The Poor Man Institute

We did not ask for this fight. But we will finish it.

I trust this will be the end of the matter.

Becuase they would screw you without a second’s hesitation if they thought there was one penny more in it for them:

Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be unique.Hoskins said he’s been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.

“When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn’t going to stand for that, so I took it down,” Hoskins said.

***

Hoskins said he’d gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.

Hoskins told News 5’s Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum.

“I’ll tear it down before I let you take it,” Hoskins told them.

And that’s exactly what Hoskins did.

Why not?

(via)

I see your rampaging baby elephant style, and raise you a…

Drunk monk with a quart a Ballantine.

Torture motherf*%ker.

Now would be a good time to contemplate your mortality, and the profound foolishness of stepping to me.

Bonus: Hey fellas, below the fold, I give you a shot of the cutest ass you ever seen…J-Lo del Kardashian von Serena, IV.

(more…)

Even if you don’t have one.  I’m dipping into my private stash:

There’s more, but first, a warning:

Do not click on the link at the end of this post.  If you do so, you will fucking die.  I’m not kidding.  You won’t die right away.  First, the telephone will ring.  On the other end will be this girl.  She will tell you something terrible.  Seven days later, they will find you like this:

So don’t click HERE.  If you mouse over to see the URL, you won’t die, but you will get a rash.  A rash on your AIDS.  And then the rash will get cancer.

Shorter Lara Dadkhah: BOMB MOAR!!!

American and NATO military leaders — worried by Taliban propaganda claiming that air strikes have killed an inordinate number of civilians, and persuaded by “hearts and minds” enthusiasts that the key to winning the war is the Afghan population’s goodwill — have largely relinquished the strategic advantage of American air dominance. Last July, the commander of Western forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued a directive that air strikes (and long-range artillery fire) be authorized only under “very limited and prescribed conditions.”

So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim.

Indeed.  In fact, I believe I can disprove this premise fairly conclusively.  Consider: of all the civilians who have hidden or aided our enemies, none were dead at the time they did so.  Might it not be that the best way to win hearts and minds, then, is to carbonize and splatter them all over the Hundu-Kush?  ”More rubble, less trouble,” in other words.  As an added bonus, if we kill all the civilians in Afghanistan, the number of subsequent civilian deaths will quickly fall to zero.  So, in addition to being strategically sound, it is also the most humanitarian approach.

Wars are always ugly, and always monstrous, and best avoided. Once begun, however, the goal of even a “long war” should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.

Yeah, like I didn’t just say that 2 seconds ago.  Jeez.  Let’s win this thing!

Oh, BTW: what do we win?  It’s got to be awesome.

Dude, I didn’t want to have to go all interspecial on you, but, really, what choice? 

Taboo bitchez:

And yo, I’ll throw some bondage in the mixxx for all those freaky freaks in the audience:

Just remember your safe word bro.

Suck.  On.  This.

Due to an oppressive heat spell in Australia, some Koalas went on a walkabout looking for a billabong (trust me, that’s Australian for something or other, but don’t bother talking to one, you won’t understand a thing they’re saying). 

By the way, the fact that it was really hot in Australia during their summer is definitive, incontrovertible proof of severe man-made climate change. 

That is, until it is cold in the winter.  At which point, the cold weather (snow even!) will completely obliterate the mounds of scientific evidence of climate change, disproving the theory to all but the religiously orthodox, faith-based community of people who employ and revere the scientific method.

In the meantime, Koalaz, bitchez.

File under: Nobody could have predicted!

“Ahmed Chalabi and Ali Faysal al-Lami… clearly are influenced by Iran,” Gen. Ray Odierno said last night. “We have direct intelligence that tells us that.”

Surprisingly blunt language from Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who was speaking last night at a forum sponsored by the Institute for the Study of War. Odierno said the U.S. has evidence of several meetings in Tehran between Chalabi, Lami, and Iranian officials, including at least one person on the U.S. terror watch list.

Does this then mean that, by extension, Dick Cheney was working for Iran?  If not, how could you tell?  Seriously.  U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has begun to resemble a struggle between two puppeteers.  One in Tel Aviv, and one in Tehran.  Plus big oil.

Ann Althouse reads the Daily Fail and discovers that global warming is a LIE:

To talk about “sceptics” as the ones who will “seize” upon “evidence” of flaws is unwittingly to make global warming into a matter of religion and not science. It’s not the skeptics who look bad. “Seize” sounds willful, but science should motivate us to grab at evidence. It’s the nonskeptics who look bad. It’s not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It’s not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn’t adhere to the methods of science.

Tragedy ensues:

The BBC interviews Phil Jones:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.The Daily Mail headline:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Right.

As of press time, Ms. Althouse has yet to defend people who “seize” upon “evidence” that everyone in the global warming denial camp is a “semi-literate nutter” who believes everything they read on the “intertubes”.

Quickly, for those who may be confused: exactly 0 (zero) scientific breakthroughs have ever been achieved thanks to internet weblogs, or British tabloids, or any ménage of the two.  Again, I’m not sure how it came to be understood that this was the real scientific method, and that what those so-called “scientists” have been doing all this time is some flimsy political-religious sophistry which can be conclusively debunked by anyone with an internet connection, but this is actually a very silly thing to believe.  Or, to put it another way, I suggest we be “sceptics” of this sadly pervasive belief, and “seize” upon the infinite “evidence” that this is a completely fucking retarded thing to think.  And stop listening to dumbasses.