Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Saturday, December 24, 2005
A Merry Liberal Christmas
Some things are worth repeating:
Courtroom, San Francisco:
JUDGE: Well Mr. Clause, you’ve heard the evidence against you. You’ve been accused of the following:
* Giving unsafe toys to unsuspecting girls and boys.
* Cruelty to animals by continually making reindeer “play games” and “fly” you around in a sleigh on extremely cold winter nights. You even had one reindeer, which shall remain nameless, surgically altered to have a red, glowing nose for your own sadistic purpose.
* Your sleigh has been deemed unsafe due to lack of safety restraint system, lack of an anti-lock braking system, no front or rear crash tested safety bumpers, no parking, head, or brake lights, no safety rollover bars or roof, and no aerial safety flashing lights as required by the FAA.
* You have willfully and wantonly kept slave labor, in the form of elves, at your “workshop” at the North Pole. They have been forced to design, create, and manufacture these unsafe toys under your direction. OSHA has also found these elves using lead paint and other chemicals that can cause irreparable harm to these creatures, not to mention their working conditions.
ELF: Yeah fat boy! Now I can’t have kids!
JUDGE: ORDER! ORDER! SIT DOWN SIR! Or I’ll have you removed from this courtroom! Now to continue:
* You have also violated the Wagner Act by not allowing these elves to organize and join a union.
* You have had trees killed, every year, to promote this “day” of yours.
* Also, these trees have been deemed to be a religious symbol promoting a particular religion.
* Mr. Clause, you have, for as long as I can remember, offended Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and all other non-Christian religions throughout the entire world. You have tried to promote your “selfless giving” and have finally been caught. What say you?
SANTA: Uhhh…Merry Christmas?
JUDGE: HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IN MY COURT! Guards! Put this man in a cell. I am charging him with contempt. Mr. Clause, you can sit there and think about what you have done to kids all over the world!
Guards take Mr. Clause and lead him down to the holding cells.
GUARD 1: Let’s put him in number three with that other guy.
GUARD 2: Yeah, then they can console each other.
Cell door opens and the guards push Mr. Clause in.
OCCUPANT: What are you in for?
SANTA: Bringing joy to the world and promoting religion. How about you?
OCCUPANT: Same thing. What’s your name?
SANTA: Santa Clause, and yours?
OCCUPANT: Jesus Christ.
Courtroom, San Francisco:
JUDGE: Well Mr. Clause, you’ve heard the evidence against you. You’ve been accused of the following:
* Giving unsafe toys to unsuspecting girls and boys.
* Cruelty to animals by continually making reindeer “play games” and “fly” you around in a sleigh on extremely cold winter nights. You even had one reindeer, which shall remain nameless, surgically altered to have a red, glowing nose for your own sadistic purpose.
* Your sleigh has been deemed unsafe due to lack of safety restraint system, lack of an anti-lock braking system, no front or rear crash tested safety bumpers, no parking, head, or brake lights, no safety rollover bars or roof, and no aerial safety flashing lights as required by the FAA.
* You have willfully and wantonly kept slave labor, in the form of elves, at your “workshop” at the North Pole. They have been forced to design, create, and manufacture these unsafe toys under your direction. OSHA has also found these elves using lead paint and other chemicals that can cause irreparable harm to these creatures, not to mention their working conditions.
ELF: Yeah fat boy! Now I can’t have kids!
JUDGE: ORDER! ORDER! SIT DOWN SIR! Or I’ll have you removed from this courtroom! Now to continue:
* You have also violated the Wagner Act by not allowing these elves to organize and join a union.
* You have had trees killed, every year, to promote this “day” of yours.
* Also, these trees have been deemed to be a religious symbol promoting a particular religion.
* Mr. Clause, you have, for as long as I can remember, offended Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and all other non-Christian religions throughout the entire world. You have tried to promote your “selfless giving” and have finally been caught. What say you?
SANTA: Uhhh…Merry Christmas?
JUDGE: HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IN MY COURT! Guards! Put this man in a cell. I am charging him with contempt. Mr. Clause, you can sit there and think about what you have done to kids all over the world!
Guards take Mr. Clause and lead him down to the holding cells.
GUARD 1: Let’s put him in number three with that other guy.
GUARD 2: Yeah, then they can console each other.
Cell door opens and the guards push Mr. Clause in.
OCCUPANT: What are you in for?
SANTA: Bringing joy to the world and promoting religion. How about you?
OCCUPANT: Same thing. What’s your name?
SANTA: Santa Clause, and yours?
OCCUPANT: Jesus Christ.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Air America Blog dialogue
Taunting liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel; there’s not much to it. Air America blog had a posting on how happy they were to block the patriot act extension and drilling in ANWR. I couldn’t resist…
http://www.airamericaplace.com/comment.php?id=600
cracker 12/22/05 - 07:21 am
________________________________________
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
The best part is they take the bait.
TriSec 12/22/05 - 08:07 am
________________________________________
Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News. I'm glad to hear you're watching that, cracker. Maybe something will penetrate that Neanderthal skull of yours.
But you do realize, that by admitting that you watch that, you've just given the President free reign to wiretap your phone without a warrant, right? But what do you care? The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, isn't it?
Isn’t it nice how they come out and say what they actually believe? “Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News.” Now that is giving your country the benefit of the doubt. It’s heartwarming to know liberals will believe the propaganda of the terrorists over a conservative news channel. How much do they hate their country?
I don’t care if everyone listens to my phone conversation…hell, I don’t even listen to my phone conversations, just ask my wife. What I don’t understand is that liberals are always spouting off about the “common good” over the “individual”. Isn’t this a perfect example of how the rights of the people supersede the rights of the individual?
But enough philosophical arguments they would never understand anyway. How about some good old fashioned liberal hate speech/name calling?
MNRN 12/22/05 - 07:55 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
cracker....yes you are.....are those racist, xenophobic talking points still warm off the fax in your hot little hands???
Your patriotism, like your intellect, is lacking.
Interesting. I am for the safety of the nation over the privacy of terrorists and this idiot says MY patriotism is lacking. Then again, I have a doctorate, and he claims my intellect is lacking. Well Dr. Mengele, perhaps I should bow to your wisdom and knowledge on how to fight these terrorists, but I can’t see myself running like a little girl from them, pleading for mercy.
Once again, on the Air America Blog, I ask, “Is there no one with a brain?”
KBarrick 12/22/05 - 08:59 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
Cracker, (and as a Swedish white girl I RARELY get to use that phrase) which makes us more dependent on foreign oil: THOUSANDS of HUMMERs driving on the mountainous streets of LA, NY, and Chicago or NOT drilling in ANWR?
Really, this is a serious question. I'm willing to actually participate in a discussion and not just sling slanderous talking points at a blog whose members are politely drinking their morning coffee (or tea).
Ah, that got my blood pumping this morning.
Anyone think that Mark Riley is starting to sound like David Cross in Mr. Show with "Air America this" and "Air America that." It's the episode about "The Bob."
Terra-di-LOO the Air America!
An honest question, finally. The answer? Not drilling in ANWR.
BobR 12/22/05 - 09:10 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
WE'RE making the US more dependent on foreign oil? Are you kidding? We are the ones pushing for better fuel economy and alternative energy sources.
Also - there is a more oil pumped out of Venezuela in a month than we'll EVER get out of ANWR. So why are you guys trying to overthrow their government?
Next.
BobR states a mindset of the liberal very well. It is a liberal belief that energy is a zero sum game. Here is a little lesson for you BobR. The economy grows. It grows with the use of oil, to power cars, machines, furnaces, and every other facet of production and the economy. Our use, therefore, grows also. Perhaps you also don’t know the biggest profiteer in the oil business is the government. The government makes more money on oil than the oil companies. Teddy Kennedy owns an oil company. Tell me he is trying really hard to make us less dependent on oil.
Also BobR, I think you were trying to ask why we AREN’T trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government for the oil. Hugo Chavez has armed his people with picks, shovels and other gardening equipment to thwart such an attack by Bush and his oil buddies. Hugo is no fool. However, due to Cheney and Rove, our troop armor has not been reinforced to deter and foil such weaponry, and Murtha would never allow it. We need to spend our money on hotel rooms for Katrina victims. As you are well aware, the white victims were given rooms in Hyatt Regency Hotels and Embassy Suites, not the Motel 6’s the other victims got. And let me tell you, room service can be quite expensive. Now if you’ll excuse me, Javier is at my hotel door with my lobster and steak dinner. Maybe I’ll look for a job tomorrow…yes, yes…I will look tomorrow.
http://www.airamericaplace.com/comment.php?id=600
cracker 12/22/05 - 07:21 am
________________________________________
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
The best part is they take the bait.
TriSec 12/22/05 - 08:07 am
________________________________________
Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News. I'm glad to hear you're watching that, cracker. Maybe something will penetrate that Neanderthal skull of yours.
But you do realize, that by admitting that you watch that, you've just given the President free reign to wiretap your phone without a warrant, right? But what do you care? The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, isn't it?
Isn’t it nice how they come out and say what they actually believe? “Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News.” Now that is giving your country the benefit of the doubt. It’s heartwarming to know liberals will believe the propaganda of the terrorists over a conservative news channel. How much do they hate their country?
I don’t care if everyone listens to my phone conversation…hell, I don’t even listen to my phone conversations, just ask my wife. What I don’t understand is that liberals are always spouting off about the “common good” over the “individual”. Isn’t this a perfect example of how the rights of the people supersede the rights of the individual?
But enough philosophical arguments they would never understand anyway. How about some good old fashioned liberal hate speech/name calling?
MNRN 12/22/05 - 07:55 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
cracker....yes you are.....are those racist, xenophobic talking points still warm off the fax in your hot little hands???
Your patriotism, like your intellect, is lacking.
Interesting. I am for the safety of the nation over the privacy of terrorists and this idiot says MY patriotism is lacking. Then again, I have a doctorate, and he claims my intellect is lacking. Well Dr. Mengele, perhaps I should bow to your wisdom and knowledge on how to fight these terrorists, but I can’t see myself running like a little girl from them, pleading for mercy.
Once again, on the Air America Blog, I ask, “Is there no one with a brain?”
KBarrick 12/22/05 - 08:59 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
Cracker, (and as a Swedish white girl I RARELY get to use that phrase) which makes us more dependent on foreign oil: THOUSANDS of HUMMERs driving on the mountainous streets of LA, NY, and Chicago or NOT drilling in ANWR?
Really, this is a serious question. I'm willing to actually participate in a discussion and not just sling slanderous talking points at a blog whose members are politely drinking their morning coffee (or tea).
Ah, that got my blood pumping this morning.
Anyone think that Mark Riley is starting to sound like David Cross in Mr. Show with "Air America this" and "Air America that." It's the episode about "The Bob."
Terra-di-LOO the Air America!
An honest question, finally. The answer? Not drilling in ANWR.
BobR 12/22/05 - 09:10 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.
WE'RE making the US more dependent on foreign oil? Are you kidding? We are the ones pushing for better fuel economy and alternative energy sources.
Also - there is a more oil pumped out of Venezuela in a month than we'll EVER get out of ANWR. So why are you guys trying to overthrow their government?
Next.
BobR states a mindset of the liberal very well. It is a liberal belief that energy is a zero sum game. Here is a little lesson for you BobR. The economy grows. It grows with the use of oil, to power cars, machines, furnaces, and every other facet of production and the economy. Our use, therefore, grows also. Perhaps you also don’t know the biggest profiteer in the oil business is the government. The government makes more money on oil than the oil companies. Teddy Kennedy owns an oil company. Tell me he is trying really hard to make us less dependent on oil.
Also BobR, I think you were trying to ask why we AREN’T trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government for the oil. Hugo Chavez has armed his people with picks, shovels and other gardening equipment to thwart such an attack by Bush and his oil buddies. Hugo is no fool. However, due to Cheney and Rove, our troop armor has not been reinforced to deter and foil such weaponry, and Murtha would never allow it. We need to spend our money on hotel rooms for Katrina victims. As you are well aware, the white victims were given rooms in Hyatt Regency Hotels and Embassy Suites, not the Motel 6’s the other victims got. And let me tell you, room service can be quite expensive. Now if you’ll excuse me, Javier is at my hotel door with my lobster and steak dinner. Maybe I’ll look for a job tomorrow…yes, yes…I will look tomorrow.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Derrick Jackson is at it again
I’ve never met Derrick Jackson from the Boston Globe, but I am a fan. If you look at some of my previous posts, you’ll see why I am fascinated by this individual. It is clearly not his intellect or wisdom, rather his tenacity to continuously print his retarded dribble.
I honestly don’t know what path to logical thought and reason he takes, but it is obviously the path less traveled. Sometimes I don’t think he has a final destination in mind.
Let’s take his latest foray into the great unknown called correlation. In his article, “For plasma TVs and luxury vacations, lives are lost”, (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/21/for_plasma_tvs_and_luxury_vacations_lives_are_lost/), in the Boston Globe, December 21, 2005, Derrick tries to correlate the war in Iraq and expenditures on leisure by the public. For example, “The truth, magnified by the materialistic marketing of the holiday season, is embarrassing for a nation that loves to talk about military sacrifice. While the sons and daughters of the middle and lower classes die in Iraq, the wealthy count their toys, literally.” Ahh, the class warfare argument is always handy for the communists. Obviously, only poor and middle class people join the army because they have no other alternative in a “Bush” society. Let’s not bring in the possibility that these people are serving because they feel it their duty, or have a sense of duty to their country, or feel like giving something back to their country for the rights and freedoms they have, and they wish to spread those rights and freedoms to the oppressed elsewhere in the world.
Then he gets right into the class warfare with: “The top 20 percent of households in terms of income -- the households Bush and the Republicans want to give so much of their tax cuts to -- spend an average of $4,516 a year on entertainment according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is more than:
The $2,121 spent on education.
The $3,255 spent on clothing.
The $3,606 spent on healthcare.
The $254 spent on reading.
The wealthy spend virtually the same on entertainment as on food at home ($4,503). The biggest increases in entertainment spending were for televisions, radios, and sound equipment.” It’s called discretionary spending Derrick. People spend money on essentials first (or at least they should and would if the government didn’t subsidize their lifestyles), and then they spend discretionary funds on other “luxury” items. I can’t afford a Jaguar Derrick, but I will never condemn one who can, and spends his own money to buy one.
Derrick then comes up with this bit of insight, “Entertainment spending drops dramatically as you move down the quintiles, the quintiles more likely to produce our soldiers.” Again, let’s hammer home how only poor people join the armed forces. Obviously, it’s because they can’t afford a TV, and they have nothing else to do, so why not join the army and “see the world”? If they had a TV and saw the horrendous situation and quagmire that Iraq is, they would never join the army. OH MY GOD! I think I understand. Derrick is saying entertainment leads to knowledge, and IF poor people could spend more on entertainment, they would be more knowledgeable and would therefore NEVER join the armed forces! So intelligence is directly related to the amount of entertainment expenditures! I am sure Derrick is working on the theorem as we speak to be submitted to some professional journal for publication.
One item caught my attention. It is this little piece, “…the bottom 20 percent spend $703 a year on entertainment.” The bottom 20% pay NO TAXES AT ALL! Obviously they have enough money to contribute to the tax base. Let’s RAISE THEIR TAXES (by about $700 a year)!
Derrick finishes this strong piece of writing with: “No one has a problem with enjoying special treats with the family. But the invasion and occupation of Iraq is headed toward its third anniversary. To this day, Bush has not called for a national sacrifice to match the courage of the soldiers dying in Iraq. Not even giving up our plasma TV screens and our video games. He says our soldiers are protecting our way of life. We have yet to question whether it is a way of life worth living.” I enjoy my lifestyle, and I can’t even afford a plasma TV.
I guess I can’t fault Derrick for his completely retarded arguments and thoughts, after all, some editor must give his articles the thumbs up…I want to meet that editor.
I honestly don’t know what path to logical thought and reason he takes, but it is obviously the path less traveled. Sometimes I don’t think he has a final destination in mind.
Let’s take his latest foray into the great unknown called correlation. In his article, “For plasma TVs and luxury vacations, lives are lost”, (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/21/for_plasma_tvs_and_luxury_vacations_lives_are_lost/), in the Boston Globe, December 21, 2005, Derrick tries to correlate the war in Iraq and expenditures on leisure by the public. For example, “The truth, magnified by the materialistic marketing of the holiday season, is embarrassing for a nation that loves to talk about military sacrifice. While the sons and daughters of the middle and lower classes die in Iraq, the wealthy count their toys, literally.” Ahh, the class warfare argument is always handy for the communists. Obviously, only poor and middle class people join the army because they have no other alternative in a “Bush” society. Let’s not bring in the possibility that these people are serving because they feel it their duty, or have a sense of duty to their country, or feel like giving something back to their country for the rights and freedoms they have, and they wish to spread those rights and freedoms to the oppressed elsewhere in the world.
Then he gets right into the class warfare with: “The top 20 percent of households in terms of income -- the households Bush and the Republicans want to give so much of their tax cuts to -- spend an average of $4,516 a year on entertainment according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is more than:
The $2,121 spent on education.
The $3,255 spent on clothing.
The $3,606 spent on healthcare.
The $254 spent on reading.
The wealthy spend virtually the same on entertainment as on food at home ($4,503). The biggest increases in entertainment spending were for televisions, radios, and sound equipment.” It’s called discretionary spending Derrick. People spend money on essentials first (or at least they should and would if the government didn’t subsidize their lifestyles), and then they spend discretionary funds on other “luxury” items. I can’t afford a Jaguar Derrick, but I will never condemn one who can, and spends his own money to buy one.
Derrick then comes up with this bit of insight, “Entertainment spending drops dramatically as you move down the quintiles, the quintiles more likely to produce our soldiers.” Again, let’s hammer home how only poor people join the armed forces. Obviously, it’s because they can’t afford a TV, and they have nothing else to do, so why not join the army and “see the world”? If they had a TV and saw the horrendous situation and quagmire that Iraq is, they would never join the army. OH MY GOD! I think I understand. Derrick is saying entertainment leads to knowledge, and IF poor people could spend more on entertainment, they would be more knowledgeable and would therefore NEVER join the armed forces! So intelligence is directly related to the amount of entertainment expenditures! I am sure Derrick is working on the theorem as we speak to be submitted to some professional journal for publication.
One item caught my attention. It is this little piece, “…the bottom 20 percent spend $703 a year on entertainment.” The bottom 20% pay NO TAXES AT ALL! Obviously they have enough money to contribute to the tax base. Let’s RAISE THEIR TAXES (by about $700 a year)!
Derrick finishes this strong piece of writing with: “No one has a problem with enjoying special treats with the family. But the invasion and occupation of Iraq is headed toward its third anniversary. To this day, Bush has not called for a national sacrifice to match the courage of the soldiers dying in Iraq. Not even giving up our plasma TV screens and our video games. He says our soldiers are protecting our way of life. We have yet to question whether it is a way of life worth living.” I enjoy my lifestyle, and I can’t even afford a plasma TV.
I guess I can’t fault Derrick for his completely retarded arguments and thoughts, after all, some editor must give his articles the thumbs up…I want to meet that editor.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
A Conversation with the New York Times
R: General! General! A quick question please.
G: Hey, you’re the reporter who said our last conversation was off the record.
R: That’s right General, and it was. It was my "story" that was in the paper.
G: Oh, that’s right. OK, what do you want to know?
R: You’re having problems locating the terrorists and Osama. Why do you think that is?
G: I don’t rightly know. It’s as if they can read my mind. I thought our last operation, you know, the one I mentioned last time we talked, was going to catch them. Somehow, they found out what we were up to. They are amazing creatures!
R: Any leads or operations in the works?
G: Actually, we just got word of a meeting with Osama and some of his boys that will take place next Thursday…
R: Where?
G: In Kabul.
R: Exactly?
G: 124 Maple Lane.
R: House or apartment?
G: Apartment.
R: Apartment number?
G: 3B.
R: So when you enter the main doors you turn to the…?
G: Right. It’s the third door on the left. It has a Christmas wreath hanging on the door.
R: And this raid will take place…?
G: Around 2:00.
R: AM or PM?
G: PM.
R: 2ish…a little before or a little after?
G: We’re hoping for exactly 2:00 PM.
R: I see. And are you going to need a lot of troops or just a couple?
G: We’ll have 24 troops, surround the whole darn place. Hell, we even have a tank coming in.
R: Well, good luck with that operation General. I hope you succeed.
G: This conversation is off the record, right?
R: Yes General, of course. This "conversation" is off the record.
G: Hey, you’re the reporter who said our last conversation was off the record.
R: That’s right General, and it was. It was my "story" that was in the paper.
G: Oh, that’s right. OK, what do you want to know?
R: You’re having problems locating the terrorists and Osama. Why do you think that is?
G: I don’t rightly know. It’s as if they can read my mind. I thought our last operation, you know, the one I mentioned last time we talked, was going to catch them. Somehow, they found out what we were up to. They are amazing creatures!
R: Any leads or operations in the works?
G: Actually, we just got word of a meeting with Osama and some of his boys that will take place next Thursday…
R: Where?
G: In Kabul.
R: Exactly?
G: 124 Maple Lane.
R: House or apartment?
G: Apartment.
R: Apartment number?
G: 3B.
R: So when you enter the main doors you turn to the…?
G: Right. It’s the third door on the left. It has a Christmas wreath hanging on the door.
R: And this raid will take place…?
G: Around 2:00.
R: AM or PM?
G: PM.
R: 2ish…a little before or a little after?
G: We’re hoping for exactly 2:00 PM.
R: I see. And are you going to need a lot of troops or just a couple?
G: We’ll have 24 troops, surround the whole darn place. Hell, we even have a tank coming in.
R: Well, good luck with that operation General. I hope you succeed.
G: This conversation is off the record, right?
R: Yes General, of course. This "conversation" is off the record.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Derrick Jackson
Derrick Jackson is a writer for the Boston Globe (ediorialist), and he is one of my favorites. It is not becaue he is such a good writer; it is because he continuously writes stupid things. He never stops, no matter how bad he sounds. He reminds me of the guys on "JackASS".
Here is just another example from the Boston Globe:
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Scrooge in the House
By Derrick Z. Jackson December 10, 2005
'Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the House, $50 billion was cut for those considered a mouse. Tax breaks instead hung by the chimney with care, for investors and CEOs, hands already there. America's rich nestled all snug in their beds as $95 billion danced in their heads.
IT WAS expected, of course, that the House of Representatives would do the deed they promised to do before Thanksgiving. They cut $50 billion last month from programs serving low-income Americans. This week they passed the final part of what amounts to $95 billion in tax cuts. It represents a height of taking from the poor to give to the rich.
(Take a class on economics Derrick. Tax cuts mean the wage earner keeps more of HIS money. I is not GIVING to the rich; they EARNED IT, and they get to keep what they earned – reap the benefits of their hard work.)
Out went billions for student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps. In came billions for stock dividends and capital gains.
Regardless of political leanings, economists know where the money is going.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that $70 billion of the $95 billion in tax cuts will go (How about “will stay with”) to households making over $100,000. That category accounts for 14 percent of households. According to the center, that 14 percent will get 74 percent of the money.
(Those households pay 2/3 of the total federal income tax collected Derrick – why wouldn’t they receive more?)
The Brookings Institution's and the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center calculate that the top 20 percent of American households would get 88.9 percent of the House's tax-cut benefits while the bottom 20 percent would get only 11.1 percent.
(The top 20% income earners pay over 80% of the income taxes, are you seeing a pattern here Derrick? The bottom 20% of wage earners pay NOTHING – in fact, they RECEIVE MONEY! That 11.1% DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM – THEY DID NOT EARN IT. THAT IS INCOME REDISTRIBUTION COMMRAD!?)
Twenty-four percent of the benefits would go to Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Such people make up only 0.2 percent of the population.
(But they pay 35% of the taxes.)
This is not only Scroogian, it is, ''unmoral, uncaring and without compassion," said Georgia Representative John Lewis.
(Here is where liberals get in trouble. Is it moral to steal from someone and give to another? That is what is going on here. The government is stealing from the wage earners and giving to those that do not earn. Is that moral?)
I could only cover half of the article since the incompetence was overwhelming.
Here is just another example from the Boston Globe:
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Scrooge in the House
By Derrick Z. Jackson December 10, 2005
'Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the House, $50 billion was cut for those considered a mouse. Tax breaks instead hung by the chimney with care, for investors and CEOs, hands already there. America's rich nestled all snug in their beds as $95 billion danced in their heads.
IT WAS expected, of course, that the House of Representatives would do the deed they promised to do before Thanksgiving. They cut $50 billion last month from programs serving low-income Americans. This week they passed the final part of what amounts to $95 billion in tax cuts. It represents a height of taking from the poor to give to the rich.
(Take a class on economics Derrick. Tax cuts mean the wage earner keeps more of HIS money. I is not GIVING to the rich; they EARNED IT, and they get to keep what they earned – reap the benefits of their hard work.)
Out went billions for student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps. In came billions for stock dividends and capital gains.
Regardless of political leanings, economists know where the money is going.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that $70 billion of the $95 billion in tax cuts will go (How about “will stay with”) to households making over $100,000. That category accounts for 14 percent of households. According to the center, that 14 percent will get 74 percent of the money.
(Those households pay 2/3 of the total federal income tax collected Derrick – why wouldn’t they receive more?)
The Brookings Institution's and the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center calculate that the top 20 percent of American households would get 88.9 percent of the House's tax-cut benefits while the bottom 20 percent would get only 11.1 percent.
(The top 20% income earners pay over 80% of the income taxes, are you seeing a pattern here Derrick? The bottom 20% of wage earners pay NOTHING – in fact, they RECEIVE MONEY! That 11.1% DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM – THEY DID NOT EARN IT. THAT IS INCOME REDISTRIBUTION COMMRAD!?)
Twenty-four percent of the benefits would go to Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Such people make up only 0.2 percent of the population.
(But they pay 35% of the taxes.)
This is not only Scroogian, it is, ''unmoral, uncaring and without compassion," said Georgia Representative John Lewis.
(Here is where liberals get in trouble. Is it moral to steal from someone and give to another? That is what is going on here. The government is stealing from the wage earners and giving to those that do not earn. Is that moral?)
I could only cover half of the article since the incompetence was overwhelming.
Blind Ethics
Blind Ethics
Blind Ethics are ethical standards best characterized by the belief that the ends justify the means.
In a business setting, people who have “blind ethics” believe that organizational goals must be achieved no matter by what means, even to the detriment of the organization, and they do so with complete and utter disregard for individual rights and freedoms. Ethically, they are blind to all other aspects of the situation. They have blinders on, and the only object in sight is the ultimate achievement of those organizational goals. They cannot see the “big picture”, nor are they willing to see and understand the unintended consequences of their behavior and actions.
These “blind” think and behave this way because they believe there is nothing ethically or morally better than the organization and its goals. They are subservient to the organization and its goals, and they believe that individual thoughts, rights, and freedoms should succumb to the goals and objectives of the organization.
The ethically blind are a detriment; ethically, morally, and legally, to his or her organization. The repercussions from the actions of the ethically blind and the impact on the organization can be far more egregious and costly to the organization than if those organizational goals were not met or achieved.
These are not ethically or morally corrupt individuals, but rather they are misguided on the importance of organizational goals and the methods used to achieve them.
This misguidance can either be fostered by top management and its corporate culture, or it can be deterred, like any other bad behavior, through behavior modification.
So why do these individuals continue to be employed by their organizations? It is simply because they are useful to top management. The ethically blind can be easily manipulated to accomplish organizational goals by means others would consider unethical or illegal. Used in this vein, the ethically blind also provide management with a scapegoat if and when the unethical or illegal methods utilized to achieve organizational goals are discovered and brought to light making management disavow his or her methodology, and discipline the perpetrator.
Blind Ethics are ethical standards best characterized by the belief that the ends justify the means.
In a business setting, people who have “blind ethics” believe that organizational goals must be achieved no matter by what means, even to the detriment of the organization, and they do so with complete and utter disregard for individual rights and freedoms. Ethically, they are blind to all other aspects of the situation. They have blinders on, and the only object in sight is the ultimate achievement of those organizational goals. They cannot see the “big picture”, nor are they willing to see and understand the unintended consequences of their behavior and actions.
These “blind” think and behave this way because they believe there is nothing ethically or morally better than the organization and its goals. They are subservient to the organization and its goals, and they believe that individual thoughts, rights, and freedoms should succumb to the goals and objectives of the organization.
The ethically blind are a detriment; ethically, morally, and legally, to his or her organization. The repercussions from the actions of the ethically blind and the impact on the organization can be far more egregious and costly to the organization than if those organizational goals were not met or achieved.
These are not ethically or morally corrupt individuals, but rather they are misguided on the importance of organizational goals and the methods used to achieve them.
This misguidance can either be fostered by top management and its corporate culture, or it can be deterred, like any other bad behavior, through behavior modification.
So why do these individuals continue to be employed by their organizations? It is simply because they are useful to top management. The ethically blind can be easily manipulated to accomplish organizational goals by means others would consider unethical or illegal. Used in this vein, the ethically blind also provide management with a scapegoat if and when the unethical or illegal methods utilized to achieve organizational goals are discovered and brought to light making management disavow his or her methodology, and discipline the perpetrator.
Friday, December 16, 2005
I'm Baaaaack...for now
How about a little uncivil old school post...
B: Grandpa, tell me about the great Uncivil War.
G: Ok little Billy; pull up a chair. It all started a long time ago, right after President Hillary was elected. You know Billy; she was the first woman President, even before President Brittany and President Paris. Any who, within her first 100 days of office, she raised taxes on the rich to over 75% and eliminated private health care.
B: Wow Grandpa! Didn’t she think the rich would revolt?
G: Of course not Billy, she was what was once called a progressive-liberal. They never looked at or expected the unintended consequences of their actions.
B: Well why would she do something like that?
G: Well Billy, like all progressive-liberals, she was a socialist. She reasoned that socialism didn’t work in the past because there was no wealth to distribute, but now that capitalism created a lot of wealth, she figured she could forcibly take and distribute that wealth.
B: Couldn’t she see that she was destroying something that created the wealth in the first place? Where did she think new wealth was going to come from?
G: As I said Billy, she was a progressive-liberal, and they didn’t think…of the unintended consequences. They just did what felt good at the time, never looking into the future.
B: Then what happened Grandpa?
G: That’s when the war broke out. Well, it wasn’t really a war. The progressive-liberals also didn’t believe in guns, or war for that matter. The conservatives and the NRA had a field day picking off the PL’s at the abortion clinics and ACLU meetings. Gosh, those were fun times. Winging a PL just to hear him yell, “I’m hit, socialized medicine, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!” (Grandpa chuckles.)
B: Why would progressive-liberals want to start a war when they knew nothing about war or how to fight one? It sounds ridiculous to me. I think you’re making this up just to tease me.
G: If only I were little Billy, but as I keep saying, the progressive-liberals didn’t think. That was their biggest mistake.
B: Now can you tell me the story of progressive-liberal General Custer, and how he wanted to negotiate a peace with the Indians at Little Big Horn, and how the bush conservative Sitting Bull killed him anyway? Can you tell me that one grandpa?
G: Sure Little Billy, once upon a time…
B: Grandpa, tell me about the great Uncivil War.
G: Ok little Billy; pull up a chair. It all started a long time ago, right after President Hillary was elected. You know Billy; she was the first woman President, even before President Brittany and President Paris. Any who, within her first 100 days of office, she raised taxes on the rich to over 75% and eliminated private health care.
B: Wow Grandpa! Didn’t she think the rich would revolt?
G: Of course not Billy, she was what was once called a progressive-liberal. They never looked at or expected the unintended consequences of their actions.
B: Well why would she do something like that?
G: Well Billy, like all progressive-liberals, she was a socialist. She reasoned that socialism didn’t work in the past because there was no wealth to distribute, but now that capitalism created a lot of wealth, she figured she could forcibly take and distribute that wealth.
B: Couldn’t she see that she was destroying something that created the wealth in the first place? Where did she think new wealth was going to come from?
G: As I said Billy, she was a progressive-liberal, and they didn’t think…of the unintended consequences. They just did what felt good at the time, never looking into the future.
B: Then what happened Grandpa?
G: That’s when the war broke out. Well, it wasn’t really a war. The progressive-liberals also didn’t believe in guns, or war for that matter. The conservatives and the NRA had a field day picking off the PL’s at the abortion clinics and ACLU meetings. Gosh, those were fun times. Winging a PL just to hear him yell, “I’m hit, socialized medicine, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!” (Grandpa chuckles.)
B: Why would progressive-liberals want to start a war when they knew nothing about war or how to fight one? It sounds ridiculous to me. I think you’re making this up just to tease me.
G: If only I were little Billy, but as I keep saying, the progressive-liberals didn’t think. That was their biggest mistake.
B: Now can you tell me the story of progressive-liberal General Custer, and how he wanted to negotiate a peace with the Indians at Little Big Horn, and how the bush conservative Sitting Bull killed him anyway? Can you tell me that one grandpa?
G: Sure Little Billy, once upon a time…
