Yes, I know it’s a bolt
A German factory worker stole over a million screws from his employer and skewed the market with his cheap stolen goods.
Over two years, the 33-year-old assembly plant worker smuggled between 2,000 and 7,000 screws out of work each night, and auctioned them on an Internet site, police said. The scheme cost his firm around 110,000 euros ($156,000).
Q: How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: There is no need to change the light bulb. President Bush is confident the bulb will light up again.
The title of this thread reminds me of someting, what was it….
Hmmm Senior moment…
Oh yeah!!! The iPhone!! It seems ….
I know I know, no more thread hijacking….
Q: How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: If you want the light bulb changed you must hate freedom and are a terrorist. Homeland Security has been dispatched to your location. Hope you like Gitmo.
Q: How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: There is no way a Neocon would be caught dead doing something so mundane as changing a light bulb himself. He will contract the job out to Halliburton for $15 million (plus a $30 million contract to Blackwater to guard the light bulb changers).
#3,Rob,
You forgot the $45 million to General Dynamics to design a light bulb that will glow when an electrical current is passed through it yet remain dark when the current is removed. Just think of the commercial applications for a light bulb like that.
Yes, I know it’s a bolt
Damn!! That was going to be my first comment.
(Off topic, but following the light bulb joke sub-thread.)
Q: How many anti-choicers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one to change it but about a half-dozen to sit around afterward debating about whether light begins the instant you screw it in.
(/Off topic)
My to the point observation on this thread is: “What?!?”
And another light bulb joke, from the New York crowd (now I’m a crowd).
Q: How many New Yorkers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Wha’ do I look like? A fuckin’ electrician?
Q: How many neocons does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Light bulbs never change. They only pretend to change to gain your trust, and then they suddenly go dark, destroying the American way of life. Always install a video camera to watch for suspicious lighting behavior, and be ready to act on the first sign of any flicker.
Fine.
Q. How many neocons does it take to change a light bulb?
A. That information is classified.
Q. How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A. They never change anything. They just cry over the burnt out bulb.
Liberals fail at life, and light bulbs.
#10 – James Hill,
Liberals fail at life
What a totally fucking asinine comment! iGW was making a silly-assed joke. Your comment is just fucking stupid. I mean:
1) How do you define failure at life?
2) What would possibly make you think that liberals fail more often than
schmucks, fucktards and other asshatsstingy people?3) Liberals are more generous, literally and by definition. Is generosity a failure in some way?
4) Liberals support human rights, as our founding fathers did. Is support for freedom, rights, and liberties some form of failure?
Damn what a stupid comment.
Gawd, I can’t resist:
Give Algore a light bulb and he’ll lecture you about it’s contribution to global warming. Break a light bulb over Algore’s head and you’re out a light bulb but you got to feel the satisfying crunch.
#11.3 – Actually conservatives give more to charity than liberals: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
But otherwise, yeah, this was supposed to be a joke thread.
Q. How many light bulbs can liberals change without a tax increase.
A. What? I don’t understand. How can you fix something without a tax increase?
How many lightbulbs are given to charity? http://tinyurl.com/ytv8gr
Q. How many neocons does it take to pay for a light bulb?
A. None, they’d rather borrow the money from China, rack up a huge debt, pass that on to their grand children, and then still complain that liberals want to raise your taxes.
Q. How many liberals and neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Just two, but they gotta be real small to fit inside.
It makes me wonder, does that Germany company uses SAP software?
Ok…..I give up….apparently it IS possible to turn any mundane post into a political theme.
Q: How does a Democrat screw in a light-bulb?
A: Massive tax increases, useless government programs, pork projects.
Q: How does a Republican screw in a light-bulb?
A: Exactly the same way as a Democrat, but with a wider stance.
That’s a bolt dumbass. It would have been OK if you had indicated you knew it was a bolt. Typical liberal leg waxing elitist.
#20, Milo,
But, it’s a Republican bolt. Guaranteed to strip the threads too, that way once they are in, you can’t get them out until after the election. And in the end, they are pretty blunt. A Democrat screw at least has a point.
How many light bulbs does it take to screw in a surrealist?
Every night a factory worker with a wheel barrow full of rubbish is stopped at the security gate by the same security guard .
Every night the security guard looks through the rubbish and finds nothing of value and so lets the factory worker go.
This goes on for twenty years until the day both the factory worker and the security guard retires.
On their last day of work the security guard asks the factory worker “I know you have been up to no good these last twenty years with your wheel barrows full of rubbish every night – we are both retiring and it doesn’t matter any more, but I need to know, what were you stealing?”
“Wheel barrows” said the factory worker…
Cheers
#13 – iGW,
I think that study doesn’t sound all that scientific to me. It studied two geographic regions. It did not ask which people that gave to salvation army considered themselves liberal. It did not look at total amount each family gave to charity. It ignored the fact that salvation army is a religious organization, so would not get money from the likes of me and other antitheists, who are probably more common in San Francisco than Sioux Falls. It ignored any comparison of the foot traffic levels going by the salvation army buckets. It ignored the fact that San Franciscans pay among the highest percentages of disposable income on housing, so would not be able to give the same percentage.
And, it ignored the fact that it is liberal politics that wants health care for all. It is liberal politics that wants to raise the minimum wage. It is liberal politics that wants increased government programs to help poor people, though I admit that a good suggestion for this has not yet been attempted. And, the reason that these things are not implemented is that there are no liberals in politics now. Or, more accurately, just one and the press won’t cover him, Kucinich.
But go on believing that you are generous as you vote republican. You probably are being very generous … to Haliburton, Exxon/Mobil, MalFart, etc.
#24 – That’s why I gave you the second link. “Charity” and “generous” is individuals freely giving to their chosen amount to their chosen cause. Everything you mention is tax funded.
It’s very easy to give away someone else’s money. There’s certainly nothing generous about it and when you really look at it you have yet another erosion of freedom.
#25, iHotAir(YOP)
Giving money to your church is considered a charity by many conservatives. To me, trying to convert Indonesians natives to Christianity or enriching Benny Hinn is not charitable work.
#25 – iGW,
Sorry, I thought the second link was a lightbulb joke. It’s interesting that Brooks has studies linking religiosity to charitable giving, but not liberal vs conservative. I’m not sure what the article you cite was quoting I could not find the original study on google scholar. Do you have a link to the original article? I’d like to see it. One of the things about this article is it seems that once it gets past the point of discounting the religious giving, that he acknowledges is essentially membership dues, the small difference in giving is only in giving to the arts and to humans. Most of the charity I give is for environmental and wildlife causes. That would not have counted in his study. And, again, I’m not finding any peer-reviewed work of his studying liberal vs. conservative with the religiosity adjusted for. Please try to find the original reference if you don’t mind.