kisaoda, posts by tag: stupidity - LiveJournal

This is cross-posted (as in, these are not my words, so let's not get copyright confused here) from here as some may not bother clicking the link:

These are surveyor symbols... like what you'd use on a map.



And compare:



These are crosshairs:



And a bullseye:



The sort used on the DLC map:



The Freepers were all over this in March.

I think a lot of people owe Sarah Palin an apology.

So Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) got a bit snooty with Brigadier General Michael Walsh after he referred to her as "Ma'am." Her words exactly:

"Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am? It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I'd appreciate it."

He was at least respectful to the request and replied, "Yes, Senator."

(The article can be found here.)

My first thought was whether or not she watches her own Senate hearings on C-SPAN because I could swear that I hear every man, Senator or not, being referred to "Sir" at least once, so why she's so taken aback by this is a little odd. Also, considering that in the military, it's quite respectful to address your superior officers as "Sir" or "Ma'am."

Another little quip I have with her comment... she deserves the title "Senator"? No. She was elected. It's not based off of her own merits, not really. So I'm sure the Brigadier General (who actually earned his title) would appreciate her stepping off her self sense of entitlement.

Barack Obama: "Debt load...will have a dampening effect on our economy."

We coulda told ya that, Mr. President. Oh, wait. We did. At the Tea Parties!

Yeesh...

I can't think of a more selfish reason to abort a child, legal as it may be.

*headdesk

So I still don't have internet service at the new apartment, so I'm being a naughty employee and typing this up from work. (Uh oh!)

Anyway. To fill you guys in, I had recently signed a lease to a two-bedroom apartment for when my future wife and myself finally get hitched (June 27th, yeah!). In the meantime, I'm holding the fort... along with still retaining a lease for my old apartment (which doesn't run up until May 31st, oops!), as well as my fiancee still staying at her studio. So, as we speak, we have three apartments in our names. O.o

In other news,

I came across this wonderful advertisement:



Now, setting the Global Warming issue aside, I found something slightly ironic about this advertisement: C12H22O11 (sugar) - carbon = H22O11 = H2O = water

Thoughts?

Disclaimer: Yes, I realize this about reduced emissions in sugar-production, but couldn't help but snicker at the really bad advertising.

Bailout passes--> DOW plunges--> Senate surprised

One word response: AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Gakked from my fiancee's LJ, I found this article concerning a ladies' basketball game where the winner wants to forfeit and apologize to the losers for winning too much! So the game was won 100 - 0. In other words, the losing team had a huge pile of FAIL and sucked for the night.

Is there some unwritten rule that if you're just that damn good, you're a horrible, horrible person for winning against someone that damn bad? Or are we just not allowed to lose anymore? Is this really the mindset of today? We get a trophy for everything and a punishment for nothing? "Oh, it's okay, Billy. You got 13th place! Here's a trophy for your effort!"

No! Slap Billy (only maybe not really) and tell him to try harder or he'll fail again like he did before! Same with this losing team. Do they feel bad? Are they dejected because the lost? Well, we won't know anymore because the winning team decided to feel bad for them. How will the losing team ever be motivated to succeed if they're rewarded for the loss?

Yeesh. Sometimes I hate the society of today. It's so set against offending someone that it's causing us to become demotivated and apathetic. We want jobs for higher wages and fewer hours and even less work. Why? We deserve it! Hell no, we don't. Work for your pay, chump, or you're fired!

It's crazy, I tell ya. CrraaaaaAAAAAaaaazy!!

</rant>

Gakked completely and unashamedly from patgray.com:

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.“We’ve lent some of it. We’ve not lent some of it. We’ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here’s how we’re doing it,’” said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. “We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to.”

And as the news article pointed out:

WASHINGTON (AP) - It’s something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where’s the money going?

But this is government bureaucracy ruling the day; not private industry.

Communism and socialism suck.

Article.


(And on a side note, I bank with JPMorgand Chase. I may not for much longer after that delicious tripe.)

And in possibly the most genius business move ever made in history, Ford turns down any handout from the government, making it the only one out of the Big Three which isn't taking your money.

I think that's all they needed to do to cover their lost ground in profits, don't you?

Snagged from here.

An oldie, but a goodie (what, you think this 'Spread the wealth around' crap is new? This was back in November of last year!). Here it is in it's entirety though:

Four thousand supporters turned out for a rally with Senator Barack Obama in Durham, North Carolina, on Thursday. The Democratic presidential candidate said he would not take any questions, but he relented when a five-year-old girl named Hadassah Jones broke into tears. She was there as a correspondent for brandnewz.com.

According to the Associated Press story, Senator Obama gave the little girl a brief explanation of his plan for universal health insurance coverage and improved education. Then he explained his view that the wealthy should pay the expenses of people who are not wealthy:

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money," Sen. Obama said. "If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

Oh, my. He should have stuck to his plan to take no questions.

Senator Obama glossed right over the difference between a moral imperative to be kind to people and government force that throws people in jail if they refuse to pay up.

When a presidential candidate says "We've got to make sure," that is the language of government force.

Maybe the senator should have explained it to Hadassah this way:

"If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, should you be expelled from school if you refuse to give him a slice?"

Or maybe he should have explained it this way:

"If your mommy and daddy worked very hard at their jobs and went to school at night so they could make enough money to give you everything you need, should they have to give that money to all the parents who dropped out of school and wasted their time, and to all the parents who spent their money on things that your parents passed up so they could support you?"

Or maybe he could have explained it this way:

"If you build a lemonade stand and buy lemons and sugar and pitchers and cups and stand out in the hot sun all day selling lemonade, and at the end of the day you have fifteen dollars, whose money is that? Is the answer the same if it's only two dollars? What if it's fifty dollars?"

This is not an argument over giving away a slice of pizza. This is an argument about the morality of collectivism. When Senator Obama, and almost all other politicians, make their arguments for fairness and compassion, they are advocating not voluntary charitable giving, but government confiscation of some people's property for the benefit of other people, chosen by the government on the basis of need, or perhaps voting record.

Do the fruits of your labor belong to you, or do they belong to the people who most need them?

And if they belong to the people who most need them, are you a slave to the needs of people you don't know and can't control?

Collectivism is not the opposite of capitalism. It's the opposite of freedom.

Even a five-year-old should know that.

So it seems that Senator Biden can't count. It makes me wonder how much coverage this would actually get if it were Sarah Palin and not Biden.

The answer, methinks, is as easy as 1-2-4.