[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Just like Witlessmongrel and Sarah Palin and, well, the entire republican
party, Sacky never wants to give up anything that belongs to *him*. It's
obvious that Sacky knows how vapid his rationalizations for bigotry are.

Witless is even worse than Sacky, of course, now that we've discovered the
latest word Poochie doesn't understand -- compassion, that is. Sacky at
least knows what the word means, even though he's as far removed from
having any as Yapper is.

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 31, 5:27*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Just like Witlessmongrel and Sarah Palin and, well, the entire republican
party, Sacky never wants to give up anything that belongs to *him*. It's
obvious that Sacky knows how vapid his rationalizations for bigotry are.

Witless is even worse than Sacky, of course, now that we've discovered the
latest word Poochie doesn't understand -- compassion, that is. Sacky at
least knows what the word means, even though he's as far removed from
having any as Yapper is.

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.

I'm finding his arguments about health care amusing. "You can't get
better health care if you can afford it in Great Britian or Canada."
"Oh, I guess you can if your employer offers it." "I think we should
keep the system exactly as it is but have the government ("gov't" to
2pid) pay for those that can't afford it."

I wonder what the difference is in having the "gov't" pay for health
care for those that can't afford it and having those that can afford
it have private insurance available through their employer and having
the "gov't" pay for health care for those that can't afford it and
having those that can afford it have private insurance available
through their employer.

It probably has to do with whether or not those that are receiving
subsidized health care can have cell phones or not.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 18:27, George M. Middius wrote:
Just like Witlessmongrel and Sarah Palin and, well, the entire republican
party, Sacky never wants to give up anything that belongs to *him*. It's
obvious that Sacky knows how vapid his rationalizations for bigotry are.

Witless is even worse than Sacky, of course, now that we've discovered the
latest word Poochie doesn't understand -- compassion, that is. Sacky at
least knows what the word means, even though he's as far removed from
having any as Yapper is.

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.

LOL!!!!
you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.
I have much compassion for you, but no way, I'm
not sharing my wealth with you. You will have to do without
health care this new year, I hope your
pancreas will be ok, because I am a compassionate kind of guy.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde "Super Obtuse Man" Slick said:

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.

you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.

I don't get it. Make a better joke.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 21:12, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde "Super Obtuse Man" Slick said:

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.
you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.

I don't get it. Make a better joke.

What would happen if a socialist republic were
established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde "Scottie is smart, duh!" Slick said:

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.

you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.

I don't get it. Make a better joke.

What would happen if a socialist republic were
established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand.

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec, 21:45, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde "Scottie is smart, duh!" Slick said:

How did half our country become so stupid and short-sighted that sharing is
the dirtiest of dirty words? During the campaign, Mccain used the phrase
"share the wealth" to invoke the spectre of welfare run amok. We're overrun
with imbeciles like duh-Scottie, who actually believe that they "earn"
their salaries because of some intrinsic value while manual laborers
shouldn't have even the necessities of a decent life.
you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.

I don't get it. Make a better joke.

What would happen if a socialist republic were
established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand.

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

Are there any countries where it is not possible to build socialism?
Yes, countries like Luxembourg are far to small for such a big mess

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.

I don't get it. Make a better joke.

What would happen if a socialist republic were
established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand.

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

Are there any countries where it is not possible to build socialism?

So you agree that your "joke" about envy was jejune.

Yes, countries like Luxembourg are far to small for such a big mess

This isn't a fruitful line of commentary, humorwise. The highest standards
of living in the world are in heavily socialized countries.

I take it you're drunk.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Dec 2008, 23:32, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

you are even more envious of me than Krooger is.
I don't get it. Make a better joke.

What would happen if a socialist republic were
established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand.

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

Are there any countries where it is not possible to build socialism?

So you agree that your "joke" about envy was jejune.

Yes, countries like Luxembourg are far to small for such a big mess

This isn't a fruitful line of commentary, humorwise. The highest standards
of living in the world are in heavily socialized countries.

I take it you're drunk.

the list of Communist socialist countries, according to Wiki is this:
China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Viet Nam

and the current list of non Communist Socialist countries is this
(same wiki article)
(by reference in Constitution)
Syria, Sri Lanka, Portugal. Egypt, Tanzaqnia, Libya, India, and
Bengladesh

and informally
Venezuela and Nicaragua

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

Are there any countries where it is not possible to build socialism?

So you agree that your "joke" about envy was jejune.

tick-tock, tick-tock....

Yes, countries like Luxembourg are far to small for such a big mess

This isn't a fruitful line of commentary, humorwise. The highest standards
of living in the world are in heavily socialized countries.

I take it you're drunk.

the list of Communist socialist countries, according to Wiki is this:
China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Viet Nam

They're calling your name. Pack your bags.

and the current list of non Communist Socialist countries is this
(same wiki article)
(by reference in Constitution)
Syria, Sri Lanka, Portugal. Egypt, Tanzaqnia, Libya, India, and
Bengladesh
and informally
Venezuela and Nicaragua

It's not much of a list if it leaves off Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France,
Germany, Norway, Spain, Italy, Finland, and Iceland. All of those countries
have socialized education and medicine.

My opinion is that the countries on your list are not poor because they're
socialist, but socialist because they're poor. Hardly comparable to the
U.S. and the UK in standard of living.

Why don't you wait to reply until you've sobered up?

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 01:24, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

I don't envy your alleged sense of humor. What else you got?

Are there any countries where it is not possible to build socialism?

So you agree that your "joke" about envy was jejune.

tick-tock, tick-tock....

Yes, countries like Luxembourg are far to small for such a big mess

This isn't a fruitful line of commentary, humorwise. The highest standards
of living in the world are in heavily socialized countries.

I take it you're drunk.

the list of Communist socialist countries, according to Wiki is this:
China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Viet Nam

They're calling your name. Pack your bags.

and the current list of non Communist Socialist countries is this
(same wiki article)
(by reference in Constitution)
Syria, Sri Lanka, Portugal. Egypt, Tanzaqnia, Libya, India, and
Bengladesh
and informally
Venezuela and Nicaragua

It's not much of a list if it leaves off Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France,
Germany, Norway, Spain, Italy, Finland, and Iceland. All of those countries
have socialized education and medicine.

My opinion is that the countries on your list are not poor because they're
socialist, but socialist because they're poor. Hardly comparable to the
U.S. and the UK in standard of living.



In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

In Norway it is the majority in a ruling coalition.


Socialist parties control only two of the countries on your list.
Nor are most of those countries particularly socialist societies


"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization
advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the
means of
production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society
characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a
fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."

per wiki

the definition comprises two components and both mjust be met
1 -collective ownership/administration of means of production and
distrubution
AND
2- an egalitarian socieity with equal opportunites and
distruibution'of wealth

None of your countries meet the first criteria, and I woulod say that
only Finland, Iceland, Swede, and maybe Norway, fit the latter.

Germany, France, and the Netheralnds definitely do not meet the
second, as
They have large concentrations of poor people living in'ghettoe, with
limited opportunities

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

In Norway it is the majority in a ruling coalition.


Socialist parties control only two of the countries on your list.
Nor are most of those countries particularly socialist societies


"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization
advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the
means of
production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society
characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a
fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."

per wiki

the definition comprises two components and both mjust be met
1 -collective ownership/administration of means of production and
distrubution
AND
2- an egalitarian socieity with equal opportunites and
distruibution'of wealth

None of your countries meet the first criteria, and I woulod say that
only Finland, Iceland, Swede, and maybe Norway, fit the latter.

Germany, France, and the Netheralnds definitely do not meet the
second, as
They have large concentrations of poor people living in'ghettoe, with
limited opportunities

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

In Norway it is the majority in a ruling coalition.

Socialist parties control only two of the countries on your list.
Nor are *most of those countries particularly socialist societies

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization
advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the
means of
production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society
characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a
fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."

per wiki

the definition comprises two components and both mjust be met
1 -collective ownership/administration of means of production and
distrubution
AND
2- an egalitarian socieity with equal opportunites and
distruibution'of wealth

None of your countries meet the first criteria, and I woulod say that
only Finland, Iceland, Swede, and maybe Norway, fit the latter.

Germany, France, and the Netheralnds definitely do not meet the
second, as
They have large concentrations of poor people living in'ghettoe, with
limited opportunities

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?

Stephen-


it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.
Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net
the price of being more capitalist is economic gyration, no safety
net, but the plus of opportunity for some and better prospects for
longterm growth.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 wrote:

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?

it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.
Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net
the price of being more capitalist is economic gyration, no safety
net, but the plus of opportunity for some and better prospects for
longterm growth.

We've got the best of both worlds! USA! USA!

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 8:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:
*Clyde Slick wrote:

In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

The name of a party has very little to do with the form of "gov't" (I
still love it when 2pid does that, almost as much as when he says
"absurd" or talks about 'integrity').

If the Communist Party's candidate was elected President and they had
a majority in Congress, the US wouldn't be a "communist" country.

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?

it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.

So why did you bring up China? The "gov't" doesn't own those
factories.

And you agree that socialized medical care is a good thing here.

Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net

That sounds worth it. If you were compassionate you'd agree.

[Sophistic]

"Clyde Slick" droned:

per wiki

You robbed the MiddiotBot of that (dubious) honor; it lives for that sort of
stuff, you know.

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 13:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:
*Clyde Slick wrote:

In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

The name of a party has very little to do with the form of "gov't" (I
still love it when 2pid does that, almost as much as when he says
"absurd" or talks about 'integrity').


They were more than a name, they are registered under a strepific
umbrella
international organization of Socialist parties



If the Communist Party's candidate was elected President and they had
a majority in Congress, the US wouldn't be a "communist" country.


not for long!





Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?
it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.

So why did you bring up China? The "gov't" doesn't own those
factories.


nor do they in Sweden


And you agree that socialized medical care is a good thing here.


no

Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net

That sounds worth it. If you were compassionate you'd agree.

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 16:45, "Sophistic" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" droned:

per wiki

You robbed the MiddiotBot of that (dubious) honor; it lives for that sort of
stuff, you know.

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.

I am last, but not "at least"

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/e...k-POVERTY-AND-
WEALTH.html

"Opportunity" is just code for income inequality.

Stephen

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 1:45�pm, "Sophistic" wrote:

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.

I guess your holidays didn't go as well as you'd hoped?

Boon

[Sophistic]

Buffoon drooled:

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.

I guess your holidays didn't go as well as you'd hoped?

Your guess is as good as mine, oh pseudo-prescient one. ;-)

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 2:29�pm, "Sophistic" wrote:
Buffoon drooled:

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.
I guess your holidays didn't go as well as you'd hoped?

Your guess is as good as mine, oh pseudo-prescient one. ;-)

Did you get too drunk and pass out? What did the writing on your
forehead say when you woke up?

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 3:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 1 Ian, 13:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:
*Clyde Slick wrote:

In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

The name of a party has very little to do with the form of "gov't" (I
still love it when 2pid does that, almost as much as when he says
"absurd" or talks about 'integrity').

They were more than a name, they are registered under a strepific
umbrella
international organization of Socialist parties

So what? It's still just a name, not a form of government. Their
agenda does not equal a form of government.

If the Communist Party's candidate was elected President and they had
a majority in Congress, the US wouldn't be a "communist" country.

not for long!

Congress cannot change the Constitution, so it would be for long.

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?
it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.

So why did you bring up China? The "gov't" doesn't own those
factories.

nor do they in Sweden

And you agree that socialized medical care is a good thing here.

no

Isn't the government providing health care to those that cannot afford
it (i.e. taking from those that have and redistributing to those who
don't) socialized medical care?

Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net

That sounds worth it. If you were compassionate you'd agree.

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

So allowing people to suffer with no safety net in order to allow
"opportunity" to the few (the US is not equal opportunity) is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 3:56*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 1 Ian, 16:45, "Soporific" wrote:

"Clyde Slick" droned:

Speaking of "droning" it appears that Soporific sugar has absolutely
no clue how boring it is.

It probably thinks it's witty.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 7:23*pm, Boon wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:29 pm, "Soporifc" wrote:

Buffoon drooled:

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.
I guess your holidays didn't go as well as you'd hoped?

Your guess is as good as mine, oh pseudo-prescient one. ;-)

Did you get too drunk and pass out? *What did the writing on your
forehead say when you woke up?

"Thanks for passing out. The party immediately livened up."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Speaking of "droning" it appears that Soporific sugar has absolutely
no clue how boring it is.

It probably thinks it's witty.

It's probably not housebroken, so be careful how you handle it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 17:10, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/e...k-POVERTY-AND-
WEALTH.html

"Opportunity" is just code for income inequality.


Income equality "IS" a total lack of opportunity

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 20:23, Boon wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:29 pm, "Sophistic" wrote:

Buffoon drooled:

Not much else going on in the drab life of a moribund shut-in.
I guess your holidays didn't go as well as you'd hoped?

Your guess is as good as mine, oh pseudo-prescient one. ;-)

Did you get too drunk and pass out? *What did the writing on your
forehead say when you woke up?

Boon

"dekcuf m'I"

[Sophistic]

BaBoon asked:

What did the writing on your forehead say...

It sure as heck doesn't say "Queer TV" which is now permanently emblazoned on
G.I. Jill's addled little noggin.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Ian, 20:48, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 1, 3:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 1 Ian, 13:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 08:42, MiNe 109 * wrote:
*Clyde Slick wrote:

In France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark the Socialist parties are
not in power.

In Spain, the Socialist party is in power

In Iceland, Germany and The Netherlands (Holland) it is a minority
included in a ruling coalition.

The name of a party has very little to do with the form of "gov't" (I
still love it when 2pid does that, almost as much as when he says
"absurd" or talks about 'integrity').

They were more than a name, they are registered under a strepific
umbrella
international organization of Socialist parties

So what? It's still just a name, not a form of government. Their
agenda does not equal a form of government.

If the Communist Party's candidate was elected President and they had
a majority in Congress, the US wouldn't be a "communist" country.

not for long!

Congress cannot change the Constitution, so it would be for long.

Then why are Republicans afraid of socialism in the US?
it's all a matter of degree.
few countries are purely capitalist, few are purely socialist.

So why did you bring up China? The "gov't" doesn't own those
factories.

nor do they in Sweden

And you agree that socialized medical care is a good thing here.

no

Isn't the government providing health care to those that cannot afford
it (i.e. taking from those that have and redistributing to those who
don't) socialized medical care?

Most are a combimnation somewhere along the continuum.
the price of being more socialist is economic stagnation and lack of
opportunity for all, but the plus of a safety net

That sounds worth it. If you were compassionate you'd agree.

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

So allowing people to suffer with no safety net in order to allow
"opportunity" *to the few (the US is not equal opportunity) is.-

First of all, opportunity is for the many (though not all), not just
to the few.
And, as our society is somewhere along the continuum (not purely
unbridle capitalism) there are some safety nets along with some
opportunity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 1, 9:15*pm, "Soporific" wrote:

Nothing of any consequence, wit, or imagination.

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill stirred out of slumber:

Nothing

Gazed at her reflection in the mirror, still saw the scarlet letters that
spelled "Queer TV" ingrained in her sullen forehead and promptly burst into
muffled tears.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 2, 1:08*am, "Soporific" wrote:

Nothing of any consequence, wit, or imagination.

Again. Wake me up when you think you've said something funny or
interesting, sugar. LOL!

[Sophistic]

G.I. Jill nodded off:

Wake me up...

Keep falling asleep on the keyboard like and you'll forever have "Queer TV"
imprinted on your sullen forehead.

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 11:08�pm, "Sophistic" wrote:
G.I. Jill stirred out of slumber:

Nothing

Gazed at her reflection in the mirror, still saw the scarlet letters that
spelled "Queer TV" ingrained in her sullen forehead and promptly burst into
muffled tears.

That's not even close to being clever, witty or humorous. Desperate
and bitter, yes.

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 2, 2:04�am, "Sophistic" wrote:
G.I. Jill nodded off:

Wake me up...

Keep falling asleep on the keyboard like and you'll forever have "Queer TV"
imprinted on your sullen forehead.

I've never heard of "Queer TV." What can you tell us about it?

Boon

[Boon]

On Jan 1, 7:15�pm, "Sophistic" wrote:
BaBoon asked:

What did the writing on your forehead say...

It sure as heck doesn't say "Queer TV" which is now permanently emblazoned on
G.I. Jill's addled little noggin.

Why would "Queer TV" be emblazoned on his forehead? Did you talk this
joke through before you decided to post it? Next time you should run
these lame, feeble attempts at humor past family of friends before you
embarrass yourself again. I'm making the rather generous assumption
that you have friends and family, of course.

Boon

[Sophistic]

BaBoon asked:

What did the writing on your forehead say...

It sure as heck doesn't say "Queer TV" which is now permanently emblazoned
on G.I. Jill's addled little noggin.

Why would "Queer TV" be emblazoned on his forehead?

Since you insist on being such an idiot, ask Jilly about the significance of
"QWERTY" and her forehead.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 17:10, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/e...k-POVERTY-AND-
WEALTH.html

"Opportunity" is just code for income inequality.


Income equality "IS" a total lack of opportunity

But it's not the opposite of income inequality.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Ian, 09:42, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Ian, 17:10, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

stqagnation and a general lack of opportunity,
no I would not call that compassionate.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/e...k-POVERTY-AND-
WEALTH.html

"Opportunity" is just code for income inequality.

Income equality "IS" a total lack of opportunity

But it's not the opposite of income inequality.


sorry, I don't have a copy of your newspeak dictionary handy
income inequality vs income equality
well, the term income is in both phrases, and means the same thing
the only difference is inequality vs equality, and
in my book, they are opposites.

I take it that you mean income inequality to
be that not every worker earns the same wage.
If you mean something else, say so.
But since the concpet we were discussing is Socialism,
I took the literal meaning, as it is a Socialist concept.

If you merely mean wage disparities within any given occupatiion,
just say so. That brings up a lot of other discussions, but
they are not relevant to Socialism. But I would be
glad to discuss them, anyway. We might even agree.