Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first ever episode of "Shut Your Pie Hole!" My guest today? Rosie.
First, let me tell you what she said and you decide. Baby steps...
According to Rosie, Bush intentionally sent our troops into Iran to be captured, all so he could pick a fight with Iran. Does Bush really need an excuse to turn Iran into a giant mirror? I mean, come on, it would help with global warming, right? Save the polar bears and all that? But, I digress. Lets see...we keep finding Iranian Elite Military members helping the insurgency in Iraq. Ahmadenejad (I-Wanna-jihad) repeatedly talks of eradicating all the Jews. Oh yeah, and pretty much everyone in the world thinks Iran having nukes akin to letting George Michaels be a school bus driver, it's just plain dumb. Needless to say, I don't really see any need for an excuse.
I'm about to blow your mind Rosie, the money you paid me to let you secretly (oops,call Fitzgerald!) subscribe to my blog will finally pay off. What if the President of Iran is intentionally instigating conflict in an effort to raise the oil prices? I think I heard somewhere that Iran has a little bit of oil don't they? Maybe a couple gas stations or something? OH YEAH! They're one of the top oil producing countries in the world. If we could see them, they (Ahmadenejad and the Sean Penn) are frolicking down the street, hand in hand. Well what're they doing with the other hands? I knew you'd ask. They're holding our money of course!
Iran needs to be dealt with. I hope the international community starts to see it my way or we're in big trouble. Meanwhile, on a lighter note, the awards ceremony...
"CONGRATULATIONS ROSIE, YOU WIN!"
"Really? What's the prize?"
"Well Rosie, that's nice of you to ask. Are you ready? I know I am. You get to...SHUT---YOUR---PIE HOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEE!
That's all for tonight folks. I'm your humble host, Rockin Republican."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
US Federal Prosecutors
What the hell is going on?
Over the last few months or so, it’s become increasingly obvious that the liberal left wants a head on a platter. Or multiple heads on a platter, to be more accurate. Let us start with Scooter. Libby, that is. Although, on a side note, I think it would have been prudent for Libby to change his first name to James, or Walter…anything but Scooter. It would be like going to the doctor for a risky, highly invasive medical procedure and finding out your doctor’s name is Cletus. The name doesn’t exactly scream competence, but, I digress.
Scooter Libby was under investigation for the supposed outing of a “covert” CIA operative, Valerie Plame. By the way, Valerie? If you need someone to go under covers with, I’m your man. Call me…
Moving right along. Fitzgerald, the Federally appointed Prosecutor for the case found there were no grounds to charge Libby with anything related to the original crime in question. Obviously, Fitzgerald found that Plame wasn’t “undercover” according to the Undercover Act she was supposedly being protected by, or he would have filed charges as such. There were multiple requirements for an operative to be labeled as “undercover” or “covert”, and Plame, needless to say, did not meet these requirements. Yes, she worked for the CIA. At a desk. Maybe she “covertly” did paperwork at her desk. Hopefully in a miniskirt. Did anyone notice she’s pretty hot for her age? Being a spy just makes her hotter. Sorry, back on point. So no charges were filed for the “outing” of Valerie Plame, but yet after the verdict, she’s testifying before congress that she was undercover and was outed as part of Bush’s political agenda.
Two things. First, Fitzgerald knew before going into the trial that Armitage was the one who had leaked her identity, covert or not. But yet he still attempted to charge Libby for it? Does this make sense to anyone? How about the jurors that said “Why didn’t we get to go after Rove?” Rove? Where the hell did he come from? The jurors all knew by the time they walked out of there that Armitage was the one behind the leaking, yet they still wanted to go after Rove and the Bush Administration.
So we’ve pretty much established that liberals want one thing…power. To do so, heads must roll. Rumsfeld was first. Libby was the second. They wanted Rove, but so far, Bush has kept his boy Rove out of the spotlight. Their next target: Alberto Gonzalez. They want him fired because he fired some federal prosecutors, which he legally has been given the power to do so. prosecutors work at the will of the President. The current administration brought multiple cases for them to try; illegal immigration, gun control, obscenity to name a few. The cases were refused by the attorneys in question. Now mind you, these people are here to serve the President, who will give them cases based on the political views and policies of the administration. If these attorneys won’t try the cases that are important to the administration, then it is their prerogative to fire them and find people who will.
The worst part about all of this? Clinton fired ALL 93 of the federal prosecutors less than 3 months after taking office. Not 10 or 20 of them, all of them. Now the libs argument doesn’t directly address this fact as they have no logical rebuttal; they do make claims that the fired attorneys were all investigating the Bush Administration for miscellaneous improprieties. And I’m sure Bill Clinton wasn’t under ANY investigations at all being that he was such a morally upstanding man who never did anything wrong. I’m sure none of the people fired were conservatives who shivered at the thought of following Clintons liberal agenda. Look people, Bush has done nothing illegal. He has simply fired some of his staff.
If my boss tells me to create a spreadsheet by tomorrow, and I tell him no because I believe spreadsheets are bad for the environment, then I should expect him to find someone else who will do some freaking spreadsheets. That’s the way jobs work. You do what your boss tells you to do, and he sends you paychecks (hopefully) every once and a while.
In closing I ask only this, why is Bush letting the libs get away with this? Where did his balls go? He’s letting the libs devour his administration like Rosie at an All U Can Eat buffet.
Today we finally saw Bush stick up for Gonzalez, but we’ll see how far that goes. Hey, George? I know you’re reading this. Listen guy, it’s time to show the Dems who wears the pants in the White House. Is it Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Chuck Schumer? Ted Kennedy?
Well, I certainly hope Ted isn’t behind the wheel of 1700 Pennsylvania, or behind the wheel of anything for that matter. Honestly, the Kennedy’s just need to stay away from all vehicles. The younger Kennedy thinks Sleeping Pills are something you take in preparation for going to the bar. The elder Kennedy thinks cars with girlfriends in them tend to float when driven into lakes (through scientific experimentation, Kennedy was able to prove his hypothesis false). And last, but not least, well, I think it’s probably too early to joke about the “Flying Kennedy”…or not flying, as it may be…
Over the last few months or so, it’s become increasingly obvious that the liberal left wants a head on a platter. Or multiple heads on a platter, to be more accurate. Let us start with Scooter. Libby, that is. Although, on a side note, I think it would have been prudent for Libby to change his first name to James, or Walter…anything but Scooter. It would be like going to the doctor for a risky, highly invasive medical procedure and finding out your doctor’s name is Cletus. The name doesn’t exactly scream competence, but, I digress.
Scooter Libby was under investigation for the supposed outing of a “covert” CIA operative, Valerie Plame. By the way, Valerie? If you need someone to go under covers with, I’m your man. Call me…
Moving right along. Fitzgerald, the Federally appointed Prosecutor for the case found there were no grounds to charge Libby with anything related to the original crime in question. Obviously, Fitzgerald found that Plame wasn’t “undercover” according to the Undercover Act she was supposedly being protected by, or he would have filed charges as such. There were multiple requirements for an operative to be labeled as “undercover” or “covert”, and Plame, needless to say, did not meet these requirements. Yes, she worked for the CIA. At a desk. Maybe she “covertly” did paperwork at her desk. Hopefully in a miniskirt. Did anyone notice she’s pretty hot for her age? Being a spy just makes her hotter. Sorry, back on point. So no charges were filed for the “outing” of Valerie Plame, but yet after the verdict, she’s testifying before congress that she was undercover and was outed as part of Bush’s political agenda.
Two things. First, Fitzgerald knew before going into the trial that Armitage was the one who had leaked her identity, covert or not. But yet he still attempted to charge Libby for it? Does this make sense to anyone? How about the jurors that said “Why didn’t we get to go after Rove?” Rove? Where the hell did he come from? The jurors all knew by the time they walked out of there that Armitage was the one behind the leaking, yet they still wanted to go after Rove and the Bush Administration.
So we’ve pretty much established that liberals want one thing…power. To do so, heads must roll. Rumsfeld was first. Libby was the second. They wanted Rove, but so far, Bush has kept his boy Rove out of the spotlight. Their next target: Alberto Gonzalez. They want him fired because he fired some federal prosecutors, which he legally has been given the power to do so. prosecutors work at the will of the President. The current administration brought multiple cases for them to try; illegal immigration, gun control, obscenity to name a few. The cases were refused by the attorneys in question. Now mind you, these people are here to serve the President, who will give them cases based on the political views and policies of the administration. If these attorneys won’t try the cases that are important to the administration, then it is their prerogative to fire them and find people who will.
The worst part about all of this? Clinton fired ALL 93 of the federal prosecutors less than 3 months after taking office. Not 10 or 20 of them, all of them. Now the libs argument doesn’t directly address this fact as they have no logical rebuttal; they do make claims that the fired attorneys were all investigating the Bush Administration for miscellaneous improprieties. And I’m sure Bill Clinton wasn’t under ANY investigations at all being that he was such a morally upstanding man who never did anything wrong. I’m sure none of the people fired were conservatives who shivered at the thought of following Clintons liberal agenda. Look people, Bush has done nothing illegal. He has simply fired some of his staff.
If my boss tells me to create a spreadsheet by tomorrow, and I tell him no because I believe spreadsheets are bad for the environment, then I should expect him to find someone else who will do some freaking spreadsheets. That’s the way jobs work. You do what your boss tells you to do, and he sends you paychecks (hopefully) every once and a while.
In closing I ask only this, why is Bush letting the libs get away with this? Where did his balls go? He’s letting the libs devour his administration like Rosie at an All U Can Eat buffet.
Today we finally saw Bush stick up for Gonzalez, but we’ll see how far that goes. Hey, George? I know you’re reading this. Listen guy, it’s time to show the Dems who wears the pants in the White House. Is it Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Chuck Schumer? Ted Kennedy?
Well, I certainly hope Ted isn’t behind the wheel of 1700 Pennsylvania, or behind the wheel of anything for that matter. Honestly, the Kennedy’s just need to stay away from all vehicles. The younger Kennedy thinks Sleeping Pills are something you take in preparation for going to the bar. The elder Kennedy thinks cars with girlfriends in them tend to float when driven into lakes (through scientific experimentation, Kennedy was able to prove his hypothesis false). And last, but not least, well, I think it’s probably too early to joke about the “Flying Kennedy”…or not flying, as it may be…
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Bio Fuels.
Bio fuels. Sounds exciting, right? It's not, but, it's important. Well, I'll let you decide on that.
Amid concerns on importing oil from the Middle East and all of the hubbub on "Global Warming", bio fuels are a hot topic. When my brother sent me this article, I figured I'd post on it. Good story? I thought so.
Back on point. The topic of the story is corn ethanol and it's benefits. I'll summarize if you're too lazy to read the article(I JOKE!). Many factors come in to play when we discuss using corn ethanol as an alternative fuel. I believe in a past post I might have touched on at least one of them.
First of a few, the efficiency of the process itself. In other words, how much of the energy in the corn ethanol would be necessary to produce the ethanol, likewise with gasoline or any other fuels used. For gasoline, the process only takes about 6% of the total energy in the gasoline produced. Well corn ethanol has GOT to be better than that, right? Well, it's not. Not really close, at this point. After you factor in all of the energy required in the production/transportation process you only have about 25% of the ethanol left. So for gas, you had about 94% left.
That doesn't really sound that cool to me. Granted, corn ethanol has better CO2 emissions than gasoline, but that's a whole other story. A story in which I will quickly enlighten you. Guess what was the number one source of greenhouse causing gasses in the atmosphere? Cows. That's right. Methane from cows flatulence is worse for the environment than all our cars and trucks and planes combined! Good news Sean! You can stop paying websites because you have a SUV, just go kill a few cows! But, I digress.
We're back at corn ethanol. We already covered how efficient it is at this point to produce the fuel. The next thing is what I had previously touched on, so I'll be brief. Mexicans can't eat enchiladas without tortillas. Otherwise it's just a pile of crap on a plate. The price of tortillas in Mexico has risen drastically due to the increases in corn consumption for fuel. Since farmers are going to try and plant whatever is the most profitable, they are going to go to the white corn, which is used for the ethanol. The production of the yellow corn, which is used in the tortillas, decreases, causing increases in the price. Also, keep in mind, if yellow corn prices go up because farmers are finding it more profitable to go with the ethanol production, then other things like soybeans and wheat and even cotton could see skyrocketing prices! Think of the chaos. Children will jump for joy at never having to eat soy meat burgers because their parents don't want to hurt the cows, the nation will be constipated because no one can afford to have enough wheat products in their diets and we'll all have to wear polyester!
If that made sense to anyone and I don't have it all wrong, then you just got yourselves a free basic economics lesson. Don't worry, this one's on me.
Alright, this is starting to go longer than I expected. I'll let you guys read the article. The gist of this is that it seems we need to look at making cars more efficient using gas, while at the same time exploring alternative fuels, like hydrogen. All we need is to come up with is warp engines and we're set. Dammit, where's Scottie when you need him?
Amid concerns on importing oil from the Middle East and all of the hubbub on "Global Warming", bio fuels are a hot topic. When my brother sent me this article, I figured I'd post on it. Good story? I thought so.
Back on point. The topic of the story is corn ethanol and it's benefits. I'll summarize if you're too lazy to read the article(I JOKE!). Many factors come in to play when we discuss using corn ethanol as an alternative fuel. I believe in a past post I might have touched on at least one of them.
First of a few, the efficiency of the process itself. In other words, how much of the energy in the corn ethanol would be necessary to produce the ethanol, likewise with gasoline or any other fuels used. For gasoline, the process only takes about 6% of the total energy in the gasoline produced. Well corn ethanol has GOT to be better than that, right? Well, it's not. Not really close, at this point. After you factor in all of the energy required in the production/transportation process you only have about 25% of the ethanol left. So for gas, you had about 94% left.
That doesn't really sound that cool to me. Granted, corn ethanol has better CO2 emissions than gasoline, but that's a whole other story. A story in which I will quickly enlighten you. Guess what was the number one source of greenhouse causing gasses in the atmosphere? Cows. That's right. Methane from cows flatulence is worse for the environment than all our cars and trucks and planes combined! Good news Sean! You can stop paying websites because you have a SUV, just go kill a few cows! But, I digress.
We're back at corn ethanol. We already covered how efficient it is at this point to produce the fuel. The next thing is what I had previously touched on, so I'll be brief. Mexicans can't eat enchiladas without tortillas. Otherwise it's just a pile of crap on a plate. The price of tortillas in Mexico has risen drastically due to the increases in corn consumption for fuel. Since farmers are going to try and plant whatever is the most profitable, they are going to go to the white corn, which is used for the ethanol. The production of the yellow corn, which is used in the tortillas, decreases, causing increases in the price. Also, keep in mind, if yellow corn prices go up because farmers are finding it more profitable to go with the ethanol production, then other things like soybeans and wheat and even cotton could see skyrocketing prices! Think of the chaos. Children will jump for joy at never having to eat soy meat burgers because their parents don't want to hurt the cows, the nation will be constipated because no one can afford to have enough wheat products in their diets and we'll all have to wear polyester!
If that made sense to anyone and I don't have it all wrong, then you just got yourselves a free basic economics lesson. Don't worry, this one's on me.
Alright, this is starting to go longer than I expected. I'll let you guys read the article. The gist of this is that it seems we need to look at making cars more efficient using gas, while at the same time exploring alternative fuels, like hydrogen. All we need is to come up with is warp engines and we're set. Dammit, where's Scottie when you need him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)