to ensure that the country is not run by mob rule -- which would be majority rule.
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 09:52 PM (iJFc9)
10
"One Nation under God"
"In God we trust"
"God Bless America"
One places his hand on the bible to take an oath in court.
U.S. Government offices shut down every year to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.
No... you're right. Christians haven't been running this country.
Posted by: JJ at October 03, 2005 10:23 PM (b+m2C)
11
I'm glad you agree, JJ. Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 10:27 PM (iJFc9)
12
What a crock! Christians, oppressed? Talk about delusions.
Posted by: Heathen Dan at October 04, 2005 07:51 AM (FNTr3)
13
Thanks for your well-thought out and concise opinion, Dan!
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 08:00 AM (/k+l4)
14
If this wasn't true, it would actually be funny. Since when should anyone have to keep their discussions closed and away from anyone else. I'm sorry but if you and I where having a discussion on the merrits of what makes better shooting targets, bunnies or puppies, and someone gets offended because they over hear it, too damn bad. They weren't part of the conversation anyway.
People annoy me.
Posted by: Contagion at October 04, 2005 08:50 AM (Q5WxB)
15
Good points, Contagion. In today's society, if you offend someone, it's now your fault, not theirs for not minding their own business. It's really a shame.
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 08:55 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Liberals dislike Minutemen
John Longenecker wrote an article last June about the Texas Minutemen. He hits the nail on the head in so many areas - not just the fact that "illegal immigration is bad", but the reasons why liberals don't understand our need to protect the borders.
Where liberals fail is, in part, in their refusal to see the consequences of their own acts of interference, but will hold others accountable for something as small as announcing their resisting. The Liberal mind-set cannot allow them to see how they are the cause of the problem they complain about, and their immaturity won't permit them to see how righteous the resistance to their interference is.
He likens the liberals to children, and I agree.
The double standard of the liberals is that conservatives are held to answer because liberals think of non-liberals as adults, while liberals are not held to answer because they perceive themselves as kids. What they fail to comprehend in their teenager mentalities is that the response they object to (such as the Minutemen) is a perfectly healthy and normal adult answer to their unending intrusion, provocation and the injustice of their interference when people have had enough.
Exactly.
Do a Google search for "texas minutemen", and the top response is
this article by Reuters, entitled "Minutemen step up US border patrol; violence feared". Of course, the first paragraph immediately slams home their point and belief that having Americans defending the border is a potentially violent thing, even though the last Minutemen vigil in Arizona was notoriously
non-violent. let's not even take into account that there is precious little media coverage of the Minutemen at all.
The California-based Brown Berets, a Mexican-American group that was allied with the revolutionary U.S. Black Panther Party in the 1960s, has vowed to confront the Minuteman volunteers during their October vigil.
An Arizona rights group, the Border Action Network, distributed posters to stores in Naco, Douglas and Nogales on the Mexican border this week, declaring the communities "hate-free zones" and saying "racist vigilantes" are unwelcome.
In Texas earlier this year, 11 state senators urged Gov. Rick Perry to oppose the Minuteman patrols, saying they could "negatively affect tourism and trade along the border" and make law enforcement "more dangerous and difficult."
There is not a mention of the number of illegals that the Minutemen stopped. There is not much of a mention of anything positive in the article, actually. But Longenecker addresses that too - it's the simple fact that liberals think they're the only ones who are allowed to resist or protest. They don't think their own Communist, idiotic mentality should be questioned, and they can't stand to stay out of affairs they're ill-equipped to run.
The Democrats bully and push to the point of resistance from the objects of their hatred (adults and adult values, such as being free from interference), and then characterize that resistance and objection as racism, incendiary and potentially violent.
So what should they do, now that the Minutemen are on the border?
Not only can you not win every fight, but you should not even fight every fight. Fighting everything is a dead giveaway that it’s not really about any given issue, but only about fighting. And I have my own theory on that.
Liberals need to grow up and back down, and begin to live with the consequences of their own making or help fix them. Liberals need to back down. Not compromise, not cave in, but back down and cooperate, taking that chip off their collective shoulder, adjust their rotten attitude, and stop picking fights with everything they see.
An adult would do that.
Then again, we are dealing with children. Spoiled, bratty, immature kids who should really get out of the way and let us get the job done. G-d knows they're not capable of doing anything besides whining and holding up signs.
This has been part of the Guard the Borders blogburst. GTB hits
Euphoric Reality every Monday, and seeks to promote awareness about the illegal immigration epidemic that our country is facing and the desperate need to curb the problem before it's too late. If you'd like to join the blogburst, send an email to kit.jarrell@gmail.com with your blog's name and URL.
Blogs already on board:
Posted by: Ogre at
11:01 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
While most Americans look to the Democratic party as the better of the two major parties to control illegal immigration, you are right about liberals not trusting the minutemen.
That stems from their ties to right wing extremists and new-Nazis. At recent minuteman rallies, swastikas and Nazi flags were openly flown.
Posted by: Denny Hix at October 03, 2005 01:01 PM (LQJdM)
2
I don't know that anyone looks to any political party for controlling illegal immigration -- the Republicans, in power, have done nothing. The Democrats, who want the illegal vote, will do nothing. The Libertarians don't even want to have borders. There's not much left!
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 01:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
The main element in modern liberal thought is a childish total disregard of cost, like a child complaining that he can't get everything in a toy store.
The "X uber alles" mindset results in frustration as the liberal must constantly deny the reality that there will always be unmet wants, and that securing some will mean leaving others unmet. Like a kid who realizes that he cannot have every toy in the store, the liberal has a temper tantrum.
Paying no heed to cost, means accepting an infinitely high cost to achieve one's goals. As the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller pointed out (http://nicedoggie.net/2005/index.php/?p=938#more-93
, "That’s why they [levee engineers] have degrees in engineering and accounting, degrees that let them understand that protecting everybody from everything costs an infinite amount of money and will take an infinite amount of time to complete. To pay for it, all social welfare spending will have to be slashed, all environmental spending will have to be zeroed out, and all other government spending will likewise be transferred to the “infinite flood protection” project."
Posted by: Tom at October 03, 2005 01:42 PM (Eew1Y)
4
I try to avoid calling liberals child-like, but so often the description is just SO very accurate! It's always gimmie, no matter the cost. I'm starting to understand WHY they think that way, and I don't see any way to change their thoughts.
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 02:02 PM (/k+l4)
5
Rip Blue Ray, Blue-Ray Ripper, Blue Ray Converter, Convert Blu Ray,
Posted by: helen at June 01, 2009 03:38 AM (1pIWK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Exporting Insurance
What a surprise. It seems that even medical insurance is going south of the border. And of course, there's complaining about it.
In this case, it seems a business near the Mexican border (southern California), couldn't continue to afford the outrageous fees of $100,000+ per year to insure their 50 employees. So they decided to pay closer to $50,000 to insure more employees...in Mexico.
The employees of Sam Ellis department store now head over the border to see doctors and the employees seem to be rather happy about the lower costs and friendly doctors.
Of course, some people complain about the quality of medical care -- not the employees who are GETTING the medical care, others who are apparently official overseers of the correct type and quality of medical care for everyone else on the planet. Idiots.
It's called a free market, those of you who are complaining. If people want to see a doctor in Mexico, of what business is it of yours to tell them not to? Talk about controlling other people's lives!
And of course, there's always the question of why? Why are people doing this? Because insurance costs too much. Why does it cost too much? Because the states are absolutely interfering with the free market. The states prohibit me from entering into a contract for insurance that will allow me to buy what I need.
Instead, each state decides what insurance I MUST buy if I want insurance. In other words, if I don't want insurance against mental health, aids, smoking-related illness, aromatherapy, acupuncture, drug abuse, and literally hundreds of other conditions and treatments, I simply cannot buy it.
Why? Because all those other conditions and treatments would NOT make it in a free market, so the government FORCES those who do not want that coverage to pay for those who do. Folks, we might not have national health care yet, but we are well on the way -- there is NOT a free market in insurance today, and there should be.
If we had a true free market in insurance, the prices would drop overnight a huge amount for 90% of Americans. The other 10%, who want exotic coverage and coverage for expensive treatments, well, they'd have to pay more -- and they should if there is any economic freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:03 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
2 comments:
1) I noticed, when I had my children, that the bill, if itemized, contained many treatments that I did not get. In fact, they simply put the same "bill of goods" together for all regular deliveries, and just add stuff if the baby ends up in NICU or something.
2) Our local transportation union - SEPTA - is going on strike at the end of the month because they don't want to pay any percentage of their insurance premiums. They currently pay only co-pays; they're completely insulated from the travesty of insurance today, and the transportation authority, surprise surprise, is practically bankrupt.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 03, 2005 10:43 AM (vR7Sl)
2
Nice, birdwoman. I remember when my father had insurance, the way it worked was that HE paid the entire bill, then went to insurance companies to get his money back.
While this may cause more work on behalf of the person, the person certainly had a GREAT incentive to only pay for services rendered!
And yes, unions are certainly helping to destroy insurance. Of course, government regulations requiring companies to provide insurance is yet another way the government interferes with what should be a free market. What if I don't WANT insurance? Why am I FORCED to take it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 11:56 AM (/k+l4)
3
Ogre - a word of caution. I used to design self-insured health plans, as an insurance broker.
In a typical group of 20 - 2 had medical conditions that required lots of medication & intense use of plan, 4 had random/occasional sickness like broken leg or influenza, 6 just went in for their annual check-up, and the rest - mostly healthy twentysomethings - never went to the doctor at all.
It was by spreading out the risk over the entire group, and not cherrypicking the healthy 8, that make care available to everyone. The market wants to insure just the 8, but most of them choose to opt ut of coverage and gamble that an emergency room will cover them if they DO get sick.
In the meantime - what about the 2 that had a heart attack or need an organ transplant? What about a chronic disease like diabetes, where people can be productive with their medication?
If you really DO want to go without health insurance, then you should need to agree to allow a hospital to interecpt up to 25% of your income/assets in the event of a health disaster to recoup cost of care. That would be a gamble for you, but not like the current one, where the public indemnifies hospitals via tax levy through uncompensated care pools. Then, you WOULD be taking a real gamble, not betting from a fail safe position where you can skimp on premiums secure in the knowledge that a hospital has to take care of you.
So - are you feeling lucky, punk?
(a quote, Ogre, not a charachterization)
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 03, 2005 01:42 PM (VHQXK)
4
I do clearly understand your point, Peter, thanks for stopping by -- but your question is moot because the government won't even allow me to have that option. Why won't they let me take that chance if I want to?
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 03:29 PM (/k+l4)
5
000800: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?
Posted by: Debra Riley at October 17, 2005 08:33 PM (dhx7P)
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 08:58 PM (iJFc9)
7
I've managed to save up roughly $61222 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?
Posted by: Courtney Gidts at November 14, 2005 07:57 PM (HpDlV)
8
I presume that's $61,222.00. I don't look at a house as an investment -- to me it's an expense -- so I don't buy them to make money, I buy them to have a place to live because they cost money and don't generate it.
Will home prices go up or down? Like the realtors say: depends on location, location, and location.
Posted by: Ogre at November 14, 2005 10:06 PM (7PCNv)
9
Rip Blue Ray, Blue-Ray Ripper, Blue Ray Converter, Convert Blu Ray,
Posted by: helen at June 01, 2009 03:44 AM (1pIWK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Legislature Back in Session!
Hold on to your wallets! Once again, after the legislature adjourned for the year, they will meet once again soon. They claim that they will be meeting only to override Easley's veto, but once they're in session, quite literally anything goes -- they may consider ANY legislation they want.
For this session, Governor Easley has vetoed a bill that was passed by the legislature that would allow North Carolina to work with other states. However, Easley has determined that North Carolina is better than any other state. Therefore, if you're a schoolteacher and you're rated "highly qualified" by your state, you are not welcome in North Carolina.
The law that was passed would have allowed highly qualified teachers in one state to come to North Carolina and teach. Governor Easley didn't like that. He thinks North Carolina is the only state qualified to determine who is smart enough to teach it's students.
For once, he's actually doing something that he is permitted to do -- states are supposed to be different. But in this case, it's not such a great idea -- since the state cannot find enough people to teach it's students already.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 139 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0716 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0527 seconds, 131 records returned.
Page size 101 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.