(e:Jason) and Walt:
(e:Joshua) and Walt:
(e:Jason) and Jerry (OMG Jason lost a finger!):
Walt, (e:Joshua) and Jerry
Jason's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/25/2005 18:32 #23594
Club 110 Reunited!Category: fun
My good friend (and former roommate) Walt came from Florida to hang out with us and engage in some debauchery. I can't show you the bad stuff but here are some pics of the guys before we went out.
(e:Jason) and Walt:
(e:Joshua) and Walt:
(e:Jason) and Jerry (OMG Jason lost a finger!):
Walt, (e:Joshua) and Jerry
(e:Jason) and Walt:
(e:Joshua) and Walt:
(e:Jason) and Jerry (OMG Jason lost a finger!):
Walt, (e:Joshua) and Jerry
10/20/2005 12:05 #23593
Quick HitsCategory: potpourri
In a stunning act of Congressional common sense, the House passed the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" by a vote of 307-119.
Essentially what the House is saying is - "If you stuff your face with whoppers and bacon and fries it's your own damn fault if you blimp up!" You have to be pretty much brain dead to not know that fast food is unhealthy. If this isn't a case of common sense, I don't think there is one. And if your kids become fat because you feed them a diet of fries and burgers, you are not doing right by them in the least, and it is YOUR fault. I've grown to believe that the US is quickly becoming a place where personal responsibility doesn't matter (hey it's anyone's fault but mine!), but this development is encouraging.
In an equally stunning act of ignorance, burgeoning dictator and hero to kook liberals the world over Hugo Chavez claims the US is planning to invade Venezuela!
Of course Chavez is blowing smoke, but the liberal media grabs hold to anything that is remotely anti-US or anti-Bush and runs with it whether it is fact or fiction. He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure. I'm beyond tired of explaining to you all why this argument betrays logic, reality and common sense. I'm not sure what's funnier, that or Chavez's claim that we would pay for "100 centuries" and drown in our own blood if we indeed launched his fantasy invasion. Rather than doing the correct thing (passing this stuff off as crazed nonsense), the media instead rolls with it, believing Chavez and his looney talk. How amusing.
Jason
Essentially what the House is saying is - "If you stuff your face with whoppers and bacon and fries it's your own damn fault if you blimp up!" You have to be pretty much brain dead to not know that fast food is unhealthy. If this isn't a case of common sense, I don't think there is one. And if your kids become fat because you feed them a diet of fries and burgers, you are not doing right by them in the least, and it is YOUR fault. I've grown to believe that the US is quickly becoming a place where personal responsibility doesn't matter (hey it's anyone's fault but mine!), but this development is encouraging.
In an equally stunning act of ignorance, burgeoning dictator and hero to kook liberals the world over Hugo Chavez claims the US is planning to invade Venezuela!
Of course Chavez is blowing smoke, but the liberal media grabs hold to anything that is remotely anti-US or anti-Bush and runs with it whether it is fact or fiction. He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure. I'm beyond tired of explaining to you all why this argument betrays logic, reality and common sense. I'm not sure what's funnier, that or Chavez's claim that we would pay for "100 centuries" and drown in our own blood if we indeed launched his fantasy invasion. Rather than doing the correct thing (passing this stuff off as crazed nonsense), the media instead rolls with it, believing Chavez and his looney talk. How amusing.
Jason
joshua - 10/21/05 01:01
Well, as far as the oil issue is concerned, to suggest that this was an oil war is an argument that has long been debunked. Its incredibly silly, and I'll illustrate it this way - at this point its more credible to say that President Bush uprooted Saddam because of a personal grudge than to say that this was an oil war. Considering how extreme an idea that is (by the way, nobody actually believes that either) I think proper perspective needs to be established. We're still paying 3 bucks a gallon, we haven't "stolen" a drop of crude from Iraq and the Iraq government has had control of their pipelines for quite a while now. I think people are missing the bigger picture - its not just in our best interest but the entire globe's best interest to have a stable Middle East. I have no problem with the anti-war stance; whether or not you like war isn't the issue here. The problem is that the diplomatic way of doing things failed for a decade and a half, and a couple more months would have meant jack squat. Words mean nothing to people whose only language is violence. Think about that for a while.
Well, as far as the oil issue is concerned, to suggest that this was an oil war is an argument that has long been debunked. Its incredibly silly, and I'll illustrate it this way - at this point its more credible to say that President Bush uprooted Saddam because of a personal grudge than to say that this was an oil war. Considering how extreme an idea that is (by the way, nobody actually believes that either) I think proper perspective needs to be established. We're still paying 3 bucks a gallon, we haven't "stolen" a drop of crude from Iraq and the Iraq government has had control of their pipelines for quite a while now. I think people are missing the bigger picture - its not just in our best interest but the entire globe's best interest to have a stable Middle East. I have no problem with the anti-war stance; whether or not you like war isn't the issue here. The problem is that the diplomatic way of doing things failed for a decade and a half, and a couple more months would have meant jack squat. Words mean nothing to people whose only language is violence. Think about that for a while.
metalpeter - 10/20/05 18:20
I love fast food but I do think that fast food places do bare some responsability. I'm not saying that you should be able to sue them for your eating habits. But I think putting this type of law gives them to much power. Some stuff that these places pass off as healthy isn't. For example McDonalds I think has one of those salads you mix and shake. But once you get one with the meat and dressing the fat content skyrockets and it isn't so healthy anymore. McDonalds still askes if you want it upsized (yes they did get rid of the supersizes). The pictures of a lot of the food isn't a true reresentation of how it looks. Some fast food places don't give healthy alternatives. The real problem is the suburban work and living style. You drive everywhere and are in a hurry so you buy crap food. In NY state you have to have the nutritianl information posted somewhere in the resturant, some places it is hard to find. If I was BK Or KFC or any other of those places I would put a warning on the wrapper High in fat may lead to heart attack. Is it true that most of the blame is on the people who chose to eat it? Yes, and they do need to be personaly resposeable but the people who sell it need to be to. I don't sell drugs because I don't want to go to jail. But also because I hurt the addicts for my own gain.
I love fast food but I do think that fast food places do bare some responsability. I'm not saying that you should be able to sue them for your eating habits. But I think putting this type of law gives them to much power. Some stuff that these places pass off as healthy isn't. For example McDonalds I think has one of those salads you mix and shake. But once you get one with the meat and dressing the fat content skyrockets and it isn't so healthy anymore. McDonalds still askes if you want it upsized (yes they did get rid of the supersizes). The pictures of a lot of the food isn't a true reresentation of how it looks. Some fast food places don't give healthy alternatives. The real problem is the suburban work and living style. You drive everywhere and are in a hurry so you buy crap food. In NY state you have to have the nutritianl information posted somewhere in the resturant, some places it is hard to find. If I was BK Or KFC or any other of those places I would put a warning on the wrapper High in fat may lead to heart attack. Is it true that most of the blame is on the people who chose to eat it? Yes, and they do need to be personaly resposeable but the people who sell it need to be to. I don't sell drugs because I don't want to go to jail. But also because I hurt the addicts for my own gain.
jason - 10/20/05 15:18
:::link::: There is the "Statement of Principles" that outlines PNAC's strategy. Look at the bottom and see who is involved - Bush Administration officials and our Veep! Reading it and applying it to our Iraq situation makes me think that without a doubt this is what's going on, not simply oil theft.
:::link::: There is the "Statement of Principles" that outlines PNAC's strategy. Look at the bottom and see who is involved - Bush Administration officials and our Veep! Reading it and applying it to our Iraq situation makes me think that without a doubt this is what's going on, not simply oil theft.
jason - 10/20/05 15:09
You're right Paul, I should have explained myself further. I call the rationale flawed because if all we really wanted was to steal oil from them we wouldn't need to destroy Baghdad nor any other city. There wouldn't be so much unnecessary bloodshed. Hell, we wouldn't even need to depose Saddam. We could seize an airport (200 Army Rangers did in less than 5 minutes) and just seize the oil fields, trucking that beautiful oil along to the airport and over to US shores. There would be nothing the Iraqis could do to stop us.
No, I think the true reason is a lot more sinister than simply stealing oil. The Neocons have the belief that the US way is the best way, culturally, economically, so on and so forth. The PNAC, chaired by Neocon Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, explains the strategy. I think Bush did exactly what he said he WOULDN'T do - nation building. The administration wants some kind of democratic country smack dab in the center of the middle east. I think Iraq's location is one of the more important factors, along with the fact it was one of the easier targets. The Neocons want to have more American influence over the way things are done in the middle east (actually, all over the globe), and they are building a "New Iraq" to get it started. They want to broaden US influence over the middle east. They think people will gravitate towards the American Way if they are given an opportunity. They want to build the world in our image.
I think if you compare the two, my belief sounds a hell of a lot worse than stealing oil.
You're right Paul, I should have explained myself further. I call the rationale flawed because if all we really wanted was to steal oil from them we wouldn't need to destroy Baghdad nor any other city. There wouldn't be so much unnecessary bloodshed. Hell, we wouldn't even need to depose Saddam. We could seize an airport (200 Army Rangers did in less than 5 minutes) and just seize the oil fields, trucking that beautiful oil along to the airport and over to US shores. There would be nothing the Iraqis could do to stop us.
No, I think the true reason is a lot more sinister than simply stealing oil. The Neocons have the belief that the US way is the best way, culturally, economically, so on and so forth. The PNAC, chaired by Neocon Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, explains the strategy. I think Bush did exactly what he said he WOULDN'T do - nation building. The administration wants some kind of democratic country smack dab in the center of the middle east. I think Iraq's location is one of the more important factors, along with the fact it was one of the easier targets. The Neocons want to have more American influence over the way things are done in the middle east (actually, all over the globe), and they are building a "New Iraq" to get it started. They want to broaden US influence over the middle east. They think people will gravitate towards the American Way if they are given an opportunity. They want to build the world in our image.
I think if you compare the two, my belief sounds a hell of a lot worse than stealing oil.
paul - 10/20/05 13:33
"He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure."
I am not into Chavez at all and am no way suggesting that we are going to attack venezuela. But do you really believe that we attacked Iraq for anything other than oil? What was the real reason. Was it for democracy, to avenge his father, weapons of mass destruction, what do you believe?
"He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure."
I am not into Chavez at all and am no way suggesting that we are going to attack venezuela. But do you really believe that we attacked Iraq for anything other than oil? What was the real reason. Was it for democracy, to avenge his father, weapons of mass destruction, what do you believe?
10/19/2005 16:16 #23592
Are You Sure That's YOUR Kid?Category: gender
From LiveScience:
"About 4 percent of men may unknowingly be raising a child that really belongs to the mailman or some other guy, researchers speculate in a new study."
How fascinating. Look around you and see that approximately 1 in every 25 fathers aren't raising their child. Of course nobody cares about the plight of men in this situation, especially the feminized quasi-men out there who constantly and happily write biased law and willingly accept that other men get the shaft in court and in life. This is especially true in California where it doesn't matter if you're the dad or not - you're paying buddy! Watch the feminist lobby try to work AGAINST technological advances which can make parental identification easy.
What happens if you're a guy and have been DUPED and LIED TO by your wife concerning their adultery and the identity of the child's father? You're pressured by women's groups and the already mentioned pseudo-men to be a "real man" and "do what's best for the child." If you don't pay up what happens? You GO TO JAIL. I challenge ANY OF YOU to come up with a vaild reason that explains why we allow this to happen. Where's the fairness and equity in the law? How many of you guys out there know that in NYS if you get engaged and give her an engagement ring, she can just say "eh I don't like him" and call off the wedding, but legally she is ENTITLED to the ring that you probably spent thousands of dollars on? FUCK THAT!
I'm sure some of you are wondering what I would do if I found out the kid I've loved and raised was fathered by some other guy. What would YOU do, Jason? I would walk the fuck out, that's what I would do. And I wouldn't pay one single damn penny towards the child's upbringing. If I had to go to jail, then fine I would be sitting in a jail cell because I didn't pay up for a kid that wasn't mine. I would rather do that than feel the shame, humiliation and helplessness of being the guy who got fucked over in life by some cheating ass wife. Not your kid? You should be FREE from any obligation regarding the child. It's not your problem anymore, it's between the REAL father and the REAL mother. Anything else is biased, anti-male bullshit that needs to be eradicated.
Jason
"About 4 percent of men may unknowingly be raising a child that really belongs to the mailman or some other guy, researchers speculate in a new study."
How fascinating. Look around you and see that approximately 1 in every 25 fathers aren't raising their child. Of course nobody cares about the plight of men in this situation, especially the feminized quasi-men out there who constantly and happily write biased law and willingly accept that other men get the shaft in court and in life. This is especially true in California where it doesn't matter if you're the dad or not - you're paying buddy! Watch the feminist lobby try to work AGAINST technological advances which can make parental identification easy.
What happens if you're a guy and have been DUPED and LIED TO by your wife concerning their adultery and the identity of the child's father? You're pressured by women's groups and the already mentioned pseudo-men to be a "real man" and "do what's best for the child." If you don't pay up what happens? You GO TO JAIL. I challenge ANY OF YOU to come up with a vaild reason that explains why we allow this to happen. Where's the fairness and equity in the law? How many of you guys out there know that in NYS if you get engaged and give her an engagement ring, she can just say "eh I don't like him" and call off the wedding, but legally she is ENTITLED to the ring that you probably spent thousands of dollars on? FUCK THAT!
I'm sure some of you are wondering what I would do if I found out the kid I've loved and raised was fathered by some other guy. What would YOU do, Jason? I would walk the fuck out, that's what I would do. And I wouldn't pay one single damn penny towards the child's upbringing. If I had to go to jail, then fine I would be sitting in a jail cell because I didn't pay up for a kid that wasn't mine. I would rather do that than feel the shame, humiliation and helplessness of being the guy who got fucked over in life by some cheating ass wife. Not your kid? You should be FREE from any obligation regarding the child. It's not your problem anymore, it's between the REAL father and the REAL mother. Anything else is biased, anti-male bullshit that needs to be eradicated.
Jason
leetee - 10/19/05 19:21
I understand exactly why you would be pissed off by this, Jason. It pisses me off, too. I think that it totally sucks that a man, any man, would be forced to be responsible for a child that is not his.
I think the law was written when it was thought that women "belonged" to a man and it was thought there was no way a wife would be able to have sex with anyone besides her husband. Of course, we know that was never true, and certainly isn't today.
The thing that is so damn sad about it all is that the poor kid doesn't know any other father than the one she/he has had. It's not fair for the kid at all... even more unfair than it is for the man. It would be like his/her dad dying, but worse, a total rejection.
I know i couldn't handle it if my dad ever did that to me. Even now. He may be a jerk sometimes, but he's my dad. And then, a new dad coming in and not knowing him and him maybe not even wanting to know me... And having money be more important that me. I know i am grown, and i could understand it from a logical point of view, but emotionally, it would devestate me. I could only imagine what that would do for a young child.
I wish i had an answer. I wish women weren't stupid enough to cheat and get pregnant. It happens. It's not fair to the husband, but especially not the kid.
I understand exactly why you would be pissed off by this, Jason. It pisses me off, too. I think that it totally sucks that a man, any man, would be forced to be responsible for a child that is not his.
I think the law was written when it was thought that women "belonged" to a man and it was thought there was no way a wife would be able to have sex with anyone besides her husband. Of course, we know that was never true, and certainly isn't today.
The thing that is so damn sad about it all is that the poor kid doesn't know any other father than the one she/he has had. It's not fair for the kid at all... even more unfair than it is for the man. It would be like his/her dad dying, but worse, a total rejection.
I know i couldn't handle it if my dad ever did that to me. Even now. He may be a jerk sometimes, but he's my dad. And then, a new dad coming in and not knowing him and him maybe not even wanting to know me... And having money be more important that me. I know i am grown, and i could understand it from a logical point of view, but emotionally, it would devestate me. I could only imagine what that would do for a young child.
I wish i had an answer. I wish women weren't stupid enough to cheat and get pregnant. It happens. It's not fair to the husband, but especially not the kid.
metalpeter - 10/19/05 19:01
You make some verry good points. You shouldn't have to pay for a kid that isn't yours. The court usaly sides with the mother in custody also. I don't know there exact name and if they are still around. But there used to be a fathers rights group in Buffalo. It was on delaware near the mansion and in the buliding where allen dress shop was.
You make some verry good points. You shouldn't have to pay for a kid that isn't yours. The court usaly sides with the mother in custody also. I don't know there exact name and if they are still around. But there used to be a fathers rights group in Buffalo. It was on delaware near the mansion and in the buliding where allen dress shop was.
10/14/2005 12:39 #23591
See You Tonight!Category: party
10/11/2005 22:08 #23590
a new milestoneI hopped on the scale at my friend's house and this is what it read:
190.4
This marks the first time ever that I have weighed 190 or more. Then again, my diet consists of alcohol, fast food and cigarettes so I'm not really surprised. It's not that I'm a fattie, you've seen my photos - I carry my weight well as a tall guy, but I just like to weigh somewhere around 175. I seem to feel the best weighing around that range.
So what's the plan? Cut out the junk food and the booze, and play racquetball with Jerry two times a week. I should be able to do it, but I'm too lazy to cook. Ask Josh he can testify.
Jason
Actually, I think that's one of the cutest pictures I've seen of Josh! Ha!
Oh yeah... ladies (and guys) Walt is married... so no I cannot hook you up!
Whoa, Jesus Christ! That second pic is the worst picture of me ever taken! Plus I shaved the hair off.