1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.
10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
New Denny's breakfast
In honor of the mother of the octuplets, Denny's is offering a new breakfast special: Fourteen eggs, no sausage, and the guy next to you has to pay the bill!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Proposal
I've gotten this by email a dozen times. So I thought I better blog it in case you haven't seen it. Herewith a modest proposal...
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives fromthe current435 members to 218 members and Senate membersfrom 100 to 50(one per State). Also reduce remaining staffby 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps /two elections) and of course this would require someredistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay forcongress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%. $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers,cell phones to name a few)
Note: Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay.
These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy,then I assume you know what to do.
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives fromthe current435 members to 218 members and Senate membersfrom 100 to 50(one per State). Also reduce remaining staffby 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps /two elections) and of course this would require someredistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay forcongress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%. $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers,cell phones to name a few)
Note: Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay.
These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy,then I assume you know what to do.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Everything you ever wanted to know about gun control
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 mill ion political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated ------------------------------ In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this datum on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. As John Steinbeck once said: 1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you. 2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck. 3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. 4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. 5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity. 7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!! But wait, there's more! I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, 'Of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, 'No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity. 7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!! But wait, there's more! I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, 'Of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, 'No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
THE BEST IDEA I'VE HEARD IN LONG, LONG TIME!!!
Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Explaining the stimulus payment
A member of Congress will explain our Economic Stimulus Payment:
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
NEW WORD FOR YOUR VOCABULARY
Years ago when I sometimes used unsavory language, I often used the expression "Bull Sh**." As I grew up a bit and discovered it was not necessary to use such crude language, that expression became "BS."
What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, idiotic, a half-truth, or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats. The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially foolish insolent talk. I have decided that I will no longer use either of those expressions in the future. When I have the need to express those feelings, I will use the word "Pelosi".
Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of Pelosi." I encourage you to do the same. It is such a good word. It really packs a lot of punch. We are no longer being vulgar but it clearly expresses our feelings. If enough of us use it, it's possible we can get the word in the dictionary. That would be an excellent legacy for the Speaker of the House.
What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, idiotic, a half-truth, or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats. The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially foolish insolent talk. I have decided that I will no longer use either of those expressions in the future. When I have the need to express those feelings, I will use the word "Pelosi".
Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of Pelosi." I encourage you to do the same. It is such a good word. It really packs a lot of punch. We are no longer being vulgar but it clearly expresses our feelings. If enough of us use it, it's possible we can get the word in the dictionary. That would be an excellent legacy for the Speaker of the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)