That got your attention. ^_^
So... read this. Please. All the way through. Educate yourself. Cuz if you're on my myspace friends list, and I hear you bitch about gas a week after I post this, I will kick you in the balls. Or other applicable genitalia.
Gasoline Is CheapFour dollars a gallon is outrageous! We should be paying much more.
By Robert Bryce
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2191491/
The next time you have to take out a loan just to fill up your tank, remember this: Four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline is cheap.
There's no doubt that high fuel prices are hurting low-income consumers, and high energy costs are placing a tax on the economy that is slowing investment while sending billions of dollars overseas. It's unsurprising that presidential candidates and members of Congress issue new proposals practically every day to lower gas prices: Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Suspend the federal gas tax! Open ANWR to oil drilling!
These proposals are delusions, and Americans are living in a fantasy land when it comes to energy and energy prices. Over the past few years, consumers have been inundated with news stories about the soaring price of gasoline. Invariably, these stories include comments from a motorist who is outraged at the evils of a) Saudi Arabia, b) OPEC, c) Big Oil, d) all of the above.
But by almost any measure, gasoline is still cheap. In fact, it has probably been far too cheap for far too long. The recent price increases are only beginning to reflect its real value.
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20 percent more than 86 years ago.
Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products—during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5 percent—and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing, and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.
Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4 percent of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1 percent of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. By contrast, the fixed costs of ownership—insurance, licensing, taxes, and financing—have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Maintenance costs have also quintupled over the same time period. Given those increases and the relatively low price of fuel, it's not surprising that Americans are opting for big vehicles with powerful engines. Considering the overall cost of owning a vehicle, fuel expenses just aren't a very big deal.
History shows that significant declines in U.S. oil consumption occur only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups, and other gas guzzlers on our roads. Today's higher prices are forcing consumers to adapt. The EIA now expects U.S. gasoline consumption to decline this year—the first drop in demand in 17 years. In April, sales of small cars in the United States were up by 17 percent over the same period a year earlier while sales of SUVs, trucks, and large cars all fell by about 30 percent.
On the environmental front, people concerned about greenhouse-gas emissions should be cheering today's oil prices. Expensive motor fuel is the only thing that will lead consumers to use less oil and make the switch to hybrid vehicles, smaller cars, and public transit. Higher oil prices are convincing automakers to change their fleets. Earlier this week, Nissan Motor Company announced that it will begin selling an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010. Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, made it clear that fuel prices were a factor in the company's decision to build electric cars, telling the New York Times that "the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing."
American gasoline is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are currently paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States. Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India—where the per capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6 percent of the per capita GDP in the United States)—drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.
(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)
The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Discrimination or Democracy?
So, this recent attack against democracy in California really has me thinking about the issue of homosexual marriage. For the record, I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. I think the government's finger should be in as few cookie jars as possible, and that's one of them. It should be handled by religious or civil organizations. Not congresses or courts or governers. As for the issue itself, I don't care if Joe and Jim get married. That's between Joe, Jim, the sheets, and the attorney. I could care less, as it doesn't affect me. What has me outraged, is the blatant attack against democracy that occured when 5 Justices felt that their opinion was more important than over 60% of Californias. The citizens of that state passed a law by popular vote to ban gay marriage, yet the state's Supreme Court overturned it. Which has stirred this topic in my mind once more. Once I started thinking... you should know by now that it triggers a blog.
Why is gay marriage so important to homosexual couples? Don't they run around and tout their 'I don't care if you judge me attitude?' I'm simply trying to understand it all. Why do they fight so hard for nationwide validation of their relationship? Most states already have all the protections for a homosexual couple that a straight couple does, so why the uphill battle about this? I don't need church or state recognition to validate my relationship with someone. All that matters is that myself, my partner, either male or female, and God Almighty recognize our relationship. Especially when you can have every benefit of marriage.
They do their diversity parades, and talk about how different they are, and how we should embrace their differences, then turn around and sue the government because they want to be just like the straights and get married. If they want to be so different, why would they beg for the exact same thing as everyone else? If they like to stand out and buck the system so much, why fight to be a part of the system? It's the same thing I've never understood about the parades too. Are you that insecure about yourself that you have to join hundreds of other people to parade down streets? I'm a fan of females myself, so should we have a straight pride parade? Where all the girls come out dressed as french maids and school girls, and the guys come around dressed in their manly man outfits? Why do we have gay pride parades and not straight pride parades? Do they need them for the sake of moral? Are they all so insecure in their sexuality, that they have to put it out there for everyone to see? Why do they feel the need to cross dress as nuns and desecrate a Catholic church? So you can veal validated about your sexual preference? If you're born that way, why are you insecure? Why can't you just let it be part of you, and part of your life, and leave it at that? I don't flaunt my straightness by slapping 'Chicks Are Hott' bumper stickers on my car, or wearing shirts that say 'I love jugs' or anything like that.
As for the judgement itself, if a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, are polygamist, incestuous, pedophilic relationships unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line? If anything, relationships between members of the opposite sex involving family members, more than one spouse, or a vast age difference would be more natural than a homosexual relationship, due to those relationships still being able to produce offspring. So, if it's okay to be gay and marry, who is to decide that a 34 year old man can't marry a 15 year old girl if they both want to? Or that a man can't marry his daughter if he wishes? Or that a man can't have 6 wives if they all agree to it? How are those any more unnatural? You can give me the 'Oh, that's sick!' line, but that's still only your opinion. If GLAAD has a case, shouldn't NAMBLA as well? You may think I'm dropping the 'can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up' line, or even compare this to my argument against abortion when I compare it to rape, but that would simply be you dodging a logical argument.
I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong on this issue. I've made my view on the issue known, and I've stated that my main problem is with the court's actions. But think about what I've said. It could start making sense....
Why is gay marriage so important to homosexual couples? Don't they run around and tout their 'I don't care if you judge me attitude?' I'm simply trying to understand it all. Why do they fight so hard for nationwide validation of their relationship? Most states already have all the protections for a homosexual couple that a straight couple does, so why the uphill battle about this? I don't need church or state recognition to validate my relationship with someone. All that matters is that myself, my partner, either male or female, and God Almighty recognize our relationship. Especially when you can have every benefit of marriage.
They do their diversity parades, and talk about how different they are, and how we should embrace their differences, then turn around and sue the government because they want to be just like the straights and get married. If they want to be so different, why would they beg for the exact same thing as everyone else? If they like to stand out and buck the system so much, why fight to be a part of the system? It's the same thing I've never understood about the parades too. Are you that insecure about yourself that you have to join hundreds of other people to parade down streets? I'm a fan of females myself, so should we have a straight pride parade? Where all the girls come out dressed as french maids and school girls, and the guys come around dressed in their manly man outfits? Why do we have gay pride parades and not straight pride parades? Do they need them for the sake of moral? Are they all so insecure in their sexuality, that they have to put it out there for everyone to see? Why do they feel the need to cross dress as nuns and desecrate a Catholic church? So you can veal validated about your sexual preference? If you're born that way, why are you insecure? Why can't you just let it be part of you, and part of your life, and leave it at that? I don't flaunt my straightness by slapping 'Chicks Are Hott' bumper stickers on my car, or wearing shirts that say 'I love jugs' or anything like that.
As for the judgement itself, if a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, are polygamist, incestuous, pedophilic relationships unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line? If anything, relationships between members of the opposite sex involving family members, more than one spouse, or a vast age difference would be more natural than a homosexual relationship, due to those relationships still being able to produce offspring. So, if it's okay to be gay and marry, who is to decide that a 34 year old man can't marry a 15 year old girl if they both want to? Or that a man can't marry his daughter if he wishes? Or that a man can't have 6 wives if they all agree to it? How are those any more unnatural? You can give me the 'Oh, that's sick!' line, but that's still only your opinion. If GLAAD has a case, shouldn't NAMBLA as well? You may think I'm dropping the 'can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up' line, or even compare this to my argument against abortion when I compare it to rape, but that would simply be you dodging a logical argument.
I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong on this issue. I've made my view on the issue known, and I've stated that my main problem is with the court's actions. But think about what I've said. It could start making sense....
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Review of: Speed Racer
Speeding into theatres last weekend in a disappointing opening, was Speed Racer. The minds behind the Matrix movies adapted the story to the big screen. I would say they adapted it to a live action movie, but that would be stretching it a bit. I don't know that anyone in this movie actually moved, or if they just moved the CG around them. Either way, I caught an afternoon Matinee on Saturday at a local theatre, and here's what I thought.
So, we'll start with the bad, so we can go out on a good note. My main problem with the movie was it's length. It dragged at times. When the action was rolling, I was in the zone and ready to go, but the other parts of the movie lagged a bit, and I felt myself getting bored more than once. Noticeably towards the end, where Speed has a flashback that basically recaps the entire movie. I had no problem with the movie being done with so much CG, because that's the only way they could have done this movie 'right.' The seizure-enducing colors and lights didn't really bother me either. But the length really bothered me.
I also got confused a few times, as to where the story was heading. Particularly when he's turns down the sponsorship offer, what I thought was a what if sequence, ended up being flashes of something actually happen. It was a crucial part of the story, being the bottom of the pendulum swing of the story, but they didn't really give that part of the story the time it needed. Maybe they should have disposed with some of the boring talk, and shown that race more, instead of showing it while some guy told him what would happen. After that scene was over, I found myself scratching my head like, 'Oh, wait, that was actually happening?' It was minor, but it kinda took me out of the story for a moment.
I've compared this movie to two others, to give people a good idea. I compare it to Iron Man as a 2008 summer movie, and I compare it to Transformers as an 'old school cartoon' adaption. Unfortunately, both of those movies were better than Speed Racer. I'll give the Wachowski's credit, Speed Racer was certainly better than the 2 Matrix sequels, but sadly that's not saying much. I just didn't feel Speed Racer was as exciting or action packed as Transformers or Iron Man. I didn't find myself bored at all during either of those movies, but there were definite lulls in Speed Racer. Hopefully they're easily skipped n the DVD version.
Now, to be more upbeat. Much in the same way I praised Iron Man, the casting for this movie was spot on 110%. I think every actor fit the part very well, but I was notably fond of John Goodman and Matthew Fox in their roles as Pops and Racer X respectively. I believed every character wasn't an actor, but the actual character. I was pessimistic about Matthew Fox, and the actor that played Speed... but I loved them both in the roles. The ninja scene was pretty cool, and all of the races were amazingly spectacular. I thought of someone trying to adapt something like Mario Kart or the old Wacky Races cartoon to a movie, and I see neither of those working as well as Speed Racer did. I really felt the Wachowski's captured the feel of the cartoon when it came to the races and the action. The 'Car'ate was amazing, and had me captivated throughout it. It was quite satisfying to watch those cars spin, flip, and explode their way across the screen. The scenes were epic and beautiful, and fit the feel of the movie very well. If anything, consider this movie as a gorgeous work of CG art, if not an entertaining flick.
Even the story was good. I liked that they gave the story some depth, but kept it to the point that it's still an accessible movie. Clear cut good guys and bad guys, and it wasn't all "fast and furious' style, where the hero has to win the race so he can prove that he has bigger cajones than his opponent. I imagine that if I was about 10 years younger, I would be utterly obsessed with Speed Racer after seeing this movie, at least until the next Iron Man commercial I saw.
Surprisingly I didn't hate the little kid or the monkey either. They both fit in well, giving some comic relief, and they're part of the story that shouldn't have been left out. Granted, I found myself rolling my eyes a couple times, including them running around after eating a bunch of candy, but nonetheless it didn't take away from the flick for me.
Overall, I recommend grabbing this at a matinee, or at least buying the DVD. You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't end up seeing this movie at some point. It's a worthwhile flick, that I imagine will be fun to watch from time to time, when I'm in the mood for something a little whacky. I went in expecting nothing, and came out surprised. It was quite a bit better than I thought it would be, and find myself almost excited to watch it with a more intense eye once the DVD comes out.
Final Score- 8.5/10
Better Than- Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious 2, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions
Not Quite- Transformers, Iron Man, F&F: Tokyo Drift
So, we'll start with the bad, so we can go out on a good note. My main problem with the movie was it's length. It dragged at times. When the action was rolling, I was in the zone and ready to go, but the other parts of the movie lagged a bit, and I felt myself getting bored more than once. Noticeably towards the end, where Speed has a flashback that basically recaps the entire movie. I had no problem with the movie being done with so much CG, because that's the only way they could have done this movie 'right.' The seizure-enducing colors and lights didn't really bother me either. But the length really bothered me.
I also got confused a few times, as to where the story was heading. Particularly when he's turns down the sponsorship offer, what I thought was a what if sequence, ended up being flashes of something actually happen. It was a crucial part of the story, being the bottom of the pendulum swing of the story, but they didn't really give that part of the story the time it needed. Maybe they should have disposed with some of the boring talk, and shown that race more, instead of showing it while some guy told him what would happen. After that scene was over, I found myself scratching my head like, 'Oh, wait, that was actually happening?' It was minor, but it kinda took me out of the story for a moment.
I've compared this movie to two others, to give people a good idea. I compare it to Iron Man as a 2008 summer movie, and I compare it to Transformers as an 'old school cartoon' adaption. Unfortunately, both of those movies were better than Speed Racer. I'll give the Wachowski's credit, Speed Racer was certainly better than the 2 Matrix sequels, but sadly that's not saying much. I just didn't feel Speed Racer was as exciting or action packed as Transformers or Iron Man. I didn't find myself bored at all during either of those movies, but there were definite lulls in Speed Racer. Hopefully they're easily skipped n the DVD version.
Now, to be more upbeat. Much in the same way I praised Iron Man, the casting for this movie was spot on 110%. I think every actor fit the part very well, but I was notably fond of John Goodman and Matthew Fox in their roles as Pops and Racer X respectively. I believed every character wasn't an actor, but the actual character. I was pessimistic about Matthew Fox, and the actor that played Speed... but I loved them both in the roles. The ninja scene was pretty cool, and all of the races were amazingly spectacular. I thought of someone trying to adapt something like Mario Kart or the old Wacky Races cartoon to a movie, and I see neither of those working as well as Speed Racer did. I really felt the Wachowski's captured the feel of the cartoon when it came to the races and the action. The 'Car'ate was amazing, and had me captivated throughout it. It was quite satisfying to watch those cars spin, flip, and explode their way across the screen. The scenes were epic and beautiful, and fit the feel of the movie very well. If anything, consider this movie as a gorgeous work of CG art, if not an entertaining flick.
Even the story was good. I liked that they gave the story some depth, but kept it to the point that it's still an accessible movie. Clear cut good guys and bad guys, and it wasn't all "fast and furious' style, where the hero has to win the race so he can prove that he has bigger cajones than his opponent. I imagine that if I was about 10 years younger, I would be utterly obsessed with Speed Racer after seeing this movie, at least until the next Iron Man commercial I saw.
Surprisingly I didn't hate the little kid or the monkey either. They both fit in well, giving some comic relief, and they're part of the story that shouldn't have been left out. Granted, I found myself rolling my eyes a couple times, including them running around after eating a bunch of candy, but nonetheless it didn't take away from the flick for me.
Overall, I recommend grabbing this at a matinee, or at least buying the DVD. You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't end up seeing this movie at some point. It's a worthwhile flick, that I imagine will be fun to watch from time to time, when I'm in the mood for something a little whacky. I went in expecting nothing, and came out surprised. It was quite a bit better than I thought it would be, and find myself almost excited to watch it with a more intense eye once the DVD comes out.
Final Score- 8.5/10
Better Than- Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious 2, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions
Not Quite- Transformers, Iron Man, F&F: Tokyo Drift
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Review of: Iron Man
So, some of you may have heard of a movie that came out last weekend, put out by a pretty small studio. It did mildly decent at the box office, and you might have even seen it in theatres. Of course, I'm talking about Iron Man, the first movie produced by Marvel Studios. And of course, if you haven't seen this, you now have a homework assignment after you're finished with this article.
Now, this movie made some fat stacks at the box office, stuck it's big metal book right through the box office, and officially opened up the movie season, setting the bar for the summer pretty high. Granted, there was no competition to speak of in the theaters, but still.
So, basically this big time weapons developer gets kidnapped, builds a suit of armor, and kicks some terrorist tail. I don't feel like spoiling anything for the few of you that have yet to watch it, but you need to see it, and soon. Also, when you go, stay after the credits for an added bonus. It's completely worth it.
So, automatically people judge this movie against other comic movies. In that spirit, I'll do the same. This is tied for the best superhero movie I've seen. I don't want to judge this against 300, or V, or Sin City, because they're different types of movies. The only other superhero movie that measures up for me was Batman Begins. Why you may ask? Honestly, I break it down like this- Iron Man couldn't have survived without the CGI 'crutch.' I think Batman Begins comes across more realistic to me simply because it was less CGI. That's not a slight to Iron Man, because there's no way they could make a movie like that without the CGI aspect, but that's the point for me. That being said, I enjoyed BB as a solo movie more, but I could honestly see myself rewatching Iron Man more if Marvel keeps intertwining their movies together the way they have been. Batman Begins is a better solo movie, but Iron Man comes out better as a 'universe' movie, if that makes sense.
But back to Iron Man. This is hands down, one of the best origin stories to date. I think it did it better than Spiderman, X-men, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Superman, any of them. I was not bored at any point during this movie, and Robert Downey Jr. owned that screen every time the camera panned to him. I liked that it was so fast paced, and it started up with action. I like being thrown into a movie head first. That starting action gets my heart pumpin, and gets me psyched for the rest of the movie. They didn't really crap around much, and they just gave it to us straight forward. Robert Downey was brilliant and clever as Stark as well as Iron Man. I'm really glad that Jarvis was only the computer, and not an Alfred-like butler as he is in the 616 universe. It was a believable story of failure and betrayal, and that really helps the comic story connect with the people. I loved the fact that they didn't weigh the movie down with mushy romance, that it was simply an after touch. I'm also pretty happy that Stark wasn't in the suit the whole movie too, so we had alot more of the human interaction, which I liked. It truly was an amazing telling of an origin story.
If I had to pick out something bad in the movie? They spent half the movie showing Stark getting control of, and building his armor. Obadiah jumped right into the suit and beat down SHIELD with it.That was a bit unbelievable, but he also had an entire team working on it which I guess could explain it. So even that isn't bad. I kinda wanna say I didn't like Obadiah's little sonic device either, but it didn't necessarily damage the movie. Overall I thought Obadiah was a believable villian, and the best origin villain to date in a movie to date. He may not have been the most exciting in Stark's rogue's gallery, but there isn't another villain that would have worked better in an origin story.
Of course, the blatant references to SHIELD and The Mandarin really got me rolling too. I loved that they blended both in, without rubbing it in your face. The scene where the SHIELD guys blow that door open... love it. I love the little nods to the fan boys as well. Of course, the scene after the credits takes the cake. That 45 second clip made me SO frakkin happy. I was so stoked when I saw that scene... and I talk about it to all sorts of people. I loved it after the credits too, because it fit so well.
In the end, the summer has a high bar to reach, and I give kudos to Marvel for stepping up and launching into the summer like that, and kudos the Favreau and Downey for rockin the movie that hard.
Final Score- 10
Tied With- Batman Begins
Better Than- Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Superman
Now, this movie made some fat stacks at the box office, stuck it's big metal book right through the box office, and officially opened up the movie season, setting the bar for the summer pretty high. Granted, there was no competition to speak of in the theaters, but still.
So, basically this big time weapons developer gets kidnapped, builds a suit of armor, and kicks some terrorist tail. I don't feel like spoiling anything for the few of you that have yet to watch it, but you need to see it, and soon. Also, when you go, stay after the credits for an added bonus. It's completely worth it.
So, automatically people judge this movie against other comic movies. In that spirit, I'll do the same. This is tied for the best superhero movie I've seen. I don't want to judge this against 300, or V, or Sin City, because they're different types of movies. The only other superhero movie that measures up for me was Batman Begins. Why you may ask? Honestly, I break it down like this- Iron Man couldn't have survived without the CGI 'crutch.' I think Batman Begins comes across more realistic to me simply because it was less CGI. That's not a slight to Iron Man, because there's no way they could make a movie like that without the CGI aspect, but that's the point for me. That being said, I enjoyed BB as a solo movie more, but I could honestly see myself rewatching Iron Man more if Marvel keeps intertwining their movies together the way they have been. Batman Begins is a better solo movie, but Iron Man comes out better as a 'universe' movie, if that makes sense.
But back to Iron Man. This is hands down, one of the best origin stories to date. I think it did it better than Spiderman, X-men, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Superman, any of them. I was not bored at any point during this movie, and Robert Downey Jr. owned that screen every time the camera panned to him. I liked that it was so fast paced, and it started up with action. I like being thrown into a movie head first. That starting action gets my heart pumpin, and gets me psyched for the rest of the movie. They didn't really crap around much, and they just gave it to us straight forward. Robert Downey was brilliant and clever as Stark as well as Iron Man. I'm really glad that Jarvis was only the computer, and not an Alfred-like butler as he is in the 616 universe. It was a believable story of failure and betrayal, and that really helps the comic story connect with the people. I loved the fact that they didn't weigh the movie down with mushy romance, that it was simply an after touch. I'm also pretty happy that Stark wasn't in the suit the whole movie too, so we had alot more of the human interaction, which I liked. It truly was an amazing telling of an origin story.
If I had to pick out something bad in the movie? They spent half the movie showing Stark getting control of, and building his armor. Obadiah jumped right into the suit and beat down SHIELD with it.That was a bit unbelievable, but he also had an entire team working on it which I guess could explain it. So even that isn't bad. I kinda wanna say I didn't like Obadiah's little sonic device either, but it didn't necessarily damage the movie. Overall I thought Obadiah was a believable villian, and the best origin villain to date in a movie to date. He may not have been the most exciting in Stark's rogue's gallery, but there isn't another villain that would have worked better in an origin story.
Of course, the blatant references to SHIELD and The Mandarin really got me rolling too. I loved that they blended both in, without rubbing it in your face. The scene where the SHIELD guys blow that door open... love it. I love the little nods to the fan boys as well. Of course, the scene after the credits takes the cake. That 45 second clip made me SO frakkin happy. I was so stoked when I saw that scene... and I talk about it to all sorts of people. I loved it after the credits too, because it fit so well.
In the end, the summer has a high bar to reach, and I give kudos to Marvel for stepping up and launching into the summer like that, and kudos the Favreau and Downey for rockin the movie that hard.
Final Score- 10
Tied With- Batman Begins
Better Than- Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Superman
Animal Rights? What About Human Rights?
So, animal rights have been thrust into the spotlight once more with this issue of the horse that broke it's leg at the derby this past weekend. With that, PETA has stepped in to toot their horn once more, and the debate rages on once more. I, however, have a problem with animal rights activists.
Of course, I love animals. I'm not for animal abuse, as many interweb-nazis might like to proclaim after reading this. Animals deserve fair and decent treatment, as much as people do. But therein lies the problem. The problem is animal rights activists caring more about animals than they do people.
PETA gets angry about death and mistreatment of animals, when there is still abortion and animal abuse on a large scale. That is the problem I have. Should we not worry about our own kind first? Granted, it's wrong to kill furry little creatures for the sake of manufacturing coats. If you live in the wilderness and you survive on only natural means, then fine. For food? That's another issue. We all need to eat, and not eating meat is detrimental to the human body. But that being said, should we not crusade for life all together, not simply animal rights? Should PETA supporters not protest abortion as vehemently as they protest animals being killed for profit? Should abortion supporters be allowed to throw buckets of human blood ..ionists? How are killing defenseless animals for the sake of selling their furs and worse than killing a child simply because it's inconvenient and unwanted?
The majority of avid PETA members and supporters are left wingers too, which is also the ideological wing that would probably permit abortion long past birth. I imagine most lefties would be okay with killing an inconvenient child up until they're having sex for themselves, or at least old enough for their schools to give them birth control without their parents' consent. These days that's what? 12 years old? 11 maybe?
At the Taste Of Chaos tour this year, I actually joined a PETA mailing list. Granted I was hammered, but after the guy told me I could still eat steaks after signing it, I did. I reiterate, I love fury little critters, and don't like to see any suffer. To me, someone who abuses or neglects their dog or cat is as bad as my parents, who abused and neglected their child. However, I don't see how people can go on crusades to protect and save animals when there are still all these children being abused or aborted every day. I know that, in the same way they care more about terrorists than Americans, they tend to not care about their own kind. However, it still baffles me that people could be like that.
All I'm saying is, maybe we oughta care more about human rights before we go on crusades for animals, eh? There are harsher penalties for animal abuse these days than there are for killing another human. I mean, they shout about how we need to leave Iraq to deal with problems at home... so let's ditch the animals for a bit to deal with problems with humans, eh?
Of course, I love animals. I'm not for animal abuse, as many interweb-nazis might like to proclaim after reading this. Animals deserve fair and decent treatment, as much as people do. But therein lies the problem. The problem is animal rights activists caring more about animals than they do people.
PETA gets angry about death and mistreatment of animals, when there is still abortion and animal abuse on a large scale. That is the problem I have. Should we not worry about our own kind first? Granted, it's wrong to kill furry little creatures for the sake of manufacturing coats. If you live in the wilderness and you survive on only natural means, then fine. For food? That's another issue. We all need to eat, and not eating meat is detrimental to the human body. But that being said, should we not crusade for life all together, not simply animal rights? Should PETA supporters not protest abortion as vehemently as they protest animals being killed for profit? Should abortion supporters be allowed to throw buckets of human blood ..ionists? How are killing defenseless animals for the sake of selling their furs and worse than killing a child simply because it's inconvenient and unwanted?
The majority of avid PETA members and supporters are left wingers too, which is also the ideological wing that would probably permit abortion long past birth. I imagine most lefties would be okay with killing an inconvenient child up until they're having sex for themselves, or at least old enough for their schools to give them birth control without their parents' consent. These days that's what? 12 years old? 11 maybe?
At the Taste Of Chaos tour this year, I actually joined a PETA mailing list. Granted I was hammered, but after the guy told me I could still eat steaks after signing it, I did. I reiterate, I love fury little critters, and don't like to see any suffer. To me, someone who abuses or neglects their dog or cat is as bad as my parents, who abused and neglected their child. However, I don't see how people can go on crusades to protect and save animals when there are still all these children being abused or aborted every day. I know that, in the same way they care more about terrorists than Americans, they tend to not care about their own kind. However, it still baffles me that people could be like that.
All I'm saying is, maybe we oughta care more about human rights before we go on crusades for animals, eh? There are harsher penalties for animal abuse these days than there are for killing another human. I mean, they shout about how we need to leave Iraq to deal with problems at home... so let's ditch the animals for a bit to deal with problems with humans, eh?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A So-Called ’Recession’
We're in this huge recession now, right? Our economy is falling apart, if you listen to the majority of pundits these days. Prices are too high, income is too low and people just have no extra money. They can't even afford their food or mortgages. I mean... 6% of mortgages are falling apart. SIX PERCENT!!! Can you believe that? That is horribly tragic. Our unemployment rate is, what? 6.5%? Foreclosures are up 23%, home prices down 13%. I mean... America is falling apart!!! Of course, we're not falling apart near as badly was we were in the Depression, or even during Carter's administration. But our economy is so bad that the government had to send out checks of free money to everyone to attempt to inject a boost into the economy.
Now, those of you that know anything about modern entertainment know that this week is the release of the much anticipated Grand Theft Auto 4 on the next gen video game consoles. This is a game that runs $60 new, not counting a deluxe edition that comes in a lock box that runs around $90. There are preorders out the yin yang for this game, and there were people waiting in line to pick up their copies yesterday. Kids stayed home from school to get and play this game. This game sells millions of copies... in a country where the economy is in a recession?
Last quarter, Apple sold over 2 million iphones and more than 10 million ipods. It's tragic, that our economy is so shaky that ONLY 2 million people got new iphones last quarter. It's George Bush's fault that we didn't sell 11 million ipods. That selfish jerk and his war for oil! How dare he crap on our economy like that. Doesn't he know we need to see at least 15 million ipods to have a strong academy?
Movie season begins with Iron Man this Friday. Would you be willing to bet that Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Speed Racer, Sex & The City, Incredible Hulk, Dark Knight, and movies like that are going to make tens of millions of dollars? I'd be willing to bet that. Even though everyone is so broke! They'll still go out to see those movies, I know I will. How bad is the economy, really, if people are still willing to pay $11 a ticket to see a 2 hour movie, much less people willing to pay $200 million to make the movie?
MasterCard and Visa finished great quarters too. It kills me. They finished great, because people have too many credit cards and wrack up too much debt. They get elbow deep in debt they can't manage, then cry to be bailed out of it.
Let's talk about the Fortune 500 list. Ford, Wal Mart, & GE in the top 10? Why aren't we screaming about their evil profits, as well as gas companies? Why aren't we screaming about Apple's sales? Why aren't we screaming about all the video game profit? If everyone is so strapped for cash, how is Grand Theft Auto 4 selling so well already? How did the $200 video game 'Rock Band' sell that well? Poor money management. That's how. Don't whine and cry to me about how expensive gas is, and how you're broke and can't buy food, then go buy a $200 or $60 video game. Straighten up, and take care of yourself. Personal responsibility is a common theme I mention, and I bring it up once again. If you feel you're strapped for cash, cut your spending on nonessential crap.
Now, those of you that know anything about modern entertainment know that this week is the release of the much anticipated Grand Theft Auto 4 on the next gen video game consoles. This is a game that runs $60 new, not counting a deluxe edition that comes in a lock box that runs around $90. There are preorders out the yin yang for this game, and there were people waiting in line to pick up their copies yesterday. Kids stayed home from school to get and play this game. This game sells millions of copies... in a country where the economy is in a recession?
Last quarter, Apple sold over 2 million iphones and more than 10 million ipods. It's tragic, that our economy is so shaky that ONLY 2 million people got new iphones last quarter. It's George Bush's fault that we didn't sell 11 million ipods. That selfish jerk and his war for oil! How dare he crap on our economy like that. Doesn't he know we need to see at least 15 million ipods to have a strong academy?
Movie season begins with Iron Man this Friday. Would you be willing to bet that Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Speed Racer, Sex & The City, Incredible Hulk, Dark Knight, and movies like that are going to make tens of millions of dollars? I'd be willing to bet that. Even though everyone is so broke! They'll still go out to see those movies, I know I will. How bad is the economy, really, if people are still willing to pay $11 a ticket to see a 2 hour movie, much less people willing to pay $200 million to make the movie?
MasterCard and Visa finished great quarters too. It kills me. They finished great, because people have too many credit cards and wrack up too much debt. They get elbow deep in debt they can't manage, then cry to be bailed out of it.
Let's talk about the Fortune 500 list. Ford, Wal Mart, & GE in the top 10? Why aren't we screaming about their evil profits, as well as gas companies? Why aren't we screaming about Apple's sales? Why aren't we screaming about all the video game profit? If everyone is so strapped for cash, how is Grand Theft Auto 4 selling so well already? How did the $200 video game 'Rock Band' sell that well? Poor money management. That's how. Don't whine and cry to me about how expensive gas is, and how you're broke and can't buy food, then go buy a $200 or $60 video game. Straighten up, and take care of yourself. Personal responsibility is a common theme I mention, and I bring it up once again. If you feel you're strapped for cash, cut your spending on nonessential crap.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Due to the increased paranoia of my co-workers...
I have been suspended from Krogers 832, indefinitely, on July 6, 2007. For writing in my blogs on my myspace. The link is www.myspace.com/whodey69. This is not an explicative filled blog. This is a simple statement. I was under the impression that I was excercising protected rights. I was wrong.
"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers""
"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies."
I did not make these blogs, or pass these blogs out at Kroger. I've never even given the link to someone while on Kroger property, or time. I simply wrote them on my myspace and left it at that. Maybe it was offensive to someone, maybe it made someone uncomfortable. Okay then, don't read it. I will not apologize, or tuck my tail between my legs. I will stand proud beside my work. There is nothing wrong with expressing your feelings online. Some people write in a journal. Some people gossip with other people. Sometimes people just keep it all bottled up. I blog it. And people like to read my blogs. If you don't beleive me, look at all of the comments I get. They're a hit. I simply report what happens to me, and others, in my daily life. I put my own humurous spin on it, and I write it in the language I speak. It's my personal choice to speak that way, as I see nothing wrong with my language, and I don't view any word as a "cuss" word.
I never allowed my blogs to interfere with my work at Kroger. I always came to work, and respected my managers and co-workers, regardless of my personal feelings or what I've said in blogs. I had a job to do, and I did it. I dealt with my personal problems elsewhere. I graduated high school in 2005, and assumed that people in the work force could be mature enough to handle things as adults. I was wrong. Instead of simply ignoring what I read, they continued to read it, then cried to management as if they were the Principal or Dean of a high school. I maintained a proffesional relationship with everyone, regardless of my feelings. I put the customer, and the company before my personal vendetta or feelings against or for another person.
So, I stood around doing my job, and the immaturity of others won over as management decided to pull me from my job, and spend a half an hour meeting with me, before suspending me, for speaking on my time, on my website, completely away from Kroger. But apparently the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press do not matter to my company. They've suspended me, and probably intend to fire me. I've been loyal to that company for 4 years so far, and had intentions of riding it until the wheels fell off. But someone was uncomfortable, so they felt the need to punish me for my private life. What's next? The firing of homosexuals for being gay? How about someone get suspended for not liking Hillary Clinton?! That sounds like it could work. Maybe because my car is in a public place, they could fire me for having a book they don't like in my front seat.
This is garbage, and a violation of my rights. Not to mention a waste of resources. Kroger has nothing better to spend it's time and money on than investigating and firing people for writing on their myspaces. There were no physical threats, just personal opinions, facts, hear-say, and history. So it begins. The silence of free speech is here. Congress wants a "fairness" bill to mediate radio, people get fired for voicing their personal opinions. Where does it stop? There is no end in sight.
"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers""
"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies."
I did not make these blogs, or pass these blogs out at Kroger. I've never even given the link to someone while on Kroger property, or time. I simply wrote them on my myspace and left it at that. Maybe it was offensive to someone, maybe it made someone uncomfortable. Okay then, don't read it. I will not apologize, or tuck my tail between my legs. I will stand proud beside my work. There is nothing wrong with expressing your feelings online. Some people write in a journal. Some people gossip with other people. Sometimes people just keep it all bottled up. I blog it. And people like to read my blogs. If you don't beleive me, look at all of the comments I get. They're a hit. I simply report what happens to me, and others, in my daily life. I put my own humurous spin on it, and I write it in the language I speak. It's my personal choice to speak that way, as I see nothing wrong with my language, and I don't view any word as a "cuss" word.
I never allowed my blogs to interfere with my work at Kroger. I always came to work, and respected my managers and co-workers, regardless of my personal feelings or what I've said in blogs. I had a job to do, and I did it. I dealt with my personal problems elsewhere. I graduated high school in 2005, and assumed that people in the work force could be mature enough to handle things as adults. I was wrong. Instead of simply ignoring what I read, they continued to read it, then cried to management as if they were the Principal or Dean of a high school. I maintained a proffesional relationship with everyone, regardless of my feelings. I put the customer, and the company before my personal vendetta or feelings against or for another person.
So, I stood around doing my job, and the immaturity of others won over as management decided to pull me from my job, and spend a half an hour meeting with me, before suspending me, for speaking on my time, on my website, completely away from Kroger. But apparently the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press do not matter to my company. They've suspended me, and probably intend to fire me. I've been loyal to that company for 4 years so far, and had intentions of riding it until the wheels fell off. But someone was uncomfortable, so they felt the need to punish me for my private life. What's next? The firing of homosexuals for being gay? How about someone get suspended for not liking Hillary Clinton?! That sounds like it could work. Maybe because my car is in a public place, they could fire me for having a book they don't like in my front seat.
This is garbage, and a violation of my rights. Not to mention a waste of resources. Kroger has nothing better to spend it's time and money on than investigating and firing people for writing on their myspaces. There were no physical threats, just personal opinions, facts, hear-say, and history. So it begins. The silence of free speech is here. Congress wants a "fairness" bill to mediate radio, people get fired for voicing their personal opinions. Where does it stop? There is no end in sight.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Guns don't kill people. Fucktards with guns kill people.
From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.
But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.
Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.
It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.
The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.
From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?
It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.
Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.
But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.
Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.
Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.
Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.
But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.
^^^^ Genius. In every sense of the word.
All praises be to A.C.
But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.
Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.
It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.
The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.
From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?
It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.
Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.
But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.
Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.
Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.
Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.
But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.
^^^^ Genius. In every sense of the word.
All praises be to A.C.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
am I a racist?
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a White people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever White are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
What do you think? I was considering putting this on my website. But I think it might be considered racist against non-white cultures. What do you think?
Be careful what you answer. Replace the word "white" with the word "black" and you have Obama's church beliefs.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
Do we really want someone who believes in such segregation, running our nation?
We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever White are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
What do you think? I was considering putting this on my website. But I think it might be considered racist against non-white cultures. What do you think?
Be careful what you answer. Replace the word "white" with the word "black" and you have Obama's church beliefs.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
Do we really want someone who believes in such segregation, running our nation?
Friday, February 2, 2007
Objectify Women
[Verse 1]
She makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
Just one touch
And I errupt like a volcano and cover her with my love
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
And I just can't think (of anything else I'd rather do)
Than to hear you sing (sing my name the way you do)
When we do our thing (when we do the things we do)
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
[Chorus]
Sexy love girl the things you do
Keep me sprung keep running back to you
Who I love making love to you
Babygirl you know your my (sexy love...)
[Verse 3]
Oh baby what we do it makes the sun come up
Keep on lovin' til it goes back down
And I don't know what I would do if I would lose your touch
That's why I'm keepin' you around... my sexy love
Those are some of the lyrics to a song, "Sexy Love" which Angela absolutely adores. Now, due to my past, my girlfriend and I had a conversation regarding strip clubs. Of course she gave the typical female response:
"It's degrading to women. It objectifies women."
That whole routine. Now, I sit back and listen to songs like "sexy love" and I find myself wondering how it's any different. Girls will adore a song, sung by a black man, that is basically saying he's with her because the sex is good, but men watching naked women is bad. They can hang posters of oiled up guys on their walls, but guys admiring a female body objectifies them. How is that right?
Another very popular song, "U and Dat," is very popular, where the artists are very openly talking about wanting to get to them and hook up with them for the night. "Whisper in your ear while I'm holding my dick" is one of the lines in this song. Another example of a song that makes women out to be nothing more than a piece of ass. Fun for a night.But the girls love it. They request it all the time. They buy the cds.
The artist "Akon" sings a song called "Smack That." As you can probably assume by the title, it referring to smacking the girls ass. Throughout the song he talks about "maybe go to my place and just kick it like tae bo, and possibly bend you over and smack that." Another man referring to women as nothing more than a piece of ass. But it sits on top of Yahoo Music's video list. I hear it on the radio all the time. Does this not objectify women as much as exotic dancing or pornography? What's the difference? What part of the equation am I missing?
Another great example of a very popular song that objectifies women is “Laffy Taffy.” The whole song is about a girl dancing (at one point “on a pole”) and how the rappers want to take the girl home. See, if a rapper talks about strippers, or goes to a strip club, or sings about taking a girl home for sex, or lusting after a girl… it’s ok. But if anyone else does it, then they’re degrading women.
I could do this for days. The song “Gimme That” by “Lil Boosie” (wtf?) and “Lil Webbie” (WTF?) is the exact same thing. The song says “Girl gimme that pussy.” That’s the fucking song. I can’t do it. Someone please explain this to me. Show me the logic.
She makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
Just one touch
And I errupt like a volcano and cover her with my love
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
And I just can't think (of anything else I'd rather do)
Than to hear you sing (sing my name the way you do)
When we do our thing (when we do the things we do)
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
[Chorus]
Sexy love girl the things you do
Keep me sprung keep running back to you
Who I love making love to you
Babygirl you know your my (sexy love...)
[Verse 3]
Oh baby what we do it makes the sun come up
Keep on lovin' til it goes back down
And I don't know what I would do if I would lose your touch
That's why I'm keepin' you around... my sexy love
Those are some of the lyrics to a song, "Sexy Love" which Angela absolutely adores. Now, due to my past, my girlfriend and I had a conversation regarding strip clubs. Of course she gave the typical female response:
"It's degrading to women. It objectifies women."
That whole routine. Now, I sit back and listen to songs like "sexy love" and I find myself wondering how it's any different. Girls will adore a song, sung by a black man, that is basically saying he's with her because the sex is good, but men watching naked women is bad. They can hang posters of oiled up guys on their walls, but guys admiring a female body objectifies them. How is that right?
Another very popular song, "U and Dat," is very popular, where the artists are very openly talking about wanting to get to them and hook up with them for the night. "Whisper in your ear while I'm holding my dick" is one of the lines in this song. Another example of a song that makes women out to be nothing more than a piece of ass. Fun for a night.But the girls love it. They request it all the time. They buy the cds.
The artist "Akon" sings a song called "Smack That." As you can probably assume by the title, it referring to smacking the girls ass. Throughout the song he talks about "maybe go to my place and just kick it like tae bo, and possibly bend you over and smack that." Another man referring to women as nothing more than a piece of ass. But it sits on top of Yahoo Music's video list. I hear it on the radio all the time. Does this not objectify women as much as exotic dancing or pornography? What's the difference? What part of the equation am I missing?
Another great example of a very popular song that objectifies women is “Laffy Taffy.” The whole song is about a girl dancing (at one point “on a pole”) and how the rappers want to take the girl home. See, if a rapper talks about strippers, or goes to a strip club, or sings about taking a girl home for sex, or lusting after a girl… it’s ok. But if anyone else does it, then they’re degrading women.
I could do this for days. The song “Gimme That” by “Lil Boosie” (wtf?) and “Lil Webbie” (WTF?) is the exact same thing. The song says “Girl gimme that pussy.” That’s the fucking song. I can’t do it. Someone please explain this to me. Show me the logic.
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Ignorance of Our Dying Society
This week a black boy, a South High school graduate/ "supposed" basketball star, was shot and killed while trying to break into and rob someone else's house. And now he get's bulletins like this ""R.I.P JOHN CARSON" SPRINGFIELD LEGEND" all across myspace.
So, you get killed trying to rob someone, and instead of everyone pointing out that you're an idiot, you're loved? How the fuck does that work? I mean, it's bad enough he was stupid enough to try and rob someone else, but add that to being stupid enough to do it and get shot? We should be using his story in elementary schools to show dumbass kids what not to do. Not praising him for it. And if he was white, we probably would be. But he's not. He was black. So of course, he's being immortalized. All the "G's," "hoodrats," "street teams," "gangstas," and "homies" are all crying outrage, legacy, "thug love." And who can blame them? I mean, all he was doing was trying to rob someone else. But seriously. Give me a fucking break. The dumbass tried to break into someone's house and steal their stuff. He deserved it. I only hope he bled and suffered a little bit before he died. If only so he learned a lesson before he died. Give it a week and I'm sure the liberals will be using this as a reason for pushing Gun Control. I can see the arguments now:
"This poor BLACK man was simply trying to get by, and this fool thought he had the right to protect himself, and shoot anyone dumb enough to try and take his stuff. Outrage!!"
Now at this point, the majority of my readers are probably shaking their heads and calling me a racist. Soon the town mob will come banging on my door crying out for blood because I'm discriminating, hating, and supporting bigotry. Let them. At this point, I could care less. I cannot stand the stupidity. The ignorance must be stopped. We are a society that is slowly slipping away into nothingness. And of course, my liberal brethren will find a way to blame this on George W, like they do everything else, from baldness to high gas prices. But face the truth. Our society has been dying long before even Bush Sr. was in office. I'm not even sure where to lay blame. But currently i see the infectious disease in our music, our movies, our news, our books, our clothes, our speech. Everything!! Take this for instance. I was wasting my time on Myspace, and was looking up some music when I stumbled across "Young Jeezy's" picture on the main page, with a link. I clicked, listening to the jungle beats, and browsed the comments many people had left. Now the first question in my mind is "What the fuck is a "Jeezy?" followed quickly by... "What language are these comments in?"
"WUS HOOD MY NIGGA ACE BOOG. OF BODYMORE MURDERLAND. REA RECOGNIZE REAL! KEEP IT STREET MY NIGGA! OUT!"
"What Up My Dude? I'm Just Coming Thru To Give U Some Props For What U Doing Out There In Da Game! Keep Doing Ya Thang...Cause They Can't Band The Snowman! Cheaaaa....Ayeeeeeeee!"
"wat it dew playa, keep doin it 4 da streets my nigga, you jus keep gettin better and better each time u come out wit new songs. im definately gettin dat inspiration CD,cant wait for it... jus keep doin ya thang my nigga you doin a great job aight... duce"
"A dawg u is my nigga mane.....a lot of niggas done gave up on u but not me bruh I tell errbody I fucks wit Jeezy, anybody who don't FUCK U"
"Whats Crackin Cuh Cant Wait Till December 12th you know so i could cop thug inspiration 3 times ya digg and Ima Put All My Homies On It Aight Cuhz"
"YA BOI FEELINDA ALBUM MAN CTE OH NIGGA YOU ON DAT FIRE CRIP FLAG UP 4 YA MAN SOUTH CAROLINA BOI GOT YA BACK YA NEED US HIT US UP WE N DA A NOW"
I mean seriously. Will someone please.... EXPLAIN this to me. I have no idea what any of those mean. These people worship him. He is even referred to as "The Snowman" because he used to be a cocaine dealer. So I guess that somehow makes him cooler? I don't understand it. It blows my mind. Take Curtis James Jackson III for instance. He is popular because he was shot 9 times. How is that cool? OO, I'm awesome because I don't know how to wear my hat straight. Or because I wear a band-aid on my face. Or because I don't understand the function of a belt. I'm cool because I've got more metal in my mouth, than i do in my kitchen.
The ignorance must stop. Someone must take a stand somewhere. If people continue to do nothing, we are going to slip into nothingness. I mean, seriously. Conservatives? You must just not have the balls to say anything because you're terrified that the NAACP and the rest of the liberals out there will get angry and yell at you. Liberals? I'm going to supply you with all the motivation you need. Famed rapper Curtis James Jackson III, aka "50 Cent" said that if it wasn't for his felonies barring him, he would have voted for George W. Bush, and he has supported him in the past. That right there should be enough for you to take action.
So, I feel better now that I've ranted and raved for a bit, but this is not a closed subject. Something must be done. We need to take a stand against stupidity and ignorance.
So, you get killed trying to rob someone, and instead of everyone pointing out that you're an idiot, you're loved? How the fuck does that work? I mean, it's bad enough he was stupid enough to try and rob someone else, but add that to being stupid enough to do it and get shot? We should be using his story in elementary schools to show dumbass kids what not to do. Not praising him for it. And if he was white, we probably would be. But he's not. He was black. So of course, he's being immortalized. All the "G's," "hoodrats," "street teams," "gangstas," and "homies" are all crying outrage, legacy, "thug love." And who can blame them? I mean, all he was doing was trying to rob someone else. But seriously. Give me a fucking break. The dumbass tried to break into someone's house and steal their stuff. He deserved it. I only hope he bled and suffered a little bit before he died. If only so he learned a lesson before he died. Give it a week and I'm sure the liberals will be using this as a reason for pushing Gun Control. I can see the arguments now:
"This poor BLACK man was simply trying to get by, and this fool thought he had the right to protect himself, and shoot anyone dumb enough to try and take his stuff. Outrage!!"
Now at this point, the majority of my readers are probably shaking their heads and calling me a racist. Soon the town mob will come banging on my door crying out for blood because I'm discriminating, hating, and supporting bigotry. Let them. At this point, I could care less. I cannot stand the stupidity. The ignorance must be stopped. We are a society that is slowly slipping away into nothingness. And of course, my liberal brethren will find a way to blame this on George W, like they do everything else, from baldness to high gas prices. But face the truth. Our society has been dying long before even Bush Sr. was in office. I'm not even sure where to lay blame. But currently i see the infectious disease in our music, our movies, our news, our books, our clothes, our speech. Everything!! Take this for instance. I was wasting my time on Myspace, and was looking up some music when I stumbled across "Young Jeezy's" picture on the main page, with a link. I clicked, listening to the jungle beats, and browsed the comments many people had left. Now the first question in my mind is "What the fuck is a "Jeezy?" followed quickly by... "What language are these comments in?"
"WUS HOOD MY NIGGA ACE BOOG. OF BODYMORE MURDERLAND. REA RECOGNIZE REAL! KEEP IT STREET MY NIGGA! OUT!"
"What Up My Dude? I'm Just Coming Thru To Give U Some Props For What U Doing Out There In Da Game! Keep Doing Ya Thang...Cause They Can't Band The Snowman! Cheaaaa....Ayeeeeeeee!"
"wat it dew playa, keep doin it 4 da streets my nigga, you jus keep gettin better and better each time u come out wit new songs. im definately gettin dat inspiration CD,cant wait for it... jus keep doin ya thang my nigga you doin a great job aight... duce"
"A dawg u is my nigga mane.....a lot of niggas done gave up on u but not me bruh I tell errbody I fucks wit Jeezy, anybody who don't FUCK U"
"Whats Crackin Cuh Cant Wait Till December 12th you know so i could cop thug inspiration 3 times ya digg and Ima Put All My Homies On It Aight Cuhz"
"YA BOI FEELINDA ALBUM MAN CTE OH NIGGA YOU ON DAT FIRE CRIP FLAG UP 4 YA MAN SOUTH CAROLINA BOI GOT YA BACK YA NEED US HIT US UP WE N DA A NOW"
I mean seriously. Will someone please.... EXPLAIN this to me. I have no idea what any of those mean. These people worship him. He is even referred to as "The Snowman" because he used to be a cocaine dealer. So I guess that somehow makes him cooler? I don't understand it. It blows my mind. Take Curtis James Jackson III for instance. He is popular because he was shot 9 times. How is that cool? OO, I'm awesome because I don't know how to wear my hat straight. Or because I wear a band-aid on my face. Or because I don't understand the function of a belt. I'm cool because I've got more metal in my mouth, than i do in my kitchen.
The ignorance must stop. Someone must take a stand somewhere. If people continue to do nothing, we are going to slip into nothingness. I mean, seriously. Conservatives? You must just not have the balls to say anything because you're terrified that the NAACP and the rest of the liberals out there will get angry and yell at you. Liberals? I'm going to supply you with all the motivation you need. Famed rapper Curtis James Jackson III, aka "50 Cent" said that if it wasn't for his felonies barring him, he would have voted for George W. Bush, and he has supported him in the past. That right there should be enough for you to take action.
So, I feel better now that I've ranted and raved for a bit, but this is not a closed subject. Something must be done. We need to take a stand against stupidity and ignorance.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Historic Victory for Diebold!
November 8, 2006
written by Ann Coulter
from www.anncoulter.com
History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.
So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
written by Ann Coulter
from www.anncoulter.com
History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.
So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Get a Damned Job!!!
So, it's currently 1:37 AM, and I have to be up at 8am. I should be asleep correct? Yes. But I can't seem to bring myself to do it. Instead, I write. Prepare thineself. Of course, you're probably asking yourself, "I wonder what this sick bastard is writing?" Well, I can't answer that for you. Because I don't know yet. I'm just going to write, and eventually, something will come of it I'm sure. I mean, there's so much I want to talk about! I really should invest in a laptop, or get the net at my apartment so I can write whenever I want. Things pop into my head all the time, but I'm never around a computer where I can write it out, and it sucks.
I mean, I would sit in the hospital with Angela when she was in there, and things would just pop into my mind, but there was nowhere to record it. Of course, I hate writing on paper, so I would have had to find a computer. Or when I'm at Kroger, brilliant ideas and rants pop in and out of my mind, yet I can't record them. Another good instance is when I'm driving. I always think of topics and rants when I'm in my car. If I had a laptop, I would seriously pull over and type them out. One of these days I'll get one, I'm sure. O, and if you've never heard me rant in person, you haven't lived. I can talk, and boy when I talk, let me tell you, it's a thing of beauty. It's just this uncontrollable gift, and when I finally stop to breathe, the people around me are either visibly impressed, or horribly offended. I can get quite colorful in my speeches, regardless of the topic. The hypocrisy of the Christian Church, the endless circle that our government is in, the futility of explainign things to women. Ever heard me talk about the welfare system, and those that rely on it? It's a beautiful thing. But, that's not a topic I can easily sit down and write. Someone would have to get me fired up about it, and just record everything I say as I rant. It just comes to me.
I mean, let's be honest. Probably 70% of the people on welfare, don't actually need it. they just do it because they're lazy peices of human waste that figure "Why should they work, when the government buys their food for them?" It's one thing if they were working 40+ a week, and still not making enough to pull it off. But I get so heated when I'm at work aroudn the first of the month, and I see these fools walk into the store at 3pm in their PJ's and sandals, getting snotty with me because we're out of 2% milk, T-bones, pepsi 24 packs, 1 gallon buckets of ice cream, or Family Sized Oreos.. I just want to throw them to the ground and let loose. The governments money will still be on that little card tommorow! It's not going anywhere. I mean honestly. Why the hell can people get half the crap they get with food stamps anyways?! Shouldn't they be limited to essentials? Bread, milk, cereal, peanut butter, vegetables, and soups? Why the hell are they using my tax money to eat better than I do? What have they done special? They're not in poverty. They just can't keep it in their pants, and refuse to get a job. I mean, I've never been for abortion, but hell, if someone is gonna have a kid, and they don't have a job, isn't it our civil duty to NOT bring that child into the hell of a life it would have?
Ya know, you hear about school test scores dropping, and they blame it on teachers. (even though I've seen about 100 teachers get cut from our city schools in the past 2 years.) But it's not the teachers. It's the parents. Lazy, ignorant people are breeding, and their offspring are being raised to be lazy and ignorant as well. What the hell else do you expect? If 2 French have a kid, and raise him in France, chances are... he'll speak French, know the French lifestyle, and probably be a wimp, like the other French. He's not gonna pop out and start singing the Star Spangled Banner, speaking English, and have any testicular fortitude. That's just simple logic. So if you have 2 people who've been dependent on the welfare system, and have adapted to the amazingly plush lifestyle of not working, or even attempting to get a job, then they will raise someone in the same mindset. Why should he try hard in school? His parents didn't try and they have everything they need. Much like the character "Jigsaw" speaks of in the Saw Trilogy, people have lost the will to survive.
"John: The jigsaw piece that I cut from my subjects was only ever meant to be a symbol that that subject was missing something. A vital piece of the human puzzle. The survival instinct."
Of course, there will be exceptions. There always are. It's called evolution. No, I'm not saying I agree with a theory that says we all used to be monkeys.
.. width="425" height="350">..>
I'm saying that people adapt, and there are always anomalies. Out of all the crap that comes out of our society, somethign great will happen from time to time. Someone will be born who has higher expectations, and wants to make something out of themselves, and they will strive to acheive. And by something better I don't mean a football player, or a rap star, or anything like that. The majority of kids I went to school with were either "rappers" or sports players who were gonna "go pro." I'm talking about scientists, doctors, nurses, things like that. Even just a decent citizen. Someone that gives to squirts about other people, and about themselves. So, I guess this is my rant. I guess somethign did come out of just sitting down and writing. I feel much better. The moral of this article is... Get a damned job! For me, get a damned job. And maybe some birth control pills.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Ann coulter lays the smack down again
I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.
In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!
If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.
For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.
How about these pungent points:
— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.
— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.
Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."
— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.
— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.
In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.
Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!
If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.
For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.
How about these pungent points:
— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.
— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.
Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."
— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.
— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.
In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.
Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Game Informer talks smack!
The video game world has a few games that are held above all others as paragons of brillian design and compelling gameplay. Even years after their release, these titles continue to be praised by fans and the press alike as timeless classics. So, why do all these game ssuck so much? Really, is it too much to ask that the greatest examples of our artform not be hampered with incomprehensible stories, sloppy gameplay, and god-awful graphics? Read on to find out why your favorite game just arent very good. Oh, and just to make sure weve made absolutely everyone mad, heres a list of other things that suck: Star Wars, anime, Arrested Development, puppy dogs, gummi bears, Lord of the Rings, ninjas, comic books, D & D, Kevin Smith movies, and pizza. Yuck!
Video games have long helped us escape the drudgery of our boring existence by allowing us to enter amazing worlds of fantasy. For example, what child doesnt dream of someday stepping into the shoes of... an overweight plumber with a gay cop mustache! for crap's sake, we at least expect our gaming avatars to have more exciting jobs than we do in real life. Yep, Mario sure is a great character, and so is Luigi, who is totally distinguishable from Mario because he wears different colored clothes. The save the princess storyline is trite, and even worse because you spend most of your time saving some weird guy named Toad instead. The levels are extremely simplistic and so is the gameplay, which largely revolves around bonking your head on bricks. Well say one thing for this game, at list its short; if you're good and you know your warp pipes, you can cruise thorugh it in under an hour. And did those underwater levels really suck that much when we were kids/ Answer: yes, they did; we just didnt know any better. So, yea, we respect the hell out of Super Mario Bros., as long as we dont actually have to play the damned thing.
Final Fantasy 7 is not your high school sweetheart. Just because it was the first one to break your heart doesnt mean that better games wont come along. In fact, FF VII's major lasting contribution to gaming (besides making nerds cry) is the prettiest male villain in history. Seriously, youd think the FF gang was dressed entirely in clothes left over from Duran Durans 1984 world tour. And what is Cloud doing while the fashionable yet feminine Sephiroth is destorying the world? Decorating weapons with jewelry, talking to a stuffed animal, and making birds do it. HEy, you can trush heroism... especially when your most powerful magic attacks clock in at a full minute. Its a sad day when watching a metallic space-dragon incinerate an entire hemisphere is just boring. Oh, and "One winged angel" is a Carmina Burana rip off. Deal with it.
Metal Gear Solid proves that to be considered a classic, all you need is a plot so convoluted that people are embarressed to dmit they don't understand it. Recessive genes? Ear pulling? Cyborg Ninjas? Throw it all in. The more jumbled the story, the harder it is to realize that you just snuick by a guard while wearing a cardboard box. It's a good thing the hobos down by the docks arent involved in nuclear politics; they've got more cardboard boxes than you can count. And if that doesn't sell it, the character names taken from an erectile dysfunction informational pamphlet will seal the deal. How does Solid Snake firmly defeat his flaccid counterpart? With the seemingly boundless military aresenal in his patns. Hey, Snake! Is that a nikita missle launcher in your pocket or are you just happy to see us? The only thing that could make thi sgame worse is a hero whose haircut make him look like the weird dude in your high school in the megadeth jean jacket who always hung out at the convenience store... oops!
Halo completely revolutionized the first person shooter genre. Or, thats what you might think if youd had your head shoved up your butt for the past 10 years and hadnt touched a PC game since the original doom. Heres yet another game that proves that greatness is more a matter of opinion. Sure compared to blodwake or any other of microsofts dreadful early xbox entries, this was a masterpiece, but the fact remains that haol is perhaps the most overrated game of all time. Hey do you like those levels? Good because your going to hgave to go back to them all again because Bungie couldnt manage to actually make a complete game. Halo also earns our ire for introducing the needler, the lamest and most useless weapon since the spitwad. On the plus side, halos whicles are a great way to experience what drunk driving feels like without risking your life on the freeway. Still not convinced? Lets not fail to mention master chief, a facelss game hero so free of charisma that he makes Vice President Dick Cheney seem like David Lee Roth by comparison, or the story, which is insipid scifi boilerplay not fit for the script to an episode of Cleopatra 2525.
Ah yes, the game that changed the world! Brilliant, mind blowing, visionary, and kind of crappy when you come right down to it. GTA 3 Proves that if you cant do one thing right, just do a whole bunch of stuff poorly. Combining mediocre racing, mediocre action, and a load of banal gangster movie cliches that comone probably scraped off the bottom of Martin Scorcese's italian loafers, GTA 3 offers a heaping helping of lukewarm gameplay to meathead jocks the world over. It's like the old country buffet of video games; you'll definitely get your fill, but the bad aftertaste left by the shoddy mechanics leave you with little more than regreats and a gut ache when you're done. Lets not even get into the tedious objectives - its not for nothing that this game resulted in the coining of the term "pizza delivery mission." Sadly, a lot of the 80 hours you spend in Liberty City arent much more exciting than working the night shift at Dominoes, but without the tips. In its defense, it does have a lot of swearing, which seem to be enough for the millions of unemployted 19 year olds in pit stained Eminem shirts that make up this game's target audience.
Video games have long helped us escape the drudgery of our boring existence by allowing us to enter amazing worlds of fantasy. For example, what child doesnt dream of someday stepping into the shoes of... an overweight plumber with a gay cop mustache! for crap's sake, we at least expect our gaming avatars to have more exciting jobs than we do in real life. Yep, Mario sure is a great character, and so is Luigi, who is totally distinguishable from Mario because he wears different colored clothes. The save the princess storyline is trite, and even worse because you spend most of your time saving some weird guy named Toad instead. The levels are extremely simplistic and so is the gameplay, which largely revolves around bonking your head on bricks. Well say one thing for this game, at list its short; if you're good and you know your warp pipes, you can cruise thorugh it in under an hour. And did those underwater levels really suck that much when we were kids/ Answer: yes, they did; we just didnt know any better. So, yea, we respect the hell out of Super Mario Bros., as long as we dont actually have to play the damned thing.
Final Fantasy 7 is not your high school sweetheart. Just because it was the first one to break your heart doesnt mean that better games wont come along. In fact, FF VII's major lasting contribution to gaming (besides making nerds cry) is the prettiest male villain in history. Seriously, youd think the FF gang was dressed entirely in clothes left over from Duran Durans 1984 world tour. And what is Cloud doing while the fashionable yet feminine Sephiroth is destorying the world? Decorating weapons with jewelry, talking to a stuffed animal, and making birds do it. HEy, you can trush heroism... especially when your most powerful magic attacks clock in at a full minute. Its a sad day when watching a metallic space-dragon incinerate an entire hemisphere is just boring. Oh, and "One winged angel" is a Carmina Burana rip off. Deal with it.
Metal Gear Solid proves that to be considered a classic, all you need is a plot so convoluted that people are embarressed to dmit they don't understand it. Recessive genes? Ear pulling? Cyborg Ninjas? Throw it all in. The more jumbled the story, the harder it is to realize that you just snuick by a guard while wearing a cardboard box. It's a good thing the hobos down by the docks arent involved in nuclear politics; they've got more cardboard boxes than you can count. And if that doesn't sell it, the character names taken from an erectile dysfunction informational pamphlet will seal the deal. How does Solid Snake firmly defeat his flaccid counterpart? With the seemingly boundless military aresenal in his patns. Hey, Snake! Is that a nikita missle launcher in your pocket or are you just happy to see us? The only thing that could make thi sgame worse is a hero whose haircut make him look like the weird dude in your high school in the megadeth jean jacket who always hung out at the convenience store... oops!
Halo completely revolutionized the first person shooter genre. Or, thats what you might think if youd had your head shoved up your butt for the past 10 years and hadnt touched a PC game since the original doom. Heres yet another game that proves that greatness is more a matter of opinion. Sure compared to blodwake or any other of microsofts dreadful early xbox entries, this was a masterpiece, but the fact remains that haol is perhaps the most overrated game of all time. Hey do you like those levels? Good because your going to hgave to go back to them all again because Bungie couldnt manage to actually make a complete game. Halo also earns our ire for introducing the needler, the lamest and most useless weapon since the spitwad. On the plus side, halos whicles are a great way to experience what drunk driving feels like without risking your life on the freeway. Still not convinced? Lets not fail to mention master chief, a facelss game hero so free of charisma that he makes Vice President Dick Cheney seem like David Lee Roth by comparison, or the story, which is insipid scifi boilerplay not fit for the script to an episode of Cleopatra 2525.
Ah yes, the game that changed the world! Brilliant, mind blowing, visionary, and kind of crappy when you come right down to it. GTA 3 Proves that if you cant do one thing right, just do a whole bunch of stuff poorly. Combining mediocre racing, mediocre action, and a load of banal gangster movie cliches that comone probably scraped off the bottom of Martin Scorcese's italian loafers, GTA 3 offers a heaping helping of lukewarm gameplay to meathead jocks the world over. It's like the old country buffet of video games; you'll definitely get your fill, but the bad aftertaste left by the shoddy mechanics leave you with little more than regreats and a gut ache when you're done. Lets not even get into the tedious objectives - its not for nothing that this game resulted in the coining of the term "pizza delivery mission." Sadly, a lot of the 80 hours you spend in Liberty City arent much more exciting than working the night shift at Dominoes, but without the tips. In its defense, it does have a lot of swearing, which seem to be enough for the millions of unemployted 19 year olds in pit stained Eminem shirts that make up this game's target audience.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Charlton Heston Share's His Wisdom
Some wisdom from Heston that I picked up while reading "In The Arena," his autobiography. Enjoy. I may come back with some love from Ann Coulter from her books, "Slander" and "Treason."
"Looking back now, trying to sum things up, I find it more puzzling than it used to be. "Whats it about charlie," indeed. A generation ago, though we were in a fierce inflationary spiral and the depths of the Cold War, it was unthinkable that a respected and intelligent head of a giant conglomerate would defend the marketing of a record celebrating the sexual abuse of young girls and the murder of policemen. Now the hcildren of that generation have grown up in the ruins of what was once the best system of public education on earth--barely literate, many of them hardly English-capable, too many more raised in fatherless welfare families.
Our borders are awash in immigrants, a large portion of them illegal, but all nonetheless qualified for the fruits of out welfare state, entitled to generous benefits, including not only voting in our elections on ballots in the language of their choice, but the education of their progeny in that language. This last is the most colossal blunder of the many made in supposed support of the young: to deliberately deny children, at any age when they learn most quickly, access to full command of th elanguage that can best offer them a chance at productive employment anywhere in the world in the twenty-first century can only be described as cruelty to children.
Multiculturalism is not only perceived as a virtue but a goal. I actually heard a young woman at an arts fund-raiser say, 'Well that's the motto on the U.S. currency, isn't it? ""E pluribus unum."" From one, many.'
"Actually you've got it backward," I said. The correct translation is 'From many, one.' As in one country."
No kidding? she said. "Well, whatever."
A columnist described the childhood of a welfare kid with brutal honesty: "first felony arrest at fourteen, becomes an absent father at sixteen, out of school at seventeen if he gets that far, with a diploma he can't read."
The senate chaplain, the Reverend Richard Halvorse, put it more fully: "We now demand freedom without restraint, rights without responsibility, choice without consequences, pleasure without pain. In our narcissistic, hedonictic, masochistic, valueless preoccupation, we are becoming a people dominated by lust, avarice, and greed." (Isn't it odd that th eCongress has a full-time chaplain who opens every session with a prayer-- which is forbidden in schools? How did we get to that?)
How did we get, for that matter, to the point where the ethical foundations of western civilization are now in question? The LA Times reported not long ago that some geneticists have advanced the possibility that much of what we've understood for thousands of years as failing in the human condition are in fact genetically imprinted in us at birth. Wife beating, obesity, alcoholism, murder... none of these our fault. Just think how that frees us! We are now responsible for nothing! There is no good nor evil; man is no longer burdened with free will. Old Thomas Jefferson's comment serves her, I think: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Charlton Heston
"Looking back now, trying to sum things up, I find it more puzzling than it used to be. "Whats it about charlie," indeed. A generation ago, though we were in a fierce inflationary spiral and the depths of the Cold War, it was unthinkable that a respected and intelligent head of a giant conglomerate would defend the marketing of a record celebrating the sexual abuse of young girls and the murder of policemen. Now the hcildren of that generation have grown up in the ruins of what was once the best system of public education on earth--barely literate, many of them hardly English-capable, too many more raised in fatherless welfare families.
Our borders are awash in immigrants, a large portion of them illegal, but all nonetheless qualified for the fruits of out welfare state, entitled to generous benefits, including not only voting in our elections on ballots in the language of their choice, but the education of their progeny in that language. This last is the most colossal blunder of the many made in supposed support of the young: to deliberately deny children, at any age when they learn most quickly, access to full command of th elanguage that can best offer them a chance at productive employment anywhere in the world in the twenty-first century can only be described as cruelty to children.
Multiculturalism is not only perceived as a virtue but a goal. I actually heard a young woman at an arts fund-raiser say, 'Well that's the motto on the U.S. currency, isn't it? ""E pluribus unum."" From one, many.'
"Actually you've got it backward," I said. The correct translation is 'From many, one.' As in one country."
No kidding? she said. "Well, whatever."
A columnist described the childhood of a welfare kid with brutal honesty: "first felony arrest at fourteen, becomes an absent father at sixteen, out of school at seventeen if he gets that far, with a diploma he can't read."
The senate chaplain, the Reverend Richard Halvorse, put it more fully: "We now demand freedom without restraint, rights without responsibility, choice without consequences, pleasure without pain. In our narcissistic, hedonictic, masochistic, valueless preoccupation, we are becoming a people dominated by lust, avarice, and greed." (Isn't it odd that th eCongress has a full-time chaplain who opens every session with a prayer-- which is forbidden in schools? How did we get to that?)
How did we get, for that matter, to the point where the ethical foundations of western civilization are now in question? The LA Times reported not long ago that some geneticists have advanced the possibility that much of what we've understood for thousands of years as failing in the human condition are in fact genetically imprinted in us at birth. Wife beating, obesity, alcoholism, murder... none of these our fault. Just think how that frees us! We are now responsible for nothing! There is no good nor evil; man is no longer burdened with free will. Old Thomas Jefferson's comment serves her, I think: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Charlton Heston
Monday, November 7, 2005
Darth Mark & Count Diane
Time for an update.
So as The Captain would say... i learned something of IMPORT a few days back. But i waited until i had a backup confession of someone trustworthy to unveil it.
Guess who tried to get at least 2 people to beat me up?
Youll never guess.
Stop trying.
cmon... do u think u really know?
ok, so ill tell you.
Mark and Diane. Thats right. The proverbial egg donor and wannabe sperm donor. My ex-mother and step-father. Yea. David told me that. He said they tried to get him to, and they tried to get louie to, and that both said no. I didnt beleive him. So i asked Louie today. And louie goes, "Yea, they said u had an attitude problem and wanted me to 'fix' it."
Love works in mysterious ways?
I just want all my friends to know... that Im going to have someone jump you... because i care about you, and thats what u do when u care about people.
I'm no longer at marcias. So ill only be online when i hit the library.
Peace, love, and jump your loved ones!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Desperate Mothers & Pathetic Excuses of Human Beings
So I talk to a friend of mine today. She informs me that Diane is not happy with just destroying her family and her relationship with her firstborn son. I guess Diane had to do it to someone else.
I dont feel like explaining the details. That mixed with not knowing alot of them, is going to make this a fairly short post.
And look at the time.. I have to go. I will continue later on.
I dont feel like explaining the details. That mixed with not knowing alot of them, is going to make this a fairly short post.
And look at the time.. I have to go. I will continue later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
