Monday, August 13, 2012

Lolo Jones is Hot, 30, Single, and a Virgin

Can someone explain to me why she is still single?

I mean look at her! She's cute, she's athletic, she's exotic-looking, she has a great smile and she's "saving herself for the right man" (translation: she ain't no ho). So explain to me how this woman, this beautiful American woman can still be single with no man?

Could it be a case of Rationalization Hamsterititus?

Look don't get me wrong, I still love Lolo, what's not to love she's hot and she's not a TAS (Typical American Slut) but with this piece I wonder if she's a TRFH (Typical Rationalization Female Hamster) She clearly had no problem being in the spotlight when everything being said about her was positive; but now that one article claims she might be over-rated, she throws a hissy fit and cries foul and says she's entitled for every media jockey to kiss her finely toned butt because she's an American Olympic athlete.

My assumption is that she reacts the same way about men. She probably has no trouble turning down men because she's busy and stuff, but pretty soon she's going to be 40 and will probably proclaim "Where have all the Good Men gone?". When that day comes poor Lolo will succumb to the disease of Rationalization Hamsterititus.

I've Returned: Romney on Ryan

I'm amazed that I still receive 5 or 6 views to my blog per day, considering it has been dead for several months. Which is entirely my fault. School has been vicious as they have made a switch from the quarters-system over to the semester-system. Normally it shouldn't be a problem, but when they shave off 5 weeks of time and do nothing to alleviate the course kills time. Not to mention after having to put up with the God-awful drivers in this state I come home and simply vegetate.

However this is my last week of school before I have a 2 week vacation to soak up what little of the Summer season is left (Ohio has the worst season's) before I returned to a more-structured school schedule so I should be able to make updates.

I'm writing to voice my comments on Mitt Romney's decision to pick Congressman Paul Ryan as his VP-pick. Naturally I align with former Democrat Vice-President to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John "Cactus Jack" Nance Garner when he said that the Vice-Presidency is "Not worth a bucket of warm piss." To me the VP is purely a guy who just sits on his throne and warms the seat hoping for a chance that he can either break a vote-tie in the Senate or ascend to the Presidency. Now while it's clear that many in Progressivestan and Liberalopolis believe that the VP is some sort of super-dooper powerful secret position where the VP is really calling all the shots (as was the case of Bush-Cheney) the reality couldn't be any further from the truth. George W Bush ran the White House and Dick Cheney was only brought along when he was needed. All the decisions of the Bush Administration were Bush's not (I emphasise for Leftists and RuPaul/Alex Jones kooks who suffer from illiteracy) Cheney's decisions, in-fact Bush almost left Cheney off of the 2004-ticket. Now fast-forwarding...does anybody really think that President Obama is letting Joe "Plugs" Biden: The Dumbest Man Ever to be Elected Vice-President, call all the shots? I think that is a big fat no.

Now we have Paul Ryan who is a very bright man but is now going to be taken away from the House and sent to the ash bin of politics with no vote (unless the Senate needs a tie-breaker) and a job that is equivalent to a bench warmer, secondary advisor (since the President has his own advisers) and promo-plugger. However Paul Ryan had to be picked because the morons in the TeaPartay (Yes I said Morons and yes I am a Tea Partier) wouldn't get all goooey-oooey unless some strong-conservative was picked and one with a big name and nice pecks and hair and soft blue eyes...."ooooh aahhhhh take me now Mr. Ryan! You can slash my budget anytime." -- fantasises the Palinite soccer-mom who votes with her libido and not with her head (but hey, since when have women ever thought with their heads....I'M KIDDING, KIDDING.)
To be fair it's not the women voters that are the problem, men are too....who think "Well grrr Mitt Romney is too RINO, by golly he's gotta prove to me that he's a strong conse....oh oh ahhhhhh ooohh he picked Congressman Ryan....well I really would have creamed it if he picked Rubio, but Ryan aww man how can you deny that budget....Honey! I'll be in the bathroom for 20 minutes!" -- says the Palinite football dad who votes because he thinks just having a male appendage is enough to qualify one's voting...either way if your vote hinges upon Romney picking Ryan...thinking Ryan is gonna keep Romney in line.....YOU ARE A MORON!

So my thoughts:

  • Am I glad Romney picked Ryan?: Yes
  • Do I think Ryan was the best choice?: No
  • Would I have preferred it be someone not currently serving?: Yes
  • Will Ryan make a better VP than "Plugs" Biden?: Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Words of Wise from Al Bundy

Al Bundy speaks the truth on the differences between Men and Women.

Al Bundy who wrote the Gospel of Al and Letters from NO MA'AM. Proves that Men don't need women.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Go Mitt Go!

Gallup Poll: Mitt Romney Favorable Rating Jumps

Go Man...Go!

Something tells me that November 2012 will see a landslide defeat for Obummer, his cronies, the Democrat Party, and the Marxist-Left.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

No Kidding!

The Best City for Women in America? Washington, D.C


No kidding...the best places for women, also happen to be where Big Government and Big Liberalism resides. Notice how none of those cities are operated by a responsible government?

What's funny is another article states that the cities that are best for women also happen to be the worst.

According to book, "Who's Your City?" by Richard Florida and The Singles Map, which was first published in the National Geographic in February 2007, there are 165,000 more single women in New York than there are single men. In fact, New York comes in at the top of a the long list of cities in the US with dismal dating odds for single women. The other cities include Boston, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis.

Bwahahaha! Gee I wonder why this is...Brownie points awarded to anyone who has the correct answer.

Get to work.

Fat Crime! (1984)

You know there was a great song by the Eurythmics in 1984 called "Sex Crime" which referred to the movie, based on the novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Sexcrime was a Newspeak term in George Orwell's masterpiece referring to a sexual act the Party deemed of no value to the race of Oceania. In Oceania, the act of sex was criminalized unless it was for the process of reproduction.

As of 2012, Airstrip One (or United Kingdom as they still wish to call it) has come out in favor of Fatcrime!

Apparently the limeys wish to institute a 20% tax on all "unhealthy foods" in order to curb consumer choice and reduce Britain's (Airstrip One) obesity rate.

One article, led by Oliver Mytton of Oxford University's Department of Public Health, looked at tax schemes worldwide to see what has worked, however marginally. Many countries are now using such "sin" taxes, which have curbed tobacco and alcohol use, to limit the consumption of unhealthy food, Mytton said. These taxes are based on the basic economic theory that, as the price of an item rises, the consumption of that item will fall. But this theory isn't necessarily true with food, Mytton said. Just because the price of microwave-ready, deep-fried, gooey cheese sticks goes up doesn't mean the nation will switch to kale. People might continue eating deep-fried, gooey cheese sticks, because that's what they like to eat and that's all they know how to eat.

Actually "sin" taxes  do not work with alcohol either, neither does it work with anything. The alcohol duties imposed by Parliament have failed to curb alcohol consumption, in fact it could be argued it has increased it. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have been collecting alcohol duty taxes for quite a long time, but according to the Daily Telegraph alcohol consumption has doubled since the 1960s, despite the massive duties imposed upon alcohol present-day, compared to what was some 40 years ago.

So if sin taxes on alcohol doesn't work to curb consumption, it surely will not work with food. Now I could argue several points as why the limeys want to impose such a tax:
  • They're nanny-state tyrants!
  • They are just trying to control people
  • (RuPaul/Alex Jonestown answer) Bilderburgs, Rothschilds, Illuminati, NWO scum trying to kill off Britain!
  • They are just greedy and need to fund the bloated state.
 Et cetera, et cetera. I could go on with excuses, but I am going to take these limey's serious and believe they are trying to legitimately solve a glaring problem with Britain. The population is extremely fat and overweight and something must be done to curb the pandemic because Britain has a Socialist health care system and cannot tolerate burdens to the system as well as the Capitalist health care system can. So it could be seen that a sin tax on "unhealthy" foods would solve two problems.

 - One, the revenue collected from the duties could be used to fund the NHS to provide better service.
 - Two, the higher prices would lead to a lower consumption, as people would choose healthier foods over
    the chips and crisps

However this will not solve anything as people will still continue to grab the take-away instead of cooking their own food. Even Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute is right that this will not curb consumption, but get's it entirely wrong when he say's taxes must be 100% in order to see a reduction. However Smokers clearly see that ridiculous rates do nothing with consumption. Tobacco tax rates are vindictive, yet Americans still are smoking more than they did in 1935 (which reminds me I gotta go get some more smokes). The only reason people have given up smoking is because most people just chose not to. It's a personal choice, the propagandists and liars have worked...not the taxes.

However smoking is one is a personal choice, food is a necessity. The idea that people are just going to give up the greasy but quick fish 'n chips for the kelp soup is ridiculous at best. The reason so many people are eating fatty take-away foods is because of two simple reasons.

  • Men can't cook
  • Women are too lazy or busy to cook
Those nifty Fifties the women were not in the office, they were at home being domestic divas. She would prepare a meal rich in nutrients and flavor. The kids, mom, and dad would enjoy a wonderful nutritious meal prepared by mom. The family unit would get their daily dosage of vegetables, protein, dairy, grains, and fruit. Kids meals back in the 50s consisted of what my mother would describe as "A P&P loaf with a dab of mustard on two-pieces of bread, with either a thermos of vegetable soup or potato chips, with either a very small desert leftover, apple, or canned peaches"  --- Now surely that sounds a lot more healthier than a Oscar Meyer Lunchables. The idea that the 50s consisted of women preparing Swanson TV dinners and gathering around the Television set to watch Jackie Gleason is yet another myth perpetuated by Hollywood. The ones who frequented the use of TV dinners and eating while watching the telly were usually bachelor's who had no family to enjoy dinner with. Sure there were times where Mom would say to Dad "I'm busy with this thing here...I don't know if I can cook tonight" and Dad would suggest either a TV dinner or them going out. However it was a rare occasion because Mom's job was to make the meals in the family so unless she was swamped with other duties like "Fido wet himself on the carpet and Mom spent all day scrubbing the stains out" she would have to have dinner ready when Dad got home. But this wasn't just the nifty Fifties...this was how it was before the feminist movement of the 70s. Women provided the most nutrition and love to the children, Dad did so too but would provide the money so Mom could provide the nutrition...there was teamwork in this unit. The reason why so many people are eating unhealthy take-aways is because they have the money too, and they have no structure to provide healthy meals because women are not in their proper roles, so as a result it is a lot easier for a woman to grab the take-away instead of slaving away at a stove for an hour after just putting in eight-long grueling hours at work. This was why men seldom cook, when you put in a hard day's work...the last thing you want to do when you come home is.....more work! This is why families are outsourcing their parental responsibilities to nannies, maids, gardeners, and McDonald's; because Dad can't do it and Mom chooses not to do it. So as a result the kids and parents are getting fatter.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

A Comment from a Whackadoodle Paulbot of the BrownShirt Boxers Birgade.

Yes, if he were to become president there is not much realistically he can do since that is the nature of the presidency and most people love a hand out.

Keep in mind to that the GOP violated state laws and even their own rules; that tells me a lot more about the system than about Ron Paul. The Democrats treated Dennis Kucinich the same way in '08. I'm more than happy to see the man retire and enjoy the rest of his years.

All I know is if we had more RP's in Congress, my bank account would be hell of a lot bigger and there would be lot more job options for everyone.

Anyone who supports Romney thinking anything will change is not too bright either.

Continue to 'enjoy the decline' and enjoy your status as a slave. I'll be staying home this election - again.

I'm not sorry for saying, the majority of Americans are simply too stupid for liberty.

When I honestly think about it, I would not mind helping out the NWO haul most of my fellow Americans to a concentration camp followed by starvation.

This was sent to me via another Whackadoodle Paulbot of the Brownshirt Boxers Birgade of the Terrorist army of Paul-Qaeda! Just to show you the compassion of so-called Liberty-loving psychopathic cretins of the RuPaulians.

This is why no one wants to vote Ron Paul.

So because I support Mitt Romney (because I would rather have him over Obama --you know Paulbots the guy who truly is destroying America) I am apparently stupid and wish to be a slave....even though I voted Ron Paul (now I'm starting to regret it). It's nice to know that Paulistinians prefer to have Obama another four years and embrace class-warfare, race-warfare, and Marxism rather than swallow the bad pill and avert disaster.

It's also nice to know that so many Paul-Qaedians think that liberty is something only reserved for the "enlightened" gee what an anti-Libertarian Liberty is only reserved for those who are not stupid? but isn't liberty about being as smart or as stupid as you want? Not according to the Paulbots.

And finally there is the point of wanting to send Americans to concentration camps and starve them to death. Pffft and you asshats have the gall to call yourselves Libertarians. So if someone disagrees with your views you want to strip them of their liberty and murder them. Nice to know.

Funny because this whackadoodle supporter said in an earlier comment...
I'm glad you can paint all supporters with one broad brush.
Obviously disagreeing with me claiming all Ron Paul supporters are arrogant and kooky fanatical zealots but he then stuffs his foot in his mouth when he says he wants to put Americans into death camps and starve them to death. Hypocritical Moron much?

So hey! Ron Paul-Qaeda enjoy that goosesteppin' eh?

Typical Ron Paul Supporters