atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1379: Nowhere does it say "islamic" or "muslim"

Just "terrorists".


Striking another blow for the "religion of peace"!

Og sums it up nicely, as always.

("Nice" in the sense of "neat, complete, accurate".)

* * *

On this day in 1942, Man first harnessed the atom.

Enrico Fermi ran a primitive graphite-moderated reactor underneath a squash court and demonstrated that a controlled fission chain-reaction was possible.

* * *

I seems to me that if you have an open-carry license--that is, a license which allows you to carry a firearm out in the open wherever you go--it applies even to soccer games. Soccer moms got their panties in twists because this woman legally brought a legal gun to a game, and this poor woman lost her license to an overweening county sheriff.

The sheriff's boss, the county judge, disagreed, and reinstated the woman's permit. Now she's suing, and she for damn sure ought to sue.

Although the ACLU would like us to believe otherwise, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right in the United States, and this woman's civil right to do so was violated solely because a police officer decided she shouldn't carry her gun under legal and reasonable circumstances.

* * *

The Basil Fawlty school of fire safety demands that fire extinguishers be banned.

"What is the point of fire extinguishers? They just hang on the wall, taking up space, and when there's a fire--when you actually need the bleeding thing!--it blows your head off!"

Apparently the government of Great Britain has come around to Basil's way of thinking.

* * *

Another expert says that Barry "Tweek" Obama's birth certificate, as posted on-line by his campaign, is "criminally fraudulent".

Tweek could make all of this go away by releasing a real copy of his real birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. He continues to resist doing so, and cites "right to privacy" as one reason.

Uh...dude, if you're President-elect, the citizens of the US have a right to know if you're eligible for the position.

* * *

Harry Reid shows his contempt for the American public. And it's a typical Democrat elitist attitude, too. From this sort of thing, to immunizing staffers from third-world diseases before the go to NASCAR races, to referring to anything between New York and Los Angeles as "flyover country", and on and on.

Not surprising in the least.

* * *

California's government is going broke. Actually, it's the same for many places which are Democrat and/or liberal strongholds; states and cities are facing budgetary shortfalls because revenues have dropped.

Cook County, for example, now has the highest sales tax in the nation--and still is taking in less money than it needs. Democrats still have not figured out that taxes discourage economic activity, no matter who emplaces them, no matter what their intentions are. If you increase taxes, business suffers, and government revenues decrease. Always.

The liberal Democrat answer is to raise taxes again. This simply aggravates the issue.

And so Schwarzeneggar's answer to California's budget deficit is to cut the budget and increase taxes--and while the former is a good idea, the latter won't help, because California has among the highest rates of taxation in the nation.

Whenever a tax cut is suggested, the Democrats ask, "Can the government really make do with less money?" But as Limbaugh has pointed out a myriad of times, no one ever asks how the taxpayers are expected to make do with less money when taxes are increased.

Since the US economy has just officially been declared to have been in recession since December 2007, how the hell are the American taxpayers supposed to afford tax increases? Raising taxes is the last thing you do in a recession, unless you're a brain-dead incompetent like Jimmy Carter.

* * *

Boortz discusses a fantastic idea for an economic stimulus package: stop collecting all payroll taxes for two months. This plan would pump $330 billion dollars into the economy.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. There are at least three reasons:

1) It would show the American public just how much money they send to the government every time they get a paycheck. "Wait, you mean that if it werent for federal taxes I would otherwise be paid this much?" The Democrats can't risk the average citizen finding out how much money he would be taking home if it weren't for payroll taxes.

2) It would not give any money to people whom Democrats call "working families", which is a demographic that used to be referred to as "poor"--ie people who either don't get paychecks or who earn so little that they end up paying no income tax. (And who also qualify for the "earned income tax credit", ie "welfare".)

3) Wait, give people control over their own money? You reactionary evil fascist nazi rethugnican bigoted homophobe sexist, you can't do that, because they might not spend it the right way!

...and I expect there are more besides these, but those are the ones that came to mind.

* * *

So it snowed, and it stuck--a whole inch!--and today I had to scrape off the Jeep's windows before I could take Mom to her eye appointment. Life goes on.

I've got about three weeks to get my Christmas shopping handled.

* * *

As a "free gift" for being a "loyal customer" we've just been granted a three month free preview of Showtime. And it's already been turned on! Whee!!, it's not "advertising", not at all.

I doubt I'll miss it when they turn it back off.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.