Gee, isn't it wonderful when fancy museums get funding? I mean, this N.C. History Education Center at Tryon Palace will be so nice. People will be able to find out about North Carolina history because, apparently, they can't now. I'm touched.

And it's great that the Harold H. Bate Foundation is going to give them a million dollars to build it. That's just nice of the foundation, isn't it? Oh, but the foundation isn't actually being so nice. The condition of the donation was that they would ONLY give a million dollars (that they're not actually using at the moment) if the state FORCED everyone else in the state to pony up another $35 million or be jailed.

Seriously. What sort of "gift" is any amount of money given only when the state forces someone else to pay or be thrown in jail? How is it supposed to be considered "giving" when they won't give willingly. Look, if someone wants to build the museum and someone else wants to pay for it, that's wonderful. But I think it's REALLY poor and horribly selfish and evil for this foundation to be tooting their own horn with a $1 million gift that they won't give willingly.

Selfish bums, the lot of them -- and that's not including the General Assembly that's forcing everyone to pay $35 million for this while they're claiming they don't have enough money for roads, courts and schools. Gee, Democrats, maybe you can't build roads because you're busy building museums. What version of the Constitution do you have that says that government is supposed to build museums?

Posted by: Ogre at 03:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

The New York City Council, while smoking large amounts of something, is thinking about banning some things because they're not nice. They are considering putting you in jail now for mentioning any of the following things:

Hoe-Downs

Cahokia hoes

Backhoes

People named Rudi Hoe

Fathers who name their children Lim Seong Hoe

Diamond Hoes

And of course, the ever-evil garden hoe:

Yes, the New York City government is threatening to throw you in jail for even mentioning any of these things. Gee, is there anything government can't do?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Santa's going to get his ass kicked at the next Macey's parade... HO HO HO!

Posted by: Gus at August 09, 2007 07:53 PM (wYeXg)

2 That's it, Gus! To jail with you!

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2007 09:18 PM (GYzrk)

3 They are also trying to ban the word Bitch, guess I can never visit NYC again because Bitch is a firm part of my vocabulary.

Posted by: Quality Weenie at August 10, 2007 04:39 PM (uHRYR)

4 Well, they are only banning the word, not any people, right?

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2007 05:58 PM (oifEm)

5 ostensible wishless scribable flabellinerved bacteriaceae pseudodipterally bradycauma sobranje Held, Katya http://www.anewhorizon.org/

Posted by: Melissa Mcgee at December 16, 2007 07:18 AM (8kGbY)

6 loliginidae litigiousness furyl unmold unappliably elderbrotherish calices galactocele Best N64 Emulator http://1yq.psvzovbxn.net/ Growing Indoor Marijuana Omega http://2j4.rttpzwdxj.net/ Fighting Games Online http://5n.pyanlbfx.net/

Posted by: Rebecca Gallegos at February 22, 2008 05:52 PM (6//ks)

7 forced extreme sex rape http://www.actionscript.org/forums/member.php3?u=67301 extreme bondage bdsm http://www.actionscript.org/forums/member.php3?u=67299 slaves extreme incest stories family http://www.actionscript.org/forums/member.php3?u=67295 incest

Posted by: analrape at March 27, 2008 09:27 PM (zCvBa)

8

Posted by: stories at May 04, 2008 10:07 AM (LfWeL)

9

Posted by: dadson at May 04, 2008 10:10 AM (wv5dS)

10

Posted by: incest at May 05, 2008 09:18 AM (ZObbN)

11

Posted by: stories at May 05, 2008 09:19 AM (laAJU)

12

Posted by: hotmom at May 12, 2008 10:12 AM (4BJcH)

13

Posted by: pictures at June 12, 2008 07:21 AM (EqGVY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Recent polling indicates that John Edwards isn't leading in NC for the Democratic nomination for president. Should that be embarrassing? I mean, in my opinion, it's bad enough that Hillary Clinton could go to NY and win there, knowing absolutely zero about the state, but to not even win your own state in your own primary?

Wouldn't that be a neat new rule? You cannot win the primary for president if you can't even win your own home state. Of course, Clinton's home state (in her mind) is wherever she happens to be at the moment. But still, if you're not able to win your own state amongst your own party, how can you even begin to continue your presidential aspirations?

Posted by: Ogre at 11:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come
Some day there will be peace. There will. Contrary to the message from the left, I seriously do not like war. I don't want war. I want peace right now. The problem is, you can't force someone into peace.

My mother always said that it takes two to fight. A lot of mothers say that. Know who I don't hear say that very often? Fathers. Sure, it may take two to fight, but what do the fathers always say? They say, "Who threw the first punch?"

Wouldn't it be great if we could do that with the middle east today? Okay, you guys, who threw the first punch? Whoever did has to go sit in the corner. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The only way we're going to have peace today is if the Muslims stop attacking anyone who isn't Muslim. We need more, MANY more Muslims to speak out like this:

it must be stated that no right thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action [9/11]: The Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, we just HAVE to vote for this guy. Seriously. Chris Dodd, running for the Democrat nomination for president, has real solutions.

There's about 7 million unemployed in the US. According to Mr. Dodd, if we surrender in Iraq, he, personally, will create 480,000 jobs a month. So, if we elect Mr. Dodd, in just over a year, the US Unemployment rate will drop to absolutely zero.

Government. Is there anything they can't do (to you)?

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

So, do you know Duncan Hunter? He's a conservative running for president. If you'd like a little more information about him, Alexander Madison has put up a piece about him. An excerpt:

So my argument below addresses 3 key topics that definitively illustrate why all conservatives must climb aboard the Hunter bandwagon. The first two are
about Mr. Hunter himself – his history and philosophy. The third topic is the much needed and long overdue comparison – how he stacks up against the other
republican hopefuls. In addition, I will demonstrate that Hunter really does "have a chance" and how his ascension is the best thing to happen to the GOP
since Ronald Wilson Reagan left the democrats and joined the party of Lincoln.

And lastly, I will address the role of Mr. Limbaugh and his fellow talkers in this election cycle.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday the two Republican candidates for Charlotte mayor had a "debate" on WBT 1110 with Jeff Katz. I found the mayor's responses to one particular issue (taxes) rather interesting. Both candidates were asked about the half-cent sales tax repeal that is on the ballot this fall.

First, a little background. Many years ago, the city of Charlotte asked Raleigh for permission to raise the sales tax. Raleigh gave that permission, but the city had to ask voters to approve the sales tax increase county-wide. The government PR-machine (paid for by taxpayers) went into high gear. This sales tax increase was to build a train. This train would be the best thing since the wheel. The train was going to solve every single problem in Charlotte from crowded schools to cancer. Well, it might not cure cancer, but the person who did cure cancer might ride on the train!

Over and over again the benefits of the train were brought out (100% lies, of course). They talked about how it would reduce congestion and save the planet. And they continued to say that these taxes would ONLY be used for the train and never would be used for anything else. The tax passed and the people anxiously awaited their savior in the Charlotte Rail And Public transport.

Now, back to yesterday. A repeal of the train sales tax is on the ballot this fall. The voters will decide if they want to repeal this tax now. The candidates were asked what they'd do if the tax were repealed. Now, I don't have an exact transcript of the mayor's words, but I'm pretty sure I've got just about what he said -- at least this is what is sounded like he meant:

Moderator: "Mayor McCrory, what will you do if the sales tax is repealed?

Mayor: Can I say that I'm very proud of everything I've ever done in my life first? I would reduce waste in the bus system. You see, we all know there's tons of waste there now, but we don't have to reduce it because you suckers keep paying for it. I'm very proud of the waste that's in the bus service. I just claim it's for the children, and you bums just give us more money. But if the tax were repealed, I'd have to trim that waste down some.

Next, I'm going to claim I'll cut bus services by 66%. I'm very proud that I will be able to cut the bus service. You see, I want that damn tax money to build my train, and I'm going to build that damn train, no matter what you stupid morons do. By claiming to cut the bus service by 2/3, I'm going for the inner-city vote. I'm very proud of my past election results in the inner city. But I'm going to scare them into thinking they won't be able to ride the bus any more if they vote for the tax repeal. I'm also trying to get the gang vote -- if they think their buses will be taken away, they'll support my efforts to keep the tax in place. I'm very proud of the way I, personally, have handled gangs in Charlotte.

Oh yeah, by the way -- you know that tax? Well 65% of the tax right now is going to pay for the buses. I'm very proud of that. Now I know the tax was passed to specifically and only be used for the train, but I'm amazed you idiots still believe us when we talk. When we get your money, we do whatever we want to with it. So we're using 65% of that money to support the current buses, which is why I'm going to threaten to take the buses away if the tax is repealed. And I'm proud that we have buses in Charlotte.

I also need more support against the repeal from the suburban voters, so I'm going to threaten to raise property taxes if you miserable bums dare to take my tax away from me. I'm proud to say that I know some suburban voters. I've never voted to raise taxes in Charlotte, and I'm proud of that. Yes, I'm well aware that people are paying 10 times what they were 5 years ago in taxes, but I didn't raise the property taxes. But if you people DARE to take my tax money away from my personal train, I'm telling you, I'm building that damn train anyway. We're going to build it up and down every direction we can find, no matter the cost. I'm proud that we've spent money on my watch.

So if you uneducated people who call yourself voters dare to repeal my tax, I'm going to raise property taxes and I'm going to cut the bus service, so don't test me. Just give me my damn money and no one will get hurt. And I'm proud that I'll be able to build the train no matter what.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 865 words, total size 5 kb.

Breaking new research in the Global Warming Religion (TM)! New research claims that no matter what you do, YOU are contributing to global warming. In fact, this researcher says that walking contributes MORE to global warming than driving! And adherents to the Religion of Global Warming know that driving is completely evil -- so what does that make walking? If these people are to be taken at face value, you're now supposed to sit at home and do literally NOTHING -- or you're an evil person who contributes to global warming. You cannot exercise now, you cannot watch TV, you cannot even EAT!

But such IS the purpose of the Religion of Global Warming.

If you take them at face value, you've been fooled. If you are one of those who says, "Oh, gee, it would be better to listen to them, because I want to save the world," you're a sucker. The purpose of the Religion of Global Warming is power, control, and money -- and nothing else. This most recent research shows what I have been saying all along -- the earth is warming, and there's absolutely nothing humans can do about it.

Oh, but to show even more evidence it's about control and money, how about taking a hard look at the hundreds of billions that The Religion of Global Warming will cost America? Yes, Congress, always trying to screw things up, is considering passing a law to drastically REDUCE the American economy -- in the name of the Religion of Global Warming. You see, according to this religion, America is evil. Therefore, anything that can make America worse off is good. That's what Global Warming is about. When you support "stopping" global warming, you're supporting crushing America.

And yes, the Religion of Global Warming is about power, too. Government officials today exist to spend money. The more money they can spend, the happier they are. They honestly do not care how much money they spend, because it's not theirs, and they have an absolutely endless supply of money: you, the sucker taxpayer. So government wants (always) to spend MORE. The Religion of Global Warming is being used as an excuse to spend more.

Man-made Global Warming is crap. It's a Religion. It's a set of beliefs designed to fool people into caring -- and giving piles of cash and power to a small group of people. If you think otherwise, you're simply wrong -- just look at the evidence.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

Mitt Romney has asked for help. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, he said:

I'm trying to think in what places we would differ.

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

The thought of being President frightens me and I do not think I want the job.

On a scale of 1 to 10 for conservatives, where Reagan is a 10, I would rate Romney about a 3. You may fool some of the younger folk, or the folk with a short memory who don't know Reagan, but you're not fooling those who watched and studied him. And I wish you were more like Reagan -- so I could vote for you.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:06 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Republicans insist that government _is_ the problem and then they get elected and prove it. Let's see, Republicans have had single-party control of the Legislative, Executive, and Jusicial branches of government since Bush took office in 2001, yet Republican "True Believers" will always blame those damn "tax and spend" Democrats for all the problems of Big Government.

Posted by: RonaldReagan at August 08, 2007 12:36 AM (jWvfJ)

2 What does that have to do with either Romney or Reagan?

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2007 12:55 AM (GYzrk)

3 They both ran for President and with an (R) they are guaranteed 30% of the vote because (R) true believers use "tax and spend" as an urban myth. Both Ronald Reagan and both Bushes ran up tremendous debts by growing government spending immensely during their terms in the White House. The only fiscal conservative in the past 27 years has been a Democratic President who finally got the deficit under control to start paying down America's debt -- and then Bush II started raising the debt again -- over $300 billion/year goes to pay interest on (R) borrowed money. I would guess that Romney would continue Reagan's "voodoo economics" if he wins the 2008 election.

Posted by: RonaldReagan at August 08, 2007 06:31 PM (jWvfJ)

4 After reading the URL link from your post, I noticed that (R) candidates still talk about diversions (eg, "abortion") rather than serious issues (eg, "health care") that affect most people's lives. Somehow the increased energy prices and insurance premiums don't register as a "tax" with (R) voters. That extra $10 you pay each time you fill up goes right to Iran and Saudi Arabia who, in turn, buy U.S. government debt. The entire Bush II national debt increases has come from foreign investors. President Andrew Jackson warned that putting the U.S. government in debt to foreign governments would be a serious threat to our national security, especially in matters of war with a creditor nation. If a Republican mentions raising taxes he would not get the nomination, but raising gas prices and insurance premiums to pay for government spending goes un-noticed by (R) voters.

Posted by: RonaldReagan at August 08, 2007 07:04 PM (jWvfJ)

5 I'm really confused by this line of attack. (Yes, all you're doing is conducting an attack. You have no solution, only insults and degredation. You are part of the problem, not the solution.) You comment in an article that is directly about the desire to reduce government and begin blamestorming an entire political party. Vilification is not a proper means to get your point across. All you're doing is breeding devisiveness and presenting yourself as what one would call "a raving moonbat". Try to discuss rather than slander.

Posted by: Gus at August 08, 2007 07:50 PM (wYeXg)

6 Also, person posting as Reagan, you have twisted definitions of words -- which typically marks you as a Democrat. You claim that "tax and spend" is an "urban myth." No, that's what Democrats do. Local Democrats in NC actually admit it. You measure "fiscal conservatism" based on a deficit. Along with Democrats, you seem to think everything is okay is there's a small deficit -- no matter how it got small: even if it was reduced by increasing spending by 200% and increasing taxes by 500%. Sorry, that's not fiscal conservatism. You also, as Gus pointed out, seem to only view the world through your own personal prism. You have determined that abortion is a minor issue while "health care" is serious. Perhaps you could look around a bit and learn a little more before you blindly attack others based on your personal views.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2007 11:09 PM (GYzrk)

7 Well, I didn't mean it to be a personal attack on Republicans -- the genius of American political freedom is that different citizens can have different views on what is right and what is wrong. I was trying to debunk the popular urban myth that "tax and spend" Democrats are the sole cause of our government's precarious fiscal situation. It is a fact that Republicans had complete control of all three branches of our federal government from 2001 to 2007 -- do you disagree with that? And during those years did the federal budget shrink? Hardly. The same thing happened during Ronald Reagan's two terms. "Tax and spend" Democrats is an image, a perception, crafted by clever Madison Avenue advertising/PR firms -- without much basis in fact. Well, at the very least you must admit that (R) politicians are as big spenders as (D) politicians. During that time the national debt increased 4-fold from what it was when Bill Clinton left office. The National Debt clock was removed from Times Square at the end of Clinton's presidency because it looked like federal debt was going to be paid down each year. Instead, the (R) president with a rubber-stamp (R) congress passed that huge tax break for the most wealthy 1,000 families in the U.S., and our nation's fiscal well-being has become much worse. Tax cuts for the middle class and poor working class could benefit our economy and also introduce more fairness in the federal tax code. It is unfair that Romney and Kennedy pay only 15% capital gains taxes, while poor working people pay up to 43% of their paychecks to Uncle Sam (28% income tax + 15% social security taxes). In addition, tax cuts for incomes less than $200,000/year is likely to circulate in our economy, while tax cuts on incomes over $200,000 are likely to be accumulated tax-free in estates of wealthy citizens (capital gains taxes aren't paid until the capital investments are sold -- perhaps never in the case of the super-rich). Donald Trump (R) had a reasonable solution for our national debt crisis. He suggested a ONE-TIME 15% tax on all estates over $10 million. That would pay off our national debt and provide for an IMMEDIATE $300 billion/year tax cut! What do you think about that proposal? Keep in mind that working people pay 15% social security taxes EVERY YEAR. But, due to sloppy bookkeeping, social security tax revenue is bundled in with general revenue, and it has been "mis-appropriated" ever since President Johnson began using it to pay for his war in Vietnam (trying to hide the true costs of the war from the American public). The same rip-off has been happening to gas tax revenue. Instead of dedicating those funds for transportation needs (such as repairs for that bridge in Minneapolis) gas taxes have been used to pay for those "earmark" pork barrel spending by politicians -- both (R) and (D). BTW, I am officially registered as an Independent. I would vote for Ron Paul the (R) Congressman from Texas before any of the Democratic nominees. However, I understand that we (in this BLOG forum) clearly operate on different wave-lengths, but I was only trying to debunk the "tax and spend" myth -- (R) politicians have taken "earmark" pork to new levels, and it is disheartening to hear that dedicated (R) party supporters aren't the least bit aware of (R) spending, let alone upset by it. I didn't mean to imply that abortion is not an important issue to many people. I'm saying that it affects the lives of far fewer people than health care does.

Posted by: RonaldReagan at August 09, 2007 12:12 AM (jWvfJ)

8 No question that today's Republicans spend as much as Democrats -- which is why I don't like them. Reagan, however, was quite different. He did not have any support from the spending branch of government -- Congress -- so can hardly be blamed for spending increases. I think your attempt to link tax cuts and deficit is simply wrong. They're unrelated. And a high deficit means, what, exactly? Nothing other than the government is spending too much -- not that they're not charging enough in taxes: difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals will use ANY excuse (such as a deficit) to raise taxes. Conservatives will use any excuse to LOWER taxes. If the deficit is too high, the liberal solution is to raise taxes as much as possible, without reducing any spending to lower the deficit. The conservative is to stop spending without punishing people (via taxes) to lower it. I don't support punishing the rich for being rich. I support the fair tax -- that's completely fair to everyone. Just because you're poor, I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay taxes -- and just because you're rich, I don't see why you should have to pay more taxes. AS for Trump, if he's so serious, why doesn't he start the ball rolling? I support him voluntarily giving 15% of HIS estate -- but I bet he doesn't. I'd also LOVE to see Paul elected! That would be awesome fun! I'd also disagree with your claim that abortion affects less people than health care.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2007 01:15 AM (GYzrk)

9 Well, at least you acknowledge that "tax and spend" is sort of a phoney balony campaign hyperbole. There is a significant difference in who is affected by Democratic Party tax increases -- Clinton's tax fell on the top 1.2% of Americans -- about 1,000 families, I believe. Check the income tax tables and you'll see that lower incomes received some tax relief. Bush's tax cuts went primarily to those same 1,000 families -- those who really don't need it. When JFK cut taxes on the rich, the tax rate was 90% on top incomes. I believe he lowered the tax rate to 70%, and it's come down since then. The wealth gap in America was 10-to-1 in Kennedy's day. Today, the gap is 40,000-to-1. That is not just a case of "the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer" -- it is the result of government tax codes and regulations that favor the rich over the poor and middle class. The rich have lobbyists to buy influence in Washington DC. The poor have no lobbyists to represent them in DC. If anyone is being punished in America, it is the poor and middle class, not that guy who made $1.8 billion when Blackstone private capital went public.

Posted by: RonaldReagan at August 09, 2007 04:55 PM (jWvfJ)

10 I absolutely despise government being a decision-maker on who "needs" money that they work for. How about I, personally, decide that you don't "need" your furniture, and I come take it all from your house. Is that okay? How about if I have a vote among 100 people and 51 vote to remove your furniture because you don't "need" it? It's morally wrong to take things that people earn because some ruler decides that they don't "need" them. That's socialism at it's core and it has failed each and every time it's tried. If there's a gap, get the government out of the way. If there's a gap, government CAUSED the gap -- and they're utterly and totally incapable of doing anything about it other than making things worse.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2007 05:00 PM (oifEm)

11 Lil' Ronny, (not a snide comment) "Tax and spend" falls into the same category as "tax cuts for the rich". They're both cute little slogans politicians came up with to slander the other side. So why to rich people pay a smaller percentage in taxes than poor people? Normally, rich people are smarter than poor people. Rich people understand the words "tax loophole". They actually hire people, smarter than themselves, to work on their taxes so they're lower. There are a plethora of tax bastions that the common man (or woman) can take to reduce your tax burden to next to nothing. They don't itemize, they just take what they were given, fill out a form and get some change back. - Ever get a haircut for work? Tax deductible. - Ever buy some new "work" clothes? Tax deductible. - Ever drive to work? The gas is tax deductible. (so is the wear and tear on the vehicle.) - Trying to pay off your home before the mortgage runs out, aka paying down your loan? Don't do it. You pay more in taxes than your interest if you do. - Have you incorporated your name? There are tax cuts for doing this. - Have over 2k in medical costs this year (including dental and checkups)? It's tax deductible. - Did you donate anything to the salvation army this year? Completely tax deductible. - Forget to keep the receipts for your tax deductions? Not a big problem. They don't require receipts for the first few hundred dollars. These are just the few I'm familiar with. Our tax code gains about 20 pages of very small print every year. The "rich" don't really get more tax cuts. They just know more about them than "poor" people. That's why the rich pay less "by percentage" than many "poor" people. You can do it too. (By raw numbers the top 1% pays more in taxes than the bottom 50%. See? I too can skew the numbers to suit my needs.)

Posted by: Gus at August 09, 2007 08:21 PM (wYeXg)

12 The fair tax is the solution. But those in Congress don't want that because they would lose power and control.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2007 09:28 PM (GYzrk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You may rest easy today in Charlotte. The Charlotte police department, in cooperation with the bureaucrats at the food police "health" department, have saved you again. No, they didn't actually arrest anyone who raped someone. No, they didn't manage to get a child molester off the streets. No, they didn't even capture someone who was threatening you. Instead, they've managed to capture dangerous food preparers!

Do you feel safer yet?

But the courageous police did "bust" people who were daring to prepare allegedly dangerous food in their apartment. No, no one died from the prepared food. No, no one even got sick. In fact, no one even prepared once about the food that was prepared there. But someone complained about the smell, so off to jail with these dangerous preparers of foodstuffs!

I bet you didn't know it was dangerous to prepare food. This story shows that it IS dangerous to prepare certain quantities of food -- if you don't ask permission from government first. Yes, in America, if you prepare the wrong amount of food without asking permission, it's off to jail with you. Go ahead, tell me this is a free country.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

How about a group of llamas posing for a Monday?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:04 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I thought I saw Eric, but he ducked behind the llamas.

Posted by: GM Roper at August 06, 2007 10:31 PM (S60yG)

2 That's not Eric!

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2007 01:50 AM (GYzrk)

3 Just call me Carl Wheezer.

Posted by: Skyler the Weird at August 07, 2007 02:36 AM (KkQmZ)

4 Ok, you're Carl Wheezer.

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2007 11:39 AM (oifEm)

5 No, because I bet Eric the Llama is the one taking the photo! If I'm right do I win a prize?

Posted by: david drake at August 07, 2007 09:33 PM (S83Pv)

6 Wow, how did you know that? Yes, you win! Eric will be awarding you your prize.

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2007 09:43 PM (GYzrk)

7 It was a very Eric The Llama type educated guess!

Posted by: david drake at August 07, 2007 09:44 PM (S83Pv)

8 I presume your pet fish, Eric, is doing well these days?

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2007 09:47 PM (GYzrk)

9 Eric the pet fish is fine. Although he ruined his camera in futile attempts to take pictures of the Eric the pet fish's family reunion because the camera got all full of water.

Posted by: david drake at August 07, 2007 10:45 PM (S83Pv)

10 That's the reunion that happened just before I ate Eric's cousin Eric on a dare, right?

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2007 01:34 AM (GYzrk)

11 Indeed. And I tried to tell him to use a water-proof camera, but he just wouldn't listen.

Posted by: dave drake at August 08, 2007 10:30 PM (S83Pv)

12 Eric (the fish) seems to have always had a hearing problem. I've suggested he get his ears checked, but those suggestions apparently fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2007 10:55 PM (GYzrk)

13 I thought I saw him hunkering down behind Eric the Other Llama, but I guess I was mistaken.

Posted by: Harvey at August 11, 2007 08:37 PM (L7a63)

14 You just don't know your llamas, Harvey.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2007 09:49 PM (GYzrk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The other day, I was musing about the lack of laws in America, and the fact that America was truly no longer a nation of laws. Harvey reminded me of an all too appropriate quote from Atlas Shrugged:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris.
"We want them broken [...] There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

While we're spending billions fighting terrorists overseas; and arresting and jailing leafleteers who visit IRS offices, illegal aliens and communists openly attack Americans -- and the police do, well, not much. Go read for yourself.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Gee, what a shocker. The lottery in South Carolina is now "short" money. So what's the solution? The same as the solution to each and every "problem" created by government: MORE government! Yay, government!

You see, in South Carolina, just like in North Carolina, and many, many other places, people were sold on the lottery by those who wanted cash claiming it was "for the children (TM)." These slimy hucksters, the vast majority of whom stood to personally financially profit from the lottery, kept telling people that the lottery would "help kids" and "help education." Now, in South Carolina, when the lottery isn't "generating" as much as they promised kids, they're stuck -- they don't have the cash they promised.

So what does government do? Spend more money. Last year they had to take $50 million from the general fund to pay for their promises that the lottery didn't produce. Next year projections put the expense at $80 million. Remember this, North Carolina -- it WILL happen here. This is the lottery that wasn't going to cost anyone ANYTHING -- and now taxpayers are DIRECTLY paying tens of millions a year in taxes to prop up the lottery in South Carolina.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Take a close look at this one. And note the nurse. This is SO accurate.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Since I'm not here (see post down a little bit), I don't know, as I write this, whether Barry Bonds has beaten Hank's record. But I think this one will always apply:

Posted by: Ogre at 07:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Funny, this is just about what I was thinking when I kept reading the stories about "doping" in the event. Mostly, though, I wondered if there would be anyone left to actually complete the event that wasn't "doping."

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

I think this cartoon really shows the current problem in Iraq quite well.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Ogre's not here. Today, and for the next few days, Ogre is at Graffiti Church in the Lower East side of New York City. Yes, THAT Lower East side.

But don't go away just yet! Today, since I won't be around, a number of editorial cartoons will post throughout the day. Come back and check them out. Some are funny and some are just sad commentary on society.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm sure animal lovers will agree with this one:

Posted by: Ogre at 07:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 arf, arf!! :-)

Posted by: Fido at August 02, 2007 09:49 PM (Bn7Z6)

2 Hehe

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2007 10:04 PM (GYzrk)

3 I'm down with that!

Posted by: Angel at August 03, 2007 03:49 AM (IbVER)

4 Instead of going to prison I say they make him work all day and most of the night at a humane society cleaning up shit and pee. Better yet, make him a human fire hydrant.

Posted by: Quality Weenie at August 03, 2007 10:09 PM (BksWB)

5 I like those ideas!!!

Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2007 11:17 AM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment