I don't know, nor do I care, if these jokes are attributed correctly. I just like them.
You know Obama's honeymoon is over when the late night talk showcomedians start taking their turns with nasty but hilarious jokes .....have a laugh!!
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree .. andthink 25 to life would be appropriate. --Jay Leno
America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloweenmask. --Jay Leno
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal? A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay forit. --Conan O'Brien
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon? A: A fund raiser. --Jay Leno
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and apenitentiary? A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers, and threats tosociety. The other is for housing prisoners. --David Letterman
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved? A: America! --Jimmy Fallon
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo? A: Bo has papers. --Jimmy Kimmel
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers"program? A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. --David Letterman
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Is $412 Million Enough?
As you probably have read in the paper today, Congressman Kanjorski's nephew Russell's company got a $400,000,000. tax dollar loan. This on top of a grant (a grant is just a free handout) of $9 million to nephew Russell's company, Cornerstone Technologies and also on top of $3 million grant to the same company that just got the 400 million.
To be fair, the $3 million grant was given to the company shortly before Russell was hired. I am absolutely certain (holy shit, the sarcasm, it burns) that the company getting a 3 million dollar handout from Russell's uncle had nothing to do with Russell being hired as a vice president of finance and marketing. I'm not saying anything funny went on but just picture that job interview. I imagine it went something like;
Interviewer: What qualifications do you possess that qualify you to be our vice president of finance and marketing?
Russell: well, let's see, I got a federal grant from my uncle, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, in the amount of $9 million dollars and started a company called Cornerstone Technologies.
Interviewer: I see, and what did your business do?
Russell: Nothing, we never made or marketed a product and I bankrupted the business in a few months.
Interviewer: Hmmm, sounds like you don't know jackshit about marketing or managing finances. Please tell me again what makes you think you are qualified for this position?
Russell: did you catch the part about my Uncle Paulie being a congressman? or the part about the $9 million?
Interviewer: No, er, mmm, no I didn't but you see Russ, the problem is the company is a little short of money to hire any new applicants right now. Should that change in the immediate future you seem to be the ideal candidate for this position.
While that interview is strictly a construct of my imagination, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that those thoughts have crossed many minds. Flash forward to this spring and our hero Russell is in for his annual performance review (sorry, it's my over-active imagination again) and I can easily picture this conversation;
Russ's boss: Russ, times are bad, the economy is in the crapper, and frankly, you just don't seem to be working out.
Russ: did I mention that my uncle is friends with President Obama?
Russ's Boss: no, you didn't
Russ: well, just between us, in the beginning of summer, I heard that this company may be in line to get an almost zero interest loan from the federal government that as long as the comapny goes bankrupt, it won't have to be paid back.
Russ's boss: How much money will they loan us?
Russ:only a few hundred million
Russ's boss: that will buy a shitload of golden parachutes!! but how do we get to keep the money without paying it back?
Russ: assuming I am still employed, that would be my job and I am an expert at that. Did I ever tell you whatever happened to all those machines I bought with my first $9 million? well there's a bowling alley back home with a huge basement......................................
Is it enough already? Are we going to keep this monumental douchenozzle in office? Please lord, I hope the answer is no. Congressman Kanjorski, please consider your gift of $412 million of our tax money to your nephew your severance package.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Another Prominent Democrat Sentenced
Rich Emanski got sentenced to a few months in jail, a couple years probation, and a $10,000 fine. This would sound like a good punishment unless you factored in the bagillion dollars he made by paying to play in Luzerne County. Stop and think for a moment, would you be willing to spend a few months in jail if you could make enough money that any normal person would never have to work again?
Once again we see a slap on the wrist for a very well connected guy. What a joke!!
Once again we see a slap on the wrist for a very well connected guy. What a joke!!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Senate Committee Unanimously Approves Internet Kill Switch for Obama
This link http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?olo=rss goes to the article in from Techworld.
Much hay was made about the attorney general of Pa and a couple of bloggers. I am very curious to see what the blogosphere has to say about this. I would bet money if Dubya tried to have a way to shut down the interenet that there'd be rioting in the streets. Is it okay now because it's Pres. Obama??? I cannot fathom anything good coming from any president having that power.
Much hay was made about the attorney general of Pa and a couple of bloggers. I am very curious to see what the blogosphere has to say about this. I would bet money if Dubya tried to have a way to shut down the interenet that there'd be rioting in the streets. Is it okay now because it's Pres. Obama??? I cannot fathom anything good coming from any president having that power.
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Local Attorney Arrested for DUI Without a Trace of Alcohol in His Bloodstream
A local attorney was recently arrested for DUI even though he didn't have a drop of alcohol in his system. He was quoted as saying "If it happened to me, you know it is happening to others".
Well Mr. Attorney, this is what happens when lobbyists write our country's laws. The DUI laws in America were radically changed due to lobbying pressure. Only one of the lobbies involved had noble intentions. The others were strictly about profit. M.A.D.D. wanted stricter DUI laws for the good of the community. It isn't too hard to figure out who stands to make money from having harsher penalties and changes made to the existing laws. If you guessed lawyers and insurance companies, give yourself a pat on the back.
I am not entirely sure how much an attorney charges for representing DUI clients but I would bet it is at least $1,000. Since only a fool would represent them self when going to trial, this is money that is going to change hands. Insurance companies on the other hand, are going to raise your rates and keep them there for 5 to 10 years.(or however long a DUI stays on a driving record). If anybody out there can comment how much your car insurance went up from a DUI, please do so. I have heard a handful of people tell me their rates tripled. You'd think their rates tripled because they had multiple convictions for it but that is not the case, at least with those that I spoke with.
I know a few people that have been convicted of DUI. They all tell similar stories about how much it cost them and one thing is for sure; when you see those signs that say DUI, you can't afford it, you better believe it. They all say that when it was said and done, their DUI cost them over $6,000.
That brings me to some interesting things about this subject:
If you have a CDL, your blood levels are half for DUI whether you are driving a commercial vehicle or not.
It is a common misconception that .08 blood level is needed for a conviction. Guess again, you can be found guilty of DUI with any measurable amount of alcohol. So unless you've never had a drink and drove, you've been at least potentially guilty of DUI.
The GAO did a study on the lower blood levels and found that they had absolutely no impact on alcohol related deaths or injuries since being made law.
Towns, counties, and states, lose money to run checkpoints. They do not make a profit on doing them. In fact, the only ones that make a profit from DUI convictions are insurance companies and lawyers.
The only form of profiling that is a generally accepted law enforcement practice is DUI checkpoints.
Studies have shown that many activities done while driving have the same, or in the case of texting far worse, impairment to your abilities to operate your vehicle safely. Only DUI is aggressively prosecuted.
You can feel free to add your own factoids. The simple fact is, what happened to the attorney that was arrested and forced to give a blood sample, is happening every day of the week to people that do not have his means to fight. Further, every single one of those in our local corruption scandal are facing less penalty (think Frank Pizella getting house arrest) than the average first time DUI convict and that bothers the hell out of me.
Invariably, some goofball is going to say that I am in favor of drunk driving so let me set a few things straight for you. I quit drinking some time ago. I do not use drugs. I think driving when drunk is a very serious problem. I think that at the very least, lower blood levels for DUI at least make some stop and control their drinking before driving a car. I know there is a very high likelihood of repeat offenses. I know there are problem drunks driving that have had numerous convictions for DUI and think that there should be some upper limit that after your (pick arbitrary number) conviction, you should not ever have a license again. I think that after your second DUI, you should be forced to have a device in your vehicle that won't let it start if there is alcohol(is this a law already?). I know the vast majority out there have in fact been guilty of DUI but just haven't been caught. My message here is an anti-lobbyist writing our laws message and inspired by Frank Pizzella getting house arrest. I hope no one that reads this will ever drive drunk again but I also know you will. I also know those that drive drunk aren't just risking their own lives but rather the lives of innocent people and in that, are as wrong as wrong gets.
As a side note, if you are a drinker, you should try quitting, you'd be amazed at how annoying drunk people can be when you're sober.
Well Mr. Attorney, this is what happens when lobbyists write our country's laws. The DUI laws in America were radically changed due to lobbying pressure. Only one of the lobbies involved had noble intentions. The others were strictly about profit. M.A.D.D. wanted stricter DUI laws for the good of the community. It isn't too hard to figure out who stands to make money from having harsher penalties and changes made to the existing laws. If you guessed lawyers and insurance companies, give yourself a pat on the back.
I am not entirely sure how much an attorney charges for representing DUI clients but I would bet it is at least $1,000. Since only a fool would represent them self when going to trial, this is money that is going to change hands. Insurance companies on the other hand, are going to raise your rates and keep them there for 5 to 10 years.(or however long a DUI stays on a driving record). If anybody out there can comment how much your car insurance went up from a DUI, please do so. I have heard a handful of people tell me their rates tripled. You'd think their rates tripled because they had multiple convictions for it but that is not the case, at least with those that I spoke with.
I know a few people that have been convicted of DUI. They all tell similar stories about how much it cost them and one thing is for sure; when you see those signs that say DUI, you can't afford it, you better believe it. They all say that when it was said and done, their DUI cost them over $6,000.
That brings me to some interesting things about this subject:
If you have a CDL, your blood levels are half for DUI whether you are driving a commercial vehicle or not.
It is a common misconception that .08 blood level is needed for a conviction. Guess again, you can be found guilty of DUI with any measurable amount of alcohol. So unless you've never had a drink and drove, you've been at least potentially guilty of DUI.
The GAO did a study on the lower blood levels and found that they had absolutely no impact on alcohol related deaths or injuries since being made law.
Towns, counties, and states, lose money to run checkpoints. They do not make a profit on doing them. In fact, the only ones that make a profit from DUI convictions are insurance companies and lawyers.
The only form of profiling that is a generally accepted law enforcement practice is DUI checkpoints.
Studies have shown that many activities done while driving have the same, or in the case of texting far worse, impairment to your abilities to operate your vehicle safely. Only DUI is aggressively prosecuted.
You can feel free to add your own factoids. The simple fact is, what happened to the attorney that was arrested and forced to give a blood sample, is happening every day of the week to people that do not have his means to fight. Further, every single one of those in our local corruption scandal are facing less penalty (think Frank Pizella getting house arrest) than the average first time DUI convict and that bothers the hell out of me.
Invariably, some goofball is going to say that I am in favor of drunk driving so let me set a few things straight for you. I quit drinking some time ago. I do not use drugs. I think driving when drunk is a very serious problem. I think that at the very least, lower blood levels for DUI at least make some stop and control their drinking before driving a car. I know there is a very high likelihood of repeat offenses. I know there are problem drunks driving that have had numerous convictions for DUI and think that there should be some upper limit that after your (pick arbitrary number) conviction, you should not ever have a license again. I think that after your second DUI, you should be forced to have a device in your vehicle that won't let it start if there is alcohol(is this a law already?). I know the vast majority out there have in fact been guilty of DUI but just haven't been caught. My message here is an anti-lobbyist writing our laws message and inspired by Frank Pizzella getting house arrest. I hope no one that reads this will ever drive drunk again but I also know you will. I also know those that drive drunk aren't just risking their own lives but rather the lives of innocent people and in that, are as wrong as wrong gets.
As a side note, if you are a drinker, you should try quitting, you'd be amazed at how annoying drunk people can be when you're sober.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Joe Sestak and Marcellus Shale
First, I'd like to thank the retired Admiral for his service to our country. That said, I have just three points I'd like to make after listening to Mr. Sestak on WILK for the last couple of days. In no particular order:
1. Mr. Sestak, are you aware of what office you are running for? I was under the impression it was for a seat in the United States Senate. After listening to you pontificate about gas drilling it sure sounded to me like you wanted to be a policy maker in Harrisburg. The US Senate makes policy for the country not individual states. The US Senate does not write policy for the state's various departments. I assume you knew that Joe so I must also assume you were pandering like a $3. whore.
2. Mr. Sestak also played the same song we are all tired of and nobody with the exception of the mentally challenged believes any more. By taxing the gas we will all get a tax break. Did we not just hear that about the casinos? Did it come true?? Of course not, this is just more pandering but this time it is like a $1. whore. This will never happen. When the government gets a windfall of tax dollars the last thing they would ever consider is cutting any taxes. They will simply find a way to spend that money on something else. In Pennsylvania's case, I will go out on a limb and guess that SEPTA and Allegheny County's transit authority will get even more funding from people that have not and never will use their services.
3. Mr. Sestak played yet another tired ditty for us. He is for the working families in this great state. It seems any Demoncrat running for any office just has to play this song for us. It is in fact a bald faced lie and in this instance an easily provable lie. Mr. Sestak, hereafter referred to laughingly as the champion of the poor, wants to tax the living shit out of the Marcellus Shale gas. (I am for this, by the way, just do NOT insult my intelligence by telling me the only reason you want to tax it is to so you can cut my taxes. I'm not that stupid and truly hope nobody else is either). How do we know it is an all out lie from the Champion of the Poor? Quite simple. Corporations do not pay tax per se. When they are taxed they account for that as an expense. As an expense, they adjust the cost of their product to reflect that higher cost. For the slow, that means their product will cost the consumer more money. I ask you, who is most affected by a product costing more? Here is a hint, it isn't the rich. That's right, the good old champion of the poor is really just out to screw them without so much as a kiss first. This is becoming ever more common with soft taxes that are in fact hurting the poor tremendously and have absolutely no effect on the rich. Like the tax on sugary drinks (also brought to us by the champions of the poor), who is it affecting? Mr. Sestak is not on the working family's side, he is on Joe Sestak's side and is hoping to baffle you with bullshit.
Mr. Sestak did have a lot of good suggestions about regulatory issues with the shale gas but the suggestions he made do not fall under the purview of a US Senator. The fact that Sestak openly and freely admits that he is backing Pres. Obama's agenda all the way is enough reason not to vote for him. His total lack of understanding what a US Senator's job duties are is another. His most unforgivable sin though is his pandering like a cheap whore.
1. Mr. Sestak, are you aware of what office you are running for? I was under the impression it was for a seat in the United States Senate. After listening to you pontificate about gas drilling it sure sounded to me like you wanted to be a policy maker in Harrisburg. The US Senate makes policy for the country not individual states. The US Senate does not write policy for the state's various departments. I assume you knew that Joe so I must also assume you were pandering like a $3. whore.
2. Mr. Sestak also played the same song we are all tired of and nobody with the exception of the mentally challenged believes any more. By taxing the gas we will all get a tax break. Did we not just hear that about the casinos? Did it come true?? Of course not, this is just more pandering but this time it is like a $1. whore. This will never happen. When the government gets a windfall of tax dollars the last thing they would ever consider is cutting any taxes. They will simply find a way to spend that money on something else. In Pennsylvania's case, I will go out on a limb and guess that SEPTA and Allegheny County's transit authority will get even more funding from people that have not and never will use their services.
3. Mr. Sestak played yet another tired ditty for us. He is for the working families in this great state. It seems any Demoncrat running for any office just has to play this song for us. It is in fact a bald faced lie and in this instance an easily provable lie. Mr. Sestak, hereafter referred to laughingly as the champion of the poor, wants to tax the living shit out of the Marcellus Shale gas. (I am for this, by the way, just do NOT insult my intelligence by telling me the only reason you want to tax it is to so you can cut my taxes. I'm not that stupid and truly hope nobody else is either). How do we know it is an all out lie from the Champion of the Poor? Quite simple. Corporations do not pay tax per se. When they are taxed they account for that as an expense. As an expense, they adjust the cost of their product to reflect that higher cost. For the slow, that means their product will cost the consumer more money. I ask you, who is most affected by a product costing more? Here is a hint, it isn't the rich. That's right, the good old champion of the poor is really just out to screw them without so much as a kiss first. This is becoming ever more common with soft taxes that are in fact hurting the poor tremendously and have absolutely no effect on the rich. Like the tax on sugary drinks (also brought to us by the champions of the poor), who is it affecting? Mr. Sestak is not on the working family's side, he is on Joe Sestak's side and is hoping to baffle you with bullshit.
Mr. Sestak did have a lot of good suggestions about regulatory issues with the shale gas but the suggestions he made do not fall under the purview of a US Senator. The fact that Sestak openly and freely admits that he is backing Pres. Obama's agenda all the way is enough reason not to vote for him. His total lack of understanding what a US Senator's job duties are is another. His most unforgivable sin though is his pandering like a cheap whore.
Monday, June 7, 2010
BP and The Gufl Oil Spill
The disaster in the gulf is by any measure tragic. What I can't get over is the response of the average John Q. It seems they can only find blame with BP. Does BP own the well that went kerblooey? Sure they do, no doubt about it. Are they responsible for fixing the mess? Absolutely. Does all the blame rest squarely on BP?? NO!!!
Does anybody actually believe that years ago the execs from all the oil companies got together and decided the best way to make money from oil was to drill in over a mile deep of water? How mentally challenged can people be? For the oil companies, the most profitable place to drill is on dry land and it's also the easiest. The real question people should be asking is why they are drilling in an environment that increases their costs and risks so dramatically. If you guessed it is because the government mandates that they drill that far off shore, give yourself a prize. If you guessed that it was because that's where the oil is, kick yourself in the ass for having a bad case of terminal stupidity.
If I were the CEO of BP, I'd be on every major media outlet explaining exactly why they have to drill in an environment that not only increases their costs exponentially but also precludes being able to fix the problem. If they were drilling in 200 feet of water, do any of you realize how easy this would have been to fix? Send a few commercial divers down and in 1-2 days, crisis stopped, over, done, finito!! Had they been drilling in ANWAR, a couple of hours and the crisis would've been over. The government and the not in my backyard group needs to accept their culpability in this.
The sad reality is that we live in a society that absolutely needs oil to live. This disaster only further illustrates the need to find a safer (not safe, safer) compromise. Drilling for oil is a dirty, dangerous business. It is also a necessary one.
Does anybody actually believe that years ago the execs from all the oil companies got together and decided the best way to make money from oil was to drill in over a mile deep of water? How mentally challenged can people be? For the oil companies, the most profitable place to drill is on dry land and it's also the easiest. The real question people should be asking is why they are drilling in an environment that increases their costs and risks so dramatically. If you guessed it is because the government mandates that they drill that far off shore, give yourself a prize. If you guessed that it was because that's where the oil is, kick yourself in the ass for having a bad case of terminal stupidity.
If I were the CEO of BP, I'd be on every major media outlet explaining exactly why they have to drill in an environment that not only increases their costs exponentially but also precludes being able to fix the problem. If they were drilling in 200 feet of water, do any of you realize how easy this would have been to fix? Send a few commercial divers down and in 1-2 days, crisis stopped, over, done, finito!! Had they been drilling in ANWAR, a couple of hours and the crisis would've been over. The government and the not in my backyard group needs to accept their culpability in this.
The sad reality is that we live in a society that absolutely needs oil to live. This disaster only further illustrates the need to find a safer (not safe, safer) compromise. Drilling for oil is a dirty, dangerous business. It is also a necessary one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)