And someone's probably already asked this, but for the life of me I can't figure out where.

Why is it that when a militia group that calls themselves 'Christian' is busted for plotting to do bad things, 'Christian' is in the headline of every story about the group, and it's seen in the light of "Look at the awful things being done in the name of Christ", but when someone shoots up an Army base or blows up a subway or massacres people waiting in line to vote, not only is the religion of the perpetrators not mentioned, but it's not considered a reflection on the religion?

Am I being obtuse here?  Or is the assumption being made that most terrorist attacks are executed by Islamofascists, so when something happens that's not Islamocentric, it had better be pointed out so that we don't get the wrong idea about a particular attack? 

Posted by: Alice H at 09:56 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Dennis the Peasant is an accountant and he's discussing all those companies saying they're losing money because of Obamacare and the upcoming show trials. It's worth a read in its entirety. He makes sense of it all.
He has a copy of the SEC form they are required by law to file.
So what Waxman is asking for is really what they would have had to give to the SEC anyway. I think these hearings will be a huge loss for the Dems. The CEOs will say, "We had to do this by law." and as the Dems freak it will become obvious they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

He makes a great point, the Dems don't realize that politics affects the real world and they can't manipulate the real world politically.

He also points out how the next week or two are going to be very interesting as more and more publicly held companies file these required by law forms.

I think I saw this at the puppy blender's.

Posted by: Veeshir at 07:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

I followed a link from the puppy blender to here, a story I almost updated my previous, paranoid ranting, post with. It starts off slow but by the top of the second page you'll see more of what makes me think the way I do about Tsar Putin I. Notice where Ingushetia is, just north of South Ossetia.
That link led me to this post about this story (Yay! The point!)

So the post is at PJ's by Kim Zigfeld who's OUTRAGED! that Obama is having US troops march alongside British and Russian troops.
In Red Square.
She's upset because of the way Russia has been acting in the Caucusus, I'm with her on that. But Bush was just as bad or worse.
The Chechens weren't terrorists in 2001, they offered condolences to the US after 9/11 on more than one of their websites, including the official one, kavkaz.org (don't go there, it's terrorist now). Bush went to Russia and totally threw them under the bus. It was some cold shit and it really pissed me off.
So it's too much to ask for Obama to act all upset. Especially after 9 years of Russian troops kidnapping civilians and returning their bodies for $thousands or just killing and raping (often in that order) and leveling a city of 500,000 people down to rubble. Reporters into the area die. One made it out with pics, I'll find the link on another computer, but they're brutal.


Personally, I think it's High-Larious with a capital HIGH that American troops are marching in Red fucking Square.
Ronnie Raygun and Patton are in a bar somewhere, downing a few boilermakers, laughing their asses off.

Good for Obama.
Imagine US troops going to Russia in full regalia?
That's funny.
Where am I wrong?

Posted by: Veeshir at 04:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

We've all seen the news about the suicide bombings in Moscow.
And here comes Veeshir in full, paranoid, the pod people are after me, mode.

I'll admit, I've been looking at Russia, Iran, Syria and NoKo because I've been expecting at least two wars this spring, once invasion season starts in Georgia.

So let's see the dots I've connected in my feverish, paranoid mind.

more...

Posted by: Veeshir at 01:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

From Hehindeedreadthewholethingpundit, Moody's is talking about bumping both the US and UK from a AAA credit rating.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 08:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not a big perfume user.  I shower regularly and use deodorant, thankyouverymuch; I don't need to douse myself in fragrance.  I also have terrible allergies, so that probably contributes to my no perfume stance.  Walking by a Bath & Body Works in the mall gives me a damn headache.

However, there are lots of women who won't walk out of the house until they've fully doused themselves in the shit, and I don't really care one way or the other.  If it makes you happy, go for it.  I try to avoid the super-smelly people, and, if I can't, I suck it up and deal.  Apparently, sucking it up and dealing like a mature adult is not an option any more if you work for the city of Detroit:

Change is in the air for Detroit city workers. City employees will be urged not to wear perfume, cologne or aftershave as a result of a settlement in a federal lawsuit.

Officials plan to place warning placards in three city buildings. The signs will warn workers to avoid "wearing scented products, including ... colognes, aftershave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions ... (and) the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners."

The employee handbook and Americans with Disabilities Act training also will bear warnings.

Apparently, someone sued the city in '08 because all of the smelly perfume in the air made it difficult for her to do her job'n'stuff.  And she won, to the tune of $100,000.  Now, the super-well-off city of Detroit (hah!) has to spend cash on making signs that warn their employees not to smell nice.

I can't wait until someone with really bad B.O. sues the city because they've been told not to wear perfume at work.

Posted by: Ember at 06:10 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

It's funny how those two are so hard to differentiate.
Case in point, Purple Avenger notices something, Obama's GDP and other economic numbers keep being revised downward, usually to little fanfare.

So I thought, gee, it seems to me that Bush' numbers were always revised too, but upward. So I did a search at using Ace's URL, lo and behold, I remembered correctly. story after story of numbers revised upward, 8 years worth.

So not only were many people in the CIA, State Dept nd of course, those in the Dept of whoever is in charge of federal parks and land management fighting a war against Bush, there appear to be a bunch of people in the Dept of Commerce too.

No matter who's elected, lefties are very powerful in our gov't  and do all they can, even to the perversion of their duties, to get leftists elected.
That pisses me off.
h/t Veeshir

Posted by: Veeshir at 03:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe just plowing it under and starting over would be a better idea.

Operating on a scale never before attempted in this country, the city would demolish houses in some of the most desolate sections of Detroit and move residents into stronger neighborhoods {forced migration. This should end well-ed}. Roughly a quarter of the 139-square-mile city could go from urban to semi-rural.

Near downtown, fruit trees and vegetable farms would replace neighborhoods that are an eerie landscape of empty buildings and vacant lots. Suburban commuters heading into the city center might pass through what looks like the countryside to get there. Surviving neighborhoods in the birthplace of the auto industry would become pockets in expanses of green.

Detroit officials first raised the idea in the 1990s, when blight was spreading. Now, with the recession plunging the city deeper into ruin, a decision on how to move forward is approaching. Mayor Dave Bing, who took office last year, is expected to unveil some details in his state-of-the-city address this month.

"Things that were unthinkable are now becoming thinkable," said James W. Hughes, dean of the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, who is among the urban experts watching the experiment with interest. "There is now a realization that past glories are never going to be recaptured. Some people probably don't accept that, but that is the reality."

 

Posted by: eddiebear at 10:50 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

I present to you, Old Chinese Woman With Goat Horn Growing Out Of Her Head.

Her youngest of six sons, Zhang Guozheng, 60, said when a patch of rough skin formed on her forehead last year ‘we didn't pay too much attention to it’.

‘But as time went on a horn grew out of her head and it is now 6cm long,' added Mr Zhang, whose eldest brother and sibling is 82 years old.

‘Now something is also growing on the right side of her forehead. It’s quite possible that it’s another horn.’

Although, it is unknown what the protrusion is on Mrs Zhang’s head, it resembles a cutaneous horn.

This is a funnel-shaped growth and although most are only a few millimetres in length, some can extend a number of inches from the skin.

Cutaneous horns are made up of compacted keratin, which is the same protein we have in our hair and nails, and forms horns, wool and feathers in animals.

They usually develop in fair-skinned elderly adults who have a history of significant sun exposure but it is extremely unusual to see it form protrusions of this size.

The growths are most common in elderly people, aged between 60 and the mid-70s. They can sometimes be cancerous but more than half of cases are benign.

Common underlying causes of cutaneous horns are common warts, skin cancer and actinic keratoses, patches of scaly skin that develop on skin exposed to the sun, such as your face, scalp or forearms.

Cutaneous horns can be removed surgically but this does not treat the underlying cause.

Posted by: eddiebear at 12:43 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Boortz' Nealz Nuze we see this lovely article.
Quote
Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.
...snip...
While wages and other job-related income fell by a record $206 billion last year to $7.84 trillion, transfer payments from the government such as unemployment checks and Social Security burgeoned by $231 billion to $2.1 trillion. Meanwhile, the amount of taxes that individual Americans paid plummeted by $325 billion to $2.1 trillion as a result of middle-class tax cuts and because nearly 6 million people were thrown out of work and are no longer paying payroll taxes.

That's fucked up. The only things I know about finances are that you can be overdrawn even if you still have checks and being overdrawn is costly.

Bush and his crew did their best to be overdrawn (and a fine job of it they did, the bastids), but they didn't quite succeed at such a grand level as the current crew.
Obama and his Dem plunderers have the check book and they don't care if it's overdrawn, they're not paying the overdraft fees.

C'mon asteroid.

Posted by: Veeshir at 09:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.