Toss this salad!
Without further ado, the answer to last entry�s question is�
What is this? The armored Caterpillar D9
Who makes it? Caterpillar makes the D9, the IDF, Israeli Defense Force, makes the armor modifications.
Where is it made? Manufactured in the U.S. and assembled on site.
Where is it used? The armored D9 is in use primarily in the Gaza Strip.
What is it being used for? The Israeli Combat Engineer Corp lists the D9�s use as, �clearing terrain obstacles.� The destruction of hundreds of housing structures in Rafah is highly controversial issue, Palestinians claim the destruction left thousands of people homeless and is done systematically in order to create a "buffer zone" between Rafah and Philadelphi Route.
Since no one got the exact correct answer, no one will receive the 25 point top award. However, two of you were very close and will receive the following point awards:
Juddhole � 15 points for correctly referencing the 4th of June, 2004 incident when a Granby, Colorado, USA resident by the name of Marvin Heemeyer ran amok inside an in-house modified D9 and destroyed several houses and community buildings in the small farming village.
Anisettekiss - 12.5 points for correctly recognizing the horror of the poor brown people cowering that the D9 has caused.
You can find a running total of points and leaders on the great big hotcarl blog contest Leader Board, located here.
Seems the topic of the hour is the attempted gay marriage ban by the so-called Republicans. I say so-called, because these Republicans pushing for this amendment to the constitution apparently forgot what Republicans stand for. What is it real republicans stand for? Less government, that�s what. Republicans are supposed to believe that people given the chance can and will do the right thing and the sole purpose of government is to simply set basic guidelines to provide protection for those people to make their choices and live their lives. Banning gay marriage flies in the face of that.
Whether you think being gay is right or wrong, when determining what should be law and what shouldn�t you have to ask yourself, is what they are doing hurting me? Is it? Do two guys standing in front of a judge signing a contract that they are going to enter a partnership for life where all their assets are split 50-50 really hurt you? I didn�t think so. It hurts the institution of marriage you say? Bullshit, divorce did that about 250 years ago.
Perhaps the problem is that government recognized marriage at all. Marriage is a religious term used to describe a union between a man and a woman before God. When marriage laws were passed it just seemed natural to use that name. Civil union would have been a much better choice and we would perhaps be avoiding this debate now.
To those who oppose gay marriage, �I say back the fuck off.� In our country everyone deserves basic equal rights to pursue their happiness. Your spouse can�t testify against you in court, its fair play that theirs can�t either. You automatically inherit your spouses crap if they die, it�s fair play they would too, not your spouse�s stuff, but theirs, you know what I mean. There is a myriad of laws passed to protect married couples and even a few to penalize them, like higher taxes, it stands to reason that any people who choose to enter a life long partnership should get those same privileges and penalties.
Oh let me stop you there, you are gonna say what about the freaks in Utah, what about marring 65 other people. Exactly, what about it? They are all consenting adults and if all parties involved are aware and are participants, then who cares. It doesn�t hurt me and it doesn�t hurt you. You don�t have to marry multiple people or marry someone else who is married to someone else.
Here you go again; now with the, �what about siblings or first cousins?� Well sicko, as I said previously, laws should be based on whether the action being legislated affects other people. In this case, there is ample evidence to support the inevitable birth defects that can occur from inbreeding. So you see, someone else, a child, is being hurt by the action, so obviously this should be illegal.
Again with this? What about Man-boy love, what about NAMBLA? You are gross. But it�s quite simple, children are not of consenting age, they are not mature enough to enter into a life long partnership, therefore, illegal.
Ok, I am only going to let you do this one more time. What about man and animal marriages? See the previous reasoning, animals can�t reason nor communicate with humans. If it can�t consent to your ass ramming of it, it sure the hell can�t consent to marriage. FYI, you are a sick bastard for thinking of that weird shit.
Oh don�t get to comfortable my sausage hiding friends. I did mention Civil Unions back a few minutes ago. What�s up? What is wrong with that? It�s is what you wanted, equal protection under the law, the same privileges and penalties. So what if it�s got a different name? Look, you can�t make everyone think your life style is fine. It�s just not going to happen. Everyone has free will to like or hate who they choose, and no law is ever going to change that. What laws can do is insure that their love or hate for you doesn�t interfere with your right to pursue happiness.
Ok, I am off my soap box� whoops, I just dropped my soap.
Behold, The Second Question!
Three friends check into a motel for the night and the clerk tells them the bill is $30, payable in advance. So, they each pay the clerk $10 and go to their room. A few minutes later, the clerk realizes he has made an error and overcharged the trio by $5. He asks the bellhop to return $5 to the 3 friends who had just checked in. The bellhop sees this as an opportunity to make $2 as he reasons that the three friends would have a tough time dividing $5 evenly among them; so he decides to tell them that the clerk made a mistake of only $3, giving a dollar back to each of the friends. He pockets the leftover $2 and goes home for the day! Now, each of the three friends gets a dollar back, thus they each paid $9 for the room which is a total of $27 for the night. We know the bellhop pocketed $2 and adding that to the $27, you get $29, not $30 which was originally spent. Where did the other dollar go?
Have fun,
j
8 people think they have something witty to say about this entry.
