Ogre's Politics & Views
May 13, 2006
$2 Billion "Extra?" Not Enough for Larry Shaw.
The Democrat-run North Carolina Legislature is a cesspool of corruption. The Democrats have run the state into the ground. However, the only answer they have to any problem they create is to demand more from the citizens. Unfortunately, the citizens of the state just keep on giving them more and more.
This year, the state collected $2 BILLION more than they anticipated. They took $2 billion from citizens more than they planned to. That's $2 billion that people worked for an earned, but were not permitted to actually spend on things like homes, food, and medicine.
So now the still-corrupt legislators meet in Raleigh to determine how they will spend this entire new $2 billion they "found." With a budget of $17.3 billion, $2 billion is a really huge amount. But to some legislators, an extra 11 percent is
STILL not enough!
State Senator Larry Shaw, Democrat, part of the Democrats who rule the Senate with an iron fist (Republicans have NEVER, EVER had a majority in the NC Senate), is demanding even more money from citizens. He wants to make I-95 a toll road so he can collect even MORE money from working people. Even with a $2 BILLION surplus, this guy actually has the nerve to say:
It's the only option we've got.
Mr. Shaw, you are a moron. There are dozens upon dozens of other options if you'd open your eyes. If you would consider, even for a moment, how freedom, capitalism, and a representative republic should work, you'd see an infinite number of options.
However, I do realize that Mr. Shaw is a Democrat. He feels that he is entitled to any and all of my labor that he deems that he wants. He feels that it is his job to take money from people who work and spend it wherever he wants. He is, at least in his mind, all-knowing about what is good and what is best for me -- no matter what I think.
This is the state and the view of the Democrat party in North Carolina. I cannot understand why anyone who actually works for a living would even consider supporting this group of thieves, socialists, and redistributionists.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, that's a typical Democrat. Unfortunately, it's also getting to be a typical Republican.
"Squeeze them until their shoes squeak! Kings alone should have the use of money; it's much too good for the common people." -- King Aillas, in Jack Vance's novel "The Green Pearl."
It's getting harder and harder to name a politician who doesn't act as if he believes exactly that.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at May 13, 2006 01:49 PM (PzL/5)
2
There are nearly zero statesmen left in politics.
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:25 PM (blszc)
3
I am not from North Carolina and do not know of Mr. Shaw. I do, however, know about politicians take our hard-earned money and spend it on whatever they please. As someone who enjoys drinking clean water, beathing clean air, and eating safe foods, I am disgusted at our nation's single party insistence on giving the largest of all tax breaks to those corporations and mega-industries that do the most to pollute our air and water and to turn a blind eye to the increasing levels of filth entering our food supply. Oh, and just so you know... democrats are not socialists. If you want to resort to name calling, you are ahead of the game with the use of the name, "moron." Be cool.
S.P.
Posted by: Satiric Phenomenologist at May 15, 2006 07:32 PM (8Vs+5)
4
I'm not sure where "moron" came from as I didn't call anyone a moron -- at least not in this post.
And yes, Democrats in North Carolina ARE socialists. They have supported and continue to support any and all programs they can implement in which they, the state, obtain and control the means of production in the state. Go ahead, try and do or sell anything in the state without asking their permission -- they'll lock you up.
Posted by: Ogre at May 15, 2006 07:39 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 12, 2006
A Llama Pirate

Bill, the llama, wanted to taste life on the high seas. However, his lack of opposable thumbs really reduced his value to the rest of the crew.
(Found
here -- with a pirate computer keyboard.)
Posted by: Ogre at
07:02 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at May 12, 2006 07:38 PM (PzL/5)
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 07:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
come se llama..lolz..too funny..ya goof!
Posted by: Angel at May 12, 2006 09:36 PM (NHU7E)
Posted by: William Teach at May 13, 2006 12:29 AM (doAuV)
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:10 PM (blszc)
6
Isn't the llamanian word for "Arrrr!" actually "Orrrrrrrgle!"?
http://www.llamapaedia.com/behavior/sounds.html
Posted by: Harvey at May 18, 2006 03:55 PM (L7a63)
7
Hmmmm....
Bleet vs Orgle...
I think we're going to have to call an expert translator because I don't see llama to pirate on the list of options for the Google translator.
Posted by: Ogre at May 18, 2006 04:00 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How Much SHOULD you weigh?
And no, not according to the all-knowing government.
It's an interesting quiz, especially for you female readers, as it can give you something upon which to focus your anger if it's wrong...
You Should Weigh 195
|

If you weigh less than this, you either have a fast metabolism or are about to gain weight.
If you weigh more than this, you may be losing a few pounds soon!
|
In my case, it's a little bit low...
Posted by: Ogre at
05:07 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmmmm - according to this thing I'm where I should be weight wise. It's also (surprisingly enough) what the "official charts" say someone at my height should weigh.
Doesn't mean I like it. Just takes away some of opportunity to complain.
Posted by: Tammi at May 12, 2006 05:54 PM (ZbFVf)
2
So you're perfect and don't even know it! Imagine that!
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 06:00 PM (/k+l4)
3
weight?...haha..i dont think any woman is satisfied with that one dude..ok off to the treadmill now..lol
Posted by: Angel at May 12, 2006 09:45 PM (NHU7E)
4
You Should Weigh 145
If you weigh less than this, you either have a fast metabolism or are about to gain weight.
If you weigh more than this, you may be losing a few pounds soon!
How Much Do You Weigh? But I weigh 118 and am 5'1" - so I better eat more chocolate & drink for Margaritas. I have some catching up to do!
Posted by: Greta (Hooah Wife) at May 13, 2006 02:00 AM (f7y8U)
5
Angel, if the quiz says you're okay, you're okay. After all, this IS an internet blog quiz!
And Greta -- have at those chocolate Margaritas! (??)
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:11 PM (blszc)
6
190
Now I have to figure out how to gain 25 pounds...
Posted by: Harvey at May 18, 2006 03:58 PM (L7a63)
7
Banana Milkshakes.
That's what my brother always drank for pop-warner football.
Posted by: Ogre at May 18, 2006 04:02 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Open Container Law
Fridays I try and lighten things up a bit here. It helps to relax things and laughter is always good for the soul (or something like that). However, that time just isn't quite there yet...
That 1 Guy's
post about DUI on a damn lawnmower reminded me of a question I've had about the open container law that exists in pretty much every state. This law states that if you have an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle that you will be fined. Other than for income to the state, can anyone give any logical reason at all for this law?
Government is supposed to pass laws and use it's monopoly on force to protect freedom from being taken by other people. They're supposed to only stop people from doing things when there is imminent danger to others. If I am sitting in my car with an open beer and haven't even had a drink, how is this dangerous to others?
And don't even get me started on the 0.08 crap -- that's no imminent danger, either. You have the EXACT same percent chance of getting in/being in an accident if you have a 0.08 blood-alcohol level as you do with a 0.00 blood-alcohol level. In order for your odds of an accident to increase, your BAC needs to be about 0.17...
So can anyone possibly give ANY reason (again, other than cash for the state) that it's dangerous to anyone for me to have an open container of beer in a car? Even stretching and using the left's dictionary, I can't come up with a reason. Maybe it's For The Children (TM) somehow...
Posted by: Ogre at
04:08 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Intent.
It's like having a cop fine you for being drunk, in a running car behind the wheel of said car.
Intent.
Which is bullshit, just because it looks like your going to do it doesn't mean you intend on doing it.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at May 12, 2006 04:30 PM (XG7jZ)
2
Is that the excuse that's being used? I suppose it's consistent with those who oppose freedom -- government should only punish actions or those creating imminent danger -- never perceived intent.
Because as you allude -- just because I HAVE the beer open doesn't mean I'm drunk -- nor does not being able to fine me for having an open container preclude someone from stopping me if I am actually drunk.
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 05:05 PM (/k+l4)
3
No sir, you are absolutely, 100% correct - there is no basis whatsoever for that law other than to give the police [state] another reason to incriminate a free person and shake them down for some more of their wealth. It is right there with mandatory insurance laws which create brand new (mostly poor and minority people) criminals.
It SHOULD be illegal to drink too much and hurt somebody from behind the wheel, and it SHOULD be illegal to cause an accident without having the means to pay for the damage and/or the injuries, but it SHOULD NOT be illegal to drive safely without a seatbelt and with an open can of beer in your car. But it is, because our tyrannical Governments (both Fed and local) use these "laws" to create wealth by stealing what little bit of wealth the mostly poor people can manage to build.
Posted by: Gun Toting Liberal at May 13, 2006 01:39 AM (OKBoD)
4
"Other than for income to the state, can anyone give any logical reason at all for this law?"
Because driving drunk means you're driving with impaired judgement, which means you're more dangerous than driving while not distracted.
"You have the EXACT same percent chance of getting in/being in an accident if you have a 0.08 blood-alcohol level as you do with a 0.00 blood-alcohol level. In order for your odds of an accident to increase, your BAC needs to be about 0.17"
So you've been caught with .17 after running into something before, heh? You'd think that would tip you off that drunk driving is dangerous, instead of leaving you in denial...
Posted by: Saskboy at May 14, 2006 06:03 AM (c6g2h)
5
How did I know no one would be able to give me any reason other than to raise cash?
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:15 PM (blszc)
6
Because if you have an open container, a passenger might spill your drink, and then you'd have to kill him for wasting beer.
The law is designed to prevent murders.
Posted by: Harvey at May 18, 2006 04:00 PM (L7a63)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NSA "Spying" vs. Privacy
Folks, the left, which includes the media, Democrats, and RINOs like Arlen Spectre (yes, that's the way I think it should be spelled) are just going bananas over this old news (as noted by Big Lizards) about NSA "spying." Real Clear Politics talks about the civil liberties at issue here. And Michelle Malkin describes how out of touch the left is with America -- but there's one thing missing in this discussion -- reality.
You see, much of the discussion focuses on protecting this "right to privacy." I'm not completely convinced that's a right, but for this discussion, I'll accept that it is. However, you only have the right to privacy about certain things. If you stand on a street corner and hold up a sign with your name and SSN on it, you cannot reasonable expect that it will remain private.
In this case where USA Today dredges up an accusation against the NSA, there are, very clearly, no violations of privacy. They are not listening to phone conversations. Here's a comparable example:
If you walk into a store and buy something, the store will likely have a record of that transaction. They will have a record that shows a list of the things you have purchased. That's not your record, it belongs to the store. Courts have ruled over and over again that YOU do not own that record. Since the store owns the record, they can do whatever they like with it, including giving it away or selling it. There's no personal information there, just the record that someone bought a list of items on a certain time and date -- that's it.
Anyone who claims there are any violations to any right of privacy are just plain wrong on this one.
Stop the ACLU also notices that there are zero violations of the law here.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:37 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So you're "not completely convinced that's a right" regarding privacy, eh? I think you are a unAmerican traitor and a coward to boot.
That's what I think, fake patriot.
Posted by: real Patriot at May 12, 2006 11:39 PM (8czMX)
2
There isn't a definitive right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution and if you can find one please show me. This latest old program for collecting information isn't in vioaltion of any laws and the Demonuts darn well know it. It is funny Democrat minority leader Bela Pelosi ( in case you wonder why I call her Bela Pelosi; she is as scary as the late Bela Logosi(sp))didn't seem to have any problem with this program when she was first given details of the program. Now that the Democrats see that they can use it again to continue to hammer President Bush they are acting like they are shocked.
Posted by: Jon at May 13, 2006 12:13 AM (wZLWV)
3
Bela Pelosi? You realize Legosi would be insulted...
But you're right, this has nothing to do with privacy or the Constitution, it's ALL political.
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:13 PM (blszc)
4
I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn't bother me. Shrug. I haven't been up to anything. I haven't gotten much done today.
Posted by: Kaka74658 at July 19, 2006 10:04 PM (sZhya)
5
I just don't have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I've just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don't care. That's how it is.
Posted by: Kaka93367 at July 19, 2006 10:42 PM (jGisb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Pork
And no, unfortunately, I'm not talking about the good kind -- BBQ pork.
Mark Schreiner,
writing in
The Star News claims that pork is
Spending on projects for someone else
I disagree. Pork is any money spent by government on anything they shouldn't be doing. And yes, this is about 90% of any American government's budget. This year, the NC Legislature will be overflowing with pork since there is a "surplus" that WILL be spent -- and spent quickly.
However, Mr. Schreiner does point out what has become of statesmen and very accurately portrays the current state of politics today:
...voters reward lawmakers who can show how much government money they can bring home to the district. Plus, pork can be political. Want to win over a no vote to your side? Just slip a special piece of pork for that colleague into a bill.
Watch any campaign of ANY incumbent politician -- you will hear them tell you how much they "brought home" to the district, or the buildings they had built, or the "programs" the funded for you, their taxpayer.
A politician who was concerned with freedom instead of socialism would instead be able to tell voters how much of their money he didn't even take to begin with.
But just because everyone else does it doesn't make it right.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Bribery with Tax $ Ruled Okay
Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood has ruled that using tax money to pay off or bribe people is perfectly legal when the government does it. His ruling had no comment on whether bribery is legal when individuals do it.
So, if you're a business, do not worry about the usual ways of making money. A new factor must be put in place -- but only if you're a large business. That new accounting category is government bribery income. Judges have ruled now that it is legal for a government to give cash to a business to lure them away from other states (in a clear violation of the US Constitution's Commerce Clause).
If you're a big business losing money, head to Raleigh and see how much money the legislature will give you -- with a surplus this year, odds are good they'll give you quite a pile!
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
No Destruction of Contract Law in NC
Shockingly, the Democrat-led North Carolina Legislature will NOT interfere with basic contract law and attempt to end foreclosures in North Carolina. They did, however, agree to take more money from working people to give to contract violators (criminals).
Government has no business in this area at all. The only role government should have is to ENFORCE the contracts, not attempt to make them void! If I agree to give you $5, but then I decide not to give you the $5 because I decide I'm "poor," what should happen? In a free society, you would be free to ask government to use it's monopoly on force to enforce the agreement and get me to pay.
However, in the world of the North Carolina General Assembly, everyone ELSE should pay a couple pennies to government, government should pocket a few dollars, then you should get $2 or so, and I should get nothing. That's what happens when there's "relief" or "fixes" for "too high a rate" of foreclosures, and it's plain wrong.
If you can't pay the bill, don't enter into the contract. If you default, I should not be obligated to pay for you, and neither should the government. Oh how I yearn for freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
May 11, 2006
Man-Poo

Need some?
Talk to
Contagion.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:14 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does it work in the garden? Some of these things have unknown uses. Remember AVON? They made some sort of sucky sunscreen product, but later discovered it worked REALLY good as a bug repellent.
what SPF do you need to avoid West Nile?
Posted by: Useless Man at May 11, 2006 09:24 PM (Qltze)
2
Small chance in hell it would be made by revlon.
Don't make me kick you in the ding-ding.

Posted by: Contagion at May 12, 2006 03:09 AM (e8b4J)
3
Skin-so-soft, I think you're referring to, Useless man. Excellent against sand fleas.
And Contagion, what's the matter -- not manly enough for you-who-wash-your-hair?
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 11:19 AM (/k+l4)
4
By diluting the SOS with water you can also use it as a repelant on your dog.
I think it's a 5:1 dilution of water:SOS
We use it on our dogs and it works.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at May 12, 2006 04:33 PM (XG7jZ)
5
I wonder if a 5:1 dilution will clean Contagion's hair?
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 05:09 PM (/k+l4)
6
NOTHING can clean Contagion's hair.
Cleansing agents flee in terror when they see him approaching.
Posted by: Harvey at May 18, 2006 04:02 PM (L7a63)
7
But geez, it's a GALLON jug there...
Posted by: Ogre at May 18, 2006 04:03 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU hates Law and Order
Why Isn't A Town Enforcing Their Law - The ACLU
The ACLU is watching a small town in western Pennsylvania because of its curfew law. Each night at 9:45 pm the Trafford fire station blows its alert sirens to alert teens and other children that the curfew is fast approaching. All persons under the age of 18 are to be home by 10:00 pm according to local law. But with the ACLU looking over their shoulder, the town has been reluctant to enforce their law.
This stems from one child. Again it is the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many. Mr. Spock wouldn't agree with this total lack of logic but that is the principle that the ACLU operates under.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:03 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The ACLU is taking on the wrong battle. Where parents fail to restrain their children from roaming streets after dark, the police need to be able to step in before vandalism and drug use become a scourge.
The problem arises when responsible children who are 16 and have a job to pay for their car, are stopped from behaving like adults by a law designed to target their peers who are the exact opposite from responsible young adults.
Posted by: Saskboy at May 11, 2006 04:20 PM (c6g2h)
2
And the problem is the parents. The average parent today, when faced with the police bringing their parent home to them at 11:30pm will ask why the police have bothered them-- when the parents should be letting the police arrest the damn kids.
Then again, this is the ACLU, pretty much against anything that is good, moral, or right.
Posted by: Ogre at May 11, 2006 05:04 PM (/k+l4)
3
"Start brain before engaging mouth." For anyone to comment, said anyone SHOULD know what they speak of. It's common to express ones FEELINGS, but feelings don't always express facts. Permit me to help you. Concerning the United States Constitution, Amendment 1 states: 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 TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 4 states: (briefly) ...AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES... 5 states (briefly): NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY... 9 states (IMPORTANT!): THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. Last, but not least, Amendment 14 states (briefly): ALL PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE citizens of the United States and of the State in wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... This is to say youth too! (READ IT FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE AND BECOME INFORMED!) My child broke a "house rule" by going for a Slushee without letting us know and was punished for it. Parents are the ultimate LAW when it comes to their own children. The state or local municipality should in NO WAY interfere with the way a parent morally and lawfully raises their children. Also, we OBEY the law, as a very thoughtful and courteous Judge observed. The Judge stated, If you don't agree with the law, don't just break it, have it changed. We are going about having it PROPERLY changed. PARENT YOUR CHILD PROPERLY AND WHEN THEY GROW UP, THEY WON'T DEPART FROM THE PROPER TEACHINGS YOU PROVIDED! Duh, People! Thomas Jefferson wrote "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither." AND "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Heed his wise words, for this is what America is about, Liberty for ALL. God Bless the USA.
Posted by: Mr. Toocheck, Scoutmaster, Father and small business owner at May 13, 2006 02:11 AM (NK329)
4
Sorry, you're confusing America today with the America that the founding fathers created -- and they're not the same place. No, you do not have the right, in the eyes of the Alimighty Government, to parent your child as you see fit. You may only raise them as the government says you can.
And yes, that is wrong, but that's America today.
Posted by: Ogre at May 14, 2006 03:17 PM (blszc)
5
just an fyi:
-- You most likely don't live in Trafford, where there is no rampant running of children causing havoc after dark. There are no terribly serious crimes, and most of the town is generally quiet, save for a small part away from where we live.
--I'm not saying kids should be running free all over the place at night. But they SHOULD be allowed to walk home after watching football at 10:10, and, even if it's a bit retarded, to go to 7-11 three blocks away at midnight, as long as there's no drug-dealing, vandalism, or such along the way. 11 or 12 would be a more understandable curfew anyway.
--This isn't the "need of one" outweighing the needs of many; it's happened to others, only one person has involved the ACLU.
--Seeing as there was no harm being done or intended in either post-10:00 outing, the 2 fines totaling $171 is ridiculous! And since there is effectively no chance to argue against a curfew violation, it violates the whole “due process” bit of the constitution.
--What the town wants to do is create a "no tolerance policy" where if you're out past 10:00, it must be assumed you're causing trouble, and you must be fined. What the ordinance was TRYING to do is create a valid reason to catch kids for other crimes. i.e., if you have drugs on you, they can't just search you then and there. But if you're out past 10, then you're breaking one law, so they can search you and nab you for another. It's like the seat-belt law: they can't arrest you for just not wearing a seatbelt, but if something else is also wrong, say your tail-light is out, they can get your for both. Ok, so if you're out past 10, then sure, question the person, sure! But as NOTHING was being done wrong in either case, no fine is just.
--Minors can drive (PA law dictates those with Jr licenses can be out to 11), pay taxes (if they work) --- and can't marry, buy cigarettes, get tattoos without consent, etc because those actions involve long-term consequences which are not present with the BUYING of a SLURPEE. And don't even try to relate this to buying a semi-automatic weapon, there's noooo way! Speaking of driving, evidently you could drive around causing havoc after 10, but not walk causing havoc. What the heck?
--While they can crack down on minors walking outside during the night-time, the curfew can’t cut down on the offenses of non-minors. The curfew won't significantly stop any juvenile crime we might have in this town any more than using common sense or increased police presence in areas targeted to have problems.
--(rant) 10:00 is quite early considering that teens tend to stay up until 12 at least, especially in the summer. This is due to changes in hormones, and it's proven that this is not necessarily voluntary - kids CANNOT fall asleep too early or wake up too early in teenage years, which has lots to do with lower school performance, but anyway.... what are they supposed to do from 10 till going to sleep? You can't go to your friend's because you can't walk home past 10. (By the way, being able to walk places easily is one of the nice things of living in a not-so-suburban like Trafford. This sort of takes that away from kids who have no cars and such) We used to all gather in the church parking lot and play a game of release in the summer. We never wanted to quit at 10, but did it at least because we caused some noise, what with all our running and merriment. Then we would go to someone’s house and hang out a bit. But since you evidently can’t walk home, not even 10 minutes past curfew for a entirely good reason, what else can we do? We’re already good enough at gluing ourselves to computer screens and TV sets, or we could do illegal things inside someone’s house.
--About the whole conspiracy-communist-state thing, the fact that you can’t even walk home past 10 is reminiscent of communist states. And you also forgot to include the last half of the article, including, [ordinance fails to curtail crimes committed by those younger and older than 18. “If they thought a curfew would solve any problems, why stop with age 18? Why not make everyone be in their homes by 6 p.m. to stop crimes,” he said on Monday. “But then, this wouldn't be America, would it?”]
Also [police could effectively enforce it by filing other charges — such as loitering — against juveniles.]. A few weeks ago, a kid I know was nabbed for “disorderly conduct” (disorderly in the sense that he was standing upon a set of stairs), since the police were likely hesitant to make it due to a curfew violation. Not only is this a ridiculous charge since no harm was being done, but disorderly conduct charges carry stronger penalties than a curfew violation, marking a kid’s permanent record for doing NOTHING WRONG!
BTW: our family is conservative, and I also have a disdain for the ACLU.
Posted by: craig at May 15, 2006 02:47 AM (NK329)
6
I understand your points regarding curfew laws -- but that's not my problem with this action. This is the ACLU interfering with self-government. The people of this town want a curfew. ONE person doesn't want one. Therefore, the ACLU sees a need to take taxpayer money to crush the majority decision via judicial fiat.
If the people don't want the law, let the people change it. Laws are supposed to be made for the majority, not the exception.
Posted by: Ogre at May 15, 2006 11:41 AM (/k+l4)
7
DO NOT BREAK THE LAW YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH, ATTEMPT TO HAVE IT CHANGED.
Judicial fiat, I think not. It is strictly constitution rights that bring me to this arena. I'm concerned that every child is hurt by the cause of law so voted upon by a small borough counsel of 7 or 8 people. Because of things like this, this is not the America of our founding fathers. "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson. "...with liberty and justice for all." "It is not a crime to hang out." RESEND THE CURFEW. God bless the USA.
Posted by: Mr. Toocheck at May 18, 2006 08:12 PM (NK329)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Full Coffers = Empty Pockets
The reports flying in these days about the massive surplus and huge amounts of money that the state of North Carolina has collected. You will read about "extra money," "the revenue surplus," and "overflowing bank accounts."
Folks, the State of North Carolina prints zero dollars. The State of North Carolina earns zero dollars. The ONLY way the state gets ANY money is by taking it from people who DO work. There is simply no other way for the state to get money!
This "new" $2 billion is not "found money." This is $2 billion that has been taken OUT of the state's economy. This is $2 billion that people worked for and earned in North Carolina that will not be spent on food, housing, medical care, or other personal items. This is $2 billion that has been taken away from those who work to be given away to those who do not.
Remember when you read these reports. Remember when you read about the legislature spending $2 billion MORE than they had budgeted for -- they took that money.
And just because it was a surplus, don't look for them to give it back. Instead, that will increase state spending. The budget was $17.3 billion this past year. Since they "found" $2 billion, the budget will now be $19.3 billion. That's an ELEVEN and a half percent increase in government spending. That's a MONSTROUS increase -- and when the economy isn't doing so well, don't worry, the Democrat-led legislature will raise taxes -- because the budget will never again be under $19.3 billion as long as the current group stays in charge of the state.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:05 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe they're spending it to allow a crazy DA to send the cops out to harass the witnesses in the Duke 'maybe' maybe not rape case. Reminds me of the crazy Fl. DA that spent hundreds of thousands of the taxpayer's dollars in his personal quest to fry Limbaugh. H failed. They could transfer part of it to DC so the DA there can go after a real criminal by the name of Kennedy.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 12, 2006 01:55 AM (Ffvoi)
2
The Duke thing was all about getting elected. That DA won his election, so you notice the news has all but stopped about the Duke druggie-accuser case...
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 11:20 AM (/k+l4)
3
Great work!
My homepage | Please visit
Posted by: Judy at July 15, 2006 03:02 PM (EFBVJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Millions Will Die!
Quickly! Everyone must immediately send huge piles of cash to the North Carolina government! Do it now or millions will die! There will be upheaval, death, and destruction the likes of which haven't been seen since Biblical Egypt! Millions will die because government doesn't have enough money!
How will they die? By drinking contaminated well water. And no, there's not any actual evidence that there's anything at all wrong with any wellwater anywhere, but that's not important. What's important is that government
isn't able to afford to test every single well in Cumberland County, so logically, according to government, everyone will die.
So, when the North Carolina government quickly spends the estimated "extra"
two BILLION dollars in "surplus" this year, and then still asks for more in taxes (as the
city of Charlotte is doing), realize that if you don't support those higher taxes, people will die from your selfishness.
Never, ever use the phrase "common sense" in the same paragraph as "North Carolina government." Socialist, anti-freedom, bastards, the lot of them.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think its pretty common knowledge that FL water sucks wet socks. I'm on well. And I tell you what, I'd rather be on well than city water any day. They completely screwed up the city water in West Palm Beach. So I have an RVO system and well water and I prefer it that way.
Posted by: Bou at May 11, 2006 12:09 PM (iHxT3)
2
Ah, but this isn't about your choice! This is about the end of the world if government doesn't get to INSPECT your choice.
Posted by: Ogre at May 11, 2006 02:58 PM (/k+l4)
3
It'll come this way to FL. Mark my words...
Posted by: Bou at May 12, 2006 02:56 AM (iHxT3)
Posted by: Ogre at May 12, 2006 11:18 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 10, 2006
New Blog Showcase Carnival
This week's New Blog Showcase Carnival (or new showcase blog carnival, if you prefer) is now up over at Customer Servant. Head on over and see what's new!
This is a weekly carnival that showcases new blogs that have appeared in the last week. Remember when you first started blogging and wondered if anyone was reading your blog at all? Can you remember those first few readers and commenters? New blogs really do appreciate the readership and the comments -- please head on over and welcome the new writers to the blogosphere.
And if you're a new blog, feel free to submit yourself (or your blog) to the Showcase -- or submit any other new blog you find (must be less than 3 months old to play).
Posted by: Ogre at
07:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
New Advertiser
This week there's a new blog listed over there on the top left column, The Kibitzer. This blog is about:
The Kibitzer analyzes current events, politics and social issues among other newsworthy topics!
Regular posting rate, clean and easy-to read. Posts include
basic geography for youts; the evils of
the English language; and
print media.
Go on over and see what else
The Kibitzer has to offer -- maybe you'll find a new daily read.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:07 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Easley Offers Tax INCREASE
You might read stories that proclaim that Governor Easley is offering a tax cut -- but that's simply not true -- it's a damn lie and Easley knows it.
Let's see if you agree with me or Governor Easley.
Let's say I'm your employer. When I hire you, I agree to pay you $20,000 a year. At the end of the first year, the company is doing extremely well, so I give you a $750 bonus. After the second year, no one gets any bonuses. However, I do give you a 3% raise so your salary is now $20,600.
Review: Your salary, year 1 is $20,000.
Your salary, year 2 is $20,600.
If you think you've gotten a pay cut, then you believe Governor Easley that we're getting a tax cut this year. If you think you've gotten a raise, you agree with me that Governor Easley is lying.
You see, Governor Easley is claiming that's he's "cutting the sales tax rate." In reality, that sales tax rate is a temporary increase that was passed years ago. Each year the legislature re-authorizes, or RAISES the sales tax. Easley is proposing to cut the increase in half -- in the world of the left, increasing by a smaller amount is a "cut." In the rest of the world, a tax increase is an "INCREASE."
If you still don't get it, I'll make it real simple:
NC Budget, 2005-2006: $17,196,000,000.00
Easley' Budget, 2006-7: $18,850,000,000.00
Someone explain how I can subtract money from 17 billion and arrive at 18 billion.
But then I guess if you support the left and Democrats like Mike Easley, you don't actually expect them to be honest...
Jeff Taylor is
having trouble with the language used here, too.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:08 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Fair Tax
This week, Cao of Cao's Blog brings us part 2 of her video disagreement with the FairTax. She makes some very interesting points here, and her logic should convince even the most brainwashed proponent of this hare-brained scheme to give it a closer look.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Medicaid: Easy Answer
Scott Sexton of the Winston-Salem Journal complains about the burden on county taxpayers. He complains that the county actually has to pay for it's own Medicaid when other states' counties do not.
Now, it would be one thing if he advocated getting the state to pay that burden so that the county wouldn't have to spend so much money, but no -- he'd be more than happy to spend just as much money, just on different things.
There is a very simple, but perhaps painful, solution to Medicare: just stop spending so much money. If you, personally, think that's not fair to people who need the medical care, that's perfectly okay -- YOU get together with your friends, pool your money, and buy all the health care you want (that's what I'd do).
Two facts seem to evade those who support more, more, and more spending on Medicare:
1. It is NOT charitable to give away someone else's money. Charity is when you spend YOUR OWN money, not mine.
2. You cannot have a "right" to someone else's labor. If you honestly believe that people have a right to ANY amount of healthcare, then you believe that you have a right to force other people to work for you.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Free Alaa
If you haven't heard about imprisoned freedom activist Egyptian Alaa Abdel Fatah, please do read the message below -- it's important for freedom worldwide.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Money (Mis)Management: by NC
Yet again, the NC DOT is complaining that they do not have enough money to "cover road-building, maintenance, and other transportation projects." Why? Because the North Carolina General Assembly, run by Democrats, simply do not want to build roads. Anyone who tells you different is simply wrong.
You've likely heard the axiom before of "follow the money." In the case of spending, one can always follow the money to determine where one's priorities lie. If someone spends a lot of money on their fancy car payments, they're most interested in having a fancy car. If someone spends a lot of money on clothes, they're interested in clothes. The legislature of North Carolina does NOT spend money on roads, so they're simply not interested in building roads.
The members of the Board of Transportation are asking for more money. They claim they don't have enough. They're looking at this incorrectly. Instead, they should look at how much the legislature wants them to spend, then make plans based on that amount.
Mark Foster, CFO of the DOT says, "You're not going to shut down all new construction for a year. That would turn us into a maintenance shop."
I'm sorry, Mr. Foster, that's not really your decision to make. The legislature determines spending. The legislature decides how much money you get. If the legislature only gives you enough money to maintain roads and not build them, then it's your job to do just what they ask.
Roads in North Carolina are horrible -- because that's what the North Carolina Legislature wants.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
May 09, 2006
Carnival of Liberty
This week's Carnival of Liberty is up! Go read it -- it's a compilation of posts about Liberty from across the blogosphere. Good reading each and every week (even when I forget to submit an entry myself).
Posted by: Ogre at
07:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 90 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3722 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3651 seconds, 76 records returned.
Page size 63 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.