RoyalOrleans

I am pontificating......... alone. Now "Trouble No More" by the Allman Bros is playing on my iPod.

Ali... honeychild. I have a wading pool full of vanilla extract and a hundred pound sack of rock salt on standby. Together you and I will redefine the flavor of vanilla.

TJ... you say this... But I hear... Ich lernte dabei schon fr?hzeitig verstehen, da? die richtige Verwendung der Propaganda eine wirkliche Kunst darstellt, die den b?rgerlichen Parteien fast so gut wie unbekannt war und blieb. Nur die christlich-soziale Bewegung, besonders zu Luegers Zeit, brachte es auch auf diesem Instrument zu einer gewissen Virtuosit?t und verdankte dem auch sehr viele ihrer Erfolge. Jede Propaganda hat volkst?mlich zu sein und ihr geistiges Niveau einzustellen nach der Aufnahmef?higkeit des Beschr?nktesten unter denen, an die sie sich zu richten gedenkt. Aber alle Genialit?t der Aufmachung der Propaganda wird zu keinem Erfolg f?hren, wenn nicht ein fundamentaler Grundsatz immer gleich scharf ber?cksichtigt wird. Sie hat sich auf wenig zu beschr?nken und dieses ewig zu wiederholen. Die Beharrlichkeit ist hier wie bei so vielem auf der Welt die erste und wichtigste Voraussetzung zum Erfolg. Propaganda ist jedoch nicht dazu da, blasierten Herrchen laufend interessante Abwechslung zu verschaffen, sondern zu ?berzeugen, und zwar die Masse zu ?berzeugen. Diese aber braucht in ihrer Schwerf?lligkeit immer eine bestimmte Zeit, ehe sie auch nur von einer Sache Kenntnis zu nehmen bereit ist, und nur einer tausendfachen Wiederholung einfachster Begriffe wird sie endlich ihr Ged?chtnis schenken. Fukken trippy, man.

Kanye West just burst into the WSB Severe Weather Team Newsroom to announce that New Orleans had the greatest flood of all time.

Alright.... what are you doing right now??? I'll start.............. Just finished a Sam Adams Oktoberfest Brew, the Indy @ Miami game on the background, and I am listening to Beethoven's No. 9 (Scherzo). No lie.

Alright... I'll give this a fukken whirl. RO and all the fine ladies - Ahhhhhhhhh yeahhhhhh....... In the name of sweat... hot tub... cognac... In the name of wet.... Ow! Hot tub! Fingers pruny, velvet warm up suits, Swisher Sweets, and my collection of midget erotica. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh yeahhhhhhhh.... gonna get some spankin' on, ya'll. And don't forget about the Ritz crackers and cheese logs. All night long. Good times, bad muthafukkas. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttt.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN9yZuorgq8]YouTube - Tom Waits - London 04 - Murder in the Red Barn, Day After...[/ame] Oooooo..... I think I will fukken like you. Fukken love Tom Waits!

Welcome to fukken GF Can be combative.

Political Correctness: A doctrine... which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. - The Spaniard.

We're under a flash flood warning until 2:45 AM. I wonder if this is the Great Deluge of our time?

Which part? Everyone knows the brothers love white women. Ohh... now you are all of a sudden politically correct? You are the first person to call out the media, et. al. in their abuse of political correctness, but now you have gone the way of the mainstream media? OR.... do you save all of your best racist remarks for behind closed doors? You tell me, hotshot. I asked you the question.

What sort of government educated idiot buys Obama's comparison of his mandated health insurance with auto insurance? I'll try to make this simple ... so that even a Democrat can understand it. In most states you are NOT required to have automobile insurance unless three conditions are met: 1. You have a valid driver's license 2. You own a motor vehicle 3. You drive that motor vehicle on public highways Does a 12-year-old riding with a friend to school have to have auto insurance? No. Neither, for that matter, does a 32-year-old. So Obama's ridiculous comparison dies right there. But wait! There's more! When it comes to auto insurance, most states say that you only must have insurance to protect the OTHER GUY! You buy health insurance to protect yourself. Bottom line .. When Obama draws his absurd comparison between his mandatory health insurance and auto insurance, he knows he's not making sense. He also knows that most Americans don't know he isn't making sense .. and his media pals sure aren't going to call him on it.

And what would Papa TJ say to his little white angel who just told him that she got knocked up by her brother's mixed friend? -Or- Rufus T. the abominable Abyssinian, blacker than pitch, with a preference for white women knocked up your little girl?

So when your little princess comes home with that big black buck, you will say to her "Don't have kids, they will not adapt to society."?

Fukken rain. In my area, we've had nine straight days of rain.

Despite my mixed ethnicity, I never had a hard time adjusting to an all white surburban school and community. And I wasn't ashamed of my heritage, either. And I was dark skinned little thing, too.

The meaning of life? Eat. Fukk. Die. And in between the punishment of it all; have a little fun and enjoy a healthy morning sh!t.

Don't cry, Argentina.

There's no such thing as a "free lunch" and I don't pretend to accept Halloween as a day for the kids. If you have kids, are around kids, and/or have young cousins, nieces, and nephews you know damn well "everyday is kid's day." All Halloween does is instill a sense of how to get something for free and punish those who don't give something. In youth it's goblins, ghosts, and Power Rangers and in adulthood it's ski masks and welfare checks. I am usually at my friend's Halloween costume party anyways. Last year I dressed up like a Power Ranger. A wet blanket? Maybe, but I'm not a hypocrite.

In Ayn Rand's Objectivist belief, she stated that not all people are worth the same. This was perhaps a very enlightened and eye-opening perspective. Tough for many people to stomach, but everyone follows this philosophy in their personal life whether they admit to it or not. Should I choose to help someone, it is because I perceive they have an intrinsic value. Obama like most statists seeks to help everyone, regardless of their position in life. They would not do this with their own money, but gladly will do it with yours! I believe it is "unnatural" and abhorrent to help people who have no perceived (or real) value. A fine example is a welfare mare and her brood with no desire for anything better in life than what she currently has. Following Obama's methodology, we have to carry her burdens. Following Rand's methodology, this type of person fails to exist, because there is no one around to enable this type of behavior. A few may try to twist these words and say "Then you believe senior citizens have no value? They don't provide if they don't work?" ---- Completely and utterly not true. This is based on the ability and sense one has to provide value to others and/or care for themselves. Thus, a person can ensure they are taken care of in their old age (value of self), or the family finds a great value in the older adult's love, wisdom, and teaching; thus caring for them. I think that is what was once called- taking care of your family. Not surprisingly, our educated liberals do not see the value in this belief system, or maybe they do. If they do, then once again, it is about power and creating a whole new majority generation of dependents that vote Democrat. I believe the latter to be true. Wake up my little Democrat friends. Your party uses people to increase their power instead of fostering a sense of self-worth and independence in people.

Obama wants to know the following: How do we balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another"? So what IS the premise of the president's question? The premise is that we MUST, in fact, balance our freedoms with some mandate that we take care of one another. that we must balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another." This is a very delicate, touchy subject to delve into, because the detractors will respond "So, Neal. You don't care about people.". Here's a scenario... You're walking down the street with your friend. We'll call him Barack. As you're walking and chatting you notice a pathetic-looking man sitting on the sidewalk and begging for money. Barack pulls out a twenty and gives it to the man. Good for Barack. Barack then looks at you and says "Well?" "Well what?" "Aren't you going to give this man some money?" "No, I'm not. I don't have any to spare right now. I have my own family to look after." "So .. you don't care about the less-fortunate?" "Don't give me that less-fortunate nonsense. This guy is here because he's a drunk. That wasn't a matter of luck, that was the inevitable result of his own life's choices." "Well, I think you should give him some money." "Sorry ... it's a free country. I worked hard for this money and I'm free to make the decisions on how I will spend it." "Not any more," responds Barack, pulling out a gun. Barack then points that gun at your head and tells you that, whether you want to or not, you are going to hand over some of your property to this man. Barack has the gun, he has the legal right to use it .. your freedom's be damned. Your property rights stop where the government decides someone needs to be "looked after." There's another more subtle premise at work in Obama's comment. Apparently he thinks that the only way Americans will "look after one another" is through the processes of government. Private charity has always been more effective at taking care of those truly in need. It was government, not private charity, that chased the fathers out of the homes of countless welfare families. It was government, not charity, that created an mass chaos on Father's Day in most urban areas. So .. the answer to President Obama is this: "You need to correct your premise, Mr. President. You don't balance freedom against our need to look after one another. Freedom is paramount. When people use their freedom to make the wrong choices and end up in need, they must rely on the private charitable efforts of individuals, service organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques. Once you have a government that is powerful enough to seize property from one individual solely for the purpose of transferring it to another .. freedom is in grave jeopardy. But then I didn't have to tell you that, did I? "Greedy capitalists want lots of money. Virtuous 'liberals' want to steal it."--David Friedman. "I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with our own money."--Will Rogers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP5YXJYeL0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Obama And George Stephanopoulos Spar On The Individual Mandate[/ame] A bad plan is a bad plan .. and there's no way for Obama to dress this one up. People aren't buying it, and maybe that is because the people don't believe him. Like this, for example ... Obama told ABC that requiring individuals to have health insurance, or fining them in the amount of $3,000 if they fail to do so, doesn't amount to a tax increase. He says, "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase ... Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." First of all, let's address this comparison to the car insurance industry. We had heard this line repeatedly from Obama and his team. I can't understand why some of the brilliant minds in the media haven't done this already. Auto insurance and health insurance are two very different animals. You can start with the simple fact that driving is a choice. No one is forcing you to get a driver's license or a car. Furthermore, so long as you keep your motor vehicle on your private property no insurance is needed in most states. You can drive your car or truck all over your farm, ranch, backyard or any property you own ... so long as it doesn't show up on a public highway you don't need to insure it. Auto insurance is a contractual arrangement between people who use public highways. You don't have to use the highway, but if you do you contract with other's who do to insure your vehicle. With Obama's plan, the very fact that you're drawing breath is all that is needed for the government to step forward, put that "omnipresent gun" to your head, and say "Buy health insurance, or else pay the $3,000 fine" And if you don't pay the fine? What then? Are they going to put you in jail? Are they going to seize your bank accounts? One thing you can be sure of: The punishment the government cooks up for you miscreants who don't obey the government's mandate to purchase health insurance will certainly be more serious than the punishment that has been dealt out to Charlie Rangel for his tax evasion and avoidance shenanigans. Now, back to this idea that this would not be a tax increase. I guess it all boils down to how you define the word "tax." If you will recall during the campaign, Barack Obama promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of Americans (even though half of Americans don't pay any income taxes). He then raised taxes on cigarettes. The dumber you are the poorer you are, and the poorer you are the more likely it is that you will be a smoker. So was the cigarette tax hike a tax on the very 95% of Americans that Obama said he would leave alone? Of course it was. The left will tell you, though, that it is the cigarettes that are being taxed .. not the people. Webster's Dictionary has a definition of a tax. George Stephanopoulos pulled it out and used it on PrezBO yesterday: "tax"--"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." How does Obama's mandate NOT constitute a tax? Ditto for the penalty! Obama's response to Stephanopoulos seems to be "Look, if I say it's not a tax, it's not a tax. I won. I'm the president. I get to define the terms, and when the government requires people to spend money on a particular product or face a fine .. it's not a tax." Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of this one is that we now have to completely redefine the word "tax" in our vocabulary to make sure that nobody can ever say Obama raised taxes on those 95% of Americans he vowed to leave alone. "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

I guess, that in the wonderful pool of American voters you can find pretty much everything.

It has been a long, long time since Smoltz pitched in relief, but he's still got salt.

Well... we had a nice run.