Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Mooch Hands Out Toys
Oh what a joyful and giving first lady... Her feelings towards Toys for Tots is undeniable.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Lecture
An elderly man is stopped by the police around 2 a.m. and is asked where he is going at this time of
night.
The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"
The man replies, "That would be my wife."
night.
The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"
The man replies, "That would be my wife."
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
So Tight!
This couple were in bed getting busy when the girl places the guys hand onto her pussy.
"Put your finger in me..." she asks him.
So he does without hesitation, as she starts moaning.
"Put two fingers in...", she says. So in goes another one.
She's really starting to get worked up when she says, "Put your whole hand in!". The guy's like, "Ok!".
So he has his entire hand in, when she says moaning aloud "Put both your hands inside of me!!!".
So the guy puts both of his hands in!
"Now clap your hands..." commands the girl.
"I can't", says the guy.
The girl looks at him and says "See, I told you I had a tight pussy!".
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Old Cow
Recently out in the California countryside south of San Francisco, a cow suddenly jumped out into the road, and the oncoming limousine hit it full on. The lady in the backseat said to her chauffeur, "You get out and check on it, because you were driving."
So the chauffeur got out, checked, and reported that the cow was dead, but that it was also very old.
Then the lady said, "You go up to that farmhouse, and tell the farmer that you accidentally killed the old cow."
So the chauffeur did indeed go up to the farmhouse, and 2-hours later he returned. His hair was all ruffled-up, he was totally plastered, and he had a big grin on his face.
So the lady asked, "What ever happened to you?"
The chauffeur replied, "After I got to the farmhouse, and delivered the message that you told me to say, the farmer opened-up his best bottle of malt whiskey, his wife gave me a delicious country meal and their pretty daughter made love to me."
The lady asked, "What on earth did you say to them?"
"I just knocked on the front door, and when the farmer opened it, I said to him, "I'm Nancy Pelosi's chauffeur, and I've just killed the old cow!"
So the chauffeur got out, checked, and reported that the cow was dead, but that it was also very old.
Then the lady said, "You go up to that farmhouse, and tell the farmer that you accidentally killed the old cow."
So the chauffeur did indeed go up to the farmhouse, and 2-hours later he returned. His hair was all ruffled-up, he was totally plastered, and he had a big grin on his face.
So the lady asked, "What ever happened to you?"
The chauffeur replied, "After I got to the farmhouse, and delivered the message that you told me to say, the farmer opened-up his best bottle of malt whiskey, his wife gave me a delicious country meal and their pretty daughter made love to me."
The lady asked, "What on earth did you say to them?"
"I just knocked on the front door, and when the farmer opened it, I said to him, "I'm Nancy Pelosi's chauffeur, and I've just killed the old cow!"
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Liberty
It starts and ends with one question: "who owns you?"
If you believe that you are owned by your society, that others are entitled to your person, your property, and your compliance with their beliefs, then your demand of the law is that it limits freedom in order to maximize equality.
Conversely, if you believe that you own yourself, that you alone are entitled to your person, your property, and your compliance, then your demand of the law is that it protects your rights from those who would limit your freedom.
This is why we do not get along anymore. We want different things from the law, from our leaders, from our government, and from each other. In the first case, the owned person seeks to negotiate the terms of his existence through the passage of laws which bind individuals. In the second case, the free person seeks to keep his liberty non-negotiable through the passage of laws which bind government.
We call the owned person “socialist” and the self-owned “libertarian”; both are better adjectives than nouns. One turns to government reflexively to solve all his problems, the other turns against government reflexively, the cause of all of our problems. Right or left has lost all meaning; up or down, more or less, bigger or smaller – this is the choice we must make regarding government.
We are a nation divided because the two things are mutually exclusive - liberty and government. One cannot expand unless the other necessarily contracts; we can be free or we can be governed, but we can not be both at once. Our government is approaching smothering mass; we must either constrain it or lose ourselves in it.
In Wisconsin, the socialists are attempting to recall a Governor for passing a law that binds government. In Washington D.C. an incumbent President faces an uphill re-election bid after passing a law that binds individual choice. One race is about collective bargaining, and the other collective medicine; two referendums on coercion that will set the trajectory of our liberties for decades.
In a nation of free people, liberty would defeat government by a crushing margin; coercion is toxic to the self-owned. But in our nation, polls show both races too close to call - such is the sad state of liberty in 21st century America. A century of drift away from the Liberty Principle has left the idea of true self-ownership unimaginable to most people. We have relied on the force of government so long we need to remind ourselves how to live as free people.
Free people do not engage in coercion; they interact with each other through voluntary exchange. Labor is exchanged for wage, risk is exchanged for profit, property is exchanged for property, compliance is exchanged for reciprocal obligation, and charity is exchanged for self-satisfaction. Our associations are voluntary, our purchases are voluntary, and our commitments to each other are voluntary. Our strongest bonds are those freely formed – family, faith, friends, patriotism, civic pride, shared interest, volunteerism – not those codified into law.
The social contract between free persons is based upon value, and the self-owned person values his fellow citizen too highly to take their person or property by force or fraud. He cherishes his own liberty too much to restrict the liberty of others. He loves his freedom too much to hate it in others.
The free person does not take, does not coerce, does not compel by force of law; he persuades, he offers, he cooperates, he engages in reciprocal exchange that can only take place when the transaction benefits both parties. We rely on the law to record our agreements, not to impose upon us the agreements made by others.
Mandates, prohibitions, subsidies, licenses, and preferences distort the proper workings of free markets, and free enterprise is the only kind that is sustainable. It is hard to imagine that these fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded – self-ownership, individual liberty, free markets - could now be so misunderstood, so feared and so mistrusted. But that is where we find ourselves.
Freedom is hard, and we have become soft. Living as free persons demands a measure of independence that few willingly undertake; and it demands a measure of tolerance that few of us are willing to give.
Living free means respecting the freedom of others, and the self-owned must tolerate choices we find morally reprehensible. We need not approve, endorse, accept, or subsidize reprehensible choices of others, we must simply tolerate them.
This is a small price to pay, considering the alternative. The state-owned must not only tolerate the morally reprehensible, but must pay for it and be subjugated to it by the force of law. Every mandate of government violates some citizen’s moral code. Every penny spent is a penny taken; every prohibition is the denial of choice; every ban is a violation of the right to pursue happiness – a right once viewed as so fundamental it was simply declared without need for justification.
And yet how do our politicians measure their legacy? They count the number of laws they passed, the quantity of things they banned, the amount of money they spent, the size of fines they imposed, the level of subsidy they provided, the scope of mandates they imposed. Those are not the accomplishments of statesmen; they are the meager boasts of common scoundrels.
This year’s elections are shaping up to be a nationwide referendum on the fundamental question of ownership. The names will differ, but the choice – liberty or government - will be same. The important question is not the one you might ask of each candidate but the one you ask of yourself – who owns you?
From there, the right choice is easy.
If you believe that you are owned by your society, that others are entitled to your person, your property, and your compliance with their beliefs, then your demand of the law is that it limits freedom in order to maximize equality.
Conversely, if you believe that you own yourself, that you alone are entitled to your person, your property, and your compliance, then your demand of the law is that it protects your rights from those who would limit your freedom.
This is why we do not get along anymore. We want different things from the law, from our leaders, from our government, and from each other. In the first case, the owned person seeks to negotiate the terms of his existence through the passage of laws which bind individuals. In the second case, the free person seeks to keep his liberty non-negotiable through the passage of laws which bind government.
We call the owned person “socialist” and the self-owned “libertarian”; both are better adjectives than nouns. One turns to government reflexively to solve all his problems, the other turns against government reflexively, the cause of all of our problems. Right or left has lost all meaning; up or down, more or less, bigger or smaller – this is the choice we must make regarding government.
We are a nation divided because the two things are mutually exclusive - liberty and government. One cannot expand unless the other necessarily contracts; we can be free or we can be governed, but we can not be both at once. Our government is approaching smothering mass; we must either constrain it or lose ourselves in it.
In Wisconsin, the socialists are attempting to recall a Governor for passing a law that binds government. In Washington D.C. an incumbent President faces an uphill re-election bid after passing a law that binds individual choice. One race is about collective bargaining, and the other collective medicine; two referendums on coercion that will set the trajectory of our liberties for decades.
In a nation of free people, liberty would defeat government by a crushing margin; coercion is toxic to the self-owned. But in our nation, polls show both races too close to call - such is the sad state of liberty in 21st century America. A century of drift away from the Liberty Principle has left the idea of true self-ownership unimaginable to most people. We have relied on the force of government so long we need to remind ourselves how to live as free people.
Free people do not engage in coercion; they interact with each other through voluntary exchange. Labor is exchanged for wage, risk is exchanged for profit, property is exchanged for property, compliance is exchanged for reciprocal obligation, and charity is exchanged for self-satisfaction. Our associations are voluntary, our purchases are voluntary, and our commitments to each other are voluntary. Our strongest bonds are those freely formed – family, faith, friends, patriotism, civic pride, shared interest, volunteerism – not those codified into law.
The social contract between free persons is based upon value, and the self-owned person values his fellow citizen too highly to take their person or property by force or fraud. He cherishes his own liberty too much to restrict the liberty of others. He loves his freedom too much to hate it in others.
The free person does not take, does not coerce, does not compel by force of law; he persuades, he offers, he cooperates, he engages in reciprocal exchange that can only take place when the transaction benefits both parties. We rely on the law to record our agreements, not to impose upon us the agreements made by others.
Mandates, prohibitions, subsidies, licenses, and preferences distort the proper workings of free markets, and free enterprise is the only kind that is sustainable. It is hard to imagine that these fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded – self-ownership, individual liberty, free markets - could now be so misunderstood, so feared and so mistrusted. But that is where we find ourselves.
Freedom is hard, and we have become soft. Living as free persons demands a measure of independence that few willingly undertake; and it demands a measure of tolerance that few of us are willing to give.
Living free means respecting the freedom of others, and the self-owned must tolerate choices we find morally reprehensible. We need not approve, endorse, accept, or subsidize reprehensible choices of others, we must simply tolerate them.
This is a small price to pay, considering the alternative. The state-owned must not only tolerate the morally reprehensible, but must pay for it and be subjugated to it by the force of law. Every mandate of government violates some citizen’s moral code. Every penny spent is a penny taken; every prohibition is the denial of choice; every ban is a violation of the right to pursue happiness – a right once viewed as so fundamental it was simply declared without need for justification.
And yet how do our politicians measure their legacy? They count the number of laws they passed, the quantity of things they banned, the amount of money they spent, the size of fines they imposed, the level of subsidy they provided, the scope of mandates they imposed. Those are not the accomplishments of statesmen; they are the meager boasts of common scoundrels.
This year’s elections are shaping up to be a nationwide referendum on the fundamental question of ownership. The names will differ, but the choice – liberty or government - will be same. The important question is not the one you might ask of each candidate but the one you ask of yourself – who owns you?
From there, the right choice is easy.
Tim Nerenz
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
LIE DETECTOR
A father buys a lie detector robot that slaps people when they lie.
He decides to test it out at dinner one night.
The father asks his son what he did that day. The son says, "I did some schoolwork." The robot slaps the son. The son says, "Ok, Ok. I was at a friend's house watching movies."
Dad asks, "What movie did you watch?" Son says, "Toy Story." The robot slaps the son. Son says, "Ok, Ok we were watching porn."
Dad says, “What? At your age I didn't even know what porn was!" The robot slaps the father.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Let's see if we have this right:
from Neil Boortz
As you know, Iran recently nabbed three American hikers who (they say) had strayed across their border. So … let’s review the rules:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally your are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally you will be shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be called a spy and your fate is sealed.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.
If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get:
As they say ….. WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT !
As you know, Iran recently nabbed three American hikers who (they say) had strayed across their border. So … let’s review the rules:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally your are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally you will be shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be called a spy and your fate is sealed.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.
If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get:
- A job.
- A driver’s license
- A Social Security card
- Welfare
- Food Stamps
- Credit Cards
- Subsidized Rent
- Subsidized home loans
- Free education
- Free health care
- Your very own lobbyist
- Billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language
- The right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect.
As they say ….. WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT !
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
