The Generals Scale of 1- 10

I subscribe to a theory that every guy in the right moment would have sex with any woman. This theory is accompanied by a scale of 1-10 based on contributing factors, and bragging afterwards.

1) TWO CASE BINGE UNINTENTIONAL FUCK---You were so drunk when you fucked her that you have no memory of anything, and must take her word for it. You did however remember to tell her that if she ever told a damn soul, you’d kill her ass. You’d lie to God about this one, even if he had pictures.

2) TWO CASE BINGE INTENTIONAL FUCK---You may have planned this because it has been a while, maybe she is dying and this is her final request, or there may have been 48 beers and an ugly girl just sitting there and you said, “why not?” Either way you did this intentionally. You still tell her that if she ever tells a damn soul, you’d kill her ass. You would do anything to prove to someone you never touched this bitch, 100% denial.

3) WHAT THE HELL FUCK---This girl still took a case of beer+ or a fifth of liquor, but you knew what you were doing and others might find out. You might be the most thorough wingman ever; maybe this is some chick that would follow you home after five minutes, or the ugly girl in your circle of friends that takes whatever dick she can get from any of you. You know when you do this that somebody is going to find out, but it has the potential for a good story, or major guy points for being a great wingman so you did it, and when people ask, you might lie about it in public, but admit it in private.

4) ADMIT IT FUCK---This girl isn’t anything to brag about, but she isn’t worth spinning a web of complicated lies over either. When asked about this encounter you simply answer, “I was drunk”

5) “I DID” FUCK---Still not something respectable, but she is plain enough that you just admit what you did and go on.

6) “I FUCKED HER” FUCK---You see this girl out somewhere and you will stop your friends and point her out to them. She may not be the hottest thing ever, but she is defiantly worth earning another notch on your belt with the guys.

7) CALL SOMEBODY FUCK---You hardly get out her front door or her out yours, before you are calling someone to tell them about her.

8) THE REAL DEAL FUCK---This is a true blue Hottie. You will make sure all your close friends know about this encounter and have pictures (hopefully nude) distributed to everyone within 24hrs. You will talk about this girl until something better comes along, which it probably won’t. Many guys will mistakenly call this girl a 10 because they can’t even fathom what a true 10 is.

9) THE WOW FUCK---This is the kind of girl that guys only dream of and few ever have. When the guys find out about this, there is usually a celebratory steak dinner involved. You can brag about this for as long as you want, because you are right to do so. You may not have to though, because guys around you will be so in aw of you that they will bring it up out of admiration.

10) THE TATTOO FUCK---This girl fell from heaven, and before you meet her you couldn’t have even imagined something this hot. Upon fucking her you have her picture as well as a detailed description of the act tattooed on your forehead. While this may be a bit extreme, you will never be faulted because of just how amazing this girl is. NOTE: If you don’t have the tattoo, you haven’t had a 10.

PETA

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is a terrorist organization in my opinion. As a red blooded American I enjoy killing animals (I’ve never killed an animal that wasn’t either dangerous or killed to be eaten) and eating them, as well as using many animal products and products tested on animals. In addition I also keep pets and make them do foolish tricks like rolling over if they want a treat (I‘m a sick fuck I tell ya). Now naturally I would hate PETA, they support terrorism, veganism, activism, and many other isms which I do not. That of course makes them wrong. Wanting to stop the bad people and have a little fun along the way I decided to look into some of PETA’s fine work and expose them for what they are. I thought this would be an excellent beginning:

February 6, 2005 Torrance, CA: Animal rights activists smashed windows and glass doors and spray-painted slogans at a McDonalds restaurant. A burglar alarm alerted police around 4:30 am. “McMurder Killers” and “ALF” were painted on a window. it was similar to attacks in the South Bay and Hollywood Hills within the last three months. Since November, vandals have struck at least three other times at McDonald's restaurants — including once at the same Torrance franchise. Each time, they shattered windows, spray-painted the letters "ALF" and wrote slogans such as "Don't feed your kids McKillers," "Stop McKiller" and "We won't sleep until the slaughter ends."
This was found at the homepage of the National Animal Interest Alliance who literaly have hundreds more examples on their site.

Now anybody who has ever eaten at McDonalds knows, despite what Ronald may tell you, that shit isn’t meat. So why attack filler patty producing McDonalds when there are greater violators out there.
Of course you could be saying, “General that article said nothing about PETA”.
Get your fingers out of your ass stupid, while every one of these acts may not be the work of a PETA funded group, many are and PETA supports this kind of attack.

PETA has also attacked Petco, not for being overpriced, but for treating animals poorly, many of the complaints involve fish, but these were some of my favorites, the full list can be found at here.
--Three love birds were on display in a tiny cage. One bird, who had apparently rejected by the other two animals, appeared “depressed.” “DEPRESSED”
--A sick, dehydrated hamster was found on display and brought to the store manager, who ordered employees to “put it” in the back room. Three days later, the animal died in the store without veterinary care. It isn’t economical feasible to pay for a vet for a product that sells for $4
--A gecko was on display with the remains of two dead cage mates and had inadequate food. The gecko and complaintant haven't seen Alive
--Mice, rats, hamsters, and gerbils born in this store were fed to snakes on the sales floor or given to employees “for feeder purposes.” Guess what happens in the wild
There are so many more good ones you have to go look it up.

I ask that everyone who is concerned by the work that PETA does to sign this petition and write your government officials, while your at it, tell them to get the pumps running in Alaska. Petitions and such are just not enough though, we must each do our own little part to right the wrongs that PETA is committing. Go out today, have a steak, go to the zoo, buy and domesticate an animal (better yet buy it from Petco), and get that leather coat you’ve wanting.

Story Time

I sit here sick with the flu reading some of my favorite blogs. One of these is the blog of a childhood friend Sebas, and another, one of his college friends Pete.

Sebas was an interesting kid, if by interesting you mean so jerked around by his mothers insanity that he was destined to have a great degree and make his living jerking-off into a cup and sleeping under someone’s dinning room table. Recently his childhood and some of the happenings have come into light in his blog and that of his friends. To make sure that great stories aren’t lost I’m going to publish a few here and then send them on.

Laundry or Camp?

Now Sebas was the oldest of four kids. Why had his parents birthed so many kids you ask? To do all the work around the house of course. On this particular occasion we were around 10 and his chore at the time was doing the laundry. We had been going to a day camp for the summer, and every two week session ended with an optional sleepover that all the kids looked forward to. We showed up at the place where the camp bus would pick us up that day with our sleeping bags, mess kits, and whatever else you brought, and Sebas had his. We did the usual camp thing that day and in the afternoon as the buses were loading to take all the kids who were too young, too gay, or whose parents sucked too much to let them stay, a counselor notified Sebas that he needed to go get on the bus. Why didn’t young Sebas get to stay for the sleepover? His mother and younger siblings had produced too much dirty laundry that day and rather than do it them damn selves his mom had him sent home to do it.

Oil Slick

Sebas’ parents always kept an above ground pool somewhere in their yard, which is really funny considering we were raised in one of Nashville’s most prestigious neighborhoods. Regardless, at 8 you don’t care about prestige and considering that most of the yards in the area were too small to have real pool, it was great. Now as young kids in a 3’ x 18’ pool will discover, there is a limit to what you can do besides try to fight and drown each other, we were no exception. Sebas developed a special defense against being dunked and body slammed, which I like to call the oil slick. He discovered that if he didn’t shower, and I mean ever, he would be so slippery and gross that nobody would want to try to grab him, and if you did he would slide right out of your hands he was so slippery. The real kicker was that his younger brother followed suit, so soon the two grubby fucks were both protected from dunking. This however had disastrous results on the water conditions in the pool. There would always be, regardless of chemicals added to the water, a skim of “body oil” on top of the water.

Good Read

CLICK HERE

It takes A LOT to disturb me...

If you are an attractive religious zealot, ask yourself if you are s crazy as this
DATE TO SAVE

Resolutions

My New Year’s resolution was to wait until after football season and then decide what my resolutions would be. The thought process here being that I enjoy watching football, and generally do so at my favorite neighborhood bar. Now the three things that I need to work on are drinking, smoking, and eating habits. Obviously the heart of football season isn’t the time to be making changes in such wonderful vices, however now the day to make my resolutions is less than 72 hours away I need to start hammering them down. I have one so far.
I want to upset someone so much this year that I drive them to suicide or total insanity. In the spirit of this when I come across a blog that appears to be the pathetic dribbling of someone with nothing and nobody left, I will leave this uplifting message:
Why is it that you would even take the time to post something so mediocre about your insignificant existence? Would you not be better served to just mutter to yourself while preparing a noose?
This is an honest question an I’m sure that I’ll get a lot of “creative” replies such as those calling me an asshole…No shit!

"FOOD" FOR THOUGHT

Immigrants, "exploitation," wages, and low prices!
That Taco Bell Brouhaha
by William Art Carden

The cacophony over Taco Bell's allegedly scandalous wage practices is getting louder, at least on college campuses. Some of my students have asked about the Taco Bell boycott being pushed by organizations like the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) and Students Against Sweatshops. Is Taco Bell really impoverishing workers? Will boycotting Taco Bell actually increase wages? Is it likely that people will be willing to pay more for "fair trade" tacos? How will this affect unskilled workers in the long run?
Trends in public opinion are not encouraging. A Google search for "Taco Bell wages" returns, in the first ten pages, only five hits that either supported the company or were neutral (two links were to Daniel D'Amico's splendid piece on the issue, two were to an Acton Institute commentary, and one was to a Taco Bell site). All other sites painted the company as a vicious exploiter of migrant labor who must be stopped at all costs.
Is Taco Bell really "exploiting" and impoverishing workers? The CIW and other anti-labor organizations answer in the affirmative. On their website, the CIW claims that "by contracting for cheap tomatoes grown and picked by farmworkers (sic) paid sub-poverty wages in Florida, Taco Bell contributes significantly to the continued misery of farmworkers and their families."
This is precisely wrong. Taco Bell's wage policy alleviates the "continued misery of farmworkers and their families" rather than contributing to it. Wages are not foisted upon workers; they agree to pick tomatoes for "sub-poverty wages" for a reason. In a market economy, they do so because the 'sub-poverty wages" paid by Taco Bell suppliers are a better deal than anyone else is offering. It's the same reason people line up for "sweatshop" jobs in developing countries. Far from contributing to "continued misery," Taco Bell is making workers' lives a little bit better by offering something better than their next-best option.
Before we rush to condemn free markets and market forces, we have to ask where the workers are coming from. In many cases, Taco Bell suppliers employ migrant workers who are making their own "run for the border." Migrant workers in Immokalee come from places like Haiti, Mexico, and Central America—areas where markets have been crippled by state intervention for generations. The end result is a veritable army of workers who have not been allowed to build a skill set through free market employment and who are now suited to do nothing better than pick tomatoes for pennies. Far from being the enemies of labor, American markets are offering migrant workers an opportunity to substantially improve their standards of living and the prospects of their children.
Among other things, the CIW is calling for a one-cent per pound increase in employee wages, arguing that large corporations like Taco Bell and McDonald's are responsible for the conditions of their workers. Profits are high enough, the protesters argue, that Taco Bell can share the wealth. This is misguided for three reasons.
First, consumers are a fickle bunch. There are a lot of substitutes for Taco Bell, and Taco Bell consumers—who usually have low incomes—are very price-sensitive (in econo-speak, the demand curve for fast food is highly elastic). A change in prices of just a few cents could have a big impact on the bottom line. Market forces discipline producers to keep quality high and prices low.
Second, investors are a fickle bunch. Falling profits will tell investors to look for greener pastures. If Taco Bell wishes to attract capital—and by extension, if Taco Bell employees wish to stay employed—they have to maintain a healthy bottom line.
Third, market wages are not arbitrary. If an extra penny a pound is so great for workers, why not an extra ten cents? An extra ten dollars? Why don't we legislate that Taco Bell pay workers $100 billion per pound of tomatoes, and failing that, boycott them until they do? The answer comes back to market discipline. Just as people aren't willing to pay taco prices sufficient to allow workers $100 billion per pound, they aren't willing to pay taco prices sufficient to allow workers an extra penny a pound without hurting Taco Bell sales and, by extension, Taco Bell employees.
"Exploitation" is also terribly ambiguous. To the extent that voluntarily agreed to wages are below someone's notion of what is "fair," no exploitation exists. No doubt, some Taco Bell workers are still exploited. The CIW reports on several slavery operations in which workers have been kept in trailers under the watch of armed guards. In cases where Taco Bell or a Taco Bell supplier is coercing workers or reneging on agreements, they should be prosecuted. This may give us a reason to re-evaluate immigration policy. Many migrant farm workers come to this country illegally. Since they do not enjoy contracting rights available to American citizens and "legal" migrants, they are at a disadvantage.
Both problems of exploitation stem from state monopolies on contract enforcement. If slavery does in fact exist among migrant farm communities, it tells us that some people are evil and that the state isn't very good at its job. We may not want to rely on the state to fix the problem. The second problem comes from the fact that an "illegal" worker has little recourse when wronged. The US government is under no obligation to enforce his contracts or agreements. Competitive markets for contract enforcement would mean more enforcement, higher quality enforcement, and cheaper enforcement. There are already thriving markets for services that help immigrants adjust to life in the United States; we can expect to see thriving markets for immigrant contract enforcement crop up in the absence of state monopoly.
The boycotters also argue that the boycott will reduce Taco Bell's profits and bring the company to its knees. Taco Bell, seeing that low wages aren't good for the bottom line, will be forced to offer higher wages to their workers. While boycotts are far superior to state intervention, it isn't clear that a boycott will have its intended effect. They are less costly, they don't rely on violent intervention, and they even present opportunities for entrepreneurs who can sell "fair trade tacos." In the long run, the boycott will reduce wages and opportunities for migrant workers.
When socially-conscious consumers reduce their demand for Taco Bell products, they reduce the demand for Taco Bell's inputs, like tomatoes. Lower demand for tomatoes in turn means lower demand for tomato-pickers, which means lower wages for tomato pickers. Reduced demand for tomato-picker labor means fewer tomato-picking jobs at lower wages, which is exactly the opposite of what the Taco Bell boycotters wish to accomplish.
This may create a market for "fair trade" tacos. This is again preferable to state intervention, but it still hurts workers who sell "unfair trade" tomatoes and rewards people who may be wasting resources. Unfair trade tomatoes are good substitutes for fair trade tomatoes, so people who buy "fair trade" tomatoes and other goods are bidding resources into tomato production unnecessarily. Not that there's anything wrong with that—we should do nothing to impede voluntary exchange—but we must recognize that the fair trade tomato picker's gains are coming at the expense of would-be tomato pickers who must pursue other options.
It may be that Taco Bell will capitulate to worker demands and offer higher wages. Is this a triumph for workers? At best it is a mixed blessing. Taco Bell may offer higher-than-market-clearing wages to some workers, but it is also likely that they will look elsewhere for tomatoes. Florida tomato employment may be lower than it would otherwise be as Taco Bell looks to other, less well-organized suppliers. The net effect is to redistribute wages and opportunities from some low-productivity workers to other low-productivity workers.
This point has been made before, but it is worth repeating. If people are interested solely in Taco Bell tomato-picker welfare, they shouldn't boycott the restaurant. They should stop eating at other restaurants and eat only at Taco Bell. For that matter, they should stop cooking and eat every meal at Taco Bell. This will increase the demand for tomato-pickers and, therefore, will increase tomato-picker wages and tomato-picking opportunities.
This still leads to ambiguous results. The net "social gain," to the extent that such a term has any coherent meaning, is minimal at best. In order to support Taco Bell tomato-pickers, consumers have to take the dollars they were spending at McDonald's, Burger King, and other restaurants and spend them instead at Taco Bell. While it may well be a bonanza for Taco Bell tomato-pickers, it is a disaster for the people who provide McDonald's and other restaurants with all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, and sesame seed buns. The problem hasn't been solved; it has merely been shifted into a different sector.
Organizations like the CIW and Students Against Sweatshops should be commended for fighting slavery and fraud wherever they exist. However, by seeking to build consumer movements, encouraging "socially conscious" shopping, and by seeking to use the coercive power of the state to achieve their goals, they're actually hurting the people they want to help.
________________________________
Art Carden is a graduate student in Economics at Washington University in Saint Louis, a Humane Studies Fellow of the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Fellow of the Center for New Institutional Social Sciences. carden@wueconc.wustl.edu

Judge tells moms in custody cases to learn English
By NATALIA MIELCZAREK
Staff Writer Tennessean
A Wilson County child-court judge has been ordering foreign-born women to learn English for the good of their children — an action that some regard as unconstitutional.
In a case this week, Judge Barry Tatum insisted that an 18-year-old Mexican woman take language classes and consider using birth control.
Tatum said his admonition didn't come out of malice or the urge to Americanize an immigrant. Instead, the judge said he worried that the woman's 2-year-old daughter would miss out on opportunities because of her mother's inability to communicate in English.
''A parent has the right to raise a child the way they see fit, but government gets involved at some point,'' Tatum said. ''I'm concerned about the civil rights of the child and what will happen to her.''
The immigrant woman and her American-born toddler both entered the state's custody in 2003.
A complaint was made to state child protection officials, accusing the mother of neglecting her baby by not following up on immunizations and other shots, said K. Danielle Edwards, a spokeswoman with the state Department of Children's Services.
Neither Tatum nor Edwards would identify the woman or her child, saying that identities of people involved in DCS and juvenile court cases are confidential.
Tatum said the written order in the case hadn't been filed yet and he couldn't recall whether his direction that the mother learn English was merely a suggestion or carried the legal weight of an official court order.
But local civil rights attorney Jerry Gonzalez said the latest case sounded ominously similar to another recent order issued by Tatum — a decision that Gonzalez is appealing.
In that case, Gonzalez said, Tatum ordered a Mexican woman in a child neglect case last year to learn basic English within six months. If she didn't comply, the lawyer said, a hearing was to be held to consider terminating the mother's parental rights to her 11-year-old daughter.
''Ordering a woman to learn English or lose her child, that's blatantly unconstitutional,'' Gonzalez said. ''The First Amendment allows all of us to speak whatever language we choose to speak. There's nothing compelling us to speak English, to learn English or be able to write English.''
He declined to present a copy of the order, saying the documents were sealed in juvenile court and that he could be held in contempt if he shared the document.
Judge Tatum said he could not immediately remember the case Gonzalez referred to because of the volume of cases that move through his courtroom. But, he said, he has issued similar English-training orders in three to five other cases.
He said the mother's ability to learn English in this week's case would not directly influence her custody over the toddler.
''There are no repercussions in terms of termination of parental rights,'' Tatum said.
Still, civil libertarians called any ruling that included such a provision unconstitutional and outrageous.
''This is clearly not acceptable, and we're worried that the judge has gone over the line,'' said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. ''A judge should not require a parent to learn English to have access to their child, and the government should not be telling parents how to communicate with their children.''
ACLU officials are considering filing a complaint against the judge or seeking to place a monitor in his courtroom, she said. Weinberg wasn't aware of similar cases in other areas, but acknowledged that they may be happening ''under the radar screen.''
Such rulings violate the constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment under the law, she said.
''There's no relationship between being a good parent and speaking English,'' Weinberg said.
Luis Bustillos, a probation officer in Davidson County who also considers himself a Hispanic activist, said he didn't disagree with Tatum's ruling. ''It's not controversial,'' he said. ''As long as they are with their own people, there's no need for them to learn English. When they go work, they need to communicate in English.''
Bustillos said he came to this country in 1964 from Bolivia.
''It was very hard for me when I came here to learn English,'' he said. ''We need to bring the message to the community that if they (learn English), they will improve their status.''

"The fact that no one understands you doesn't make you an artist." --Unknown

I think all the people I upset read this list before responding.
From:http://skorgrimm.blogspot.com/2004/11/rules-for-posting-on-internet.html
Rules for Posting on the Internet
Millions of new people join the online fray each year, bright-eyed and busy-tailed, with a glimmer of hope in their eyes and a wonder of everything around them. They and the millions who came before them post their thoughts and feelings to online forums, blogs, and chat rooms. As people become more familiar with the way things work out here on the digital frontier, they get a feeling for a set of unwritten rules that seems to govern online discussions of all sorts. Well, Skor is tired of these rules being unwritten. There should be a place for the unwashed masses to come and find out what is expected of them in the ether of the online. That place will--from now on--be here.


Rules for Posting on the Internet
Never check your posts for spelling or grammar.
Make your posts as hard to read as possible (i.e. - don't use paragraphs, punctuation, or capitalization).
Don't worry about trying to stay on topic.
If someone asks for help and you can't help them, make fun of them.
Similarly, if you have nothing productive to add to a conversation, just become a troll.
Always post the first thing that pops into your head.
Never apply logic or critical thought to anything you post.
When anyone disagrees with you, take it as a personal attack.
Don't respond to direct questions in arguments.
If a person you're arguing with persists in using logic, end the conversation.
When you're tired of arguing, call the other person a Nazi. (Okay, that one is already written down.)