September 11, 2005
September 11th
Today many are posting about memories from September 11th. I remember my first reaction was rather odd. I was working at a dot-bomb (that went bankrupt the next day, literally) and a co-worker came up and told me that a plane had crashed into one of the twin towers.
I laughed and thought, "idiot." I thought he meant some biplane or glider had done it -- accidentally. He started getting live news feeds over the internet. When the footage of the flames showed up, he went around telling everyone to come watch. Of course we did.
Later that day, most of the workplace was in shock. No one said much and no one really comprehended it. We were all in agreement that we should nuke Afghanistan.
I have a book-type thing with a pile of pictures before, during, and after that terrorist action. There are all the usual pictures, and this one that really gives me hope and shows me America as I see it:

Despite all their attempts, we will overcome. We will not be destroyed. America will survive, despite the attempts of it's enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are the land of the free and the brave, and we shall remain so, no matter who tries to stop us.
They want us dead. The sooner you understand that, the better off we all will be. This is a religious war, and Islam wants to displace America, freedom, capitalism, and everything America stands for, especially individualism. That is a statement of fact -- not something you can "disagree" with.
No, we cannot "Agree to disagree," because it simply is true. No amount of denial from anyone will change that -- it will only hasten your own death. Feel free to comment and discuss, link and trackback, but if you disagree, you are simply wrong.
Linked to Jay's Roundup and Cathouse Chat's.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:22 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ogre, you have nailed it! We will not surrender, we will not bow dow, we will be victorius no matter how long it takes. Any other position is indefensible.
Posted by: GM Roper at September 11, 2005 10:15 AM (0CqNu)
2
Thanks! I'll fight until my dying breath, even if no one fights with me.
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 10:18 AM (L0IGK)
3
No, you are CORRECT; it IS a "Holy war" indeed. Anytime you have two sides, and one side is calling it a "Holy War", you've got a damned "Holy war" on your hands. Anybody who disagrees is simply W-R-O-N-G! While "Holiness" may not be the OTHER side's motivation, that does NOT mean it is NOT a "Holy war"...
Blog ON, brother...
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at September 11, 2005 11:37 AM (Er9BL)
4
See, we CAN agree, GTL! Thanks for the kind words. I read a post somewhere (that I lost) that pointed that out -- if it's not a holy war against a religion, why are all the people who are attacking us OF that religion?
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 12:08 PM (L0IGK)
5
You're right, Ogre. There are no two ways about it. The terrorists would kill the gays marching in the streets on their behalf--Islam doesn't tolerate much of ANYTHING that we take for granted in our world...God forbid that they should EVER win. Great post, going through the posts today...emotions are pretty raw. So glad to see posts like yours, Ogre. So glad. God Bless America and Semper fi!
Posted by: Cao at September 11, 2005 12:59 PM (RyucI)
6
Thanks for the kind words, Cao. You are absolutely correct, as usual.
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 01:56 PM (L0IGK)
7
"They want us dead."
Their supporters, right here among us, want us to forget. Once we forget we are vulnerable.
http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2005/09/our-after-911-site-is-online.html
5 minute video memorial. No burning buildings, no rubble, no explosions, no speeches, no screeches, no Bin Laden, no bodies. Just a remembrance of some people whose lives were cut short through no fault of their own, with poignant candid snapshots from their lives, accompanied by a musical background.
Do you know, the Daily Kos has not even mentioned what day it is? Yes, some want us to forget, because the truth gets in their way.
Posted by: Mr. Snitch at September 11, 2005 04:28 PM (2CNDQ)
8
Excellent additional point -- our enemies do want us to forget.
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 05:00 PM (L0IGK)
9
Great post Ogre. We should never forget & never give up.
We also need to make sure that the memorials to this day do a good job of honoring those who lost their lives rather than the perpetrators of this crime.
Posted by: NYgirl at September 11, 2005 08:59 PM (JEAUq)
10
Thanks, NYgirl -- I've seen nothing but good things today -- of course I've not been to places like DailyKOS...who I'm told blasted the US again.
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 09:36 PM (L0IGK)
11
Ogre, while I know that "we" (America) will overcome, I cannot help but feel some fear about "the left" as well as my own fears and doubts about myself. E-Mail me privately, I will share in EGREGIOUS detail, I promise.
Posted by: Smoke Eater at September 12, 2005 12:50 AM (K7uqT)
12
I worry sometimes, too, Smokey, but I am a real optimist, and I know that I will not give up. I have faith that there are many others like me out there...
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:35 AM (L0IGK)
13
A wise person told me that in the end, after all those awful predictions of the huge amount of lives lost...it was 2700 give or take a few hundred. They attacked us in a big way, but they didn't take away too many of us now did they? Not to de-value anyone who died that day, at all. But America always comes out on top.
Great post Ogre.
Posted by: Raven at September 12, 2005 04:42 PM (7mbx+)
14
Thanks, Raven. 2,700 is still a lot, and that's why we're not giving up.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:00 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 10, 2005
What Rights?
Sorry not much posting this weekend. It's in the mid-70s in North Carolina and mostly sunny. You couldn't create better weather for doing something - anything - outside. So I'm outside for the weekend.
However, if you're having bad weather and you're inside, I'll just add to your misery. It's official now, you have no rights. The Bill of Rights is nothing more than some paper some white slave-owners wrote a million years ago, and it doesn't apply to today. I reference this article that points out that guns are being confiscated from LAW ABIDING citizens in UNDAMAGED areas.
The lead quote for that article says it all:
“The balloon has gone up, the shoe has dropped. Anyone doubting the criminal intentions of the social engineer control-freaks in Washington need only look at middle-class neighborhoods being stormed by black-masked wearing jackboots on a mission to steal guns.
This is a precedent setting case for national gun confiscation. This is a clear declaration of war by the Federal Government against the American people. This is exactly how Lexington and Concord started the Revolutionary War in 1775.”
I don't understand why no one cares. Why aren't people revolting? Why are people submitting? Why isn't anyone reporting on the total lack of rights? I haven't even heard a logical reason for the confiscation of firearms from these areas -- this is NOT where looting is going on, this is elsewhere!
It started years ago, when the government started taking arms from public housing. Now they're going for the middle class. Well, that might go over in New Orleans, but they're going to have quite a fight if they want MY guns, natural disaster or not.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:38 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Jay at September 10, 2005 05:58 PM (BKqRl)
2
They'll get my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
But don't you find it amazing that this gun grab is being done under the full view of a Republican Administration with a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate. It looks as if the right has been lying even to the right.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at September 10, 2005 08:44 PM (gfkTT)
3
They would get a different response in a lot of places. But in the big cities, people have been sheep for generations.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 10, 2005 09:17 PM (S417T)
Posted by: kender at September 11, 2005 04:02 AM (ALym7)
5
To say this development is effin' unbelievable is putting it mildly. I can only hope this is an isolated incidence of overreaction by idiots functioning onsite to the earlier attacks by the animals who were taking advantage of the disaster in its early stages, not the setting of a national precedent. This will become more evident when we see, after the smoke of the tragedy clears, whether or not those weapons are returned to their owners.
Posted by: Seth at September 11, 2005 07:07 AM (Y5T9j)
6
Seth, do you really think there is ANY chance at all that any of those weapons will be returned? I will be completely shocked and utterly amazed if a single weapon is returned -- even ONE.
As the article mentions, I think this is part of an incremental test approach. I don't think it's a super-secret organized conspiracy, just that different people at different times are trying to see what they can get away with. And they're apparently getting away with this one.
This is another reason I don't live in IL where gun owners get yellow stars to wear and are required to wear them (FOID cards).
Any Billy, I don't really find it amazing that it's Republicans not saying anything -- the Republicans have been working for a decade to create such a "big tent" that they've invited everyone inside, and they don't really stand for anything anymore.
Thanks for stopping by everyone!
Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 08:13 AM (L0IGK)
7
Do you ever listen to Alex Jones' radio show? I can only take a little at a time. This had me floored. The gun grab didn't necessarily surprise me, but the absolute silence from the Right about it absolutely surprised me.
Even my Dad went crazy when I told him about it, and he's far from conservative. (He actually thought the ACLU would do something about it).
Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 12, 2005 09:16 AM (K+h36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 09, 2005
What should the Feds do now?
Well, let's ask some people who aren't alive now, but I wish were (emphasis added by me):
What Would James Madison Do?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
What Would Davy Crockett Do?
"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Be sure to read the last paragraph, which is probably just as true today.
What Would Franklin Pierce Do?
"I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
What Would Grover Cleveland Do?
"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune....Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
I absolutely agree. Why doesn't anyone else in the entire federal government? Pandering wimps, the entire lot of them. Well, except for the 11 (of 433) that voted against it: Barton (TX), Flake, Foxx, Garrett (NJ), Hostettler, King (IA), Otter, Paul, Sensenbrenner, Tancredo, Westmoreland
(From David Goodyear, found at Vox Popoli's, in the the comments).
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I have just been reading up on American history, and you are so right about our nation's turn toward socialism in such matters. Liberals in general aren't even looking at Blanco and Nagin. The federal government has now offered some $60 billion to Louisiana residents, apart from $2000 debit cards from FEMA (do I have that right?). Of course, help from the local level would be much quicker and more personal. They'd have a better idea of what was needed than our unwieldy federal government. And most important, if our national leaders actually looked at the Constitution they would cut the size of the federal government by 75%. Arrggghhh!
Posted by: Jeff at September 09, 2005 05:23 PM (KKqlA)
2
Excellent find Ogre! Excellent!
Posted by: Jay at September 09, 2005 09:34 PM (BKqRl)
3
Sometimes I think we're past the point of no return, Jeff, I really do. I have infinite hope, though.
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 10:03 PM (L0IGK)
4
Interesting. While I hold the opinions of our Founding Fathers in extremely high esteem, I also recognize that the Constitution is derived from the opinions of People not so unlike President Bush, President Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Howard Dean, and Rudy Giulianni. One thing they all shared in common was the fact that NONE of them held out with the opinion that any single individual amongst them was smarter than the others. Thus, the Constitution was born, via debate and compromise. Any of us can tout the left, or right, or centrist statements made amongst them at various times, but it was through diversity, and a common END dream that the glorious Constitution was born.
And I'd give my life to uphold that Constitution in a freaking HEARTBEAT.
Blog on, my fellow CLASSICAL Liberal blogger, blog ON. And yes, that IS a compliment of the highest level coming from ME ;-)
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at September 10, 2005 02:00 AM (SUNhZ)
5
And I recognize it as such, GTL, thank you!
Posted by: Ogre at September 10, 2005 01:06 PM (L0IGK)
6
Thank you, Andrew. I wish more people would understand it.
Posted by: Ogre at September 10, 2005 05:04 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hurricane Numbers
Did you know that you were giving over $1,500 to hurricane relief? Yes, that's in addition to any checks you may have sent this past week. Do you realize that if you do not "contribute" over $1,500 to hurricane relief that you will be put in jail? You will.
Oh, and do you know what's going on with that money that you're forced to "donate?" Do you realize that the people who happened to be in the path of a completely natural disaster have just won the lottery to the tune of over a quarter of a million dollars?
I've written the mathematical details over here.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:54 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But not all of that is going to people who "just won the lottery" by losing everything they own.
Those numbers also include a lot of "societial" expenses. Like rent on the Astrodome (that's figured in as part of the contributions) then there's the money spend on ferrying people out of there in chartered planes, buses, trains, and boats -- renting more temporary housing, rebuilding those levees the US Army lost, paying for the diesel for generators and massive pumps to drain the city, the cost of floating USS Harry S Truman and its support ships off the coast for months, rebuilding docks, roads, bridges, pipelines (yep, even oil and gas companies are getting plenty of federal aid), dredging the Mississippi so that 40% of the country can be supplied with food and fuel, and farmers from North Dakota to Pennsylvania can get grain to overseas markets.
That knocks down the lottery winnings. Now consider that many of the people lost homes that have been in their families for more than a hundred years. 200 grand doesn't come close, and they won't get much more than 10,000 in direct benefits.
I don't think anyone in New Orleans won any lottery.
Posted by: Denny Hix at September 09, 2005 04:34 PM (LQJdM)
2
Harvey sent me over because he thought you might resemble some ogre's I have hanging by my garage door.
I hope so.;-)
Just wanted you to know I will be a frequent vistor.
Great site.
Posted by: BeeBee at September 09, 2005 04:36 PM (yaN/w)
3
Thanks, Denny, for listing the vast, incredible amount of wasting of money that government is capable of. Every single think you listed is waste.
Rent on the astrodome? Yeah, we really NEED government to pay government. That's not only wasteful, that's total B.S.
Chartering airplanes? Certainly no one can live without a chartered airplane. Renting housing? Oh yes, we have to have government pay for housing, or no one will have a place to stay. Tell me again why I have to pay rent when the government could just pay it for me?
You do a very efficient job of helping me point out the utter absurdity and total uselessness of today's federal government, thank you.
And Beebee- thanks for stopping by...I think... "Hanging by your garage?"
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 10:00 PM (L0IGK)
Posted by: Mycos" rel="nofollow">Mycos at September 10, 2005 01:05 AM (KiAf0)
5
I agree Mycos, Denny is a lunatic.
Posted by: Ogre at September 10, 2005 01:10 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Taxes going UP and UP!
If you are considering moving, one of the first things you should consider is the politics of where you will move. Very seldom, however, do people do this. Why does it make a difference? Because more and more today, politicians want more control over your life. It DOES make a difference.
For example, if you're considering moving to Charlotte, NC, you might want to hear some of the things that are being said by the various candidates for City Council. There is an election later this year, and there are various primaries currently running. The primary election is scheduled for September 27th.
I'll put more details in the extended entry. If you're not interested in Charlotte politics, seriously, check out the politics of a place before you move there.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
08:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.
NC Counties pay for Federal Program
Each year in the North Carolina General Assembly, a few people work to allow local control over locally raised taxes. Right now, when a county collects taxes from it's citizens, they are told by the federal government how to spend some of that money. Each year, some people work to get the rule changed. It has not changed.
The rule is regarding Medicaid. The federal government sets the guidelines and determines who is eligible for this program of theft (from productive citizens to non-productive citizens). The federal government decides how much is to be stolen from working people and given to others. But the state of North Carolina then informs the counties that THEY must pay these amounts.
This is another example of bureaucracy gone insane. If I ran a county and raised tax money, then the state and federal government came in and told me how to spend it, I'll tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. Neither the federal government nor the state government should have ANY say in how a local county spends it's money.
North Carolina is the only state in the country that forces it's counties to fund medicare. It's wrong, but the Democrats in North Carolina like it because it gives them another excuse to raise taxes: "Gee, we have to raise your local taxes to pay for medicare -- it's not our fault."
Grow some guts, county commissioners. Tell the state that you're not going to do it. Tell your medicare leeches to ask for their money from the federal government, because the feds are the ones who promised it. It's the good, right, and honorable thing to do.
Where has my country gone?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
September 08, 2005
Louisiana Libertarian OK
The
Louisiana Libertarian is reporting in, and he's very fortunate and okay. In the post linked above, he details his adventures escaping from the hurricane and returning to home after it.
Then he really lets it rip, lying the blame where it falls. He ends on a high note, with ideas for rebuilding and starting again -- of course, with the free market and NOT government.
Also, if you're a refugee (sorry if using that word makes me a racist or something), be sure to check the Yahoo group Katrina Open Rooms. There's over 20 people that have volunteered to open their homes to house people who have no home -- without government. If you happen to have some space in your house to open up, head there, too.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:09 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is another great site at www.katrinahousing.org. You can post if you have space or search for it. Just started last Thursday and they've already placed over 3500 people.
Posted by: Michelle at September 08, 2005 10:36 PM (leljR)
2
Yes, that is another great one, thanks!
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 05:54 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Birthday Presents!
Harvey of
Bad Example is about to celebrate his birthday. So he's
made some requests for presents. He's very specific, and I'm not really sure why. No matter, always one to give (no matter what that "personality test" says), I'm happy to oblige:
Harvey's Birthday Request
At almost the same time, Bou of Boudicca's Voice is also celebrating a big birthday. Since she is blog-kin to Harvey, I presume that she'd like a similar gift of the opposite sex. Once again, I am a very giving person (despite what you might have heard from the DNC), so I'd like to present her with a gift as well:
Bou's Topless Guy
Who says Ogres can't be nice?
Posted by: Ogre at
02:08 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Cao at September 08, 2005 07:08 PM (RyucI)
2
Admit it -- you secretly liked Bou's present.
Posted by: Ogre at September 08, 2005 08:10 PM (L0IGK)
3
Ack! But I made no requests!!! Really!!
As for Harv's gift, man, you joke, but I know women that could happen to. Makes me happy I'm only a 34B. Men may not notice me in general, but there is something to be said for being 40 and not saggy!
Posted by: Bou at September 08, 2005 11:25 PM (5JHEt)
4
Well Bou, you ARE part of the Bad Example family...so I think Harvey made that request on your behalf...at least subconsciously!
Happy Birthday!
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 05:55 AM (L0IGK)
5
FYI - Man boob is bad. Especially those ones. Nothing more to say.
/TJ
Posted by: TJ at September 11, 2005 11:26 PM (PL7dL)
6
What's that, TJ? You're jealous of Bou's present and you want something like that for YOUR birthday?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:29 AM (L0IGK)
Posted by: Lee Ann at September 12, 2005 09:25 PM (JSLXn)
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 09:41 PM (iJFc9)
Posted by: dsfs at September 15, 2005 11:10 AM (P919T)
10
Yes, yes it does, dsfs.
Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 11:57 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Harvey at September 15, 2005 08:47 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What does the ACLU stand for?
Usually with the ACLU, you can tell what their point of view is. You can tell what they support and why. Most of the time, it's support of communism against democracy and Christianity. But when it comes to marriage, what is their point?
Alan Sears has posted a good comparison showing what the ACLU would be like if they were participating in a baseball game. A simple excerpt, talking about football players showing up at a baseball game:
"Not fair!" the invaders insist. "We demand that you let us play! And here – use our ball. Re-line the field. And play by our NFL rules!"
That's the ACLU's position when it comes to marriage. They don't like the rules, so they want to change them. They don't care about the umpires, players, or even the fans, they just want to have their way, and everyone else be damned.
When it comes to marriage, the ACLU doesn't care about the laws -- the ACLU tells people to disobey the law. They don't care about the democratic process -- they want their agenda enforced, no matter what the people vote for. And they don't care about public health -- they ignore any and all medical, physical, and psychological effects of marriage.
The article ends with this question:
So, having divorced themselves from the best interests of their clients, their society and the law, what exactly do the ACLU's attorneys love, honor and cherish? Social anarchy? Unbridled hedonism? The dismantling of the American family?
I think I know the answer -- the ACLU honestly wants to disrupt the uniquely American society so much that they can demand total government control -- communism -- because that is the one thing they are consistent in defending.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs are on board. If you would like to join go to our portal and register. We will add you to our mailing list and send you the simple instructions to be a part of our movement.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.
The Weather is Racist
I am getting tired of all the hurricane coverage. Nearly all the networks, and even a large number of blogs are all-hurricane, all the time. But sometimes the left can really be completely so far out of touch with the real world, all you can do is laugh.
The LEADER of the left and the Democrats in this country is Howard Dean. If you are a Democrat, he IS your leader. If you don't like that, tough, it's a fact. If he doesn't speak for you, replace him as your leader or pick a new party.
And, according to screamin' Dean:
Skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived and who did not
So yes, the hurricane intentionally singled out New Orleans because there were black people there. People apparently died because they were black. I've heard these lunatics on the left claim that people are poor because they're black, but never that they have died from flooding because they're black.
Why is that, Mr. Dean? Do white people swim better than black people? Are whites able to run faster, and outrun hurricane-sized waves? Perhaps black people cannot climb stairs as well -- I don't know, I'm just asking -- Mr. Dean is the one who claims there is this vast difference and that apparently blacks are not equal to whites.
In additional, Dean apparently doesn't like the definition of another word: refugee. While a refugee IS, in fact, "One who flees in search of refuge," Dean doesn't like that, or he's too stupid to understand the meaning of words:
They are not refugees. They are Americans
Hello? You can flee in search of refuge, even if you ARE an American. All you can do is laugh at these people -- they have no clue about life, nor reality. It's so ironic that they actually label themselves "reality-based."
Posted by: Ogre at
09:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ogre,
I completely agree with you about Howard Dean and the Democrats. The situation is terrible and Democrats are using this to score all sorts of political points.
It may backfire though because people down here are beginning to look at what went wrong and they blame local government.
Another thing, just about every person that I talked to called theirself a refugee.
Posted by: Louisiana Conservative at September 08, 2005 10:46 AM (hUCG7)
2
This situation went from being a disaster to just complete insanity.
Never mind WHO to blame -- I don't understand why anyone is even looking for someone to blame.
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at September 08, 2005 10:59 AM (/k+l4)
3
This man is an embarrassing disgrace every time he opens his mouth. The Democrat Party needs to abandon this chump before he completely destroys his party. It's easy to blame people for natural disasters, but it makes the blamer look awfully STUPID.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at September 08, 2005 11:22 AM (SUNhZ)
4
He's only embarassing, GTL, if he's on your side!

I'm just laughing at him...
Posted by: Ogre at September 08, 2005 11:55 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Where's MY $2,000?
As most of my good readers I'm sure already know, the federal government is
giving $2,000 to anyone who is a "victim" of the hurricane. Where's my $2,000?
What? I don't get $2,000? Why not? For those who may have been educated in the government-run education system, you may not realize this, but government generates ZERO cash. The ONLY possible way for government to get ANY money is to forcibly take it from it's people via taxes.
Therefore, if the government is giving away $2,000 to every "victim," they have to TAKE IT from me and you. Why?
Why I am being PUNISHED for NOT being flooded? That's what's happening here -- I am being forced to pay money to those who were hit by the flood. Folks, taking money from one person to give to another is NOT compassion, nor compassionate -- it's called THEFT, no matter who's doing it.
I need some cash -- if my pump backs up in the basement and it gets flooded, how much cash do YOU owe ME? Why should the people in the flood be any different?
Keep in mind, those on the left who are getting angry at me -- I'm not denying these people aid -- I'm saying that it is NOT the government's job to take from one person and give to another. PEOPLE will give more than the government ever can, if they're allow to.
If they are going to get cash and rebuilt houses for being in a flood, why in the world am I paying for auto insurance and house insurance? If the government "freely" replaces things that are destroyed, I don't need insurance, the government (YOU) will buy me a new one if a disaster happens, right?
That is utterly and totally wrong. There is no defense of this action. In case you missed it the first time, it is NOT compassionate, caring, nice, or anything else to take money from one group of people at gunpoint and give it to another, more "needy" group. That's simple theft. If it's not, send me your address and I'll be there later with a gun to take something you don't "need" and give it to someone else who *I* have decided needs it more.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:29 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'm having issues here too... I understand everything was destroyed, but during Ivan, there were people throughout Pensacola and Alabama who ALSO lost everything. I don't think they got $2000. I think they had to beg for what they got.
Posted by: Bou at September 08, 2005 11:27 PM (5JHEt)
2
I'm crunching numbers on this one, and it's not looking good...
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 05:57 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Superintendent of Schools
Well, they're still arguing. Newer readers of my blog may not realize that the absolutely last election settled in America (for the 2004 elections) was only recently determined here in North Carolina by using laws passed after the election, and by the NC legislature completely ignoring a ruling and determination of fact by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
North Carolina is now the only state I know of in which there is officially, according to law, no such thing as democracy. You see, according to a law passed by the Democrats of North Carolina, the legislature can quite literally override ANY election result that is "contested" with a simple majority vote. So yes, if North Carolina elects a Republican governor (hey, it could happen) with 75% of the people, the legislature could actually determine the Democrat candidate to be the winner. Seriously!
In the Superintendent of Public Instruction race, the courts CONTINUE to hear the case. The legislature already ruled that it didn't matter who won, nor how many votes were cast for each candidate, they wanted the Democrat to be declared the winner. However, the Republican candidate, Bill Fletcher, is asking the courts whether that law the legislature passed is constitutional.
The Democrat in the race asked the courts to dismiss his complaints (and the case), because she is already seated. In other words, in the minds of the Democrats, it does not matter if the law is constitutional, they have already decided.
It does sound sad, but it seems more and more that there honestly is no reason to actually go vote in North Carolina anymore. If you're Libertarian, you're no longer allowed to even be a candidate. If you're Republican, your vote will be overturned by the legislature. I wonder if it's time to give up and join the leech-sucking Democrats and just get my share of everyone else's money.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:34 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Just to let you know, it isn't just North Carolina where democrats, and politicians of all flavors are corrupt.
Posted by: Jay at September 08, 2005 07:14 AM (BKqRl)
2
Maybe -- but I'm sure they can give ANY corrupt political system a run for their money.
Posted by: Ogre at September 08, 2005 07:28 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 07, 2005
Blame Bush
Don't we already have enough lunatics presenting theories based on total conjecture already? According to
The Alliance, no, we do not.
They want even MORE utterly insane, fake reasons why the hurricane is Bush's fault.
Insane Fake Reason #1: Because he didn't meet with stupid Cindy I'm an idiot Sheehan. You see, if President George W. Bush had met with her, there would have been much less dope-smoking and hot air coming out of Crawford, Texas. There was so much hot air there that it actually altered the weather patterns in the southern United States, drawing the hurricane like white on rice.
Insane Fake Reason #2: Because he didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. What do you mean, "That one's already taken?" Who could think up something that insane? Oh, right.
Insane Fake Reason #3: Because Bush won the election of 2000. When the Florida result was questions, tens of thousands of lawyers descended upon the state of Florida. News reporters and "spokesmen" entered the state by the hundreds, creating a huge surplus of CO2.
The extra CO2 created, despite the efforts of Jacksonville to plant trees, increased global warming, immediately setting in motion hurricane Katrina, which then sat off the coast of South America until the time was right, when it then viciously attacked New Orleans.
Insane Fake Reason #4: Because he didn't spend enough money. What? That one is already taken, too? Wow. My imagination's got nothing on the leftists, does it?
Insane Fake Reason #5: Because Bush is a racist. You see, Karl Rove invented a time machine. Bush used it to go back in time and visited Africa during the time of the dinosaurs. Once there, he stepped on a small butterfly, forever altering the wind patterns.
Once the wind patterns were altered, Bush came back to the present to await the results of the ancient wind pattern disturbance. That ancient wind pattern translated into what was to become hurricane Katrina. Bush went back in time once more to South America to set other wind patterns in motion that would ensure that the hurricane would strike where he knew there were a large number of black people. He then returned to the present to await destruction.
Top that one, Ted Kennedy!
Posted by: Ogre at
08:30 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Stepping on a butterfly and changing the wind patterns... NOW you're talkin' LOLOLOLOL
Posted by: ticklebug at September 07, 2005 11:11 PM (U1NFp)
2
There's just so many ways to blame Bush, aren't there?
Posted by: Ogre at September 08, 2005 05:25 AM (L0IGK)
Posted by: Stacey at September 08, 2005 11:27 PM (REjMD)
4
Damn, I forgot to blame the illiminati at the Skull and Crossbones Harvard group!
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 05:56 AM (L0IGK)
5
"...And then, the sound of thunder."
Posted by: fmragtops at September 09, 2005 04:09 PM (xX42u)
6
And lightning! Don't forget the lightning!
Posted by: Ogre at September 09, 2005 09:57 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carnival, carnival!
This week's wonderful
carnival of liberty is up over at
Mover Mike's. I keep forgetting to submit my posts to that carnival, but I never forget to read it. In my opinion, that's one of the best carnivals running these days.
Next week it will be at Target Centermass.
In addition, another of my most favorite carnivals is the Tarheel Tavern, which has been posted over at Slowly She Turned. If the title of that blog seems familiar to some old comedy fans, it should...
And if you're wondering what this carnival is all about:
The Carnival of Liberty seeks to promote promote blogging and thinking about liberty and freedom: how to advance the cause, where there are problems, what we can do, whoÂ’s saying what, historical trends and ideas, liberty in the news, and more. There are no isms, just a love of human freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
Yar
It's almost here.
It's just over 12 days to go.
Are you ready? Here's some helpful phrases:
"Thar she blows!" - The pirate equivalent of "Whoop, there it is!".
"ARRRGHHHH" - this phrase shows general discontent. or it can also mean that someone is about to get wild- a.k.a. a battle cry.
"wake me at the zenith of the moon" - only full blown pirates know this phrase. An educated pirate is rare but also the most deadly kind. They are smarter than you and crazier.
A dark and stormy - this is not a phrase but a drink. This is what true pirates drink. It is made of goslings rum and ginger beer. it is a delight to the senses.
"Avast ye scum ridden weevil shaggers. Captain Black Beard is gonna keel haul you and grow barnacles on ye starboard knacker". - The Captain isn't happy...D
"I'm gonna make a kill" - this pirate is going to kill something...and he is serious about it.
"Dogs ahoy !" - Equivalent of "Things to kill, straight ahead."
Posted by: Ogre at
03:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
Katrina Solutions
Time again for another installment of the
Christian Views Symposium. This is the weekly entry where Lennie from Cross Blogging asks a question or questions and I provide
the right an answer. Feel free to join in providing an answer on your own blog, or in the comments to his blog.
The weekly questions are always thought-provoking, and sometimes pretty tough to answer. And no, you don't have to be a Christian to provide answers. The questions this week:
Should we rebuild New Orleans in its current location?
Should the Federal Government be totally responsible for rebuilding New Orleans?
Can the Government at any level actually rebuild New Orleans?
Should the rebuilding effort be independent of the Government?
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Yes to all of the above. Rebuild it. Build it better.
Posted by: patd95 at September 07, 2005 05:13 PM (/KuBm)
2
But WHO should rebuild it? Individuals or government?
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 05:16 PM (L0IGK)
3
Individuals who owned houses and had insurance should be able to get some money from the insurance companies to start over (or so I really hope!), and they should be able to choose where they wish to do so. Those without a nest egg should be encouraged to set down roots wherever they took refuge after the disaster. I am obligated to say the government should help the poor to settle into a new life (yes, using my and your taxes), but there is nothing that says it has to be in the same place as the old one.
Ecologically and safety-wise, it'd be ridiculous to rebuild New Orleans as/where it was. Even without hurricanes, the city was fighting a losing battle against the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Pontchartrain, and the Mississippi River. Economically, it's inevitable that it will be rebuilt in the same place--even asides from its importance as a port city, imagine the tourist revenue!
Meanwhile, the government should start planning for the big earthquake on the West Coast. Where could we put a whole state of refugees?
Posted by: zandperl at September 07, 2005 05:41 PM (KHEUn)
4
I don't understand the mentality. If government didn't rebuilt these people's houses, do you think they'd stay on the streets? No, they wouldn't. Take a peek at one tiny Yahoo list -- katrinaopenrooms (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/katrinaopenrooms/ ) -- in the past few days, 22 people have volunteered to open up their homes to refugees! NO government benefits, enticements, or anything -- just PEOPLE helping people. Any people will always do a better job than government.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 05:46 PM (L0IGK)
5
If we always rely on generous people to help out those who're down, we're starting on a slippery sloep. The generous people's resources will eventually be used up, and they will become poor as well. The selfish people would retain their wealth and get richer, and not support any public assistance for the poor, including free education and running water. Only the selfish upper class will be educated enough to run for office, and of course they'll perpetuate and strengthen the trend. Eventually we'll have a highly stratefied society with no posibility for mobility at all - much like the Dark Ages in Europe, and many Third World countries do still have.
Posted by: zandperl at October 03, 2005 11:18 PM (KHEUn)
6
Wow, what a horrible view you have of people. Can you explain how the "poor" in this country survived for hundreds of years until the "Great Society" started the redistribution of wealth scheme?
Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 04:56 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Forced Evacuations?
Well is has finally come to that, as I'm sure my good readers know. And yes, police Capt. Marlon Defillo is right when he says,
That would be a P.R. nightmare for us
It's wrong, plain and simple. However, to the left, and those who oppose freedom, it only makes sense. It will make perfect sense to those who like big government, and those who are demanding that government (ME) feed and water them because they deserve it. But it's completely wrong.
It's my property. That is the absolute foundation of freedom in this country, and indeed in the world. If you do not have freedom to own property, you have no freedom. Most of the left, including today's Democrats, socialists, and big-government Republicans, do not want you to own property because they lose control over you.
In this case, if you can be forcibly removed from your property, especially when you are doing no wrong and presenting zero harm to anyone else, you have absolutely zero freedom.
Why should a person who has a generator; food and water; and who is completely safe and self-contained, be removed? Only to control them. Why else? There is no danger to anyone else, and in fact, not even any danger to some individuals!
If I were Dennis Rizzuto, who is safe, has plenty of water, food, and a generator, who said, "They're going to have to drag me," I'd take it one step further -- they'd have to shoot me.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:01 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Amen! No one will force me to ever leave my property. It makes me sick how the dems are taking advantage of this for political gain. I think it will backfire however.
Posted by: Jay at September 07, 2005 11:56 AM (2FcUc)
2
This is a ridiculous post. You rightwingers are the ones who want a military state. You don't even know your opponents' arguments, which pretty much invalidates your own argument. Your precious military is down their wanting martial law.
Regardless, this is a public health nightmare in the making. The idiots who want to stay are going to get sick and affect hundreds of other people, and who is going to have to clean up their mess? The rest of us.
You people are always trying to find some moral justification for your selfishness. You will never find it, for selfishness is not a moral concept.
Posted by: Daedalus at September 07, 2005 12:56 PM (tjcyO)
3
I hope the first person they try and forcibly remove has a video camera, wireless internet, and a local TV crew on speed dial.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
4
Daedalus, that's incorrect.
It is the mayor of New Orleans, a Democrat, who wants martial law, not "our" military.
It is not a public health situation when a person is self-contained within their own home -- they're not infected with anything, nor are they likely to be infected, nor can they spread anything if they're not infected.
And wanting to own property is not selfish.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 12:58 PM (/k+l4)
5
I have some real issues with these forced evacuations.
Posted by: Bou at September 07, 2005 07:32 PM (5JHEt)
6
If there were genuine health hazards, outbreaks of very contagious diseases, for example, there MIGHT be something there. That is very obviously NOT the case, nor is there anything close any health hazard happening other than in the press who is just speculating about what might happen, not even basing those speculations on any facts.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 07:39 PM (L0IGK)
7
This is a really hard post for me to comment on. On one hand, I can honestly say that I believe there should have been forced mandatory evacuation BEFORE Katrina hit, and a lot of lives would have been saved, because people who value property over life put their lives at risk in some strange desire to protect their homes. Realistically, no one can stop a hurricane or floodwaters, and these people did no good. Many of them are now stuck, homeless penniless, and on the receiving end of our tax dollars, which you've been vocal about being wrong...
On the other hand, I can to a point agree that NOW, in certain areas, there is no reason for people to be forced to leave. Some people in some areas are surviving just fine on their own now.
What I have to say though is that as far as removing guns from these undamaged self-sufficient homes - they want to stay in their homes to protect them from looters and such, or so that's what I've read as their major rationale in staying, which, again, I can understand. BUT then they say they don't think it's right that they should have the guns taken... so, what if looters break into the home, and steal the guns? Can anyone quote the statistics on a homeowner losing his life to his own gun in the hands of a burgler? These people are nuts, and dangerous, and if they want that gun thy're most likely going to get it.
So basically, keeping the guns means that the crazies have possible access to weapons - and to take that risk because of one's desire to "own property" IS selfish.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 11, 2005 11:26 PM (vtVgw)
8
I can understand your point, Erin, but that's where freedom comes in -- if you are truly free, you are free to be selfish at your own expense. If you want to stay with your property and die, you should have that option. Remember "the captain always goes down with the ship?" That's because the captain didn't have a life without his ship.
The number of homeowners getting killed by their own guns by invaders is actually very tiny when compared to the number of home defenses with a gun -- like 2 million to 1. Most criminals back down when faced with a gun, even if they have one themselves.
I don't understand the idea that I cannot have a gun because someone else misbehaves. I am much safer with a gun than without because the police simply cannot protect me, nor are they obligated to.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:29 AM (L0IGK)
9
But it isn't just yourself at risk Ogre. Crazy Man breaks into your house, steals your gun and kills you - he doesn't then leave it by the door on his way out, he's now armed and shooting whoever he wants to!
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 09:02 AM (vtVgw)
10
But with that reasoning, Erin, absolutely no one in the entire country should be armed. Seriously. I mean, what's the difference between LA and here? To say that someone (a criminal) MIGHT do something is not a reason to prevent someone else (me) from having basic rights.
Life is not supposed to be safe.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
11
lol I can see we will come to no agreement on this one

So you have the right to have a gun - I can't argue that one - but in cases where there are higher risks of violence than normal is it RESPONSIBLE to do so? I feel the same about the forced evacuation - they should have the right to stay, but is it really responsible to do so?
(like when your neighbors have already shown a propensity for violence and thievery by breaking into Wal-Mart and stealing guns and ammo and shooting at people)
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 12:41 PM (vtVgw)
12
Responsible and legal are two completely different issues! You should be allowed to be irresponsible and not illegal. In this example, those who have guns should have them loaded and ready -- if they're not willing to use them, they likely won't have them. For those who evacuated, if they were responsible, they took the guns with them, or hid them.
Those who are currently there with weapons should not have them taken away -- it can be assumed they are willing to use them against criminals. How does disarming them help anyone? If they're willing to use them, the criminals will not likely get them from you.
As for your last example, that doesn't apply because those people already broke the law (theft) and should be punished. And if they did steal guns and shot at people, they would be debarred the owning of guns anyway, so they'd be criminals, punished, and not able to own guns anyhow.
In most cases, I don't even see a direct correlation -- if someone wants to rob you, they don't need MY gun to do it. So why take my gun?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)
13
yes, responsible and legal ARE 2 different things, because you simply can't mandate a society's mentality or morals. But LEGAL doesn't equate to RIGHT either, does it?
I'm of the idea that one shouldn't just be allowed to do whatever they want (even if legal) if it possibly endangers other innocent people.
As in: If there were escaped convicts loose in my neighborhood, I don't want to know the feeble old man next door has a loaded weapon sitting on his bedside table that MIGHT JUST end up in the hands of said escapees and be used to kill me.
Now it would be illegal for the escapee to have that weapon, and he might just be punished for having it after they catch him, but that'd be a bit too late for my sorry dead self would't it?
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 12, 2005 08:44 PM (vtVgw)
14
The most important issue regarding legality and rights is that laws can absolutely never trump rights -- no matter what. If I have a right to defend myself (and I do), no law will ever apply that removes that right. There's no such thing as a "public good" that can override that right.
If there are escaped convicts in your town, the feeble old man shouldn't have a loaded weapon. But then again, he shouldn't have such a weapon if he can't use it anyway -- but there should be no laws that prevent me fromt having such a weapon, no matter what the feeble old man does.
In addition, you're not at risk because he has that weapon -- you're at risk because there's escapees in the neighborhood. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the limited police forces use their time and money to stop the bad guys instead of taking guns away from the good guys?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 09:05 PM (iJFc9)
15
Oh christ- ok I give up. You go have your rights, everyone else be damned.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 13, 2005 01:40 AM (vtVgw)
16
Close...not everyone else be damned, but everyone else work together to retain their own rights.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 05:50 AM (iJFc9)
17
But (if you're still reading) how about a different comparison -- use different rights.
If one newspaper in a town prints someone slanderous that destroys a person's life, should all newspapers be banned and destroyed because another might print something similar?
If one person hides a crack-manufacturing plant in their basement, should all houses be searched because someone else might have one, too?
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 06:53 AM (/k+l4)
18
Sorry, I am slow to get here. Interestingly, I don't recall any mention in the Constitution, the document that guarantees the right to bear arms, that any of us has any legal right to property in the first place. I don't believe that property is mentioned in the Constitution except to refer to slaves as 3/5 human for calculating electoral college votes.
Am I wrong about that?
If not, sorry.
Interesting debate, folks...
Posted by: Ron Hudson at September 13, 2005 07:07 PM (v6XuI)
19
First, keep in mind, Ron, that the Constitution does not GRANT rights -- it only lists those that are specifically protected. Primarily, property rights is one of those rights as defined in the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since the Constitution does not give the government power over any property, property rights are secured in the people.
Also in the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
My house cannot be seized, according to the Constitution.
And thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion!
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 08:06 PM (iJFc9)
20
So, ya figure you should have the right to go to a prison and carry a gun? I mean, they're government facilities - and they have the right to remove your firearm. Why is that? Because there is a danger that your weapon would be used against you or someone else - safety supercedes your rights - as well it should.
Now a large part of the people left in NO are indigent or have previously proven themselves as violent and dangerous. The lack of razor wire around the city shouldn't change the gov't's need to protect the citizens or the law enforcement that's in place there.
It isn't like these are normal circumstances - the law isn't going to come knock on YOUR door and take YOUR gun, (and if they were, we wouldn't be having this debate, because I'd agree with you that you have the right to bear arms) but then the people in Charlotte aren't starving, homeless, angry, and desperate like the citizens of NO.
The Gov't should have the right to take unusual precautions in this unusual situation in order to restore and maintain peace and safety so that they can finally start the months/years/decades of fixing the massive screw-ups that happened there.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 14, 2005 12:46 AM (vtVgw)
21
The reason the government has the right to take away firearms for prison-goers is because those people have lost that right. When you violate the law to the point of harming others (which causes prison sentences), you lose certain rights.
I understand your point, sort of -- if the people in New Orleans were running around using their firearms, then those people who are using them should have them taken away. You might even convince me that abandoned homes could have firearms confiscated.
But keep in mind -- the people who are having firearms taken away, at least according to news reports -- are people who are not in the flood zone. It's people who are at home where they are no flood waters. It's people who haven't done anything wrong and present no danger to others. It's the people who most need firearms to protect themselves from others.
If it were possible to get all firearms so that no one had any within 200 miles of New Orleans, it might make the place a slight bit safer. But that's not the case -- they're taking firearms from people who aren't doing anything wrong, and that's what bothers me the most.
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:58 AM (iJFc9)
22
Ogre, I had a hard time with this one, but basically, this leftist liberal Democrat agrees with you. I'd stay in my home under the circumstances you describe, with my cats, with a gun. Of course, it's black powder!

And as far as the Dems taking political advantage, Jay, when is it appropriate for us to complain if not now? Is it ever? Just how bad does it have to be? Or is that privilege just reserved for Democratic administrations? Have you noticed that it's not JUST US complaining?
Posted by: Laurie at September 14, 2005 03:05 PM (oDwDw)
23
Another leftist liberal agrees with me? What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for stopping by, Laurie!
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 03:33 PM (/k+l4)
24
lol I meant if you were to VISIT a prison, I have a bad habit of not being clear enough lately.
Hell yeah convicts lose their guns and I'm all for that one.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 14, 2005 04:51 PM (vtVgw)
25
I wondered where you were headed with that one, Erin.
Actually, the reason that the government has that right is because it's voluntary -- they cannot force you to enter the prison and you agree to adhere to their rules if you want to enter.
That's consistent with all property rights -- if you want to enter my property, you have to follow my rules (but I don't have many, so come on over!)
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:12 PM (iJFc9)
26
lol, OK, so These people are choosing to stay in NO so they have to follow the rules!
Yeah, lame, I know. I ran out of steam on this one.
(not that I agree with you anymore than I did before)

And since you invited me, I'm on my way to your place as we speak, have the coffee ready! (and that cute little car all shined up!)
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 15, 2005 10:26 AM (vtVgw)
27
Yeah, that last one didn't get to far...

Coffee? Ewe. Yuck. Can't stand the stuff, sorry.
The car's ready to go, though (except for the darn bugs I keep getting on the windshield -- I think the windshield is just at a poor angle for deflecting them).
Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 10:57 AM (/k+l4)
28
You don't like coffee!?
Good lord man.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 15, 2005 04:56 PM (vtVgw)
29
Come on, you've always known that I've been a little bit odd...
Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 05:07 PM (/k+l4)
30
a little?!
Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 17, 2005 01:38 AM (vtVgw)
Posted by: Ogre at September 17, 2005 08:44 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Non-Statemen Lawmakers
To show how absolutely moronic some Democrat lawmakers are, just take a peek at the Democrats in California. This is so far removed from a representative republic, it very seriously makes me doubt that there is ANY hope of a return to the great country that was created back in the late 1700s. Never mind the content of the bill, law, or vote, just read what he said. He voted for this law because
he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."
Yes, he was concerned with what his CHILDREN would think! Right and wrong, morality, freedom, America, the people he's supposed to represent -- NONE of that had any bearing on his vote. He voted the way he did because he didn't want his CHILDREN to not like him.
That's irresponsible and just plain stupid. Those are the words of Assemblyman Tom Umberg from Orange County, CA.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
More State Licenses
It seems North Carolina doesn't have enough control over your life. They've passed
more restrictions on who is permitted to sell their own personal property in North Carolina. They already require people who sell houses to have licenses, but they've made it more difficult for them now.
North Carolina has a complex system of licenses, including realtor salesperson licenses and broker licenses. Some are provisional, based on obtaining required "training." 75 to 90 hours of "classroom training" is now required. Why? To PREVENT people from having those jobs.
There is no reason to require such licenses. If I want to sell a house, of what business is it of the state? Why do I have to ask permission, then seek training and education to sell a house? That's completely and utterly wrong. I cannot understand anyone who supports this lunacy. It is completely anti-freedom.
The actual reasons are because those who are already in the system want to prevent others from becoming realtors, so the engage the government in helping to protect themselves. So yes, government IS acting as a protection racket when they are used to require licensing for "professions," and it is absolutely WRONG in an allegedly free, capitalist society.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Honestly? No, absolutely not.
I do not want the state to protect me from myself. There are still some professions left where there are PRIVATE, independent certification firms.
I absolutely believe it is the citizen that is responsible for themselves. If I want my doctor to be licensed, I should be able to ask the doctor and see what groups license them. On the other hand, if I want my doctor to be cheap and unlicensed, I should have that option, too.
Posted by: Ogre at September 07, 2005 10:59 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
111kb generated in CPU 0.0367, elapsed 0.1527 seconds.
100 queries taking 0.1338 seconds, 324 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.