Ogre's Politics & Views
July 17, 2006
Building Height Freedom?
Here's a good one for opponents of freedom. The headline reads:
N.C. lawmakers jump into local building height fight
The Henderson City Council had decided that they would permit people who are building buildings on their own property to make them 80 feet tall. Before their decision, the
subjects peons peasants property owners could only build them 64 feet tall, or the city would put them in jail. Yes, if you built a building 65 feet tall in Henderson, NC, you would go to jail.
However, a member of the
supreme royalty North Carolina Legislature decided that THEY didn't give permission for the peasants to build the building 80 feet tall, so they stopped that sort of insubordination from the
minor noble lords local city councils.
Why in the name of freedom these a-holes have any right to determine how tall I build MY building on MY land is utterly beyond me. This is the anti-freedom attitude that exists across the country today. These people in elected positions actually believe that you should have no freedom. In the words of the
Lord mayor pro tem of the town, "It doesn't fit in," so you should be jailed for exercising your freedom.
Oh, how I yearn for freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:37 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The rights of property owners throughout our nation are constantly eroding, thanks to our local officials, who are on a power-drunk.
A few years ago, my neighbors got a permit to demolish their 1956 rambler in order to put onto the property a two-story McMansion (a modular). Fairfax County gave the demolition permit with little trouble, but when it came time to get the permit for the modular to be set (The County had known from the git-go all about the specs for that modular and had orally promised to grant the necessary permit), the county said no--then blah, blah, blah--do this, do that. To add to my neighbors' grief, the county refused to void the real-estate tax on a structure which had been demolished. My neighbors eventually caved in to the county's demands and have ended up with a structure worth less in resale because the garage is attached.
Another example....Last month, I visited the county's zoning commission to check on some options for my own property. I was told that I had to build a McMansion structure in order to be in keeping with the other houses in the neighborhood. These other houses were erected from 1984-2005. I pointed out to the zoning official that my house, a 1930 structure, was here first and that those McMansions weren't in keeping with my house. The official didn't much like my rant. So...I'm stuck here in an outdated house because--get this--the county now won't give me a permit to raze and rebuild. UGH!
I'm convinced that we rent our property from the county, and the rent is the real-estate tax.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 17, 2006 12:46 PM (y6n8O)
2
You're dead on with that last statement. We no longer have the right to own property in this country -- which is why we have no real freedom. We are all slaves to the government, whether you want to admit it or not.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 12:53 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2006
Winchester Model 1300 Defender
Today is indeed a good day. I just bought one of these:
And know what? The Democrats couldn't stop me.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:12 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Very nice! I'm jealous.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 15, 2006 06:24 PM (Ffvoi)
2
HEY, that's nice! I want one too. Can I come help you test it? I'll bring food and iced tea for while we are out, and beer/sammiches for after.
Posted by: Smokey at July 15, 2006 09:15 PM (DiOns)
3
Come on over! If you're bringing all that, I'll spring for a pile of clays!
Posted by: Ogre at July 15, 2006 09:32 PM (o2crh)
4
No Democrat would want to stop you from buying THAT you stupid idiot. I'll say it again, there are as many Democrats that want to ban guns like that one as there are Republicans who want to bomb abortion clinics and think Jesus will be proud of them.
Personally, I always preferred my double barrel, if you can't hit it with one shot, modified or full choke, then you shouldn't be shooting.
Posted by: Robert P at July 15, 2006 11:25 PM (ahl/o)
5
Wrong yet again. Here is one big list of Democrats who would do anything they could to stop me from buying this gun:
Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY)
Posted by: Ogre at July 15, 2006 11:27 PM (o2crh)
6
So you got one. Now think about it. Your neighbor also has one. So has the guy down the street. To make sure you are always on top, better buy one for the misses also.
Feel safe already?
I bet it was pretty expensive.
By the way, do you have kids? If so, better tell 'm not to play with it.
How many people are killed by guns in the US every year? Is that higher or lower than Honduras?
Posted by: richard at July 16, 2006 01:17 PM (ORbHW)
7
And it's not the Democrats that should have stopped you. Your mum should have.
Posted by: richard at July 16, 2006 01:19 PM (ORbHW)
8
Yup, I do feel safe.
I've used one similar to this to protect myself before and it worked. And no one had to die, either -- especially me.
How many people die in car accidents a year in the US? Is that higher or lower than in Liechtenstein?
Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 01:35 PM (o2crh)
9
Welcome aboard the Hillbilly Ecosystem!!!
Posted by: butch at July 16, 2006 05:04 PM (lRmHb)
10
Thank you! I think this was indeed a good post to start out with for that one, eh?
Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 06:05 PM (o2crh)
11
Mmmmm, gun pr0n!
Hey, Ogre... The Beloved Husband and I are kinda-sorta starting to look for a good shotgun. It's going to have to be something *I* can handle, but also some proper stopping power.
So, any suggestions for a gun which would be a good compromise?
-- Kat
www.CatHouseChat.com
Posted by: Kat at July 16, 2006 07:58 PM (qUL/P)
12
They call this one the "defender" for a reason.
This one has an 18-inch barrel (the shortest legal length), so it's not very heavy. It's a 12-gage, so you can get about any load in it. Best of all, it's a pump and every single bad-guy on the planet knows that sound.
Unfortunately, this one is a Winchester, and from what I understand, they're not making them any more. It might take a little looking to find one of these.
Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 08:07 PM (o2crh)
13
Oh, and Richard, my husband and I *DO* have a child. We also live in the country, where guns are the norm.
THEREFORE, I am a responsible parent and give our child solid training in how to handle a gun, and WHEN TO GET OUT if someone *else* is handling a gun improperly.
I don't keep my child away from all possibility of harm: I train her to threat assess and make wise and informed decisions. Ultimately, when she's out of my supervision, she will have been trained in the skills to avoid and manage trouble, instead of encountering bad situations with no preparation at all.
I plan to raise an ADULT, not an eternally co-dependent, whining baby who can't take care of itself.
-- Kat
www.CatHouseChat.com
Posted by: Kat at July 16, 2006 08:09 PM (qUL/P)
14
I actually had fun in the store I was in where I bought the gun. When I was waiting for all the federal paperwork, a kid came up to me and asked me a question. I explained exactly how the gun worked and showed him how to chamber a round.
(With his parent's permission, of course)
Posted by: Ogre at July 16, 2006 08:12 PM (o2crh)
15
In the infamous words of that ignoramous George W. Bush: "Just wait."
Posted by: Len at July 16, 2006 11:56 PM (QpPFe)
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 12:00 AM (o2crh)
Posted by: Big White Hat at July 17, 2006 02:21 AM (0/c8m)
18
Looks like a fun addition (or start of) your collection! Yeah, teach your kids that it's not a toy and treat is just as you would anything else in the house that could harm them.
I laugh in the face of everyone who says that guns are too dangerous to have in a house with kids, but think nothing of buying household chemicals. Niether are more dangerous than the other, but you can't convince short-sighted people of that.
FACT: in 2003 there were 102 accidental deaths of kids 0-17 in the United States.
FACT: that same year, there were 287 accidental poisonings in the same age group.
:: source: CDC Website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html :::
Go ahead and play with the site for awhile, it is fun and informative!! ;~D
Posted by: ParaTed2k at July 17, 2006 03:07 AM (ngLJ+)
19
Gun Porn, Gun Porn, Gun Porn, I love Gun Porn.
I am green with envey.
The Winchester Defender is nice.
Posted by: Michael at July 17, 2006 04:04 AM (W0Vxv)
20
Thanks, everyone.
ParaTed2k, you're dead on. Exactly right -- and it's a nice addition to a collection that's starting to outgrow it's own display case...
It's my first pump shotgun, but not my first shotgun. Next on the dream shopping list is a .45-cal level action rifle -- just because they're neat.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 08:52 AM (o2crh)
21
"If gun kill people then spoons made Oprah fat."
"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 17, 2006 12:37 PM (mQauu)
22
Og:
Looks like an excellent home defense weapon. Do you load your own? I heard of a guy who kept his "progressively" loaded: rubber pellets, half-bird, full-bird, buck. He figured that gave him license to unload freely with built-in warning shots and not worry about killing anyone -- at first.
Posted by: JAT at July 17, 2006 01:53 PM (dH2ZC)
23
No, I don't load my own.
But I used to keep mine loaded that way, too. However, in today's legal society, it's acutally worse for the perp to survive injured. Mine is loaded with buck shot and slugs. The only warning the scum gets is the sound of the pump chambering a round.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 01:58 PM (/k+l4)
24
Ogre,
Show me one fact that suggests those Dems would want to stop you from buying a pump shotgun. One fact. I might be wrong, just show me the fact. Not some talking point from the NRA, just a fact. Not about street sweepers or automatic weapons, a fact about pump shotguns. Just one.
Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 06:46 PM (5swqh)
25
Their vote opposing the government being allowed to seize and confiscate weapons at will.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:01 PM (/k+l4)
26
Oh, and the magazine capacity is "too large" for them -- votes re: weapon bans.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:02 PM (/k+l4)
27
And let's not forget Feinstein, in referring to this exact gun:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:31 PM (/k+l4)
28
Uhmmm, which vote was it that would have allowed the government to seize and confiscate weapons at will?
How many shots does that short barrel allow? Can't be more than five, right?
Can you link to the Feinstein quote where she said that about this gun.
To recap:
1. There was no vote to ban hunting rifles and shotguns, like this one, ever.
2. Your shotgun might have an unbelievable capacity to hold ammo, but in general there is no vote to ban shotguns that hold a reasonable amount of ammo.
3. There MIGHT be one quote from ONE Democrat saying it was okay to ban this gun.
Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 07:44 PM (5swqh)
29
That was the vote that failed in the Senate last week. I mentioned it here: http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/186094.php
I can get six in the barrel. That's "too many"
Feinstein's quote is common, general knowledge, search the internet and it will come up quickly. It was about 1994.
And yes, if I put the dreaded "pistol grip" on this gun, it would fit in that category of "evil assault weapons." They were banned, even if you deny that.
The Democrats listed hate guns, period. You don't have to admit it for it to be true. You can like shotguns all you like, but Schumer and Feinstein are staunch absolute haters of ANY firearm in my hands, ever, under any circumstances.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 07:53 PM (/k+l4)
30
Holy cow. I just realized something while driving home. Robert P, you actually believe what you're typing. You're not just being a pain or a troll, you honestly believe that Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, and others actually don't want to ban guns!
Wow. I'm amazed at the incredible, willful ignorance you have to employ to have those beliefs. I guess that's why those people keep lying -- people like you actually believe them.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 09:48 PM (o2crh)
31
That's funny because I am constantly amazed that you buy the right-wing talking points like "Democrats want to take away your guns, burn your bible, and turn you all into homosexuals."
But, I guess that is why large corporations keep telling the right-wing spokespeople to spout those lies, because people like you buy them. Did you notice that once again you can't prove any facts to back up what you said?
See, when I make an argument, I can provide facts. You can't. That means, wait for it, YOU ARE WRONG. Your talking points are just that, talking points. Lies, exaggerations. If you can't back them up with independent verification, then it's a lie.
Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 11:22 PM (ahl/o)
32
p.s. Yes Democrats and most sportsmen with a brain want to ban street sweepers, true assault rifles, and Saturday night specials. Yes, we think people should have to register their guns. NO, it's not so they can be taken away some day (what a stupid talking point).
And, yes there are some Democrats that want all guns banned (as in some foreign countries). That is NOT at all a "Democratic" position, just as murdering doctors that carry out emergency abortion is a "Republican" position. They are both extremists positions that will never see the light of day. You are welcome to fight that battle since I don't agree with it either. Of course, it is a HUGE waste of time, but that seems to be what your leaders want you to do. So, go about it, mindlessly, carelessly, stupidly.
Posted by: Robert P at July 17, 2006 11:26 PM (ahl/o)
33
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not facts. In your dream world, you clearly make up your own facts. But here in the real world, facts are facts. You once seemed capable of intelligent conversation, but I'm going to have to go with the initial reaction to your insanity-laced rants: you're a raving lunatic who wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the face.
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 11:53 PM (o2crh)
34
Wow. It's funny, it's like we're Superman and Bizarro. We could not be more complete polar opposites. I think the psychologists are correct, we are completely locked into our beliefs and nothing the other one says makes any difference. I see you as just another Kool-aid drinker, who believes whatever they are TOLD and never looks for independent verification. But, maybe that is just because I am a scientist and I don't take anything for granted. I insist on facts and verifiable information.
Posted by: Robert P at July 18, 2006 12:04 AM (ahl/o)
35
Sure, you look for facts -- facts in bizarro world. You believe only what you want, period. Anything that conflicts with your world is simply not true in your mind. It's scary that I can provide you with facts and they have absolutely no effect on you. Instead, you go into some wacko rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've posted, the current post, or anything I've ever said or believed.
I could provide you with scientific evidence of how and why the sky is blue and you'd complain that I hate homosexuals and want to destroy all the rainforests. Yes, insanity is scary.
Posted by: Ogre at July 18, 2006 12:11 AM (o2crh)
36
Oh, my God. Okay, I give up on you. I do think you are intelligent. I just think you want to be one of the sheeple and do whatever Newt and gang tell you to do.
Dear readers, if you look back through you will find one link in all of Ogre's rantings, linking back to another of his rants. He has no facts or else he would show them. He only knows what Rush, Sean, and Rove tell him.
Bye, bye Ogre. Someday we'll be at the same bar watching football, downing beer, eating jalapeno poppers and frieds and never even know we hate each other.
Posted by: Robert P at July 19, 2006 12:54 AM (ahl/o)
37
Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. Still don't get it? Watch once again:
Hey Robert P., the sky is blue. No, I don't have any links. Therefore, in Robert P's world, the sky isn't blue because I said it was.
Bye, Robert. Perhaps one day you will join the rest of us in the real world -- but I doubt it because it so conflicts with the imaginary world in which you live.
Posted by: Ogre at July 19, 2006 09:07 AM (o2crh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2006
Pickle Cat?
Well, for the lighter side this Friday afternoon, I was looking for a certain image. Since this week's theme is pickles, I was trying to find a way to combine cat-blogging with pickles. NOT an easy task, I assure you.
I tried getting a picture with my cat holding a pickle. That didn't work out. Every time the pickle got near the cat, the cat ran away, so I ate it. The PICKLE, not the cat!
Then I tried searching for pictures on the internet with pickles and cats. I don't think such a thing exists. I blame Bush. I did find myself wondering why so many people name their cats "pickles" when clearly cats HATE the smell of pickles.
So, the closest thing I found was this:
No, I have NO idea. But hey, there is almost a pickle and almost a cat there. Think this counts as cat-blogging?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:09 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Super Pickle Boy has announced that next week is Super Chicken Boy week. ;-) And that makes about as much since as that picture.
Posted by: vw bug at July 14, 2006 07:01 PM (yQDcM)
2
Yay, Super Chicken Boy! Can you send me his autograph if you see him in person?
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 07:05 PM (/k+l4)
3
I once had a cat who loved olives; she's eat the pimento first, then the olive. She didn't touch pickles, however.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 14, 2006 11:14 PM (Ffvoi)
4
I think it's an organized cat conspiracy.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 11:27 PM (o2crh)
5
Okay, here's the work of someone who clearly has too much time on their hands. No I'm not talking about the creator of this vegetable concoction or the photographer, I'm referring to you who actually researched cats and pickles to try and get a picture of both.
Wow! Listen if you ever get bored here, let me know and you can blog over at my place. Wont that send my 3 readers into a tizzy.
I had to break my avowed trolling for this one. I laughed so hard at work on friday that my coworkers begged me to take a peak and I ran out of time to comment. It's just too funny!!!!
Hmmmm, how do you feel about being called pickle boy?
Posted by: michele at July 17, 2006 02:45 AM (t3GaF)
6
Hey, when the topic of the day is pickle, I'll stop at nothing to ensure that the cat blogging can join in!
Pickle boy? Geez. I'm an OGRE!
Posted by: Ogre at July 17, 2006 08:55 AM (o2crh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Democrats on Israel
The situation in the Middle East is big -- potentially really big. If Syria decides to respond, this is going to expand a lot. So, what would the Democrats see as a dream response by Israel?
*** Insert wavy lines dreamy wayback machine ***
Hezbollah attacks Israel soldiers and takes two hostages. Israel then heads to the United Nations.
Israel: Please, most kind and generous kings of the world, would you be so kind as to help us in our hour of need?
UN Secretary General Kofi Anonymous: What? Did anyone hear something just now?
Israel (bowing to the floor): Please, we have been attacked and our soldiers killed.
US Ambassador Billy Clinton (coming up from under a desk): Oh, Kofi, I think that's Israel over there.
Kofi: Oh. Geez. Fine. Lebanon, did you attack Israel?
Lebanon: No.
Kofi: Well, that's good enough for me. Any other business before we head for the pool?
Israel: No, please, we
need your help. We have been attacked. Our soldiers are hostages.
Qatar: We make a motion that the UN condemn Israel for speaking out of turn.
Clinton: Second.
Kofi: Vote passed. Israel, shut up.
Israel: Aren't you supposed to actually vote on motions?
Kofi: I'm the king of the world, didn't you hear me tell you to shut up just then?
EU: I propose a motion that will abolish the so-called "state" of Israel and give all the land to the established sovereign of Palestine.
Arab League: Seconded.
Clinton: I rise to support the motion. If we get rid of all the Jews, we will have world peace immediately...well, at least after we get rid of the evil empire.
Kofi: Motion passed.
Israel: Does no one vote any more?
Kofi: Shut Up.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:08 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gee, your....wisdom is blinding it its truthiness.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 04:51 PM (5swqh)
2
Isn't it, though? Did you have that dream?
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:22 PM (/k+l4)
3
GWB and Rice are dropping hints (more, really) that Israel should back off. Here's hoping that Israel disregards that proposed stupidity.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 14, 2006 11:16 PM (Ffvoi)
4
I'm starting to think that Israel has made it's point and Lebanon will reject terrorists. However, to do so, they might have to give their southern sections to Israel so Israel can disarm and control them.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 11:28 PM (o2crh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Senate on Guns?
It is really possible? Did the US Senate actually agree with the Constitution? Wow, they did. I'm shocked.
I'm NOT surprised that 16 Democrats (ALL the opposing votes) voted that the government should have the power to take firearms from private citizens if they wanted to. The usual far-left names are on that list -- write these down and remember them as Senators who obviously very STRONGLY OPPOSE your right to keep and bear arms:
Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY)
However, just because it will be against the law for local police to seize your firearms at will doesn't mean they won't do it, of course.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Senetor Levin (MI) sucks. He votes against his consituites all the time.
I mean, he's from Michigan which has the largest community of hunters and he votes for gun control.
He better not go anywhere near a forest come November.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at July 14, 2006 04:15 PM (XG7jZ)
2
"Last month, gun lobbyists won another victory when the House voted to overturn a recently enacted law requiring safety trigger locks on all hand guns sold in the United States."
Can you tell me the reasoning behind this? As a lifelong hunter, this seems extremely stupid.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 04:54 PM (5swqh)
3
Weenie,
Trigger locks have nothing to do with hunting. If you can't see that, you're buying the BS shoveled by the guys in suits making millions each year off your NRA membership.
Think for yourself.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 04:59 PM (5swqh)
4
Um, Robert? This had nothing to do with trigger locks. This was about confiscating firearms.
And QW, that one is odd. I've seen it before, especially with the Great Gonzo being from up there, too. I bet union member hunters are confused every fall but end up voting Democrat because of (irrational) fear of their wallets.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:19 PM (/k+l4)
5
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 05:57 PM (M5zWC)
6
You must not live near a big, Democrat-controlled city.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:00 PM (/k+l4)
7
Where I live: women don't wear bras and never shave their armpits, birkenstocks are the shoe of choice, sitting in a drum circle and sipping a soy latte is in fashion, and living off the government is way cool.
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 06:25 PM (M5zWC)
8
Sounds like Robert P's paradise.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:31 PM (/k+l4)
9
Ogre,
My paradise is a place where everyone lives their lives based on logic AND passion. Rather than just passion.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 06:42 PM (5swqh)
10
Interesting paradox. You hate logic applied to government, but yet want government to control your paradise that is based on logic.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:46 PM (/k+l4)
11
If we had a world ruled by logic and passion we could do without government. I'll give you that one.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 07:50 PM (5swqh)
12
So you're only willing to give up support of government control over people if people agree with you?
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 09:31 PM (o2crh)
13
Hey Robert, I never said anything about Trigger locks better re-read my comment.
Oh and Ogre, you will be happy to know if you blew the City of Detroit off the Michigan map, Michigan would be a very Red State. Yea for Red!
Detroit sucks, they vote dumocrat so they can stay on their welfare.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at July 15, 2006 05:37 PM (BksWB)
14
Are there really so many people in Duhtriot that they outnumber the entire rest of the state? Geez. I guess more likely the majority of the rest of the state would like government to leave them alone, so they don't vote in as high a percentage as those in Duhtriot who vote so they will personally get cash from others.
Posted by: Ogre at July 15, 2006 05:55 PM (o2crh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Toll Roads
What a surprise. The Democrat-led North Carolina General Assembly is endorsing a new income stream for the government. This time, it's in the form of toll roads so the new tax will hit every single person in and around the state.
However, North Carolina has a law that prohibits adding tolls to roads that already exist. In other words, the law states that you can build a new road and make it a toll road, but you can't take a road that people have been using and suddenly force them to pay a toll to continue using it.
So, what do Democrats in the North Carolina General Assembly do when faced with a law that opposes their plan to raise and spend more money? They do what they always do -- either just ignore the law or change it. In this case, they're likely to just change the law to meet their own personal needs.
The money will be paid by everyone in the state because the trucks that ship goods throughout the state will also have to pay the toll -- and if you think for a minute that the big evil companies that profit from providing you with food will absorb the cost, you don't know anything about economics -- they will simply pass the cost on to you, the consumer.
And don't fall for the lies that claim the toll road money will be used to repair the road -- this would be the same Democrat-led General Assembly that promised that the lottery proceeds would NOT replace current funds for education and has already gone back on that promise.
It's just another tax to keep you in servitude to the state -- and this is after they raised taxes over 11% this past year.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:05 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
1. You are always the one who is against government run programs, like healthcare. If you took away the government run highways, every road would be a toll road. If Republicans could understand that taxes=good highways, then we wouldn't need toll roads.
2. The GA has not supplanted one red cent of education funds with lottery funds. That is a bald-faced lie and you know it.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 05:01 PM (5swqh)
2
Robert, you are wrong again.
1. If the corrupt Democrat controlled NC legislature would stop raiding NCDOT's funds year after year after year after year to fund slush funds, pet projects, and satisfy lobbyists, there would be plenty of money for "good highways". North Carolina used to be known as the "Good Highway State". Today we rank #48 in the country since Mike Easley became Governor.
2. Liberals hate highways and roads. You would rather build a sidewalk and encourage bike riding than to spend money on a highway. You believe if government run highways were removed, people would start walking, riding bikes, or build a choo-choo train. Liberals like to dream, but otherwise can't function in a world based on cold economic reality.
3. The GA hasn't *YET* supplanted one red cent of education funds with lottery funds. They have been too busy working on Ethics reform thanks to a number of *VERY* corrupt Democrats who like to take blank checks and fill in the "Paid To" blank. Give 'em some time Robert. You will be eating your words soon. Corrupt Democrats *LOVE* to raid funds ... whether its NCDOT's funding or stealing local municipalities tax refunds.
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 05:38 PM (M5zWC)
3
1. Yup, and I'd be happy with that. My opposition here is the outright lying by the Democrats -- they claim they need more money to fix the roads when they've already taken the money that was supposed to be used on roads and spent it on other things.
2. Wrong. They have. Just one example: More @ Four funding in this year's budget.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:40 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 13, 2006
Giant Pickle
So, do you need a 4-foot tall plastic floating pickle? You can get one at I Love Pickles.org. Yes, there really is a site for those who love pickles. Well, what's wrong with pickles, anyway? I happen to like them, but I'm not really ready to make the commitment to LOVE them just yet.
What kind of pickles are your favorite? I like the thin, sliced ones that you can put on your burgers. I also like the little mini-ones that come in the jar. I don't know what they're called, but I sure someone does. They're the ones that are great, but you just can't eat too many of them or they start to taste weird. Sweet Gherkins or something like that?
The sliced ones that all the restaurants give you with your burger are okay, too, but they're not my favorites. I once knew a guy who would drink the juice out of the pickle jars. His wife would get annoyed because he would often drink it while there were still pickles in the jar, leaving the poor pickles alone to shrivel up and wilt.
So, why the post about pickles? Well, this week's
Tarheel Tavern host,
A Sort of Notebook, says that the theme for the week would be
pickles.
What?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:08 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I remember the ads for the aunt Janes pickle, pickle mobile when I was kid. My parents never bought one for me though. I should sue them for that. Maybe the gubment will buy me one.
Posted by: Tomslick at July 13, 2006 06:06 PM (RpnNu)
2
I'm almost positive that there's a government pickle program. If there's not, just ask your Congressman to create one and it will be added as an amendment to a highway bill.
Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2006 06:12 PM (/k+l4)
3
I'll have to ask Super Pickle Boy (aka Tater) for the latest adventure! I can't wait to tell him there is a week for Pickles. GRIN
Posted by: vw bug at July 13, 2006 06:28 PM (yQDcM)
4
You do have a fetish for pickles now don't you??
LOL
Posted by: Raven at July 13, 2006 06:49 PM (udu2K)
5
I like to eat them, Raven...
And VW, do ask them about Dave and the Giant Pickle, too!
Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2006 06:57 PM (/k+l4)
6
lolz....errrrrrrrrrr....not sure..I'll hafta get back to ya on this one Ogre...way too deep for me..LOL
Posted by: Angel at July 13, 2006 11:40 PM (kz9wM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stop the ACLU
A long, detailed, and accurate list of the actual position the ACLU takes on various issues (by Jay at Stop the ACLU):
I am going to assume that most people can agree that America's population is found across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals to moderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas and issues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems within society yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One of the problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. The solution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middle and not the extremes.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Congressman Vernon Robinson?
So, would you vote for this guy?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He seems to make too much sense. Does he have a chance there?
Posted by: Tomslick at July 13, 2006 05:16 PM (RpnNu)
2
http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2006/06/some-people-say-it-like-it-is.html
I wouldn't have a problem voting for him.
Posted by: Fersboo at July 13, 2006 05:25 PM (x0fj6)
3
Well, he's in a Democrat district, running against an incumbent Democrat. But he's black and the Democrat is white, so the black Democrats won't automatically vote D this time. If they listen to him and hear him, he'll win. He's also a good fund-raiser. He's certainly got a good shot.
Fersboo, thanks for stopping by -- that link is dead for me, but I'm not sure if that's me or if BlogSpot is down at the moment...
Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2006 05:35 PM (/k+l4)
4
Vernon Robinson is another immoral, hate-filled Republican. He stands no chance. Spend your time elsewhere.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 04:56 PM (5swqh)
5
Robert, please don't act like you would vote for a moral, love-filled Republican. If a candidate has (R) next to their name, you wouldn't vote for them no matter how corrupt the candidate with a (D) next to their name might be.
So please spare us your platitudes of righteousnous. You are a liberal Democrat.
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 05:22 PM (M5zWC)
6
Of course, Reckoning, you have to understand that to people like Robert P, things like Islamic Extremists attacking America; homosexuals flaunting themselves and mocking heterosexuals; judges who jail people who say 'God' in schools; black children born out of wedlock; and illegal aliens invading America are all NOT moral acts, they're immoral.
Well, that's what's in the ad that Vernon says are bad that Robert's complaning about being immoral.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:27 PM (/k+l4)
7
Where to start...
I was registered without party affilitation for many years because I believed you could vote for the person not the party. I even toyed with the idea of voting for McCain. Bush changed all that. The Republican party, now, is immoral. My dad is a lifelong Republican and I know he isn't immoral, but as I've told him - you are known by the company you keep.
Ogre.
1. Islamic Extremists attacked America. You are absolutely right. It would be immoral not to hunt them down and bring them to justice. Head on a pike type justice. Luckily, we put 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and captured Osama and destroyed the Taliban and destroyed all their poppy crops. Oh wait. Osama is still leading al Qaeda, the Taliban controls Afghanistan again, and Afghanistan produces more heroin for our kids to lured with than ANY COUNTRY, EVER!
2. I know lots of homosexuals, I have never seen them flaunt themselves or mock a heterosexual. The gays you hang out with must be of a different variety. Pick your friends better.
3. No judge has ever jailed anyone for saying "God" in school. I happen to believe separation of Church and state has nothing to do with the battles that are being fought, but with keeping religion OUT OF politics.
4. Black children? What about all the white children born out of wedlock? have you ever lived in the country, because I have and there are LOTS of white kids born out of wedlock. Of course.
5. Republicans are immoral. You have had six years of tax cuts. All that money is back in the hands of the wealthy. According to your type, this money should be getting used by churches and other organizations to take care of the less fortunate. How's that going? Well, less charitable giving. That's how.
Republicans give money to the rich, the rich keep it, the downtrodden are trodden down more. Immoral.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 06:11 PM (5swqh)
8
Glad to see you're consistent in your definitions of morality, as I listed them above.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:15 PM (/k+l4)
9
RobertP wrote, "I know lots of homosexuals, I have never seen them flaunt themselves or mock a heterosexual."
Wrong again RobertP. These are probably just Log Cabin gays. There is absolutely NO WAY a gay Democrat would behave like this. Right?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/14/a_new_intolerance_visits_provincetown/?page=full
"PROVINCETOWN -- Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it's gay people who are displaying intolerance.
Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called ``breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said."
Robert, it certainly looks like Racial Lea Hunter isn't the only bigoted Democrat.
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 07:33 PM (M5zWC)
10
Oh man, I forgot you were the Rachel Lea Hunter nutbag.
Ogre,
someday you are going to be famous because this nut goes off the deep end and does something bad to this hunter woman and they'll wonder why you and your friends didn't see it coming.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 07:52 PM (5swqh)
11
Quite a leap you've made there, Robert P. Because an anonymous person places a comment on an internet site that says that a person is bigot and you blame people who read it for not stopping them?
Since you called Vernon Robinson hate-filled, should I tell people to watch you because one day you're going to "do something bad" to him?
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 09:33 PM (o2crh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Democrats Overrule Juries
It's no secret that in North Carolina, especially at the state level, Democrats rule with an iron fist. They do what they want, even if it breaks the law, because they are above the law. They continue to do whatever they want because they know better than anyone else how to do everything. They know better how to spend your money, so they take it.
Now, however, the Democrats have sunken to a new level of destruction of the concept of a government run by the people. It's often said that the primary protections of freedom in a republic are the ballot box, the cartridge box, and the jury box. Well, the Democrats know that, so they try and take those away from free people.
They've already taken away the ballot box with gerrymandering and bribery. They're trying to get the cartridge box, but this state is still very rural overall, and there's just too many people (and Ogres) that simply will refuse to comply with any firearms laws. But
now they've gotten the jury box.
The Democrats in the Legislature have decided to set up a star chamber of appointed political cronies who will be able to overrule jury decisions. So, if the star chamber doesn't like your jury's decisions, they'll just throw it out. Well, at least we've still got the cartridge box...
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just a note on gerrymandering. Ellie Kinnaird has submitted bills over the last few years to redistrict North Carolina without any gerrmandering. Much to the chagrine of some Democrats because it might cost us seats. If Republicans gave up gerrymandering I would support it, but until then you fight fire with fire.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 04:58 PM (5swqh)
2
Republicans in North Carolina have been fighting gerrymandering for years. The redistricting fight after 2000 showed that very clearly.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:29 PM (/k+l4)
3
I find it funny how really far out left wacky liberal progressives prop up Ellie Kinnaird as some intelligent Senator. She is widely regarded as a kook by most of the GA, even by other corrupt Democrats.
Kinnaird is *SO* concerned about gerrymandering and making everything *FAIR* that when residents of her own county, Orange County, asked her to support a District Representation Bill for the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, she, Verla Insko, and Joe Hackney blocked it. Why? So that only Democrats could be voted in as County Commissioners and no conservative values could be brought to the table.
Kinnaird = Kooky, Korrupt, Karrboro values
Posted by: The Reckoning at July 14, 2006 05:49 PM (M5zWC)
4
I'm not a Kinnaird fan, I was just pointing out that Democrats (some) are willing to redistrict even when it would cause a loss of seats. Find me one Republican anywhere who has offered to do the same. In any state. Anywhere.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 06:12 PM (5swqh)
5
Every single Republican that was in or running for the North Carolina Senate in 2000 and every Republican in the Senate from 2000-2002.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:16 PM (/k+l4)
6
Okay, let me rephrase that. Name on Republican anywhere who is in power because of gerrymandering that has submitted a bill to outlaw it. THAT is what I was trying to say. I'll admit that even most Democrats won't do this.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 06:44 PM (5swqh)
7
I'm not sure that it would be legal or constitutional to actually outlaw it. The courts have said that it's not unconstitutional to actually gerrymander, so maybe it can be outlawed, but with the moronic "Voter Rights" act renewal, North Carolina can't sneeze without asking the federal government's approval.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 06:47 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 12, 2006
Carnivals
I've not been entering in any carnivals, nor have I posted about them -- well, I wasn't here! But I would like to point out that this week's Tarheel Tavern has is posted at Writing for Nonprofits. Take a peek!
Oh, and this week, yours truly is the host for the most esteemed Carnival of Liberty! Be impressed, then sent me your posts about LIBERTY!
Posted by: Ogre at
05:02 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Fair Tax Blogburst
by MsUnderestimated
Folks, I’m telling you… after I was lucky enough to find out about this article in the Gwinnett (Georgia) Business Journal this week, I was asking myself that very question. Why in the heck doesn’t Congressman John Linder run for President? I listened to the 45-minute interview for the article, and read along with the transcript. You know what amazes me? This is a true common-sense man. It’s no wonder he’s been a shepherd for relieving the United States of the 16th Amendment for the past 10 years. You might not recognize his name, but you will definitely recognize the name of the book he co-wrote, and the legislation he wrote - "The Fair Tax."
Not in history that I can I recall has there ever been a book to open at #1 on the New York Times best-seller list and stay there for two weeks in a row, which was about the United States Tax Code. Boring, eh? Well, aparently you haven’t read "The Fair Tax." John’s gotta give his hat off to Neal Boortz, Libertarian talk-show host here in Atlanta, who wrote most of the book. Neal’s depth of knowledge of the tax code and its history, the abuses and wastes of the system as it stands, and his wry sense of humor make it not only a very easy read, but a pleasurable one, as well.
As many of my readers know, I attended the first ever Fair Tax Rally , and it was held here in Gwinnett Co., Georgia. I already wrote my review, and I just wish you all could have been there with me to witness the electricity of the event. I wrote in that article that "It’s Possible," and it is. All you have to do is believe - and be brave enough to want to help affect change.
If the Fair Tax passes, it will be the single largest transfer of power from the Federal Government back to the people in the history of this country. I feel like I am part of that 1% that affects change, as John Stossel pointed out at the rally. I’m one of those "big potatoes" that Herman Cain spoke of. And you can be, too. Only if you believe.
John Linder has also taken a strong stance on illegal immigration, and recently proposed that we adopt the exact same immigration laws as Mexico, verbatim, and he truly believes that what is good for the "Fox," is good for the "Eagle." I do not disagree with him one iota, and I wrote about it in another post.
Everything that I’ve heard and read before today made me swell with hope and pride - but after I listened to this latest interview, I’m even more filled with determination and FIRE, and the motivation to do whatever it takes to help this man succeed in whatever endeavors he chooses. I also plan to encourage him to run for President, although I’m not sure of his aspirations. He’s quite successful as a Republican Georgia Congressman. I am going to try to schedule him as a guest on my show on Wide Awakes Radio, so keep your fingers crossed.
John is right on the money about curtailing government spending, fighting terrorism, true tax reform, securing the borders with no amnesty, and a whole host of other issues. The following is an excerpt from from the full transcript of his interview with Christopher Lancette of the Gwinnett Business Journal:
Posted by: Ogre at
03:07 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Have you ever read Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government"?
Less than a hundredth of a percent of the total vote cast can sway an election toward freedom. It requires only that one not resign himself to political silence.
Posted by: Tom the Pooklekufr at July 12, 2006 11:45 PM (j+jUc)
2
I haven't read that. I do like to believe that a very small percentage can have an effect -- because the VAST majority simply do not care.
Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2006 12:30 AM (6PiYg)
3
The current tax system is unfair because the wealthiest americans pay a disproportionate share. That is what you all say.
Yet, the "fair tax" would see poor and working class families paying a disproportionate "share".
Double standard.
Posted by: Robert P at July 14, 2006 05:04 PM (5swqh)
4
Wrong again. The so-called "poor" will pay zero. True, that's less than they pay now, because they pay a negative amount now (tax credits). With the fair tax everyone would pay the same percents -- there's no law (like there is now) that asks you how much you earn before you are told how much tax you have to pay.
Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2006 05:34 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Juries DO have ALL The power
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
-- Justice Samuel Chase, 1804 (original signatory of the Declaration of Independence)
Don't forget it. If any judge tells you otherwise, he is outright lying.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:54 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Amen. . . now, the only problem with that is that a judge can reverse a jury if he/she finds that the law and facts don't mirror the decision. . .
They must not teach jury=power in judge school
Posted by: oddybobo at July 12, 2006 02:01 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Just a bit about Samuel Chase, , from Wikipedia:
"Chase was served with 6 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1804, explicitly over Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more articles would later be added. The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate began an impeachment trial against Justice Chase in early 1805. He was charged with political bias, but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805. To this day, he remains the only Supreme Court justice to be impeached. His acquittal is believed to have ensured that an independent Federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge in the U.S."
Internal links in the above if one goes to the article.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 12, 2006 04:39 PM (y6n8O)
3
No, Oddy, they do not teach that any more, despite Supreme Court rulings that declare that juries are absolutely free to do as they desire, even invalidate the law -- that's one primary reason they exist in the first place.
Interesting, AOW. That shows you that there were forces in place that long ago that opposed freedom of the people, and ensured the judiciary was allowed to retain near-absolute power.
Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2006 05:50 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Government = Less Freedom
What a shocker. The Democrat-led North Carolina General Assembly wants to reduce your freedom even more to save you from yourself. The North Carolina House just passed a bill that would send you to jail if you are in a vehicle without a seat belt -- that's every person in the vehicle, regardless of age.
The only question left is whether it will be a primary offense (which will allow the police to pull you over just because someone's not wearing a seat belt) -- which the House bill says; or a secondary offense -- which the Senate bill says. And yes, the driver will get tickets for any and all passengers under 16, while other riders will get their own tickets.
Oh, and you commercial vehicles that have been exempt from the law? Sorry, but no more exemption from you. And yes, if you're from out of state, you're certainly going to be a target because you don't know about this law, do you?
And here's the heart of the issue:
the bill’s supporters say public safety, not individual rights, are the priority
The Democrats of North Carolina are clearly staking out their position -- freedom is not allowed in North Carolina. Their opinions about what you can and cannot do with your own body is more important to them than freedom of any sort.
Good think our crime levels are so low in North Carolina that the police have so little to do that they can support this safety measure, eh? Oh wait, I forgot. The police in North Carolina are not about public safety, they're a revenue source for the state and nothing more.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:08 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The police in North Carolina are not about public safety, they're a revenue source for the state and nothing more."
That about sums up traffic tickets all over the country. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a politician ( sorry, a duplication of effort ).
Yes, I know, some tickets that are issued are for real safety issues; but a good percentage of them are to bring in the money, not for any other reason.
Posted by: TF Stern at July 12, 2006 01:27 PM (dz3wA)
2
That would explain things like stop signs in residential neighborhoods, "checkpoints," and red-light cameras now, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2006 01:37 PM (/k+l4)
3
Michigan has had the seatbelt law for a long time now. Just recently it was admended to include pulling you over just for not having your seatbelt on now.
They are now legislating for stupid people.
I say if you are too stupid to wear your seatbelt by now you are smart enough to deserve what happens to you when you get into an accident without said seatbelt on.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at July 12, 2006 02:57 PM (XG7jZ)
4
But I'm pretty sure North Carolina would be the first state in the country to DEMAND that adults in the BACK seat of cars wear seat belts!
Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2006 05:48 PM (/k+l4)
5
Nope, Michigan was before you. All passengers in the vehicle must have a seatbelt on or be in a child seat.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at July 12, 2006 08:34 PM (BksWB)
6
I somehow can't picture That 1 Guy in a child seat...
Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2006 09:17 PM (6PiYg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 11, 2006
Guard our Borders!
By Heidi at Euphoric Reality
This past weekend, the White House sent the
Presidential advisor and Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to participate in the National Council of The Race (La Raza) - the largest Hispanic entitlement advocacy group in the nation. In order to fully understand the influence of La Raza, it's important first to understand their agenda, and this
Human Events exclusive by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R, GA) is as good a place to start as any:
Posted by: Ogre at
12:21 PM
| Comments (0)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
July 10, 2006
Blogging?
Did I say regular blogging would resume Monday? Well, I was just sorting the mail.
I had serious internet issues during the day and with the deferred posting not working, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Usually I depend on the deferred posting -- about 90% of my posts are deferred to spread them out evenly throughout the day. It's still not working, so I'm going to have to either completely change the way I'm blogging, or I'm going to have to find another host, or at least another way to get my posts in place.
In the meantime, well, I'm still trying to catch up. Tonight I'll be working on the 12-inch high stack of mail that piled up over the last two weeks...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:39 PM
| Comments (0)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
July 09, 2006
1,101 Emails?
Geez. Do that many people REALLY think I want to gamble online? I can do it much safer and easier at the local gas station with the damn state-run gambling system, the state lottery. Or, I could save everyone a lot of time and money and just flush my cash straight down the toilet.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:57 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: vw bug at July 10, 2006 01:38 AM (EmvX6)
2
You know you have to read all of those emails. There are several people out there that will give you millions of dollars if you will only give them your bank account number so they can make a safe transfer. Your uncle Jack that you never knew left it just for you. Smile
Posted by: scrapiron at July 10, 2006 04:24 AM (y6n8O)
3
You beat me, I had 1094 emails when I came back from vacation.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at July 10, 2006 12:45 PM (XG7jZ)
4
Have you guys ever heard of spam blockers and email filters?
Posted by: Robert P at July 10, 2006 05:30 PM (5swqh)
5
That was not counting the spam emails. Seriously. Most were comments and trackbacks that made it past those filters and had to be manually deleted from the site.
Posted by: Ogre at July 10, 2006 09:22 PM (6PiYg)
6
I heavily use Mozilla's filters to move messages from different lists/sites into "special" folders that I can then catch up on or delete en masse when too large. Consider it.
Posted by: Robert P at July 11, 2006 02:13 PM (5swqh)
7
I've tried it -- but the "special" folders never get emptied...
Posted by: Ogre at July 11, 2006 04:17 PM (/k+l4)
8
Ogre - if you flush your money down the toilet, your septic man will thank you for it!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at July 13, 2006 01:40 AM (P1Hyh)
9
I once had 1,573 emails in my Inbox.
Posted by: Stephen Kent at July 13, 2006 02:33 AM (sjsAS)
10
Peter, it's mostly change, so I don't know how far it will go...
And Stephen, ok, you've got me beat. I sure hope you read every single one of them! You might have been able to help the South African businessman who wanted to give you $1.2 million!
Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2006 10:54 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 08, 2006
2,387.1 Miles Later
Whew.
As I
mentioned a couple weeks ago, I've been gone. What a trip. I just got back and had zero internet, zero phones, and zero news. It was awesome.
I've got 1,110 emails to sort through, so if you emailed me, I'll be getting to it -- even if it does take most of the day Sunday. If you missed me, thanks! If you didn't, well phooey on you.
Regular blogging should resume Monday, with perhaps some new commentary and observations from the trip in the afternoons this week...
As always, thank you very much for stopping by and reading this site. Oh, and
Oddy, I'm really sorry I missed stopping by, it just didn't work this time. I'll email you more...
Posted by: Ogre at
11:22 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I missed you.
Posted by: Raven at July 09, 2006 02:56 AM (ZWszK)
2
Awwww...thanks, sweetie.
Posted by: Ogre at July 09, 2006 03:41 PM (6PiYg)
3
'Bout time you got back.....
;-)
Posted by: Tammi at July 09, 2006 04:03 PM (3UQTn)
4
Been without laughs?
Posted by: Ogre at July 09, 2006 04:05 PM (6PiYg)
5
Dude! You were missed, both here and in the real world. Maybe next time!
Posted by: oddybobo at July 10, 2006 12:41 AM (r5/L0)
Posted by: Ogre at July 10, 2006 12:42 AM (6PiYg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2006
Ogre's Really Not Here
Ok, this time it's for real. For the next two weeks, The Ogre is gone on vacation. Unless there's a major news event, The Ogre will be reading and commenting on zero news. He'll be in Hagerstown, MD; Springfield, MA; Boston, MA; Hudson, NH; Weare, NH; Brantingham, NY; Niagara Falls, NY; and possibly a couple other places.
In most places, there will be no internet -- some won't even have electricity, as it's a lot cheaper to camp on such trips (and a whole lot more fun).
Last year there were scheduled posts that automatically posted here during the vacation time. This year, however, the deferred posting function is very broken, so that won't happen. Look for very few and sporadic posts for the next two weeks. After July 8th, look for all the regular commenting and posting on NC and National issues to resume.
Thank you very much for stopping by.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:31 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gosh, have a great vacation -- it sounds like fun! Just release a bunch of hits in all your traffic exchanges when you get back.
Posted by: Donald Douglas at June 24, 2006 06:13 PM (VBnh4)
2
Have a great vacation--it'll be good to get some
R & R ...
We'll leave the light on fer ya!
-Leo-
Posted by: psycmeistr at June 24, 2006 07:23 PM (+iJHg)
3
Have fun!! Hopefully we can hook up!
Posted by: oddybobo at June 26, 2006 12:52 PM (6Gm0j)
4
Woo Hoo!
Party time!
*dialing 911*
Um, yea, could you send some firemen over here? Ahh whats on fire you ask? Well me, I'm smoking hot!
Hee hee hee
Posted by: Quality Weenie at June 26, 2006 04:48 PM (XG7jZ)
Posted by: Eric Odom at June 28, 2006 02:33 AM (bBXWl)
6
Will miss ya buddy!..Have an awesome holiday and dont forget us back here eh?..wink*
Posted by: Angel at June 29, 2006 09:26 PM (VRgB3)
7
Getting away from the Internet is part of the new definition of "vacation."
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 01, 2006 12:17 PM (y6n8O)
8
Thanks, everyone, indeed it was really great!
Posted by: Ogre at July 09, 2006 04:09 PM (6PiYg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2006
Blissful Ignorance
I can certainly understand how some people can just ignore all the news and the politics of the day. For this past week, I've pretty much been on a near-total news blackout as I defy the ACLU and the left and teach young boys various outdoor skills and say the Pledge daily via the "evil" organization that is the Boy Scouts of America.
However, while it is easy to not pay attention to the National news, I also feel rather irresponsible. I know there's things going on, and I know my Representatives, both at the state and federal level, are doing things that I should watching. I should be keeping a watch over government because they NEED to be watched. As
R'Cat would say, "In God We Trust, all others we monitor."
Don't worry, the Ogre will be back...not soon, but after vacation -- which is the next two weeks.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:55 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey! email me and I'll send you my contact info so we can hook up when you are headed this ways . . .
Posted by: oddybobo at June 23, 2006 01:02 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Seeing as how the Boy Scouts is only surpassed by the Catholic Church in pedophiles among it's leadership....
Posted by: jay at June 24, 2006 11:50 AM (hLoNc)
3
And again the left shows up with asinine personal attacks and outright lies. RobertP, Jay is on your side.
Posted by: Ogre at June 24, 2006 12:23 PM (2uG3z)
4
I was a Tiger, Wolf, Bear, Webelo, and earned the Arrow of Light. I was a boy scout for several years but lost interest. To quote the man: You don't KNOW ME!
Posted by: Robert P at June 26, 2006 05:54 PM (5swqh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 81 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.2978 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2857 seconds, 157 records returned.
Page size 99 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
