January 13, 2006
Jealous Socialists Hate Wal-Mart
Do why do people hate Wal-Mart so much? I think it's primarily because of their success -- everyone that hates them is jealous that one company should do so good. Well, to those people, I say, "Screw you."
In MD, the legislature just overrode a veto by the governor and passed a new law that requires large companies (ONLY Wal-Mart in MD) to set aside 8% of their payroll costs to buy insurance for workers. I'm not sure why the legislature of Maryland thinks they have the right to do that, but I'm not an expert on the MD Constitution. Apparently there's a clause in there that says laws can be passed to punish businesses.
Now, if I were Wal-Mart, with all the assets they have, I'd do one of two things right away -- only in Maryland:
1. Cut all employees salaries by exactly 8%. The legislature wants to force them to pay 8% from the salaries? Take it from the employees -- the people with the power to get the morons out of the legislature.
Or
2. Close all Wal-Marts in MD indefinitely. Just shut all the doors, all at once, all of a sudden -- no warning at all. Then see if any people complain to their alleged representatives in the legislature.
(H/T to Michelle Malkin).
Posted by: Ogre at
02:51 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Big Business vs Small Business.
Democrats are for Small Business, Republicans are for Big Business.
No big mystery.
Personally I do not think Big Business needs help, but as long as you do...go for it!
I'm more of a David than a Goliath.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 13, 2006 03:55 PM (ELJo9)
2
This isn't about helping big business, it's about severely punishing those who succeed because of jealously.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 03:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
I would shut it down. Send a press release stating that other companies are suddenly being given an unfair business advantage and that the extortion of the legistlature will not be tolerated.
Start liquidating merchandise by having it hauled out of the state and sold elswhere, even if it was at a loss.
Then watch the local economies go nuts when there is a lack of items and the true free market takes over and people are paying thrice the price.
Posted by: kender at January 13, 2006 05:50 PM (K27Zg)
4
Also, I'm not sure how you see that Democrats support small business. Democrats are huge union supporters -- and unions crush small businesses. Democrats are big on government regulation -- which not only destroys small business, but also reduces competition, helping big business. Democrats love enormous amounts of government spending -- and government contracts usually support and strengthen big business. I don't actually see any support for small businesses by Democrats at all.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 08:06 PM (/k+l4)
5
Ogre, by attacking small business via red-tape and supporting big business via reducing competition the Dems also tell all the "little guys" that they "are for the little guy." I wonder if all the little guys are aware that they aren't being kissed while they get screwed by the Dems?
Posted by: GM Roper at January 13, 2006 10:41 PM (RBjnG)
6
I would think stores like Wal Mart would close up; after all the motto of their business is to keep prices low...how can they do this when the socialists come up with stupid laws like this?
If I were the big whig at Walmart I would close shop in MD...then we'de see 17000 people umemployed and needing help. Sheesh.
Posted by: Raven at January 13, 2006 11:52 PM (8xpPC)
7
Anonymous,
Two things are wrong with your statement.
1. Democrats aren't for any business (big or small) unless it's one that offeres laborers sweat equity.
2. The reason people go into business is to make money. Why start a business if you don't want it to grow and maybe, someday, become a big business?
Posted by: LASunsett at January 14, 2006 12:16 AM (G/2V5)
8
Actually I hate Wal-mart. I won't shop there, call me a socialist if you want, but I don't like them at all.
This, however, is bullshit. Health Insurance is a priveledge not a right.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:53 AM (e8b4J)
9
Mr. Ogre -- I find this whole exercise intriguing. By simply mentioning Wal-Mart, I am participating in good ol' free word-of-mouth advertizing for them...even if it is negative, since folks like you will come along, defend them, and make yourself into a loyal customer of their chintz. Not much to brag about, really. And note...most of the institutions youze guys defend are big business, not small business; big religion, not small religion; big sports, not small sports; big cars, not small cars. In other words...quantity, not quality.
Small business thrived under Clinton, and has suffered under Bush. Even some big businesses are beginning to suffer under Bush. The economy rises because they know now they can chunk pensions. Not all small businesses want to become big businesses. Sustainability and, again, quality, being prized over growth.
Republicans are the brave defenders of the rich and big. Democrats are the brave defenders of the poor and small. Including business. Not exclusively, and not always...just in general.
Wal-Mart doesn't need your defense. They are fair game.
Oops...gotta unplug. My birthday storm approacheth!
Peace
Dave
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 14, 2006 01:29 AM (dre4x)
10
I'm not sure you answered the question. I gave examples where Democrats support big business at the expense of small business. And no one here was actually supporing Wal-Mart -- one person even said they HATE Wal-Mart and don't shop there, but this is still WRONG.
Government telling private business what they can do with their profits is WRONG -- I don't care if it's Microsoft or a Lemonade stand.
Democrats, as I have pointed out, are NOWHERE NEAR defenders of the little guy. They do, however, operate as you did in your response -- you just claim they're for the little guy, and therefore it must be true, right?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:29 AM (+Gl1m)
11
government, rather than forcing a horrible company like walmart to provide health benefits, should be finding a way to provide health care for all americans. walmart is a horrible corporation for numerous reasons, among which one can count its terrible treatment of employees. the issue here, however, highlights the need for a true national health care program.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 02:51 AM (2MgCT)
12
Gah!
That's even WORSE, Steve! What's wrong with FREEDOM?????
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 03:01 AM (+Gl1m)
13
It is truly a sad state of affairs when government assumes control of private business. Oh, what the hell am I saying...government does everything else so very well.
Posted by: GBlagg at January 14, 2006 04:09 AM (vAHKC)
14
the freedom to not be able to afford proper medical care? the freedom to have to run to emergency care even for small issues because of an inability to afford a physician?
what freedom are you talking about?
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 04:55 AM (2MgCT)
15
People please. I'm going to make this simple.
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege.
Get over it, I don't even want to think what my cost of business would be with all the regulations the damn dems want. Everytime a government regulation is passed on health insurance, the cost of said insurance raises.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 05:14 AM (e8b4J)
16
"Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege. "
we should make hospital visits and police protection PRIVILEGES.
the same way a dictionary and education seem to have been PRIVILEGES contagion didn't get hah.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 06:18 AM (2MgCT)
17
Steve -- something cannot be a right if it requires taking something from someone else.
I'll explain more here:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/151554.php
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:18 PM (+Gl1m)
18
anonymoses said : "big religion, not small religion". so is this person advocating we all join a cult? Just wondering.
BTW, I hate walmart, but not because of their business practices. I don't like most of their merchandise, (mostly crap) BUT I simply despise the gutter dwelling scum that shop their out of necessity. I am in L.A., and the class of people we get in the walmarts here are scary....depending on area it is either ghetto, barrio or trailer trash.
I simply choose NOT to shop there and deal with the people that frequent that store. Same reason I will pay more for groceries and other goods. I choose to pay more to avoid dealing with people I would rather not associate with or be around.
*disclaimer for braindead readers of this comment section* Yes, I am being elitist...it is my right as an American, and if you don't like it too bad.
Posted by: kender at January 14, 2006 06:11 PM (k5SaN)
19
Oh yeah, the quality of stuff there really stinks, too. It's less expensive because it's cheap!
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:40 PM (+Gl1m)
20
I share Kender's elitism. I know from experience that there is little to no commonality with the Wal-Mart class, and have to shield my eyes on those rare occasions I make a purchase there. Like Steven Wright, I have a fear of widths, and the corpulence of shoppers there is legion, massive and mechanical.
My preference is to shop locally, and it doesn't much matter if the owner is a Democrat or a Republican.
I'm too lazy this morning to provide proof of Democrats supporting small business. Prehaps you should go to Boston, San Francisco, Manhattan or other groovy places and note the thousands of democratic-owned small businesses for yourself. Or recall the pullulation of small businesses under Clinton's watch.
Sure, some big businesses are run by Democrats. Berkshire-Hathaway, Bank of America, Ben and Jerry's, etc. And some small businesses are run by Republicans. But small businesses haven't been growing and thriving under Bush like they thrived under Clinton. I know more than one small business owner here in Charlotte who are disappointed, to say the least, in their poor choice of vote...after they had helped elect the very party who has caused all their pain.
Democrats don't instinctively hate big business. But we do see big business as not being immune from scrutiny or competition.
But alas...dinosaur companies will go the way of other dinosaurs. They are the plantations of today.
In the early days, Bush Inc. made promises, and many people bought into their blather. But time has shown Bush Inc. to be, mediocre, corrupt, greedy, cheating liars who only care for those who least need it. A reverse Robin Hood. The poor get to die and go broke so the rich may have more money and power.
There is no oblesse oblige in this corrupt and egocentric gang. Nor is there in defending them.
Look at the record. The Bush record is abysmal. The stock market bubble will burst once people realize it is buoyed by the giddiness of being able to shed pesky pensions. People like for their company to honor their contracts.
The backlash has only just begun...
But keep waving the pom-poms! I'm a big fan of bathos.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 15, 2006 03:44 PM (NBy2A)
21
The pullation of small businesses under Clinton's watch?
Might that have something to do with the
1997 tax cut he signed into law. One of the provisions was a cut in personal capital gains - something that was be useful for investors in both small and large businesses.
Wait though, was it a Democratic Congress that gave him that? No, it was a Republican one. The Democratic Congress was the one that gave us a tax
hike in 1993.
Also, during the Clinton Administration the Republicans
allowed for regulations to be cut. If you read George Stephanopolis' book, you'll find that the Left (including George) was against much of the deregulation that happened in the 90s. A Democratic Congress was
not about to let the bureaucracy that was built over their decades of rule be messed with.
Finally, if there were increased regulations added without Congressional approval, they were done in a way to make a political problem for the following adminstration. Take for instance, the new
Mercury rules. The Clinton Administration supposedly enacted these rules; but they weren't finished or announced until
after the 2000 election - yet before Bush's inauguration. This way, any changes to make the new rule, oh, technically feasible would be the Bush Administration's problem. If he messed with these "rules of the Clinton Adminsitration", he could be considered hostile to the environment; but if he didn't, businesses would suffer. Nevermind that it hasn't been until the Bush Adminstration that Mercury emissions have been regulated
at all. That isn't an "isolated example". A diesel engine put in an American truck was no cleaner January 19, 2001 than it was in 1993. Why is this? Because Bill Clinton didn't want to upset Detroit (more the unions than business). However, new particulate rules put forward during the Bush administration put our diesel engines close to that of the remainder of the Western World.
I'll "C" my way out of the "A & B" conversation; but I thought it could use a few facts.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 04:49 PM (XK1Nc)
22
I forgot that I can't work HTML into my comments. Here are the references:
1997 Tax Cut: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Mercury Regulations: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032904.html
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 05:00 PM (XK1Nc)
23
That's right -- when Bush cut taxes, it was only the rich who got a break -- of course it was only the rich who PAID damn taxes!
It's kind of hard to give a tax break to people who don't PAY taxes, isn't it? But I suppose that doesn't matter to Democrats -- Democrats can only talk without showing any results or anything concrete.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:33 PM (+Gl1m)
24
Where is the pullulation of small business under Bush? Republicans are now running every branch of government. You'd think things would be utopian, listening to you guys. But things are pretty stagnant. And although the DOW inches up now and then, it always seems to slide back down. And even on the up days, more and more companies are breeching their contracts and rendering pensions obsolete.
Anything to make the books APPEAR happy. Enron all over again.
Here's a simple task. List the 5 positive changes the Bush Administration hath brung.
Face it. Bush and Co. are MEDIOCRE. Bush thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job. But Brownie was just as mediocre as the rest of the team.
<>
Show me the results or anything concrete that Bush has brought to the table. Democrats are not in power. Clinton left America financially strong. Bush and Co. have been stealing it ever since. And now they are getting caught. I hope they all fucking rot in Hell for all their murdering and destruction...and glaring incompetence.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 16, 2006 11:36 AM (dre4x)
25
Ok, we're wandering far off track here.
The point of this post is that the Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact, whether you want to admit it or not. This moronic law only serves to punish WalMart for doing well. It can only result in bad things for everyone concerned -- WalMart can raise it's prices, or it can stop doing business in MD. Neither is a good result, and Democrats are the ones who passed the stupid law.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 11:46 AM (/k+l4)
26
I'm sorry, but "Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact" is just silly. If everyone that works for Wal-Mart has good, appropriate health care...the success can be counted in the millions of people...or however many people are employed by them. Success is way more than just the executive bottom line.
Good information is a major key to success, correct? Well, look at who frees up the information, and who hides and distorts it.
Clinton and the Democrats worked tirelessly to bring information of everyone, by focusing on the spreading of the Internet.
Bush has done nothing to add to this. In fact he has subtracted from it. Secret meetings, wiretapping, on and on.
The only good success is based on good information. Not opinion. Not misinformation. Not wishful thinking. Not secrecy.
Democrats want everyone to succeed, so long as success does not mean diminishing success for another. Good air, good water, good land and good works are as important as good information, and Democrats are the protectors and stewards of all of these important aspects of success and life.
Republicans are mired in Maya.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 16, 2006 03:54 PM (dre4x)
27
How does everyone succeed if some people are forced to pay for other people?
If WalMart has to raise their prices by 8% to pay for the new healthcare, everyone who shops at WalMart has to pay more and WalMart will have to lay off 8% of their employees. So no one will benefit! Even those who get health care will end up having to pay higher prices at WalMart for their own goods!
From what I see of Democrat's actions, they want some to succeed, but only at the expense of another.
If they want everyone to succeed, they should get the heck out of the way and let the free market work. In the free market, when one succeeds, everyone does. In the government market, one can only progress by reducing someone else.
For example, when a new innovation is developed that makes plastic cheaper, everyone benefits from the lower price of plastic. But when government decides that plastic should be cheaper, it interferes with the free market and actually makes plastic scarce -- which punishes everyone.
If there were people with leadership at WalMart, they'd do what I suggested and show the Democrats in MD how wrong they are.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (/k+l4)
28
a bit late in this respose but....
Anonomouse, when government mandates (regulates through legal channels) that a business spend it's money a certain way, (i.e. healthcare) that is called "FASCISM".....look it up.
So now, with all of the morons on teh left screaming that Bush is a fascist, don't you find it ironic in the least, and hyposcritical in the highest form that it is DEMOCRATS that are enacting FASCIST POLICIES????
You guys are perhaps the most retarded creatures that have ever retained the ability to vote. Go wring out your drool bib and have your mommy get your juice and tell you a story.
Posted by: kender at January 18, 2006 12:17 AM (8iNM6)
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:28 AM (+Gl1m)
30
Sorry. I thought I was talking with adults here. I guess I was wrong. Being in my 50s, I find talk of drool bibs and mommies to be, well, ironic. Especially coming from a child.
And a turd-obsessed child at that.
At least the host has his wits about him, which is why I enjoy talking with him...
But first, here are 14 characteristics of fascism:
-Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
-Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
-Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
-Supremacy of the Military
-Rampant Sexism
-Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with National Security
-Religion and Government are Intertwined
-Corporate Power is Protected (Wal-Mart)
-Labor Power is Suppressed
-Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
-Obsession with Crime and Punishment
-Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
-Fraudulent Elections
In other words...BushWorld.
So, Kender...how does it feel to be a fascist?
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:05 PM (J5SQf)
31
Mr. Ogre -- You want the free market to work? Without check?
Well...work to end corporate welfare. That will take care of the biggest chunk.
Back to Wal-Mart...
I don't hate Wal-Mart. I think it presents a challenge to small business. And if the small, mom and pops can't rise to the challenge, perhaps they deserve to fail. Fuck em!
McDonalds has raised the standard for smaller burger stands in speed, quality, cleanliness. We no longer accept fillthy bathrooms and long waits.
The mom and pop store needs to do something different and better. Better coffee, better music, candlelight, free shoeshines...whatever. If they sit on their asses and complain...let them fail.
Dinosaurs have weaknesses that small businesses can and should exploit. By doing so, everyone benefits. Wal-Marts get to stay in business, catering to low-quality folk, of which there are plenty. And smaller store can cater to quality folk...who often have more money.
I don't envy Wal-Mart. I see them as a necessary catalyst for change.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:16 PM (J5SQf)
32
I am with you absolutely 100% on ending corporate welfare. EVERY time I see government giving money to companies, I always point it out and complain -- that is wrong, wrong, wrong (which is why I identify myself as a conservative and not a Republican).
And with WalMart, if they're doing something wrong, make them stop. But earning money isn't wrong, so punishing them for earning money IS.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 02:28 PM (/k+l4)
33
When Big Box developers like Wal-Mart move into a town, buy off the town council, put mom-and-pop out of business, don't sell domestic goods, create traffic snarls, discriminate against homosexuals and liberals, etc. I hate them.
The free market tells me that there's nothing I can do about it except decline to shop there. I decline to shop there.
There's a Wal-Mart going in on the west side of my town. 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved to make room for it. The area is being rezoned to make room for it. The nearby hamlet of Candler's small businesses are doomed. I'm celebrating this why? Because the free market's so darned awesome?
4 years ago Wal-mart wanted to put a Supercenter on the site of an old bleachery on a river here in my town. The town rose up, and the city council denied the corporation's wishes for land variances. Then, when the furor passed, the council reexamined it, passed it, and the Wal-Mart went in, violating innumberable enviornmental restrictions and city mandates. Now the traffic is so snarled that the nearby residents who led the campaign against the place are choosing to move away rather than have their quality of life diminished by the hordes who thoughtlessly choose this store over the local businesses that would actually use their profits in our town.
Why do I hate Wal-Mart, let me count the ways...
Posted by: Screwy Hoolie at January 19, 2006 09:43 PM (Xsox3)
34
Don't confuse the free market with socialism! If 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved, that is NOT the free market, that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If government officials are being bought off, that's NOT the free market, that's corruption. If WalMart is violating city mandates and regulations, that's criminal or civil violations, and NOT a free market.
If WalMart does enough damage, people will stop going there. Right now, they provide the lowest prices and tons of jobs, so the majority likes them.
I'm not supporting ANYTHING illegal that they do -- if they break the law, I'll be the first to ask them to be punished. I strongly oppose them when the city tries to use zoning and "condemnation" to put them in place -- it's wrong, no matter what the reason.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 09:48 PM (+Gl1m)
35
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I haven't been up to anything recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
Posted by: Kaka55164 at July 19, 2006 08:26 PM (vR5/R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Illegal?
The lawsuit over the lottery in North Carolina continues, as the state races to take money from people before a judge can put a stop to it.
Lockjaw the Ogre (yes, there's two Ogres in NC) has more details that clearly outline where the passage of the law was illegal.
What's really interesting is the lottery lobby's Democrat's defense of their clearly unconstitutional actions:
ItÂ’s the difference between getting a chance to get money and getting money.
- Rep. Bill Faison, D-Orange
So, in Mr. Faison's world, the NC lottery MIGHT not actually result in any money actually being received by the state. Seriously, that's his argument.
The North Carolina Consitution is clear. It's just as clear that the Democrat-run legislature broke the rules. It's doubtful they will have to answer for it. So what's the point of having a Constitution again?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But aren't laws meant to be broken... by politicians?
Posted by: Contagion at January 13, 2006 01:42 PM (Q5WxB)
2
Laws are only for the common folks -- they never apply to member of the royalty (aka politicians).
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 02:02 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Observer Agenda
On the political agenda for the Charlotte Observer for 2006:
removal of freedom, total prohibition.
Seriously, consider that for a moment before you read another word in the Charlotte Observer. We are told over and over again that there is no media bias. We're told that news reports are unbiased reporting of facts. We're told they have no agenda. Here the Observer clearly admits that they DO have an agenda -- and it's horribly anti-freedom.
The Observer is happy those those in traffic accidents are not drinking. Note they make NO mention of how many people are dying in traffic accidents -- it doesn't matter to them if there are more deaths in traffic accidents, only that there are no people drinking who are in accidents (whether it is their fault or not, also has no bearing on the Observer).
At the very start, the Observer admits that their goal is no drinking.
In addition, they want more traffic checkpoints where you can be searched without a warrant. They want to confiscate personal property of those who have a beer. Yes, if you have one beer and blow higher than the Observer's suggested "lower than 0.08" BAC, you should have your car confiscated -- not temporarily, but stolen from you completely -- for ONE beer.
The Observer viscerally HATES freedom and everything that goes with it. Alcohol is just one part of freedom that the Observer hates, private property is another. Keep that in mind if you find yourself reading the "unbiased" Charlotte Observer.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
January 12, 2006
Internet Explorer 7.0
I've obtained the elusive IE7.0 Beta 1. I was anxious to test it and see what it does. Working with web design and security, those were the two areas that I was mostly interested in.
First, the good news -- the security in IE appears to be excellent. Recent reports and reviews I've read indicate that it's a huge improvement, and it's supposed to be a bit better than even Firefox now.
Next, the bad news -- as of this release, there appears to be no change in browser standards. Unless they've got more tricks up their sleeves, it looks like the next version of IE will not be compliant with the official standards. That stinks.
I haven't really had time to do speed tests to see how it performs vs. Firefox. It does have the tabbed browsing everyone loves, so that's certainly a plus...
There's also a menu option for managing add-ons, so I'll be checking to see how possible it is to write add-ons (I need that spellchecker!).
Posted by: Ogre at
10:48 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Trench at January 12, 2006 11:59 PM (GG13q)
2
I wonder how many things they stole from the other browsers besides tabbed browsing and add-ons?
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 13, 2006 01:15 AM (5+Jvh)
3
I forget about Opera sometimes. I used to use it a lot...
And AbitratorofAll -- I'm sure they stole everything that everyone likes. Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me. I just don't know why they wouldn't steal useful stuff (other than they want everyone else to do things THEIR way).
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 11:01 AM (+Gl1m)
4
They'll have to do some major improvements to pull me away from Opera. Even with all of the addons I've put in Firefox, it still doesn't come up to the feature-set I've come to appreciate as a regular Opera user.
I constantly make use of several great Opera features, such as:
The best tabbed browsing I've used
Easily toggled and configurable auto-reload
Excellent form-filling features with the wand and personal info.
Quick toggling of image-loading on a page-by-page basis
Zoom in and out with + and - keys
Excellent keystroke-based navigation and tab management
Two of the neatest features I use are more complex. For instance, when I'm reading a blog, I hit space-bar to page down. When I get to the bottom of the page, and hit space, Opera will load the next page of older articles. That's reall cool.
Also, if I load a directory of images, and click on the first image, that image will load. To view the second image, I would normally have to click "back" and then click the next image in the list. In Opera, I just hit space.
Yep, IE7 might be better, but I doubt I'll make the switch for primary use.
Posted by: Lockjaw the Ogre at January 13, 2006 01:37 PM (mAhn3)
5
I'm going to have to play with some of those features -- I wasn't aware of all of them. Of course, IE could include them and it might take years to find them...
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 02:01 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU Hates Jesus
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue
city council after
city council over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a
Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a
threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in
Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.
Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:02 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Seth at January 12, 2006 06:42 PM (8Tq4X)
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
Sorry buddy, I hate jesus too.
well, not really but I thought you needed an extra perk today.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 05:19 AM (e8b4J)
4
Gee, thanks, Contagion.
If I wasn't such a happy-go-lucky guy, I'd count on you whenever I needed a blood-pressure increase...
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:21 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Your Papers, Please.

It's time. Freedom is completely gone in Ohio.
I know some Republicans will call me a right-wing wacko for this one, but I'm opposed to the random ID checks now "legal" in Ohio. Sorry, I fought in a war to stop people from being able to arrest me for not carrying my papers. I'll fight again.
I have to admit, I already refused to enter the state of Ohio, and not just because it's the home of the Buckeyes (Go Blue!). Their gun laws have been notoriously bad -- so bad that if I were driving in the area, I'd go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid the state. This just gives me another reason to avoid it.
Any crap about "safety" and "terrorism" is complete B.S. You can't take my rights away from me because it makes you feel more safe. It's plain wrong, but as mentioned in the article, hardly anyone opposed the law. I guess that's what you get with government education -- too many people actually believe that government grants rights, so they can take them away. Morons.
And strangely enough, the ACLU, bastards that they are, are opposed to this law -- but NOT because of the random ID requirement! They're opposed to the part that when you get a driver's license, you have to sign a statement that swears you're not a terrorist!
The only hope for freedom today is The Free State Project. Read their site. Consider it. Join them.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:06 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Harvey at January 12, 2006 04:22 PM (ubhj8)
2
Ogre,
I agree with you about the papers, but can you imagine them telling you that you have to carry a condom? Their actually trying to do that in Colombia and I'm sure liberals will have nothing but praise for that law....
I had to blog about that one.
Posted by: Louisiana Conservative at January 12, 2006 05:18 PM (RAvIF)
3
What I can't understand is people being ok with it... if you've done nothing that violates law, then no policeman has the right to ask for your identification. That's bull. Yet, most Americans are okay with it. They're like "what do you have to hide?"
stupid sheep.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 12, 2006 06:36 PM (vR7Sl)
4
This kind of thing would only bring us one step closer to the communist state the liberals are so desperate to turn us into.
Posted by: Seth at January 12, 2006 06:51 PM (8Tq4X)
5
A BIG step closer, Seth -- but you only have to show your ID if the police suspect you of wrongdoing -- oh, or may be a witness to a potential crime that may be committed...
And LC -- when I read that, I thought you meant Columbia, SC! I guess you're not allowed to be Catholic in Columbia (South America) any more.
And Birdwoman? Be quiet and get back in the line!
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
6
(slightly OT here)
Ogre,
You're a Michigan fan? Isn't that one of those unpardonable sins? I'm sorry...we are going to have to disagree here on the merits of that team up north. I really enjoyed watching the Wolverines struggle this past season.

Most other Buckeye fans did too. Ohio has many stupid laws, including this one. I should know, because I'm from there. But at least they don't have a car tax.
Go Buckeyes!
Posted by: Lisa at January 12, 2006 11:48 PM (kDqEb)
7
This is the same state that gave us Terry Stops. (See Terry Vs. Ohio)
I need to do some more research, but I'm pretty sure that back int he 70's the supreme court ruled that asking an individual for ID, when not performing a licensed activity, was unconstitutional.
Cops would have a field day with me in Ohio for this.
Posted by: Contagion at January 13, 2006 12:06 AM (e8b4J)
8
I do remember Terry Stops -- another reason to avoid that state like the plague.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 11:01 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Barn?
Ok, so you haven't heard about enough utter waste in government today?
How's this?
Rockingham County commissioners are weighing a ten (m) million dollar commitment for a proposed equestrian center intended to draw horse enthusiasts to the area.
That's right. It's not enough to pay for rich professional team owners to have multi-million dollar stadiums, the government is now actually considering building a giant BARN to "attract people."
What in God's name are these people thinking? Can someone find me a place in any Constitution that says government's job is to "attract people?" But the county was "awarded" $1.5 million -- and YOU paid for it -- it's part of the TOBACCO LAWSUITS!
Oh, but that's not enough -- the General Assembly (remember them? They cut the budget "to the bone"?) also contributed $1,000,000.00 for the damn BARN.
Holy crap. Total B.S. like this really makes it very hard to have any faith in government ever getting fixed again. I just can't get over this one. THE GOVERNMENT is building a $5 million BARN!
Any time ANY government asks for a single dollar more, just remember THIS is what they're doing with the money. It's NOT for the children, for education, or ANYTHING else. If they want more money, tell them to reduce damn BARN funding for the rich! What a crock of you-know-what. Damn.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sadly, if they didn't do this people would complain that the local government isn't doing enough to attract people to the area. You can deny it, but you know it's true.
Posted by: Contagion at January 12, 2006 01:32 PM (Q5WxB)
2
It's very scary when stupid people get what they ask for.
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 01:56 PM (/k+l4)
3
Your just jealous cause you didn't ask for it first!
Posted by: Oddybobo at January 12, 2006 04:00 PM (6Gm0j)
4
And I can't afford any horses to put in the "free" government barn...
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:44 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More on the NC Gas Tax
One Joseph Freddoso, chairman of the Regional Transportation Alliance, reveals his strong support for socialism in
N.C.'s roads need all the gas tax they get, as published in the
News and Observer of Raleigh.
In the article, Mr. Freddoso strongly supports increased gas taxes. He even goes so far with his support as to suggest that a 3-cent cut in the gas tax would take $3 BILLION from the state's roads. Mr. Freddoso is not clueless, so he must just be dishonest.
He actually states that reducing the gas tax by 3 pennies (which JUST increased a few days ago) would "irreparably harm transportation in North Carolina." Yes, you read that right -- the state would simply fall apart if the 3 cent increase that's been in place for less than 2 weeks were removed.
Way down at the end of the article, he reveals that he's not clueless, just socialist, when he says, "I do agree with those who object to transportation taxes and fees being used for purposes other than transportation."
So he KNOWS the gas tax isn't going to be used for transportation, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't increase the gas tax. You see, if only 10% of all increases in gas taxes go to roads, then we should just increase the tax even MORE so that we get enough for the roads -- instead of actually following the North Carolina Constitution and using the gas tax for roads.
But feel safe, subjects peons lower-class citizens people of North Carolina -- a committee is meeting! Oh, but that "Special Committee" on the gas tax?
the committee does not have any power
So you'll get nothing. Just pay your taxes and shut up, let the royalty in the legislature tell you what you want and need.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
January 11, 2006
Freedom
Know what I like best about the internet? It's the only place where there's still quite a bit of freedom. For example, if I post here on the internet that "
She's a pretty woman," I'm pretty much ok.
If I were to say the same thing at a place of employment, I would probably be fired, and would likely be sued.
If I said the same thing at a public University that I paid for, I would likely be expelled.
And the idea that I can say things on the internet and not be punished for incorrect thought REALLY bothers some people.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:26 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Then you must really be bummed about the law Bush just signed making it a federal crime to troll or annoy people on the internet, unless one is using one's full, real name?
Posted by: Stacy at January 11, 2006 11:47 PM (Bq6D0)
2
Hey, you just annoyed me -- is your REAL name Stacey?
(Yup, that's the law that spurred this post -- linked to in the last sentence of the post).
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 12:56 AM (+Gl1m)
3
So does what can I get from all those liberal blogs that annoy me? It annoys me that they exist even if I don't go to their sites, LOL!!!
Posted by: Deb at January 12, 2006 02:09 AM (jkWU6)
4
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the self appointed PC Police are trying to turn us into the mirror image of the future society in the Stallone/Snipes film, "Demolition Man".
Posted by: Seth at January 12, 2006 03:43 AM (Gy7db)
5
I'm not sure what bothers me most about this - thinking about what the government is going to have to do in order to enforce this law, wondering why, if the government can enforce this law now, why they haven't put an end to spamming, or just the idea that a conservative, republican government signed off on this travesty.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 12, 2006 04:55 AM (ZINSp)
6
Wow, you've definitely lost it.
Posted by: Joe Bloggs at January 12, 2006 05:18 AM (rYOFh)
7
Ack!
I think people are so hypersensitive these days. The guys and I at work are not all uptight like the rest of America. I'm always hugging on them and them on me. Nobody thinks twice. Nobody has an agenda, nobody feels threatened, nobody is trying to get one over on someone else.
But... I don't think that's normal in America either...
Posted by: Bou at January 12, 2006 12:06 PM (iHxT3)
8
That's true, Seth, the Demolition Man land is coming true. I'm taking Stallone's role.
Good point, SmallTown Hick -- there's almost no way to actually enforce this law. But in today's government world, that's no reason to not pass a law.
And Joe? It's a good thing I've lost it -- I can't crush my brain enough to fit in today's world.
I'm not sure, Bou, how normal that is. I have a feeling that it's VERY normal -- but the media and others with an agenda absolutely will NOT allow that to be known!
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 12:15 PM (/k+l4)
9
Two things:
1) Is it killing you that you and the ACLU are on the same side for this one? Is it, be honest... you know it is!

2) There is a lot of misunderstandings about this law, even by the article you linked. Michelle of Letters from NYC has a good article on it here: http://lettersfromnyc.mu.nu/archives/150857.php that explains some of the misconceptions.
Posted by: Contagion at January 12, 2006 01:40 PM (Q5WxB)
10
The ACLU is on the right side of something? I seriously doubt it...
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 02:07 PM (/k+l4)
11
Nah, the law is actually more specific, citing "intent to harass," but, well...hey, can *I* be your partner?
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 11:00 AM (+Gl1m)
12
"the ACLU is on the right side of something...I seriously doubt it."
They are also representing Rush Limbaugh in an effort to prevent the govt from getting his medical records. Surprised?
Oh and yes, my real name is Stacy so even though I annoy you, I am not breaking the law
Posted by: stacy at January 17, 2006 11:36 PM (4RpL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Never-Ending Flight
I know it's not a
funny story, but the tagline for it is just silly:
Flying from Tennessee to Florida, aircraft carrying four aviators never lands;
Uh...what? So the plane is still flying?
But to the families of those missing aviators, my prayers certainly will include you.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:34 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They changed it for you ogre. Now it talks about a missing jet.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 12, 2006 02:26 AM (SlODe)
2
I don't like to fly, as I've blogged. My Dad, who was a pilot, always said, "Look, we've not left one up there yet." My response was, "Yeah, but I don't necessarily like how they come down at times..." Gravity sometimes really does suck.
Posted by: Bou at January 12, 2006 12:08 PM (iHxT3)
3
And sadly, they've found the wreckage with no survivors. Four more killed while sacrificing their lives for America.
And yes, Bou, the flying is EASY...it's the landing that's tough.
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 12:18 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Federal Water Police
In case you didn't know about it, the federal government is watching your shower. No, it's not the Patriot Act, it's the water police. As Jeffrey Tucker so
eloquently outlines, the federal government actually spends time and money monitoring the amount of water you use at one time.
No, there's no restrictions on how much water you can BUY, just how much you can USE at a given moment. In this article, it's the water flow through your shower head. I'm sure many of my readers know how little water you can get through today's newer shower heads.
Mr. Tucker suggests as an academic exercise removing the restrictor plate in the shower nozzle. There's no word on when the government will start searching through your trash to arrest you for having a shower head with too high a flow.
What I really loved about his article is the way American ingenuity took over -- since the regulations were per shower head, a company came up with a 3-headed shower head! Awesome.
So the federal government is going to investigate them. Yes, they could be forced at gunpoint to pay a fine for creating a water head that allows too much water through it. Who said government isn't too big and useless?
And yes, your toilet has that problem too -- that's why it clogs up all the time. I had a post somewhere about how to overclock a toilet, but I can't find it anywhere...but what I really want to know is why are businesses allowed to have toilets with just gallons and gallons of water, but lowly peons are not?
(H/T to Michelle Malkin).
Posted by: Ogre at
02:50 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've long since cured any problems I have with low-flow shower heads. Years ago, i purchased an ultra-low flow shower head. It's approximately 1.5 inch wide and 3-4 inches long, and can be purchased for a few dollars in most Wal-Marts or hardware stores.
This baby does 1.5 gallons per minute, never runs the water heater out of hot water, and puts a scouring shower across my back that takes a few showers to get used to. Most people, upon first use, would describe the sensation as painful. It isn't pain, but it's much stronger than normal shower heads can spray.
http://www.neatitems.com/images/Jet_Shower_Heads_-_chrome_and_polished_brass.jpg
This appears to be a 2.5gpm version of the same head. Good stuff.
Posted by: Lockjaw the Ogre at January 11, 2006 04:34 PM (mAhn3)
2
"but what I really want to know is why are businesses allowed to have toilets with just gallons and gallons of water, but lowly peons are not?"
That's an easy one Ogre. We only need a small amount of water for our crap to reach the street sewer line or septic tank, but it takes much more water in order for the corporate crap to reach Washington.
This is the second time I posted this comment. The first one seemed to have gotten lost in vapor lock, if it shows up, delete it. Thanks
Posted by: Tomslick at January 11, 2006 06:35 PM (xNjHI)
3
But Lockjaw, I don't want pressure, I want VOLUME. I want tons of water just covering me. I want all the water that pipe can bring out of the ground!
ANd Tomslick, I hadn't really thought about it that way...
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
4
Shower head problems... make your own.
Posted by: Contagion at January 11, 2006 09:06 PM (Q5WxB)
5
Oh lordy... what's next? How much air we breath?
Posted by: vw bug at January 11, 2006 10:21 PM (4oOot)
6
VW, are you using more than your share?
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 11:04 PM (+Gl1m)
7
It's funny, my Dad and I were just discussing these low flow water toilets when he was in town. I have an awful time in this house with our commodes clogging (as you and I were discussing once). He said that people are constantly scouring old homes for their high water capacity commodes. I had no idea that you just couldn't 'buy' a high water commode. I'm so bummed.
Posted by: Bou at January 12, 2006 12:11 PM (iHxT3)
8
I'm searching now, as I've gotten some tips recently. It's completely illegal, but the word is that you can get high-flow toilets in Canada and bring them down here. They're expensive, especially the shipping, but I'm headed up near Canada this summer, so I'm going to see if I can hop the border and grab a couple. Maybe I'll put them on eBay and see what I can get for them...
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 12:20 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Education Money Silliness
The left is sure weird when looked at through a lens of reality and logic.
I don't know about where you live, but in Mecklenburg County, NC, every single year the government-run monopolistic education system ("public" education) "needs" more money. The school board asks for, and liberals (including the Charlotte Observer) demand more money.
And when they get their 25-50% increases in spending, all is good because the left can then spend money better than you know how -- on administrators and other non-education related things in the school budgets.
However, when it comes to higher education, where customers (the students) actually have to pay for their own education, suddenly it costs too much and tuition should be paid on a sliding scale (the rich pay more), AND prices should actually be CAPPED!
Now why is it that when the government is paying for education, it's simply not possible for it to cost too much, but when individuals have to pay, no matter what the actual cost, they shouldn't have to pay anything?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ogre, buddy... we've gone over this. It's because the new American mentallity is something for nothing. When the government is paying, people don't see it as they are paying, even if it comes out of their taxes.
Posted by: Contagion at January 11, 2006 01:44 PM (Q5WxB)
2
No matter how many times I see it, I'm still just amazed at the ability of the left to completely and utterly defy any sense of logic.
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 02:04 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Minimum Wage in NC
The Democrat Treasurer of North Carolina wants to
make goods more expensive in North Carolina. Why? Because he may be running for governor in 2008 and wants to attract some support. Oh, why does HE claim?
"the labor market improves for low-income workers. This is because businesses actually start to do better when consumers have more money in their pockets."
So, in his mind, if we force businesses to pay more to make products, people will have more money to spend on the more expensive products.
Yes, he IS a Democrat.
Minimum wage laws might have been needed at one time. They are NOT needed today. Do you really think that if $2.00 an hour were offered for working at McDonald's that anyone would accept the job?
And if you are one of those who support a minimum wage, do you also support a maximum wage? If not, that doesn't make sense. If you do, what should the maximum wage be? And why only $6.15 for a minimum wage, as Mr. Moore wants? Why not $10 an hour? Why is $6.15 better than $10?
Minimum wage laws are socialist crap, no matter how you slice them. They are wrong and violently interfere with the free market. Their only real effect is to raise the prices for EVERYONE on EVERYTHING.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:05 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Increase minimum wage = increase in the cost of doing business = increase in the cost of products or services.
So the people making minimum wage aren't better off, and those that make over minimum wage will basically take a cost of living decrease. Unless their company gives them a cost of living increase in pay, which mine doesn't.
Posted by: Contagion at January 11, 2006 01:47 PM (Q5WxB)
2
And this is just a new wrinkle on the socialists who support min wage increases. They've taken your obvious logic and just added one more step:
= people have more money to BUY those higher priced products and services.
And somehow that's seen as a good thing.
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 02:06 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 10, 2006
It Worked in CA...
Well, one Democrat governor got removed from office recently for misconduct --
will another?
Monday afternoon, Kat Landry, founder of the website RECALLGOVERNORBLANCO.COM announced her intentions to file a recall petition for the office of the governor.
Who knows where this one will go?
(H/T to Louisiana Libertarian.)
Posted by: Ogre at
07:01 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: birdwoman at January 10, 2006 10:56 PM (vR7Sl)
2
Nobody thought it would happen in CA, either...
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 01:04 AM (s2+Ck)
3
Honestly, I don't know if this recall will accomplish anything. All that will happen is the Lt. Governor will serve out the remander of her term and he is as incompetant and corrupt as she is.
Posted by: Kevin at January 15, 2006 04:18 AM (0ozWZ)
4
True. I don't know that there's any politicians in LA that aren't. Perhaps the Daly family could take over...
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:01 PM (+Gl1m)
Posted by: starwars at July 03, 2006 11:07 PM (2xoLT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Planned Parenthood is Criminal
Planned Parenthood, the euphemism for killing babies, is on record this past year as being complicit in at least 290 cases of criminal activity in IL. I'm not holding my breath for the prosecutions, however.
As Part-Time Pundit outlines, Planned Parenthood is making large amounts of cash by hiding crimes from the police. The crime? Rape. That's correct, Planned Parenthood of IL knows details about 290 cases of criminal rape, but they won't report them because they're more interested in earning cash.
Don't believe me? Their own website shows it! A girl is raped at age 11 and tells Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood conceals that rape from the authorities so they can get cash from the girl.
Go ahead, try and convince me they're doing good by enabling rapists. Oh, but there's people who actually SUPPORT this continuing action:
Your attempt to slander Planned Parenthood as an organization involved in child rape may be accepted by your fellow neo-whatevers, but its hardly credible for most of the rest of us.
So, despite current, active evidence that clearly shows that PP supports child rapists, some simply choose to absolutely not see the truth. Ignoring facts does not make you right or good.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:05 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Were you to have sex, you might worry that offspring might follow. And bringing up baby in BushWorld is not the wisest course. Better to abort than to keep populating this shithole world with more and more packrats and ne'er-do-wells, who clearly deserve much better.
As a male, I am relieved that the onus is not on us. What is on us is the anus, and the anus cannot reproduce. At least not effectively. And because of this, we do not have to ever worry about being saddled with an unwanted child. For a female, this is not so easy. They don't like rubbers either.
Granted, it sounds slack to make such comments, but alas, many people are slack.
If, during a war written about in a bible, a general says to "lay them all waste", we should not take that to mean that all people should lay all people to waste for all time. The same can be said for "Be fruitful and multiply."
If it were written today, it would say "Enough already!"
No one likes the act of abortion, but most are glad it is an option. Face it. Life is not as magical and santa claus as we are told. Everyone dies. No big deal. Go war. The great aborter.
Anyway...howdy! Happy Newish Year.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 10, 2006 08:27 PM (ELJo9)
2
This post isn't about supporting or opposing abortion -- it's about an organization that is committing a clear crime for profit, but no one seems to care about it.
Is it ok if *I* commit a crime if it's for profit?
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 10:45 PM (s2+Ck)
3
Sorry...I had to read and write too fast.
If PP is acting in an untoward and profiteering manner, certainly expose them, and bring them to justice. I don't know about you, but I'd love it if decent, honest, and charitable souls would rise, and that mediocre, greedy lying types would just go away...regardless of political persuasion.
I suspect there is a structural flaw in the financial system which causes people to at least feel like they need more and more...and after a while crime becomes necessary to achieve it. A carrot chase. Beneath ogres and nonnies.
Best to ya!
Dave
Posted by: anonymoses at January 10, 2006 11:03 PM (e9XHy)
4
This is a old issue. PP has been doing this for sometime and has been under investigation for covering up rapes before. In one case the refused to give age and payment information from their files to police investigating rapes.
You notice how abortion providers talk about "a womanÂ’s right" until they are blue in the face but the strongest supporters of abortion are men.
This is disgusting and I have not tolerance for it. Nothing is more abusive to a girl than to be raped and to have the rapist force you into an abortion to cover up his crime.
These people are the antitheist of womenÂ’s rights.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 10, 2006 11:42 PM (SlODe)
5
Good for you for bringing it to the light. How can anyone defend that "company's" behavior?
Posted by: Monika at January 11, 2006 12:35 AM (bmWjK)
6
I don't really have an oppinion on this at this time. I don't know enough about Plan Parenthood to be able to make an informed decision and I don't have the time to do the research right now. All I can say is that if it is related to medical treatment, NOW they may be legally obligated NOT to give details about their patients.
Posted by: Contagion at January 11, 2006 12:40 AM (e8b4J)
7
Indeed, Dave, the carrot chase it out of control!
Mindflame, yes, it's an old issue, but PP keeps breaking the law, and no one cares.
And Contagion -- have I not provided enough information? If an 11 year old shows up anywhere, claiming to be pregnant, that's a crime. That's rape in any state. To not report a known felony is a crime as well, medical treatment or not.
This would be the same as a doctor who treated a bank robber who was shot and didn't report the gunshot wound.
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 01:07 AM (s2+Ck)
8
Ogre, unfortunately laws differ from state to state. In Illinois, where I live and have a law degree, it is not illegal to not report a rape. The medical profession has to follow the patients wishes. It's up to the victims to file a police report. Even if the police know that a rape has occured AND whom the victim is, if the victim doesn't want to file charges owell.
Now we have the manner of an 11 year old. This changes some of the laws. That is where I would have to do some research, as well as is Plan Parenthood actually providing medical treatment or are they just helping pay for it.
Posted by: Contagion at January 11, 2006 01:51 PM (Q5WxB)
9
I'm pretty sure (not being in IL I'm not positive), that what you describe is exactly correct -- for adults. I'm almost sure it's a crime in IL to not report a felony when a minor is the victim.
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 02:08 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Advertiser
Yes folks, time once again to introduce a new advertiser here at Ogre's Politics and Views. This week,
Organized Chaos has seen the wisdom of placing an advertisement here at Ogre's -- now don't let her down, click on the link and go read. And if you want to check back later in the week, the small square over there in the left column will be there all week.
Lisa, the author there is...(deep breath)
a conservative republican with some libertarian tendencies,a sports fan(baseball/college basketball and football), web geek, XM subscriber, talk radio addict, college grad, and a fan of snow (the white, fluffy stuff and the guy who works at FNC). And I think guys in bow ties rule (love ya tucker!).
Whew.
But there is some really good reading over there. There's a post with henry david thoreau quotes -- that are just excellent. She also talks about the brewing Abramoff scandal that shows it's NOT about campaign finance reform -- it's about scummy people.
There's lots more good stuff over there, so head on over and read a little, especially if you like politics -- you might find yourself a new daily read!
Oh, and if you're interested in adding your own ad here, to get that top box, you need a free BlogExplosion account...or you can buy a BlogAd (they're cheap!).
Posted by: Ogre at
03:01 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If I had known you were going to post my whole profile, I would have made a bit shorter...lol. Thanks for the review.
Posted by: Lisa at January 11, 2006 12:11 AM (kDqEb)
2
I thought that profile was great! It just went on and on and on...
Posted by: Ogre at January 11, 2006 01:07 AM (s2+Ck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Eddie Goodall on the Lottery Lawsuit
In case you're wondering why a group of people would sue the state for illegally passing a lottery, Eddie Goodall, Senator from Union county,
outlines his case. He describes exactly why and how the lottery passed, and what's wrong with it.
First let me tell you what our purpose isn't. There is nothing in the 23 pages of the complaint and petition that says anything negative (or positive) about a lottery. The lawsuit has nothing to do with the value of a state lottery.
It has everything to do with something far more fundamental to our citizens: adherence to the law.
This lawsuit is about asking the courts to force the Democrat-run state legislature to follow the Constitution. In fact, the more I look at the facts of this case, if the judges do not rule against the legislature, then the North Carolina Constitution seriously becomes just an advisory document that the Democrats are free to ignore.
The Constitution is very clear. The Democrats violated it. If this is left stand, there is no Constitution in North Carolina, except when the Democrats want there to be one.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.
Eminent Domain - NC
Get ready to lose more property rights in North Carolina. A committee
is meeting to discuss eminent domain. Here's some anti-freedom quotes:
I don't think there's a single person here that wants to disrupt progress with our governments.
-Wilma Sherrill, R-Buncombe
Nope, there isn't. Only because you don't have anyone at your meeting that believes there is such a thing as property rights, apparently. Government and progress in the same sentence just don't go together.
We want to be sure that whatever we do ... that we don't take away the good things that can now be accomplished in North Carolina
Lucy Allen, D-Franklin
Left off of that sentence was the implied, "at the expense of individuals and liberty." Government isn't doing good things when they steal from individuals. These people meeting clearly hate property rights and believe that government is the end-all be-all determiner of the use of all land in the state. These people suck eggs.
State law allows local governments to condemn private property that's considered a community blight because it harms the health and safety or economic well-being of those surrounding it.
-Legislative Staff
So, in other words, New London can VERY EASILY happen in North Carolina. All a government has to do is decide that a certain section of privately owned land will harm the economic well-being of those around it by not being a manufacturing facility or a building of condos -- and then the government can take it.
If you support freedom and property rights, you simply cannot support this crop of morons shysters scum of the earth freedom-haters socialists legislators running North Carolina.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:04 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think you know where I stand on this subject. If you don't, lets just say I have a nice stockpile of lead, blackpowder and modern bullets.
Posted by: Contagion at January 10, 2006 01:29 PM (Q5WxB)
2
I hope it's a big stockpile...and if it's not, I'll bring you more.
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 02:02 PM (/k+l4)
3
The legislative staffer you quote is trying to pull off some verbal legerdemain.
I don't have a problem with calling property that demonstrably harms the health and safety of those nearby as "blighted", though the use of eminent domain is not the first approach to solving the problem that would have occurred to me.
It's the "economic well-being" part that goes off the track. It's defining deviance up, so to speak. It's obvious code language for "you're not producing enough taxes for your neighbors," the argument underlying most misuse of eminent domain.
Posted by: Kent at January 10, 2006 07:02 PM (GSLcH)
4
The legislative staffer is showing that in the world of the NC Legislature, there is no such thing as property rights, no matter the reason!
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 10:44 PM (s2+Ck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 09, 2006
The Earth Engineer
Your Superhero Profile
|

Your Superhero Name is The Earth Engineer
Your Superpower is Solar
Your Weakness is Ants
Your Weapon is Your Radiation Bullets
Your Mode of Transportation is Space Shuttle
|
Uh...Yay?
Posted by: Ogre at
08:04 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Uh, your weakness is ants?
This is me:
Your Superhero Name is The Admiral Justice
Your Superpower is Mathematics
Your Weakness is Bacteria
Your Weapon is Your Venomous Lance
Your Mode of Transportation is Boat
MMM.Kay. How is Mathematics a superpower?
Posted by: oddybobo at January 09, 2006 09:56 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Don't feel bad this is what I was stuck with.
Your Superhero Name is The Wonder Zero
Your Superpower is Accessorizing
Your Weakness is Balloons
Your Weapon is Your Kinetic Throwing Stars
Your Mode of Transportation is Hovercraft
Be afraid, very afraid! I am.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 09, 2006 10:15 PM (5+Jvh)
3
A BOAT Oddy? A BOAT? Perhaps you stupify your evil opponents with demonstrations of algebra...
But Arbitratorofall? Umm...I'm not really afraid...you can't even really run me over in your Hovercraft...
Posted by: Ogre at January 09, 2006 10:32 PM (s2+Ck)
4
Ohhh wait till you see this one... good thing it goes off names, otherwise I would be very afraid for Bou:
Your Superhero Name is The Composite Glider
Your Superpower is Magic
Your Weakness is Vince Vaughn
Your Weapon is Your Toxic Saw
Your Mode of Transportation is Love Van
Posted by: vw bug at January 09, 2006 11:12 PM (UA4mV)
5
Your Superhero Name is The Platypus Spear
Your Superpower is Chemical
Your Weakness is Toilet Paper
Your Weapon is Your Radiation Club
Your Mode of Transportation is Fire
With Toilet Paper as my weakness, it's not wonder Chemical is my superpower. I'd need something to keep the smell away.
Posted by: Contagion at January 09, 2006 11:19 PM (Q5WxB)
6
Your Superhero Name is The Micro Samurai
Your Superpower is Waking Through Walls
Your Weakness is Love
Your Weapon is Your Anti-matter Pitchfork
Your Mode of Transportation is Catapult
Posted by: Mindflame at January 10, 2006 12:16 AM (SlODe)
7
These are an absolute riot!
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 10:47 AM (s2+Ck)
8
Your Superhero Name is The Alpha Monkey
Your Superpower is Rapping
Your Weakness is Fish
Your Weapon is Your Celestial Torpedoes
Your Mode of Transportation is Zebra
Just keep your fish away from me or I will Rap you a song that will make you regret that fish and I will be laughing at you rolling on the ground as I ride off on my Zebra.
Posted by: Machelle at January 10, 2006 03:05 PM (ZAyoW)
9
You people are weird.
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 10:43 PM (s2+Ck)
10
Your Superhero Name is The Future Defender
Your Superpower is X-Ray Vision
Your Weakness is Rain
Your Weapon is Your Fire Crossbow
Your Mode of Transportation is Elephant
*waves shiny Fire Crossbow at Smokey*
Posted by: Harvey at January 12, 2006 04:26 PM (ubhj8)
11
I wonder if he can see it way up there on your Elephant?
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2006 07:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
125kb generated in CPU 0.0376, elapsed 0.1609 seconds.
102 queries taking 0.1437 seconds, 341 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.