Heh: “Harry Reid” Now Slang For A Boring Sexual Position

By William Teach July 12, 2012 – 4:50 pm

For those who aren’t aware, Harry Reid is a Democrat Senator from Nevada who is the majority leader in the US Senate. To further delve into the term “majority leader”, that means that the Democrats control the US Senate, and have since January 2007, with Harry Reid (D-Nevada) as their leader. Which means that the Republican party is the minority party. Anyhow, The Daily Caller’s Taylor Bigler brings the funny

Ladies and gentlemen, do your significant others a favor and try not to pull a “Harry Reid” when you get home at night.

Thanks to Urban Dictionary — a site where users submit definitions for slang terms — the Senate majority leader’s name now means a boring sexual position, the Las Vegas Review-Journal first reported.

“Harry Reid” is defined as: “A sexual position where you climb on top and then do absolutely nothing.”

The site helpfully uses the term in a sentence, “I spent so long trying to talk her into bed that when I finally got on, I pulled a ‘Harry Reid’ and fell asleep.”

The definition continues to say that the term is “[n]amed for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Under his lack of leadership, the Senate failed to pass a budget in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. He also blocked votes on numerous jobs bills passed by the House of Representatives.”

Taylor also mentions the term “Reiding”

Using the Congress of the United States to silence free speach of private citizens. (WT: misspelling of “speech” not mine)

Checking the Urban Dictionary, Pelosi is not treated much better

A term to use instead of Bull Sh**, or “BS”.
Used if something is ridiculous, idiotic, a half-truth, or just
stupid. It covers any number or negative formats. The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially foolish insolent talk.

That’s some of the nicer ones. Henceforth, instead of writing  “mule fritters”, I’ll just write “Pelosi!”

Read: Heh: “Harry Reid” Now Slang For A Boring Sexual Position »

Posted in Democrats, Like, Gnarly, Dude, Queen Nancy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 12, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle have water wasted on it, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Change Caused Longest Cold Snap Since 1945 In N. Korea

By William Teach July 12, 2012 – 10:48 am

Seriously, who will you believe, the folks who tell you that changes in climate are mostly natural or fools who blame everything on Mankind while refusing to live the carbon neutral lifestyle and wanting lots and lots and lots of donations so that Warmists can feel good about themselves? (via Tom Nelson)

(NRDC) Climate Change Deniers Resurface; Who Will You Believe?

The temperature’s cooling, the power is back on in Washington, D.C., the fires are almost out in Colorado and they’ve almost cleaned up from the flooding in Florida.

So naturally, those who continue to deny (at the peril of the rest of us) the connection between climate change and extreme weather disasters are once again raising their heads and raising their voices.

Wait, the temperature is cooling? I don’t remember the climate models predicting that.

According to the report, global warming created weather patterns which contributed to extreme severe weather events last year such as:

The longest cold snap in North Korea since 1945

Wait, what? These people really do think you’re stupid.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Caused Longest Cold Snap Since 1945 In N. Korea »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Gov. Scott Walker Provides Some Facts On The Devastation Obamacare Will Create

By William Teach July 12, 2012 – 8:33 am

In an editorial at the Washington Post, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker points out that Wisconsin, under his leadership, was able to appropriate $1.2 billion in increasing Medicare spending for his state by “putting in place the long-term structural changes needed to make our budget sustainable” which allows Wisconsin to make sure they take care of their residents who “truly need assistance.” He then goes on to show just how bad the federal policy of Obamacare is in the nation’s laboratories, the States

(Washington Post) The bad news is that, from a practical standpoint, Obamacare will devastate Wisconsin. An actuarial study commissioned by my predecessor, a Democrat, and completed last year found that if Obamacare is implemented in Wisconsin:

  • 100,000 people will be dropped by their employer-sponsored health insurance;
  • 59 percent of people who buy their own health insurance will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent;
  • 150,000 people will stop buying health insurance in the private sector and will instead become dependent on the government and taxpayers;
  • Between 2014 and 2019, Obamacare could cost Wisconsin taxpayers $1.12 billion; after all federal aid and tax credits are applied, the state’s portion of the bill will be $433 million; and
  • Approximately 122,000 parents, caretakers and pregnant women with an income of more than 133 percent of the federal poverty level will no longer be eligible for Medicaid.

It’s important to go beyond these facts and understand what they really mean for those of us who live in the Badger State. Young people will be hit hard with premium increases. Those between 19 and 29 years old who have individual insurance will experience an average premium increase of $1,631 per year. A family of four that does not qualify for a subsidy can expect a 28 percent increase — from $8,528 to $10,912. For those who are covered by the small-employer group market, the average premium increase will be 15 percent.

Many of those points are intentional per Obamacare. The legislation wants to get people off of their private employer sponsored health insurance/private bought insurance and force them to purchase insurance through the government mandated health exchanges which offer Government Approved plans. You can keep your plan as long as you make absolutely no changes to it. Make a change and you have to go through the exchange. The costs of the plans you keep will skyrocket. And people will be forced to choose plans that are backstopped by the Government, with all the controls and incompetence that government brings.

Overall our federal government should be working to replicate the successes of states like Wisconsin — particularly focusing on those with high rates of coverage. And from a practical standpoint, the federal government should give Medicaid block grants to states. This would allow states to maximize the efficient use of tax dollars and increase private-sector competition while still providing care for those in need.

Increasing access to health care won’t come through mandates, taxes or penalties. Truly improving access for families will require costs to go down. Unfortunately, Obamacare moves in the opposite direction by making insurance more expensive.

Unfortunately, the point of Obamacare is to force people to be even more dependent on a centralized far left bureaucracy that is unresponsive to the needs of the people and incapable of providing service, all while moving the country towards single payer.

Read: Gov. Scott Walker Provides Some Facts On The Devastation Obamacare Will Create »

Posted in Global Warming, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Is Voter ID A Poll Tax Or Simply Common Sense?

By William Teach July 12, 2012 – 8:07 am

That’s the question ABC News is asking after Eric Holder went off the reservation and proclaimed that requiring voters to show ID was ushering in the era of Jim Crow. Even though ID was required to see Holder make his speech to the NAACP. And to see Mitt Romney. And for the upcoming Joe Biden appearance in front of the same group

(ABC News) The Jim Crow-era poll taxes have been outlawed for more than 50 years, but if you ask Attorney General Eric Holder, they may be making a comeback in the form of state voter ID laws.

“We call those poll taxes,” Holder said, detouring from his prepared remarks during a speech at the NAACP on Tuesday to equate Texas’s photo ID law to the poll taxes of the early 1900s.

Those poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional by the 24th Amendment, but the analogy may not be completely off-base.

“The comparison is in the effects,” said Jane Dailey, a history professor at the University of Chicago. “They have an effect of discouraging voters in a more indirect way than poll tax laws, which have the same effect but are much more obviously standing in the way of Democratic participation.”

Why would showing ID be discouraging? People have to show ID for almost everything nowadays.

Voter ID laws, enacted in 11 states over the past two years, require voters to show a government-issued photo ID that the state will provide for free. But while the ID is free, the documents residents need to prove their identity in order to get that ID, such as a birth certificate, are not.

An interesting argument. But,

Supporters of the voter ID laws claim the ID should not be an impediment to voting because everyone has access to a free ID and the documents required to get it are things that voters should already have.

“You have to have a birth certificate to enroll in our public schools,” Texas State Sen. Tommy Williams said during the Texas court trial this week. “I mean, it’s a very common thing that you have to have, and I don’t really see it — it’s just one of the things of life.”

I’ve taken a quick perusal through the requirements for many schools systems in deep blue areas, such as NYC, Boston, D.C., and LA, and they all have some sort of requirement for ID. In NYC, to enroll you need

  • Child’s birth certificate or passport
  • Child’s immunization records
  • Two of six methods showing proof of residence (for parent(s))

Obviously this means that the NYC public schools are practicing Jim Crow and trying to keep minorities from getting an education. In some liberal areas, such as my own home county in NC (Wake County leans liberal), the parent needs an ID to register their kids for school. Why does the liberal education system hate Blacks and other minorities?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Is Voter ID A Poll Tax Or Simply Common Sense? »

Posted in Election Fraud | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Proves Earth Was Warmer In Previous Warm Periods

By William Teach July 11, 2012 – 3:51 pm

All those damned peasants driving around in their fossil fueled carts, ya know

(The Register) Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it – but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years.

A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today – despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

“We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,” says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. “Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy.”

What does it look like?

Even if it was warmer today, there is nothing except conjecture and hysteria that would prove anthropogenic causation.

According to the scientists’ new paper, published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures.

The people who published this aren’t exactly “skeptics”, and posit many anthropogenic causes for today’s temps. But, what caused the higher temps in the past? Fossil fueled mules and horses?

Read: Study Proves Earth Was Warmer In Previous Warm Periods »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 11, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is evil CO2 infused beer and a field that should be full of wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Radio Equalizer.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Chris Christie To Obama On More Stimulus: “Please Don’t”

By William Teach July 11, 2012 – 12:21 pm

Christie’s not particularly enthused about more government stimulus for more government workers

(NY Post) No more public workers — please!

That was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s alarmed reaction to President Obama’s push to send states another dose of stimulus money to hire teachers, firefighters and police.

“Please don’t send me any more money to hire more public employees. Please don’t,” implored Christie yesterday in a speech at the Brookings Institute, a liberal Washington think tank.

“I’ve got plenty as it is, and I don’t need any more, and they’re expensive!” said the brash governor, who won a hard-fought showdown with teachers unions over benefits and pensions.

Temporary federal aid to hire permanent state and local workers, he argued, only leads to huge budget shortfalls or layoffs when the stimulus money runs out.

“I have the highest property taxes in America to begin with,” said Christie. “Where’s this money going to come from to pay these folks afterwards?”

Well, that would be your problem, Gov. Obama only cares about having more unionized workers that would pump more money into his campaign coffers.

Obama offered up the second stimulus as part of his re-election campaign. He promised that it would reboot the stalled recovery by growing the public sector, which he insists is doing worse than the private sector.

I think the public sector is doing just fine. Obama apparently wants everyone to work for the government, though.

Read: Chris Christie To Obama On More Stimulus: “Please Don’t” »

Posted in Barry Obama, GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Dueling Tax Plans: Whose Is Better For The 98%?

By William Teach July 11, 2012 – 8:57 am

What we’ve seen lately from Team Obama is an attempt to shit the dialogue from his terrible handling of the economy and the notion that Obama is out of ideas by offering up…..the retread idea of class warfare by raising taxes on “the rich”. ABC News takes an actual look at what the tax plans of the two campaigns are, and finds out

The fight over creating jobs morphed into the battle of the tax plans this week after President Obama renewed his call to let the Bush Tax cuts expire for people earning more than $250,000 per year, a policy his Republican rival Mitt Romney dubbed a “kick in the gut.”

But while the rhetoric over taxes revolves around what the wealthiest Americans will pay, little attention has been given to how the other 98 percent of Americans — those that will most likely decide the 2012 election — will fare under Obama’s or Romney’s tax proposals.

The short of it is under Romney’s plan, taxes will go down for nearly every taxpayer. Under Obama’s plan, middle and low income earners will pay virtually the same amount as they currently pay, while people earning more than $250,000 will see their taxes go up by between 2 percent and 5 percent.

Obama’s plan isn’t really a plan: it’s just a little policy change to existing tax law. Coming up with a plan himself would interfere with all his campaigning, golfing, and partying.

Taken as a whole, Romney’s plan reduces taxes for three-fourths of tax payers by an average of $4,700, the Tax Policy Center estimates. Obama’s plan would lower taxes for 12 percent of filers and raise taxes for about 27 percent. Nearly every person whose taxes would go up under Obama’s plan earns more than $250,000 per year, according to the Center’s analysis.

Romney wants a 20% cut across the board for income tax brackets…..I will say that one of the problems with the Bush tax cuts is that it made way to many people have an effective zero percent federal tax liability.

Romney would also extend the Bush tax cut provisions that keep the tax rate for capital gains and dividends at 15 percent and eliminate all federal income taxes on those investment incomes for people earning less than $200,000.

Obama would allow that provision of the Bush tax cuts to expire for people earning more than $250,000, making the tax rate on capital gains jump to 20 percent and dividends taxes rise to 39.6 percent.

So Obama wants to raise the income taxes on small business owners and tax the heck out of people who typically are the ones who provide capital to business. Raising taxes means that those with the money have less to feed back into the economy as it goes directly to the federal government, which is not known for being wise stewards of that money. Raising the dividend tax could see a 30% drop in the value of dividend stocks

People who earn less than $250,000 and do not directly see their investment taxes go up will still be affected if they own mutual funds or have a 401K retirement plan, both of which could see their value go down because of the increased tax rates on dividends, McBride said.

Obama is simply using class warfare rhetoric without any thought as to what havoc his policies would create.

Read: Dueling Tax Plans: Whose Is Better For The 98%? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Romney, Taxation | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CNBC Declares Texas Top State For Business 2012

By William Teach July 11, 2012 – 8:27 am

Is anyone shocked in the least?

(CNBC) Texas has done it again.

The Lone Star State makes a triumphant return as America’s Top State for Business—its third time at the top of our rankings.

“Listen, there is a reason that Caterpillar moved their hydraulics manufacturing and their engine manufacturing to the state of Texas,” said Gov. Rick Perry in November during the CNBC Republican presidential debate.

We can attest to that.

In our sixth annual study, Texas racked up an impressive 1,604 points out of a possible 2,500, with top-10 finishes in six of our 10 categories of competitiveness. Texas has never finished below second place since we began the study in 2007.

They ranked all the states on multiple measurements, available for viewing at the story, and when it is all added up, you end up with

  1. Texas
  2. Utah
  3. Virginia
  4. North Dakota
  5. North Carolina

…as the top 5. Unsurprisingly, there’s not one true Democrat state in the Top 10. If you can believe it, California isn’t dead last: it’s #40. The state still has a few things going for it, and pending fiscal destruction wasn’t a part of the measurement. Rhode Island, a good Blue state, is #50.

Just goes to show that Conservative/Republican policies help create positive business environments.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: CNBC Declares Texas Top State For Business 2012 »

Posted in Economy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove