Round 385,237,456: Us vs. Them

Here is yet another example of how the simple regulation of hiding boxer briefs and ass cracks turns into a squabble over race. If love this statement in the article:

Other groups such as the Advancement Project, a Washington social advocacy organization, say the proposal is directed primarily at black males and could lead to arrests.

No, it's not directed at black males. It's direct at losers who wears pants they can't fill. Buy smaller pants, get a belt, or put on a few pounds. I don't want to see that crap and apparently neither do the people of Florida. At least the AP writer has the intestinal fortitude to use the term "black" and not the vastly more politically correct but potentially inaccurate "African-American".

As a side note, while I don't want to see people wearing pants like that, I've got to believe we're better letting them wear them that way. They'll be easier to catch after the robbery.

[Ed. Note: So there is no confusion. The Us vs. Them in the title is not a reference to fitted pants wearers versus baggy panted losers, or white versus black. It's simply the gifted versus the tards.]

Elliott Spitzer: Tax Reform Expert

Apparently, Spitzer has some additional explaining to do. This new IT-201 New York State Tax (long) form is new for 2007 tax returns. Oh come on Elliott.

I bet your wife really regrets the day, back when you were the attorney general, when she said, "Elliott, don't you think you're coming down a little hard on the prostitutes?"

ba dum bah!

Classic Socialist Dilemma

Please let me make the introductions. Complete Lack of Accountability meet Free-loading Entitlement Whore.

And then there was California. WTF. Are you kidding me.

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Interesting how the government has dulled the blade of this two-edged sword.

Animals Are Cool....

unless you pay thousands of dollars for health care over their short life span or end up in jail for "accidentally" killing one. I am at a loss to understand the prominence we have bestowed upon animals in this country and the amount of money wasted on keeping them alive. All you animal people are freaks. Period.

Someone I know spent almost $2000 for surgery to remove a hand towel from her dog's stomach. Yes, a hand towel. The dog ate a HAND TOWEL. Shockingly, the dog couldn't pass the towel. Tell me, why are you spending money on an animal so dumb, that it eats a tasteless towel so large it couldn't get the whole thing in it's mouth. My recommendation. Let the dog figure out what it's going to do. Believe it or not, we're now interfering in the evolution (i.e. survival of the fittest) of our pets. That dog should be pushing daisies in the back yard next to the swing set. Not sniffing out it's next meal in the home department at Macy's.

Then there's the other person who spent $6000 dollars on neck surgery for her dog. Um...can it walk? Can it lick itself? Yes? No surgery needed. NEXT! People are so strange.

My personal pet salary cap? $200. If an animal costs more than $200 over it's lifetime (excluding food), it's too much. Call me heartless if you want. We spend all this time breeding animals we know are going to have bad hips, diabetes, and other disorders. But we do it anyway. Because everyone wants the pure breed. People are sick.

Note to animal lover, $15 will get you Mr. Sleepy Shot and all your other costs go away. Think about that next time your animal eats something it can't possibly discharge. Oh, and don't even get me started on dog shows....or cats.

As for the guy that got 4 months in jail for killing his girlfriends cat. I have only one question. How did you not get the job done on the other one?