Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Vilmar's Corner

Is it just me who has turned his heart cold to stories like this or what?

Read about this woman who USED to have a $35-40,000 a year job (back in 1996!!!) and quit (even though she already had several kids and had a history of their fathers’ leaving her and them.) Now she has SIX kids from THREE fathers!!! She violated her divorce decree and took the kids out of state. Her ex-husband sued, got the kids---and got her to pay child support!!!!!

Read about where she lives now. How instead of doing normal grocery shopping she does it at a convenience store.

Read about how she whines how awful it is to have a minimum wage job yet spends $70 a MONTH in water bills; how she has FOUR DOGS!!!! How they use their electric stove to heat the bathroom because she does not like to go into a cold bathroom.

What would these people have done back in the early 20th century? Died? Of course not. They’d have adapted.

She might qualify for subsidized housing but.....are you ready for this? She doesn’t feel like filling out the paperwork!!!

In life, wherever we are it is the sum total of every decision we ever made. She made bad decision after bad decision. Now the taxpayers are footing her bills.

This is all bullshit and it pisses me off to read how the paper writes this expecting us to feel sorry for her. I do not.

Especially after I got to the last sentence: "They say this country is so rich," Kelly said, "but why are so many people living paycheck to paycheck, just one week from being in the street?"

Hmmmmm, maybe because you are fucking stupid and irresponsible?!?!?!?!


Sorry, two in one day. Here’s another story where we are made to feel sorry for someone who pulls a boneheaded act.

Granted, you may be attached to your pet and even willing to give up your life for it. That’s your business.

But this guy has burns over 80% of his body for trying to save a dog that was not even his. And a firefighter calls what he did “courageous?” And called him a hero?

I call him a moron! I find it hard to imagine ANY instance where an animal is worth sacrificing a human life for.

Then again, it IS San Francisco !


You gotta love it when a foreign president calls Al Gore insane.

That’s what the Czech Republic president did when questioned about global warming.

Not only did he refute the current thinking he basically bitch slapped the reporter repeatedly in his replies.

As for those who continue to parrot the mantra or refuse to disagree with it? Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.”

This guy should run for president in the US !

Here’s the whole thing in case Drudge takes it down:

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica . I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica . I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

More on “climate change” here:

He challenges why we are falling for the hype when 90% of “scientists” say something is true when it could very well be that the 10 percenters are right:

"The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain ’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.


Religion of Peace? No. Religion of peace and quiet? No way.

This ought to get your blood pressure up: muslims are getting called to prayer via a loudspeaker system in this neighborhood. Residents are pissed off.

The raghead response? ““If there’s anything we can do to ease tension in the community, we are willing to do that at any cost – provided it does not compromise our religion,” said Ahmed.

In other words, FUCK YOU!

Those residents need to get smart and invent a religion that requires adoration of pigs and have prayer 15 times a day using the squeals of pigs as the call to the faithful.


The Brits are doomed. Especially since they are doing nothing to shut down schools that preach that Jews are monkeys and Christians are pigs.

Who funds the school? The Saudis. Somehow Democrats have no problem forcing us to buy oil from the Saudis because they won’t let us drill in our own country. And when this shit happens in the US who will the liberals blame?


Very disturbing. A brain scan that can read someone’s intentions?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Thought control is coming. It may not be 1984.....yet. But 2084 is right around the corner.


Will Obama make it past the primaries? He just might. Especially with his wife playing the race card so early.

You watch, soon we will not be able to criticize neither him nor Hillary. To do so would be considered “racist/sexist.”


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home