Posts by FredZarguna

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • ISIS Posts Images of Women With Kalashnikovs

    03/27/2015 11:59:32 PM PDT · 11 of 26
    FredZarguna to Crim
    “we need to nuke the site from’s the only way to be sure”

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 11:57:51 PM PDT · 26 of 33
    FredZarguna to TheConservator

    You aint kiddin’. I’d have to lose about 100 IQ points to qualify.

  • MARTY ALLEN & STEVE ROSSI "The Punch Drunk Fighter"

    03/27/2015 11:39:04 PM PDT · 10 of 13
    FredZarguna to JennysCool

    Pursuant to Title 17 of the United States Code

    February 29, 2015

    Steve Rossi and Martin Allen
    118 Steve Allen Drive
    Beverley Hills, California 90210

    Dear Mr.s Rossi and Allen:

    This law firm represents Martini and Rossi. If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation.

    We are writing to notify you that your unlawful copying of Martini and Rossi's unique name and bottle shape infringes upon our client’s exclusive copyrights. Accordingly, you are hereby directed to


    Martini and Rossi is the owner of a copyright in various aspects of snappy advertising and delicious adult beverages. Under United States copyright law, Martini and Rossi’s copyrights have been in effect since 1879. All copyrightable aspects of Martini and Rossi are copyrighted under United States copyright law.

    It has come to our attention that you have been copying our client's unique name. We saw you on The Ed Sullivan Show last night, so don't deny it. You can't hide: it was a really big shoe. Er, show. We have transcripts of your comedy routines which directly impinge upon the seriousness with which potential customers regard our client's image and products.

    Your actions constitute copyright infringement in violation of United States copyright laws. Under 17 U.S.C. 504, the consequences of copyright infringement include statutory damages of between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court, and damages of up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement. If you continue to engage in copyright infringement after receiving this letter, your actions will be evidence of “willful infringement.”

    In addition, when either the short fat Jewish kid, or both of the two of you stand with your legs close together, your general outline resembles the shape of our cleint's popular Asti Spumante bottle. This constitutes the use of our client's image without consent. If you continue to stand this way in your stand-up routine, we will not stand for it.

    We demand that you immediately (A) cease and desist your unlawful use of our client's copyrighted name and unique shape and (B) provide us with prompt written assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further infringement of Martini and Rossi’s copyrighted works.

    If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, Martini and Rossi is entitled to use your failure to comply as evidence of “willful infringement” and seek monetary damages and equitable relief for your copyright infringement. In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that Martini and Rossi has asked us to communicate to you that it will contemplate pursuing all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney’s fees. Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable. Although all publicity is good publicity.

    We demand also that you refrain from using the names Joseph Charles Tafarella or Morton David Alpern, as our client has exclusive rights to these names for use in a series of table wines to be released next year. In addition, we also demand that you stop using the phrase "Hello Dere!" which is frequently used in bars and other establishments where alcoholic beverages, including without limitation, our client's are served. Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue your illegal conduct by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. Accordingly, please sign and return the attached Agreement within ten (10) days to

    Stevens, Allen, Martin and Ross
    Attorneys at Law
    298 E. 71st St. New York City, NY, 10021

    If you or your attorney have any questions, please contact me directly.

    Spumante Stevens, Esq.

  • I am Angelina's ovary – last words from a dying grey clump

    03/27/2015 11:02:19 PM PDT · 18 of 41
    FredZarguna to woofie
    How about: "The dying grey clump is confused. It believes it is Angelina Jolie's ovary, but it is in reality Ishrat Syed's brain."
  • I am Angelina's ovary – last words from a dying grey clump

    03/27/2015 10:58:27 PM PDT · 17 of 41
    FredZarguna to sukhoi-30mki
    Another note added in proof to the proposition that there is nothing so stupid that you can't find it somewhere on the Internet.

    [I am Fred Zarguna's fingers. All eight of us are attached, so we can spare the biggest one right in the middle to give the author.]

  • Well, I would have finished my first AR15 build, but.....

    03/27/2015 10:45:21 PM PDT · 6 of 58
    FredZarguna to RandallFlagg
    Hey RKBA is a God-given right. So, I don't see the request as frivolous at all.

    As for the rest, you know the old joke: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a Federal agency.

    Here's a Bushmill's Black to you. Good luck!

  • MARTY ALLEN & STEVE ROSSI "The Punch Drunk Fighter"

    03/27/2015 10:41:27 PM PDT · 2 of 13
    FredZarguna to Impala64ssa
    Terrifically confusing for me as a little kid, because of Allen's first name and a contemporaneous ad campaign by Martini and Rossi. I wondered why a comedy team had wine ads on the back cover of National Review.
  • Well, I would have finished my first AR15 build, but.....

    03/27/2015 10:36:29 PM PDT · 3 of 58
    FredZarguna to RandallFlagg

    Prayers going up that you can finish your build this weekend.

  • Quebec is not allowed to preserve gun registry data, will create its own

    03/27/2015 10:32:46 PM PDT · 2 of 14
    FredZarguna to Daffynition
    Harper recently created a stir when he said guns provide "a certain level of security" to rural residents who live far from police stations.

    Why would this "cause a stir?" Hell, the cops can't even reach places in rural Pennsylvania in less than twenty or thirty minutes, and it's a much higher population density than almost anywhere in Canada.

    It causes a stir because Harper dared to insinuate that Canadians have a right to use long guns to defend themselves. Lib/prog Canadians want everyone to pretend long guns are for only for recreation.

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 10:17:47 PM PDT · 22 of 33
    FredZarguna to kingu
    Thanks for the update. That was my understanding from years ago.

    Enforceable is probably a matter of how much you can intimidate a merchant. It used to be fairly common for retailers to post signs at the register with warnings that they would not accept credit cards for any purchase under $X (usually five or ten bucks.) I actually stood in line behind a guy at a retail clothing store who called the 800 number for VISA because the vendor would not budge on that policy for a t-shirt that was like, seven bucks. Minimum purchase restrictions were also a violation of the merchant agreement. Now I see kids hand credit cards over the counter at McDonald's for a milkshake.

  • The Battle for The Middle East's Future

    03/27/2015 10:06:33 PM PDT · 7 of 21
    FredZarguna to justa-hairyape
    That should read Persian buts..

    That should read Persian butts…

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 10:00:22 PM PDT · 19 of 33
    FredZarguna to Alberta's Child

    You aren’t explaining anything. I know the ruling. He’s a DOPE, and so is anyone else who thinks this is a “free speech” case.

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 9:59:19 PM PDT · 18 of 33
    FredZarguna to Alberta's Child
    I read what you wrote before, and you're wrong.

    Simply because a law is "preposterous" that doesn't make it Unconstitutional. And it also doesn't make it a Federal case.

    California has regulations stipulating how a transaction is to be described to the consumer. That's not a free speech issue any more than requiring a food label to contain certain specific information is.

    Under the kind of argument you think makes sense, any requirement made on a vendor for the description of a transaction becomes a matter of "free speech." That's nonsense. This judge needs to go back to law school.

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 9:55:20 PM PDT · 15 of 33
    FredZarguna to kingu
    Good luck to the merchant taking the card company to court since this is exactly what they agreed to when they signed the merchant agreement.

    And actually, I believe the merchant agreement also specifies that they may not accept the card for payment and offer a discount for cash for the same item. That's entirely a private matter, of course...

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 9:52:28 PM PDT · 12 of 33
    FredZarguna to monkeyshine
    If your argument is that the Federal judiciary can strike down the California law because it amounts to a regulation of interstate commerce, which the states are forbidden to do, then I'll be willing to let you elaborate on your argument counselor.

    However, you're not making a free speech claim, and that is the basis for the decision.

    3% is "obscene" as soon as there's someone willing to provide the same service for less than 3%, and not before. If you think that Apple or Google are going to really introduce competition into this arena, you haven't been paying much attention. Both of these companies have atrocious records of illegal price fixing in every market they've ever entered.

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 9:47:39 PM PDT · 10 of 33
    FredZarguna to Alberta's Child
    Nope. Not buyin' it. It's still a regulation of commerce, and California is entitled to tell people how they're required to describe legally compliant products, sales, charges, or whatever.

    No vendor is obligated to engage in commerce, so it's not prior restraint.

    Kali requires special wording at its gas pumps. If a vendor refuses to print those additional non-US EPA regulations -- or if he modifies them to suit his own taste -- does he have the right to do so under "free speech?"

    He does NOT. Claiming he does is preposterous.


    Just checking, as I read it, California appears to have a very weak Takings Clause. That probably means under state law the fact that a vendor is required to give up property without compensation can't be extended to payment regulations by the state, although a lawyer will argue anything for a fee.

    This is judicial overreach by the Federal bench, and the Ninth Circuit should strike it down. Just because a law is stupid, that doesn't mean it's Unconstitutional.

  • Stolen $7,000 Smart Bike Rescues Itself

    03/27/2015 9:32:58 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    FredZarguna to Sherman Logan
    Well, I didn't get into comparatives. I just said it was stupid. Stupider is a whole 'nother discussion. Since I've never owned a wristwatch, spending $12,000 to $100,000 [or more] on a Rolex would be comparatively higher on my list.
  • The FRiday Night Movie - And Then There Were None (1945)

    03/27/2015 9:27:55 PM PDT · 11 of 18
    FredZarguna to greene66
    as they often seem so calculated and contrived

    Dame Agatha was pretty much the queen of those techniques.

  • The FRiday Night Movie - And Then There Were None (1945)

    03/27/2015 9:26:14 PM PDT · 10 of 18
    FredZarguna to upchuck
    Various remakes done under the title of Ten Little Indians never [IMHO] came up to the quality of And Then There Were None.

    The 1965 version with Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton is probably well-remembered matinee fare by Baby Boom FReepers. It does not compare favorably against this version.

  • Bar on Swipe Fee Is Unconstitutional

    03/27/2015 9:17:38 PM PDT · 3 of 33
    FredZarguna to Auntie Mame
    While I don't disagree with the merchant's right to set prices however he pleases, I don't really understand how the decision hinges on "free speech."

    California is entitled to regulate commerce within its borders under the Tenth Amendment, and frankly, a US District Court has nothing to say about that.

    I would argue against the prohibition on the basis of a Takings Clause, if the CA Constitution has one, and argue it in State court.

  • Stolen $7,000 Smart Bike Rescues Itself

    03/27/2015 9:09:57 PM PDT · 18 of 20
    FredZarguna to Sherman Logan
    But why is spending big bucks on a bike any more foolish than spending even more on a motorcycle, sports car, boat or other indulgence?

    Because, as you correctly observe, you can buy anywhere from around 10 to 25 very nice bikes for $7,000. That's why it's foolish. I myself spent $450 on a bike I've now owned for ten years. Before that, I owned a bike a spent around $500 on and used for 25 years [so in 1980 dollars, it was pretty salty. We were DINKs then. I wouldn't spend that kind of money now. Even so the amortized cost was $20/year.]

    It's his money. He can buy whatever he wants with it. I don't say it's immoral, but at some point [I'd guess around about $1500-$2000] you aren't really paying for a bike anymore... And again, if whatever the extra $5 Large is for is what he needs it's his money to spend.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 8:59:38 PM PDT · 47 of 52
    FredZarguna to cardinal4

    Right. Richard couldn’t possibly have given an order to have the chief rallying points against his rule killed.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 8:58:09 PM PDT · 91 of 144
    FredZarguna to Pirate Ragnar
    The verdict's correct because the police bungled the case. That doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming evidence against her. There is. Her own repeatedly false testimony alone would be enough if the interviews had been conducted properly.

    She's part Jodi Arias, part Rachel Jeantel. She needs to STFU, because she's the best witness the prosecution could possibly have, and her book tour isn't going to do her any favors.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:50:42 PM PDT · 68 of 144
    FredZarguna to Zhang Fei
    Yet they see nothing wrong with the US court system, with its endless opportunities for abuse by criminals, particularly for the most heinous types of crimes, which cost taxpayers millions of dollars and ultimately go nowhere.

    Or worse, result in guilty people going free:

    The Double Jeopardy clause became part of the Fifth Amendment because of endless abuses of an open-ended process by The Crown, not because one verdict of not guilty is always the best possible outcome there is. The Italian system is not an open-ended arbitrary process. It has well-defined steps and a definite conclusion. And most importantly, if it were really an affront to the Rights of Man Italians could change it. In fact, much more easily than we can.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:36:30 PM PDT · 66 of 144
    FredZarguna to Chauncey Uppercrust

    Fortunately, your opinion about that carries as much weight with anyone sensible as all of your other ravings.

  • San Francisco mayor bans publicly-funded travel to Indiana

    03/27/2015 4:31:17 PM PDT · 5 of 63
    FredZarguna to tcrlaf
    Couldja ban privately funded trips from SF, too? That would be a big help.
  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:28:12 PM PDT · 60 of 144
    FredZarguna to Rides_A_Red_Horse

    Protip: repeating your idiotic posts don’t make them any better.

  • Missouri Cop Indicted for Attacking Teen Trying to Video Record Traffic Stop, Leaving Him in Coma

    03/27/2015 4:27:02 PM PDT · 9 of 23
    FredZarguna to barefoot_hiker
    Notice, however, that in answer to the question: "Why? Am I under arrest?" The officer says nothing, and simply begins to forcibly remove him from the car. Now, given that he claims to have smelled dope, why didn't he simply arrest the kid? Apparently, he's both violent and stupid. That's a bad combination...
  • Missouri Cop Indicted for Attacking Teen Trying to Video Record Traffic Stop, Leaving Him in Coma

    03/27/2015 4:23:59 PM PDT · 8 of 23
    FredZarguna to PatHimself

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:14:40 PM PDT · 54 of 144
    FredZarguna to Rides_A_Red_Horse

    There’s plenty of evidence. Her groupies just don’t want to acknowledge it.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:09:05 PM PDT · 53 of 144
    FredZarguna to Borax Queen
    My wife, who works with Autistic Spectrum Disorder kids professionally, has been particularly incensed about the defense that "she's not a sociopath, she's autistic."

    Her behavior is not the least bit typical of Asperger's Syndrome. She simply has no concept of right and wrong. She's Jodi Arias, but she's gotten the benefit of some absolutely horrible police work.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 4:02:51 PM PDT · 47 of 144
    FredZarguna to Boogieman
    They should, but they can't. This is the court of last resort.

    In my town, a legally blind man -- who self-admittedly was not wearing corrective lenses as required on his license -- driving an F-150 killed a 72 year old cyclist, at least four feet off the berm of the road.

    The driver is/was a big deal in these parts. The coroner ruled there was nothing suspicious or negligent about the death. The DA asked the coroner to reopen. He again found no homicide nor suspicious cause. Normally that's the end of it.

    The DA took the case to the local magistrate who is related to the driver. The magistrate held a hearing and found no grounds for an arraignment. That's invariably the end of the story. But, the prosecutor is entitled to enter a case in the Superior Court even without an arraignment. He did. The driver was convicted of a negligent homicide, as he should have been all along.

    Were there really three trials? No. Just one.

    Italy has a system that allows multiple levels of trial. If they don't like it, they have a republican form of government and they can change it. There's nothing dodgy about the process here, just the behavior of the police, Amanda Knox, and her accomplices, only one of whom now will serve time for the crime.

    That's probably a correct verdict on the basis of police misconduct. But it only means she's legally innocent. She will face another Judge someday. And then, she won't be able to lie.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 3:52:14 PM PDT · 39 of 144
    FredZarguna to dfwgator; nickcarraway

    There’s a difference between accepting a legal verdict of “not guilty” and proclaiming OJ’s innocence. This verdict is probably correct. She’s also guilty as hell.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 3:49:27 PM PDT · 37 of 144
    FredZarguna to dfwgator

    Are you of the opinion that she did not repeatedly lie? Because those are facts which are not in dispute. AT. ALL.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 3:48:29 PM PDT · 36 of 144
    FredZarguna to nickcarraway

    Wow. All the way down to post #20 before somebody reasonable shows up. Discouraging, really.

  • Amanda Knox Case: Italian Court Overturns Murder Conviction

    03/27/2015 3:47:11 PM PDT · 35 of 144
    FredZarguna to Kenny Bunk

    Please do enlighten us on the nature of police misconduct in OJ’s case. I’m just dying to hear it.

  • Stolen $7,000 Smart Bike Rescues Itself

    03/27/2015 3:43:32 PM PDT · 5 of 20
    FredZarguna to nickcarraway
    A $7,000 bicycle is a nice reminder of what happens to a fool's money.

    Still, the story would have had a happier ending if the bike had built-in dual 45 semi-autos and was smart enough to use them. Now that would be a bike worth $7 Grand.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 3:32:15 PM PDT · 39 of 52
    FredZarguna to Texan5
    The problem is not that they disappeared, on that everyone agrees.

    The problem is when they disappeared. For hundreds of years, the Ricardians falsely claimed that they didn't disappear until Henry VII became king. When Mancini's diary came to light in the late 1930's, the self-serving claims of Ricardians that the date of their disappearance was never firmly established during Richard's reign were demolished once and for all.

    Contemporaneous accounts of their disappearance -- and much more importantly, the public knowledge of the fact of their disappearance -- lead to only one conclusion: they disappeared when Richard was King. The countryside was against Richard, and not just the Tudors, as Ricardians like to claim. The disappearance was one of Richard's problems among his countrymen. He could easily have made that problem go away... but only if his nephews were still alive.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 2:39:06 PM PDT · 33 of 52
    FredZarguna to Texan5
    None of the history I read about the circumstances made Richard III seem guilty of murder-

    Well, you need to read more, then. Because pretty nuch every serious history does.

    he didn’t have any reason to fear kids from a marriage that had been declared invalid.

    He himself forced Parliament to pass the act declaring his nephews illegitimate precisely because he feared them.

    Maybe that is what he did, and no one thought anything of it at the time.

    Nonsense. There were widespread rumors during his reign that he murdered his nephews. Why do Ricardians continue to pretend there were not? Very simply because the fact that the children disappeared long before the Battle of Bosworth Field puts a complete lie to the claptrap that the children disappeared during Henry VII's reign. They didn't. They were never seen again after the summer of 1483.

    Buckingham's Rebellion put the cause of Prince Edward forward, so clearly the rebels knew that a phony act of Parliament disinheriting Edward could be repealed just as easily. Richard knew it, too. He also knew that Titulus Regius was complete baloney [it relied, for example, on a claim that even if there was no precontract, the Woodville claim was still invalidated because Elizabeth Woodville had employed "witchcraft" to obtain her marriage to Edward the IV.]

    Make NO mistake: as long as Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury lived, they were a rallying point for rebellion and a threat to Richard the Usurper's throne.

    We know he didn't send them away because court documents in both France and Spain during Richard's reign refer to the curious nature of their disappearance. The French, who had a boy king of their own in need of protection, used the fate of the Princes in the Tower for propaganda purposes.

    All Richard need ever have done to dispel the rumors and rehabilitate his reputation was produce the princes alive.

    Why didn't he?

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 2:21:16 PM PDT · 32 of 52
    FredZarguna to wagglebee
    That doesn't mean Henry VIII wasn't still a Catholic.

    He regarded the English Church as a Catholic Church -- and not a Protestant one -- simply in schism, just as the Eastern Church had already been for 500 years. The Church of England, as distinct from the Church of Rome became a church which regarded Rome as apostate -- as Protestants did [and do] -- after agents of the Roman Church attempted to murder Elizabeth.

    She herself saw no real difference between the various denominations of Christianity.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 2:15:36 PM PDT · 30 of 52
    FredZarguna to wagglebee
    You actually contradict your own post within two sentences of each other. You write:

    Richard had been made king by act of Parliament

    and then go on to write:

    The princes were the rightful heirs of Edward IV .

    Titulus Regius the "act" enacted by Parliament under threat of arms by Richard the Usurper invalidated the Prince's claim to the throne. Thus, both of your statements cannot be true.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 2:10:21 PM PDT · 29 of 52
    FredZarguna to wagglebee
    What we do know is that all of the Richard III as villain stories began after his death.

    This claim is 100% false, and has been repeatedly demolished by serious histories [which The Daughter of Time is NOT.]

    There were rebellions against Richard during his usurpation, so there were enough people who believed him a villain to raise armies against him. Not a small number.

    There were also contemporaneous accounts of the widespread rumors of Richard's murder of his nephews, which Ricardians like to ignore. Unfortunately, you can't. Nobody induced Mancini to write his diary, and it existed while Richard was still alive. All Richard The Usurper needed to do to prove his innocence was to produce his nephews alive. The reason he never did so is the obvious one.

  • The House of Tudor Didn't Get the Last Word

    03/27/2015 2:04:56 PM PDT · 28 of 52
    FredZarguna to El Cid
    Read the thread. They're baaaaaaaaaaaaack...

    Here are three of the Ricardian Societies:

    I routinely get into it with a New York City FReeper who even has a tagline defending Richard the Usurper's claim that he murdered his opposition, including little children, because of his "duty."

    Their "research" into his "innocence" consists almost entirely of a 65 year old historical crime novel called The Daughter of Time. It gets a number of important facts wrong. Most seriously, it claims that all of the rumors of the Princes [his nephews] murdered by Richard were started by the Tudors as propaganda to cover their own crimes. This is preposterously false. There were contemporaneous rumors of Richard's murder of his nephews years before the Tudor propagandists started on Richard. All Richard need ever have done to dispel them was produce the children alive. He never did, because he had already had them murdered.

    But hey, it's all they've got.

  • Arkansas state Senate approves religious protection bill cast by critics as anti-LGBT

    03/27/2015 11:07:07 AM PDT · 11 of 26
    FredZarguna to Jim Robinson
    This is already the standard that Federal Courts are obligated to apply according to the Supreme Court, and since Amendment I is Incorporated against the States, it's already the state law everywhere.

    For all practical purposes, six committee democrats voted to deny the recognition of a right Arkansans already have.

  • More people moved away from Illinois last year than any other state

    03/27/2015 11:02:53 AM PDT · 2 of 32
    FredZarguna to Beave Meister

    Unfortunately, the rats deserting their plague-ship will simply carry their lib/prog disease elsewhere...

  • ‘The wording is settled?’ AP stylebook’s ‘new entry’ sure to win approval from Al Gore and Bill Nye

    03/27/2015 11:00:32 AM PDT · 31 of 47
    FredZarguna to Zeneta
    Yes, but it's Climate Injustice that the CJW's are fighting.
  • ‘The wording is settled?’ AP stylebook’s ‘new entry’ sure to win approval from Al Gore and Bill Nye

    03/27/2015 10:57:56 AM PDT · 28 of 47
    FredZarguna to Zeneta
    Bombogenesis - NBC News

    Jan 26, 2015 - In simple terms, bombogenesis is the equivalent of a "meteorological bomb," according to The Weather Channel's Kevin Roth. It occurs when a storm's area of lowest pressure experiences a rapid drop of more than 24 millibars in 24 hours.

    If you're really intelligent and need to kill a large number of brain cells, but don't drink or get high, go here:

  • ‘The wording is settled?’ AP stylebook’s ‘new entry’ sure to win approval from Al Gore and Bill Nye

    03/27/2015 10:30:55 AM PDT · 20 of 47
    FredZarguna to Zeneta
  • New White House receptionist is a West Wing pioneer: 'Deaf people can do anything'

    03/27/2015 9:54:35 AM PDT · 36 of 67
    FredZarguna to bigtoona
    It's hard to imagine a job she's less suited for.

    The tragedy of her story is that it makes deaf people seem actually less capable than they are. This is terribly bad publicity for disabled people and their advocates, and these morons don't even seem to understand why. This plays directly into the hands of critics who claim that disabled people don't belong in the workplace because they actually make everyone else less productive.

    When disabled people -- like anyone else -- perform tasks to which their talents and abilities are appropriately suited, there's no reason why they can't excel, and certainly no reason why they'd need to be followed around by handler who actually performs all of their work.

    What an incredible bunch of dumbasses we have in the White House.

  • New White House receptionist is a West Wing pioneer: 'Deaf people can do anything'

    03/27/2015 9:45:03 AM PDT · 22 of 67
    FredZarguna to Jeff Chandler
    Two people required for one job. Now that’s efficiency!

    By government standards, that's a productivity increase.