Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Deem This, You Crocodilian* Wench!
I saw someone anonymously comment on another blog a bunch of stuff, but I found this quip to be quite genius.
" ...Perhaps I'm confused here, but if they want to toss the rule book out the window, then they have no basis to turn to me and say, "Play by the rules.""
Indeed.
Madam Speaker, I deem you, and your crocodilian* cohorts, completely irrelevant henceforth.
*please note, this in no way references crazy talk about 'reptilians' or any other such nonsense of that particular scifi/conspiracy genre. I refer to her as a crocodile because, well, she looks a lot like a primal lizard, and I have no doubt she sounds and acts like one behind closed doors. Much like Stacy Keech's character in one Cheech and Chong movie, sans the mary jane. Furthermore, I will surmise that you probably can't read this, but if it so happens that you can, please feel free to do some photoshopping of Pelosi and send it to youtube marked "Reptilian Conspiracy Exposed!" or something of that nature. That stuff is hilarious!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Kyoto Redux - Copenhagen Shenanegans
The Copenhagen Treaty is a Kyoto redux, to be sure. Here are some quips from the draft of the treaty:
-----------------
-----------------
There. I'd advise at least a skim through the 78 page document before you set yourself on fire and dance through the streets screaming 'the world is ending!'
Again, you can get a copy here.
The US and other Annex I non-ratifying parties should take on reduction targets
of a comparable nature and scale to Annex I parties that have ratified the Protocol as
well as be able to participate in the Kyoto Flexible Mechanisms, emissions trading
and be bound by the Kyoto compliance regime.
-----------------
All developed and newly industrialized countries should reduce their emissions,
as a group, by 23 % below 1990 levels in the 2013-2017 commitment period. This target
is consistent with an emissions reduction trajectory that yields a 40 % reduction
in emissions by 2020 and represents the annual average reduction for the commitment
period ( i.e. what the target in 2015 would be ).
-----------------
a ) T o assist in the development and implementation of a visionary long-term
plan for a low GHG emissions trajectory for each Party included in Annex B based
on the global carbon budget in 2050 and the interim targets for Parties
included in Annex B, as a group, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 ;
b ) T o assist Parties in the identification and achievement of the timely
investments required for the economy-wide transformation needed to achieve
low carbon sustainable development in accordance with the provisions
of Article 2 ; and
c ) T o assist Parties in undertaking the necessary policies, measures and----------
actions to fulfill their support obligations in accordance with the provisions
of this Protocol.
There. I'd advise at least a skim through the 78 page document before you set yourself on fire and dance through the streets screaming 'the world is ending!'
Again, you can get a copy here.
What's this guy babbling about?
To me, it doesn't sound that ludicrous, but I'm not hearing what the name of this 'treaty' is, nor do I know who this guy is. Something about Greenpeace was mentioned, but again, I got nuthin', so credibility is denied as far as I'm concerned. Until someone can enlighten me to who he is, what the name of the so-called treaty is, and why people feel inexplicably drawn to believe and trust a guy with a british accent.
Worth lookin' into, as is anything else, but I'm not losin' any sleep over it.
Remember, Given an infinite universe and infinite time, all things will happen. That means that every event is inevitable, including those that are impossible.
Do I believe this guy? Meh, as far as I'm concerned we lost our sovereignty a long time ago, so if this were true, we're just making it official.
When this turns out to be a bunch of nonsense? Quick, look surprised!
UPDATE:
I found the treaty, 'Copenhagen Treaty' and here're some facts, as per greenpeace website, no less.
I'll copy and paste some of the script as time allows. Should be an interesting read, I see it's getting a lot of buzz. I really should wake up more before posting, that way I can actually research something before looking like a tool. :P
Worth lookin' into, as is anything else, but I'm not losin' any sleep over it.
Remember, Given an infinite universe and infinite time, all things will happen. That means that every event is inevitable, including those that are impossible.
Do I believe this guy? Meh, as far as I'm concerned we lost our sovereignty a long time ago, so if this were true, we're just making it official.
When this turns out to be a bunch of nonsense? Quick, look surprised!
UPDATE:
I found the treaty, 'Copenhagen Treaty' and here're some facts, as per greenpeace website, no less.
The full legal text of the NGO Copenhagen Treaty - written by a team of 47 experts from environment and development groups across the world, including Greenpeace. Very serious legal textAnd, if yer curious, cuz remember, Glueball Wormening and all, here's the link to get it via .pdf
I'll copy and paste some of the script as time allows. Should be an interesting read, I see it's getting a lot of buzz. I really should wake up more before posting, that way I can actually research something before looking like a tool. :P
Monday, October 12, 2009
PWNED! Transvestites Fight Back! FAIL at 11!
Mountain Dew spewed from my nose when I read this tale of, well... Total Awesomeness.
Go to the link and watch the video report... apparently these guys attack super heroes too, because after this FAIL they went after Spider Man.
I guess the two would-be muggers couldn't see the Adams Apples on their selected targets, nor could they see the biceps that were bigger than their fool heads.
And, you know what? Eddie Izzard is somewhere laughing his british arse off.
Thugs attack two transvestites... who turn out to be cage fighters wearing fancy dress
Gardener and Fender were left dazed and seen staggering to their feet after their failed attack.
Go to the link and watch the video report... apparently these guys attack super heroes too, because after this FAIL they went after Spider Man.
I guess the two would-be muggers couldn't see the Adams Apples on their selected targets, nor could they see the biceps that were bigger than their fool heads.
And, you know what? Eddie Izzard is somewhere laughing his british arse off.
Friday, October 2, 2009
47%... Friggin Sweet.
This was in my headline roll, but I thought I'd take the time out of my day and actually post this all the way.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.
"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.
President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.
One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.
As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.
And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.
If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.
Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.
"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."
Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.
"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said
---------------------------
Friggin' Sweet. Redistribution of Wealth has begun, I'd wager.
47% will pay no federal income tax
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.
"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.
President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.
One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.
As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
Why the tax-free matter
And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.
If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.
Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.
"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."
Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.
"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said
---------------------------
Friggin' Sweet. Redistribution of Wealth has begun, I'd wager.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
FBI to Cops: Watch for Bomb Ingredients
..Seriously?
Well, there goes my plans for world domination via hair coloring... and I suppose buying it for my med cabinet is now out of the question.
Your tax dollars hard at work. For the love of Pete....
Police departments are being urged to be on the lookout for specific indicators of terrorist activity.
"I believe it's prudent to put that information out. We welcome it," said NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.
The directive speaks of the possible use of hydrogen peroxide in bombs, and to look for people who may have burns on the face, hands and arms.
Watch out, Kevin Spacey!
Well, there goes my plans for world domination via hair coloring... and I suppose buying it for my med cabinet is now out of the question.
"This is an ongoing investigation that is being treated very, very seriously by the highest levels of the government," Rep. Peter King [aka Gomer Pyle] said.
Your tax dollars hard at work. For the love of Pete....
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Climate change, or faulty equipment?
Got this from urbansurvival.com today. One of his readers sent him this...
"Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM with a different take on "global warming." He wondered about the accuracy of the official NWS stations collecting the nation's climate data. So he actually went out and inspected a few stations and was shocked. Now he has a website called http://www.surfacestations.org/.
1003 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network and 66% of them have > 2°C (3.6°F) error rates. He posits that global warming is really just bad data collection. The maps and pie charts on his website say it all. See the picture of the weather station with the air conditioner exhaust blowing on it. What if there's one in an Omaha feedlot measuring cow farts?"
Well well well... C'mon Al Gore, quit fogging up the equipment with all of that hot air comin' outta yer head.
I'd head over to that site and check it out.. lots of data, and pics of these things in the strangest of places.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Moore*cough*Whore*coughcough*
Is this idiocy, or super genius?
Idjit. Keep selling your movies, pal.
I suppose I'll pirate his movie and distribute it on every torrent I can think of. Since Capitalism is this big evil thing, I'm sure he won't mind my battling said evil by doing so.
Gods Teeth, man, some people will buy anything.
VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.
Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.
“Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” the two-hour movie concludes.
“You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.”
Idjit. Keep selling your movies, pal.
I suppose I'll pirate his movie and distribute it on every torrent I can think of. Since Capitalism is this big evil thing, I'm sure he won't mind my battling said evil by doing so.
Gods Teeth, man, some people will buy anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)