Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Obama, Marx and the new social order, pt. 3

Peach Extraordinaire





Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 07:22 AM
Turns out BarryO has been advocating for redistribution of wealth for some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Apparently being like France isn't good enough for BarryO and his fellow travelers. He apparently wants to head us into Venezuela-style territory right off the bat.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 
Replies:

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2055
(2055 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 07:45 AM

 

____________________
Copying from a single source is called plagiarism, copying from multiple source is called research.....

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67467
(67828 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 08:04 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397938/


Barack Obama is a socialist?
McCain, Palin on record supporting similar proposals as Democratic rival

The Talk of the Town
By Hendrik Hertzberg



Sometimes, when a political campaign has run out of ideas and senses that the prize is slipping through its fingers, it rolls up a sleeve and plunges an arm, shoulder deep, right down to the bottom of the barrel. The problem for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party is that the bottom was scraped clean long before it dropped out. Back when the polls were nip and tuck and the leaves had not yet begun to turn, Barack Obama had already been accused of betraying the troops, wanting to teach kindergartners all about sex, favoring infanticide, and being a friend of terrorists and terrorism. What was left? The anticlimactic answer came as the long Presidential march of 2008 staggered toward its final week: Senator Obama is a socialist.

“This campaign in the next couple of weeks is about one thing,” Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri, told a McCain rally outside St. Louis. “It’s a referendum on socialism.” “With all due respect,” Senator George Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, said, “the man is a socialist.” At an airport rally in Roswell, New Mexico, a well-known landing spot for space aliens, Governor Palin warned against Obama’s tax proposals. “Friends,” she said, “now is no time to experiment with socialism.” And McCain, discussing those proposals, agreed that they sounded “a lot like socialism.” There hasn’t been so much talk of socialism in an American election since 1920, when Eugene Victor Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party, made his fifth run for President from a cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year sentence for opposing the First World War. (Debs got a million votes and was freed the following year by the new Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who immediately invited him to the White House for a friendly visit.)

As a buzzword, “socialism” had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That’s why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That’s why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obliging the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe (and America, for what it was worth) to make rescuing the “good name” of socialism one of their central missions. Socialists—one thinks of men like George Orwell, Willy Brandt, and Aneurin Bevan—were among Communism’s most passionate and effective enemies.

The United States is a special case. There is a whole shelf of books on the question of why socialism never became a real mass movement here. For decades, the word served mainly as a cudgel with which conservative Republicans beat liberal Democrats about the head. When Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan accused John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson of socialism for advocating guaranteed health care for the aged and the poor, the implication was that Medicare and Medicaid would presage a Soviet America. Now that Communism has been defunct for nearly twenty years, though, the cry of socialism no longer packs its old punch. “At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives,” McCain said the other day—thereby suggesting that the dystopia he abhors is not some North Korean-style totalitarian ant heap but, rather, the gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule. Obama would use some of the added revenue to give a break to pretty much everybody who nets less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama “will raise your taxes.”

On October 12th, in conversation with a voter forever to be known as Joe the Plumber, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how Joe could benefit from it, whether or not he achieves his dream of owning his own plumbing business, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.





 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67467
(67828 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 08:05 AM

quote:
Turns out BarryO has been advocating for redistribution of wealth for some time.




Apparently, so have McCain & Palin.................

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 08:54 AM
He should consult Palin. After all she has more experience at getting the Oil Companies to redistribute their wealth to the citizens of Alaska. That makes her an expert in energy dontchya know.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 09:06 AM
quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397938/


Barack Obama is a socialist?
McCain, Palin on record supporting similar proposals as Democratic rival

The Talk of the Town
By Hendrik Hertzberg



Sometimes, when a political campaign has run out of ideas and senses that the prize is slipping through its fingers, it rolls up a sleeve and plunges an arm, shoulder deep, right down to the bottom of the barrel. The problem for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party is that the bottom was scraped clean long before it dropped out. Back when the polls were nip and tuck and the leaves had not yet begun to turn, Barack Obama had already been accused of betraying the troops, wanting to teach kindergartners all about sex, favoring infanticide, and being a friend of terrorists and terrorism. What was left? The anticlimactic answer came as the long Presidential march of 2008 staggered toward its final week: Senator Obama is a socialist.

“This campaign in the next couple of weeks is about one thing,” Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri, told a McCain rally outside St. Louis. “It’s a referendum on socialism.” “With all due respect,” Senator George Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, said, “the man is a socialist.” At an airport rally in Roswell, New Mexico, a well-known landing spot for space aliens, Governor Palin warned against Obama’s tax proposals. “Friends,” she said, “now is no time to experiment with socialism.” And McCain, discussing those proposals, agreed that they sounded “a lot like socialism.” There hasn’t been so much talk of socialism in an American election since 1920, when Eugene Victor Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party, made his fifth run for President from a cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year sentence for opposing the First World War. (Debs got a million votes and was freed the following year by the new Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who immediately invited him to the White House for a friendly visit.)

As a buzzword, “socialism” had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That’s why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That’s why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obliging the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe (and America, for what it was worth) to make rescuing the “good name” of socialism one of their central missions. Socialists—one thinks of men like George Orwell, Willy Brandt, and Aneurin Bevan—were among Communism’s most passionate and effective enemies.

The United States is a special case. There is a whole shelf of books on the question of why socialism never became a real mass movement here. For decades, the word served mainly as a cudgel with which conservative Republicans beat liberal Democrats about the head. When Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan accused John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson of socialism for advocating guaranteed health care for the aged and the poor, the implication was that Medicare and Medicaid would presage a Soviet America. Now that Communism has been defunct for nearly twenty years, though, the cry of socialism no longer packs its old punch. “At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives,” McCain said the other day—thereby suggesting that the dystopia he abhors is not some North Korean-style totalitarian ant heap but, rather, the gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule. Obama would use some of the added revenue to give a break to pretty much everybody who nets less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama “will raise your taxes.”

On October 12th, in conversation with a voter forever to be known as Joe the Plumber, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how Joe could benefit from it, whether or not he achieves his dream of owning his own plumbing business, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.








I only take New Yorker for the cartoons and the fiction which includes Hertsberg's diatribes.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 09:30 AM
quote:

I only take the WP for the cartoons and the fiction which includes RBK's diatribes.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67467
(67828 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 10:25 AM
quote:

I only take New Yorker for the cartoons and the fiction which includes Hertsberg's diatribes.




Demean. Debase. Deflect. Deny.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:17 AM
quote:


I only take New Yorker for the cartoons and the fiction which includes Hertsberg's diatribes.


Hey RBK, your knuckles must hurt from all that scuffin' they take on the ground all day.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:18 AM
quote:
quote:

I only take New Yorker for the cartoons and the fiction which includes Hertsberg's diatribes.


Demean. Debase. Deflect. Deny.
Ditto.

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:26 AM
The idea that "spreading the wealth around" is automatically socialist, and the scary tone McCain uses whenever he utters that phrase, well it's just silly.

The reason taxes exist is to spread wealth. Public investment in anything or anyone is spreading the wealth.
Arguing about how one should use tax dollars makes sense and is a respectful American political tradition. Even arguing about how much people are taxed or who is taxed most, of course is fair game and falls within the national dialogue since the Boston Tea Party, before there WAS a nation.

But to make the narrow claim that it's socialist to change tax policy in any way that doesn't conform to wacko Grover Norquist's goal of "starving the govt. until it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub" -- this is what's new and reprehensible about the McCain campaign's last-ditch effort to taint Obama as a socialist. I mean, the fact that this rhetorical relic of the Cold war era has gotten any traction is sad.

Obama's tax ideas may not be to everyone's linking, and that's fine. But to suggest they fall in the Marxist tradition, and not solidly part of the American give-and-take, that's what's so ugly about it.

Of course RBK's lips stopped moving and he gave up trying to read this about 6 words in, so I'm just preaching to the choir by now, LOL...

BTW, your sig is still wrong, Mr. Proud to Be Wrong.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3636
(3636 all sites)
Registered: 5/1/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:31 AM
I would agree it's disengenuous of the Republicans to assault Obama's tax proposals as "socialist" so long as they are in favor of any progressive tax plan, are not screaming from the rooftops about cutting spending and not proposing meaningful tax cuts themselves. Frankly, both candidates should be explaining to us why they need to raise taxes and make deep cuts in gov't spending to eliminate deficit spending and start reducing the debt. But those aren't the kind of platforms that get you elected.

However, Palin's taxing of the oil companies, and her husband's affiliation with the Alaskan separatist movement are a horse of another color. A huge percentage of Alaskan land is Federally owned and a huge chunk of the Alaskan economy is the oil industry. Other than jobs, Alaskans reap very little from all this. Meanwhile, timber, oil, natural gas and other resources are harvested on Alaskan land with little benefit to Alaskans. So the taxation of the oil industry, and the philosophy that they'd be better off if they owned all those resources instead of the federal gov't, while perhaps not exactly capitalism, is understandable.

 

____________________
Walk down on the street and leave, my blues at home

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:33 AM
quote:
The idea that "spreading the wealth around" is automatically socialist, and the scary tone McCain uses whenever he utters that phrase, well it's just silly.

The reason taxes exist is to spread wealth. Public investment in anything or anyone is spreading the wealth.
Arguing about how one should use tax dollars makes sense and is a respectful American political tradition. Even arguing about how much people are taxed or who is taxed most, of course is fair game and falls within the national dialogue since the Boston Tea Party, before there WAS a nation.

But to make the narrow claim that it's socialist to change tax policy in any way that doesn't conform to wacko Grover Norquist's goal of "starving the govt. until it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub" -- this is what's new and reprehensible about the McCain campaign's last-ditch effort to taint Obama as a socialist. I mean, the fact that this rhetorical relic of the Cold war era has gotten any traction is sad.

Obama's tax ideas may not be to everyone's linking, and that's fine. But to suggest they fall in the Marxist tradition, and not solidly part of the American give-and-take, that's what's so ugly about it.

Of course RBK's lips stopped moving and he gave up trying to read this about 6 words in, so I'm just preaching to the choir by now, LOL...

BTW, your sig is still wrong, Mr. Proud to Be Wrong.


Obviously you geniuses didn't watch the video. Rather you just leaped to a knee-jerk defense of your messiah. Or if you did watch the video apparently you didn't understand the words with multiple syllables. Or, as is the case with our left-of-center friends when confronted with actual evidence (as opposed to Hendrick Hertzberg's lefty propaganda), you demean, deflect, debase and deny.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:37 AM
I want a job where I can clock in on Monday morning, get on my computer, and immediately go to a website where I can anonymously whine and ridicule people who are much smarter than me.

Would that be socialism?

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:37 AM
quote:
I would agree it's disengenuous of the Republicans to assault Obama's tax proposals as "socialist" so long as they are in favor of any progressive tax plan, are not screaming from the rooftops about cutting spending and not proposing meaningful tax cuts themselves. Frankly, both candidates should be explaining to us why they need to raise taxes and make deep cuts in gov't spending to eliminate deficit spending and start reducing the debt. But those aren't the kind of platforms that get you elected.

However, Palin's taxing of the oil companies, and her husband's affiliation with the Alaskan separatist movement are a horse of another color. A huge percentage of Alaskan land is Federally owned and a huge chunk of the Alaskan economy is the oil industry. Other than jobs, Alaskans reap very little from all this. Meanwhile, timber, oil, natural gas and other resources are harvested on Alaskan land with little benefit to Alaskans. So the taxation of the oil industry, and the philosophy that they'd be better off if they owned all those resources instead of the federal gov't, while perhaps not exactly capitalism, is understandable.


I can respect you for this post, because you're level-headed and clear in your expression. Personally, I disagree with you, but you've taken a clear-eyed view of the fact that Republicans and Democrats are ultimately fine-tuning what has been a semi-socialist economy since Teddy Roosevelt legalized labor unions. And you seem to espouse pretty much Grover Norquist's vision, give or take. And you seem to have some ideological sympathy, therefore, for the Alaskan secessionists. I think both they and Norquist are wrong-headed and extreme, but at least you're being consistent and clear about what you believe.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:41 AM
quote:
I want a job where I can clock in on Monday morning, get on my computer, and immediately go to a website where I can anonymously whine and ridicule people who are much smarter than me.

Would that be socialism?


Apparently you already have one. You're here a lot more than me Comrade Pyscho-Stalker.

BTW, I first posted this about 7am EDT. As you're apparently out west you jumped on my thread at what, perhaps 5am your time? What a life fulfilled you must lead.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:41 AM
quote:
quote:
The idea that "spreading the wealth around" is automatically socialist, and the scary tone McCain uses whenever he utters that phrase, well it's just silly.

The reason taxes exist is to spread wealth. Public investment in anything or anyone is spreading the wealth.
Arguing about how one should use tax dollars makes sense and is a respectful American political tradition. Even arguing about how much people are taxed or who is taxed most, of course is fair game and falls within the national dialogue since the Boston Tea Party, before there WAS a nation.

But to make the narrow claim that it's socialist to change tax policy in any way that doesn't conform to wacko Grover Norquist's goal of "starving the govt. until it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub" -- this is what's new and reprehensible about the McCain campaign's last-ditch effort to taint Obama as a socialist. I mean, the fact that this rhetorical relic of the Cold war era has gotten any traction is sad.

Obama's tax ideas may not be to everyone's linking, and that's fine. But to suggest they fall in the Marxist tradition, and not solidly part of the American give-and-take, that's what's so ugly about it.

Of course RBK's lips stopped moving and he gave up trying to read this about 6 words in, so I'm just preaching to the choir by now, LOL...

BTW, your sig is still wrong, Mr. Proud to Be Wrong.


Obviously you geniuses didn't watch the video. Rather you just leaped to a knee-jerk defense of your messiah. Or if you did watch the video apparently you didn't understand the words with multiple syllables. Or, as is the case with our left-of-center friends when confronted with actual evidence (as opposed to Hendrick Hertzberg's lefty propaganda), you demean, deflect, debase and deny.


I watched that video hours before you posted here, Mr. Littleman. I know where you found it: by logging onto Matt drdge's home page, where he has a headline promising evdence of Obama's longstanding Marxist agenda. YAWN. It's just more desperation from an ideologue who is afraid his little Internet fiefdom is gonna lose traffic now that the consevative (bowel) movement is lying in the turlet waiting to get flushed.

Your sig is still wrong and you don;t have the guts to change it, because an Obama voter pointed it out to you. You are still the belt-holder for the righteous title: MR. PROUD TO BE WRONG

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:50 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I want a job where I can clock in on Monday morning, get on my computer, and immediately go to a website where I can anonymously whine and ridicule people who are much smarter than me.

Would that be socialism?


Apparently you already have one. You're here a lot more than me Comrade Pyscho-Stalker.

BTW, I first posted this about 7am EDT. As you're apparently out west you jumped on my thread at what, perhaps 5am your time? What a life fulfilled you must lead.


SCB is self-employed. His time is his own. You have a job where you report to someone. Your work time is not your own. See the difference, Mr. Proud To Be Wrong?


Gosh, SCB's lifestyle sounds familiar, comrade, although I don't haunt chat forums in the middle of the night.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:54 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I want a job where I can clock in on Monday morning, get on my computer, and immediately go to a website where I can anonymously whine and ridicule people who are much smarter than me.

Would that be socialism?


Apparently you already have one. You're here a lot more than me Comrade Pyscho-Stalker.

BTW, I first posted this about 7am EDT. As you're apparently out west you jumped on my thread at what, perhaps 5am your time? What a life fulfilled you must lead.


SCB is self-employed. His time is his own. You have a job where you report to someone. Your work time is not your own. See the difference, Mr. Proud To Be Wrong?


Gosh, SCB's lifestyle sounds familiar, comrade, although I don't haunt chat forums in the middle of the night.


Which, of course, completely ignores what I said. Meanwhile, you haunt this place when you should be wotking. How so very honest of you, Dick.


Which of course completely ignores what I just said.

[Edited on 10/27/2008 by RBK]

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:56 AM
Did you say something?

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 11:58 AM
Can't answer the truth about that link being a red herring from the Drudge Report? Wow, man, you really did some research: DRUDGE SEZ LINK, ME PRESS LINK, DRUDGE SEZ GOOD, ME THINK GOOD.

Your throat must get so dry, from all that mouth breathing you do.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 12:02 PM
quote:
The Dick doesn't answer questions. The Dick just says what he wants to.


BTW, Calling you The Dick is meant as a compliment. You post more than any other Dick on this site. You are the most prolific Dick poster here. That makes you #1 Dick, or The Dick, if you will.


And your leaping on my every post makes you my obsessive pyscho-stalker which I find no end of amusing.

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4433
(4433 all sites)
Registered: 2/27/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 12:05 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The Dick doesn't answer questions. The Dick just says what he wants to.


BTW, Calling you The Dick is meant as a compliment. You post more than any other Dick on this site. You are the most prolific Dick poster here. That makes you #1 Dick, or The Dick, if you will.


And your leaping on my every post makes you my obsessive pyscho-stalker which I find no end of amusing.


Did The Dick just say something? I was busy responding to Gondicar and Missed what The Dick was saying.


You can't help but prove me right, can you comrade?

 

____________________
As a patriot and a loyal member of the opposition I pledge to offer our new President the very same benefit of the doubt and unwavering support that the left offered George Bush over the last eight years.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 12:06 PM
quote:
quote:
I want a job where I can clock in on Monday morning, get on my computer, and immediately go to a website where I can anonymously whine and ridicule people who are much smarter than me.

Would that be socialism?


Apparently you already have one. You're here a lot more than me Comrade Pyscho-Stalker.

BTW, I first posted this about 7am EDT. As you're apparently out west you jumped on my thread at what, perhaps 5am your time? What a life fulfilled you must lead.


You're calling me childish names, Richard.

I'm a self-employed carpenter. I can work when I want to, and I don't have a boss I have to hide from. Work is slow right now, so I'm taking advantage of the time off by playing with a troll. In a little while I'm going to play my bass for a while, then go do some work in the yard.

It is now 10:04, and I have been online for 1 hour and 12 minutes, according to my computer.

You really aren't very smart, are you, Mr. Kelley?

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2008 at 12:08 PM
RBK: 100 PERCENT WRONG. AND 110 PERCENT PROUD OF IT.





[Edited on 10/27/2008 by ThePeteMan]

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com