Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 07-28-2009, 11:04 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,695
Need a comeback for glurge righty e-mail

My right-wing Palin loving Obama hating sister sent this to me today with the subject line: Must Read, Profound Statement

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."*
* Adrian Rogers, 1931*


I'd like to reply with a good rebuttal and thought maybe someone here would like to craft one.
Any takers?
#2
Old 07-28-2009, 11:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,104
This is dated 1931, but is it from Adrian Rogers (1931-2005), who was president of the Southern Baptist Convention? The Adrian Rogers who, when asked about the Bible's endorsement of slavery, reportedly replied, "I believe slavery is a much maligned institution; if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess" (cite)? That Adrian Rogers? I'm not sure I'd want to look to him for analysis of tax policy.

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 07-28-2009 at 11:28 AM.
#3
Old 07-28-2009, 11:31 AM
tdn tdn is offline
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
"And not only that, Obama can't even see Russia from his house!"
#4
Old 07-28-2009, 11:43 AM
tdn tdn is offline
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
This is dated 1931
A year in which the unemployment rate was 15.9%. The next year it was 23.6%. Those lazy people should have just gotten jobs!
#5
Old 07-28-2009, 12:03 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 6,189
You know, I don't see anything to object to in the quoted statement. It may not represent a rebuttal to anything that anyone is actually proposing, but in and of itself, it seems to me to be pretty much self-evidently true.

In a sense, the quoted statement is kind of a straw man argument. No-one is proposing to support half the population at the expense of the other half. But the proportion doesn't need to be half-and-half to make the principle work. I won't say any more than that, to avoid sending this into GD territory.


Roddy
#6
Old 07-28-2009, 12:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 21,592
Apart from whether it may or may not be correctly attributed, what do you object to?
#7
Old 07-28-2009, 12:44 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivylass View Post
Apart from whether it may or may not be correctly attributed, what do you object to?
"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end"

I don't believe that if you take away from the "haves" that they're simply going to stop working. Would rich people really give up being rich just so they could stay out of a higher tax bracket?
And it also implies that the "have nots" will simply sit on their collective asses and do nothing because it's easier to take handouts.
#8
Old 07-28-2009, 12:52 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,431
It's a strawman. Liberals don't want to give people money for free. I personally feel that people will be more inclined to work harder when they are paid what their work is worth. The disagreement comes in trying to determine what someones work is worth.
#9
Old 07-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Wisconsin USA
Posts: 16,843
The best reply is nothing. Tell her later if she asks about it, that your spam filter must have ate it.
#10
Old 07-28-2009, 01:32 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 28,919
When I receive glurge (which I rarely do, as my associates know I do not like it), I just reply with, "You've gotta be fuckin kidding".

It has been effective.
#11
Old 07-28-2009, 01:49 PM
bup bup is offline
Guest
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
Reply to all, with some horribly offensive joke. It worked for me. I don't get glurgy emails from my wife's fundie cousin anymore.

I wish I would get one more, though, so I can send it to the guy who sends me and hundreds of other people an offensive joke about once a week.
#12
Old 07-28-2009, 01:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: temperate forest
Posts: 6,876
Are you wanting to really have an honest dialogue with your sister, or are you looking for something that will keep her from sending you any more of these e-mails (at the risk of offending her)?

If you just want to be snarky, you could ask her if that means she thinks the minimum wage should be raised. After all, if being paid more means people will always work more and harder, raising the minimum wage should dramatically increase overall productivity.
#13
Old 07-28-2009, 01:57 PM
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 25,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious Discord View Post
The best reply is nothing.
Concur.
#14
Old 07-28-2009, 04:51 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: East of Lake Wobegone
Posts: 4,514
My uncle (who is actually a really good guy) has absolutely no filter and forwards 90% of the bullshit that hits his inbox. Most of it is cute/funny/sappy and I'll read and grin. Every now and again, though, he'll send out something that's so blatantly wrong and so easily checked by Snopes that I'll do a reply-all with a link or two - after which my aunt will send me a thank you from her personal email. I used to do that once a week; now it's down to once every couple of months.

You've posted about your sister sending racist shit before, Hampshire, haven't you? How do you want to handle this, really? Is she sending you this stuff just because you're on your mailing list, or is she intending to wind you up? You might thing about writing a short bio of Rogers, include the quote from Bayard and a few choice others you can likely dig up on the web (bonus points if you can include links to crazy racist websites), end your missive with "So, yeah, pardon me if I choose not to take ecnomic advice from someone who's batshit insane...", and reply all.

Or you could just ignore it and hope she goes away.

If you're wondering what I would do...well. There's another aunt who doesn't email me any more.

Last edited by chique; 07-28-2009 at 04:53 PM. Reason: No, a different aunt...
#15
Old 07-28-2009, 04:53 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Delectable City of Gotham
Posts: 4,913
It's not quite a snappy comeback, but the problem with the quote is that it assumes that the economy is a zero-sum game, in which tax policy is merely the redistribution of a fixed quantity of dollars. Instead, the idea should be to develop tax and economic policy which leads to the most efficient economic growth and an increase in the overall welfare of the population. There can certainly be disagreements as to what is best the best way to achieve the optimum results, but I don't think any reasonable person can claim that it is good for a country's economy to have the poor starving in the streets, spreading communicable diseases, and rioting when they have the energy.
#16
Old 07-28-2009, 07:14 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 7,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by chique View Post
You've posted about your sister sending racist shit before, Hampshire, haven't you? How do you want to handle this, really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Are you wanting to really have an honest dialogue with your sister, or are you looking for something that will keep her from sending you any more of these e-mails (at the risk of offending her)?
And is she a person who will actually consider an opposing argument, or just someone who blindly believes anything that Bill O'Reily says? That's what should be determined before bothering with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chique
Most of it is cute/funny/sappy and I'll read and grin.
You get blanket email "jokes" that are actually funny? What universe do you live in? Maybe I'll move there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bup View Post
Reply to all, with some horribly offensive joke. It worked for me.
Or try this:

Send the same thing back (whether it be some splurge, or a cutsy, sappy, unfunny "joke" or a picture that amuses only the mentally challenged) to everyone, but precede it with this boilerplate bogus embedding:

=== BOILER PLATE (change "sister" to "coworker," ect. as necessary) =====
===(Insert original splurge/sappy joke at end============

From: "Your Annoying Sister <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; Justnass Pucker <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; Sappy McSapp <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Po. Dunk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; "Upmiaz, Hedis" <[email protected]>; YOU
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:44 AM
Subject: You gotta read/see this!


|From: [email protected]
|To: [email protected]
|RE: You gotta read/see this too!
|
||
||
||
||From: [email protected]
||To: [email protected]
||RE: RE: I know you've already seen this, but....
||
||
||
|||From: [email protected]
|||To: [email protected]
|||RE: RE: RE: Even though I know you've already seen this 23 times....
|||
|||
|||
||||From: [email protected]
||||To: [email protected]
||||RE: RE: RE: RE: Arf arf
||||
||||
|||||From: [email protected]
|||||To: [email protected]
|||||RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: This isn't really true (funny, sage advice, etc.) but
|||||who cares! Pass it on!!! Forward away! ! ! ! ! ! !
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
#17
Old 07-28-2009, 07:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end"

I don't believe that if you take away from the "haves" that they're simply going to stop working. Would rich people really give up being rich just so they could stay out of a higher tax bracket?
And it also implies that the "have nots" will simply sit on their collective asses and do nothing because it's easier to take handouts.
So you believe that justifies taking what is earned through hard work? What happened in the Soviet Union was near 100% employment but extremely low productivity by western standards becasue there was little or no incentive to excel.

As for what would happen, the "haves" find ways to keep their money and if they own businesses may cut back on the workforce making those who still have jobs work harder without making more money.
#18
Old 07-29-2009, 02:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Would rich people really give up being rich just so they could stay out of a higher tax bracket?
I always tell the kids we're rich lazy Americans, so I'm going to answer the question asked. In short "Yes." My wife & I have decided more than once not to pursue X, Y, or Z because it would probably push us into a higher tax bracket.
#19
Old 07-29-2009, 03:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthworm Jim View Post
I always tell the kids we're rich lazy Americans, so I'm going to answer the question asked. In short "Yes." My wife & I have decided more than once not to pursue X, Y, or Z because it would probably push us into a higher tax bracket.
Just to clarify, tax brackets generally only affect the additional money you earn: e.g., the higher tax rate is only applied to the income you earn over and above what you were earning before. If you were earning 80,000 and paying a 25% tax rate, and you started earning 100,000, you would be taxed 25% on the first 80,000 and 28% only on the next 20,000* (some subtlities here if you're subject to the AMT, but in general this is correct).

*Tax rate wouldn't really be 25% on the full 80,000, only on a portion of that amount, but this is the general idea.
#20
Old 07-29-2009, 03:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,188
"delete"
#21
Old 07-29-2009, 05:01 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthworm Jim View Post
I always tell the kids we're rich lazy Americans, so I'm going to answer the question asked. In short "Yes." My wife & I have decided more than once not to pursue X, Y, or Z because it would probably push us into a higher tax bracket.
I'm not sure I understand this logic. A larger income always results in larger after-tax income, even if it moves you into a higher tax bracket. As Earthworm Jim said, the higher rate only applies to the additional income above the limit of the previous income.
#22
Old 07-29-2009, 05:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA/female/40s
Posts: 3,985
Share it with the people over at MyRightWingDad.net. They'll help you rebut it.
#23
Old 07-29-2009, 07:10 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Waaaaay over here!
Posts: 3,416
I'll respond more to the 'glurge' part than the 'right wing' part.
I have a friend, I'll call her 'G' (not really her first initial) who used to forward these to me all the time. Beyond that, G and I got along pretty well. So, on a particularly bad day when I got one of these, I simply sent to her a message, hooked to a 'reply' from that one, saying.
"G, I love you dearly, but if you ever forward me one of these political messages again, I'll kill you in your sleep."
It fixed the problem, and she took no offense (that I know of) from it.
__________________
"Try this: Before you post, say what you wrote down out loud. If you find yourself shaking your head and exclaiming something along the lines of, "What the hell does that mean?", delete."
-Czarcasm
#24
Old 07-30-2009, 11:01 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I'm not sure I understand this logic.
Point of diminishing returns. What's more valuable, my time and leisure or whatever benefit will come from said venture (in this case, money)? As a simple example, I offer the weekend shift at my previous company. If you worked a weekend, the pay was $75/hr. That's $1,300 for the weekend. Not bad, maybe worth it. But after taxes, it was more like $800 for the weekend.

You know what, I'd rather have the weekend off than work 12 days in a row. Don't get me wrong, $800 is a good chunk o change - but it's only money. Money comes and goes, but I'd never get that time back. I'd rather take my kids fishing or something.
#25
Old 07-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthworm Jim View Post
Point of diminishing returns. What's more valuable, my time and leisure or whatever benefit will come from said venture (in this case, money)? As a simple example, I offer the weekend shift at my previous company. If you worked a weekend, the pay was $75/hr. That's $1,300 for the weekend. Not bad, maybe worth it. But after taxes, it was more like $800 for the weekend.

You know what, I'd rather have the weekend off than work 12 days in a row. Don't get me wrong, $800 is a good chunk o change - but it's only money. Money comes and goes, but I'd never get that time back. I'd rather take my kids fishing or something.
That's fine, but don't blame high tax brackets for it. Even if this put you in a much higher bracket, the difference in pay would be about $40.
#26
Old 07-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 41,345
Best reply:

"Please don't forward this sort of thing to me any more."

If she protests or makes any sort of argument, say, "Please have the courtesy to abide by my wishes."
#27
Old 07-30-2009, 12:45 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,695
Yeah, I know the best thing to do is ignore her but she is my sister and we kind of like to do this to give the other one a hard time.
I replied with this:

Despite the proclamations of various national documents, all men are not created equal, but they do have equal value. Natural laws dictate variations in intellect, physical ability, motivation, and compassion. Where one is born healthy, another may be blind. One may be born with great motivation and little compassion or little motivation and great compassion. In this there is no choice, only an understanding that we may possess an ability to develop. The world’s great religions counsel all to help your neighbors, yet we do not dare accuse them of advocating socialism. We the people empower the government to provide for the common good, yet when this entails providing for those less fortunate, some may rise up in acts of blatant hypocrisy and shout “No!” from their pulpits. Why only do privately what may be done better publicly? When the wealthy of a society get the idea that they shouldn’t have to help, when they are consumed by greed, excess and covetousness, when they lack empathy and compassion and grace, then they are in danger of losing their very humanity.

(If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

John F. Kennedy 1-20-1963)

And she followed up with this:

But we each have the right to choose whom we help and not to have money taken from our pockets and spent where others believe it should be spent. Many, many, many public programs FAIL MISERABLY and waste money that could actually do real good and really help those in need. Why should GOVERNMENT have the right to choose to where each individuals efforts are focused??? Where are our rights? How arrogant of these hypocritical, re-election seeking FEW to believe they know better than we??? My values should not be taken from me and squashed in the name of trashy politics (of ALL parties), political bureaucracy and the personal agendas of "politicians"! Our founding fathers used Christianity for the foundation of our country! If the "politicians" of today would cut the crap, the blind would be taken care of, the truly impoverished and hungry of which Christ spoke of WOULD be taken care of, we would be able to take care of our neighbor....and thank God, when the government doesn't get their hands in it, it does happen!
Visit a Veterans' hospital! Any one, any day of the week. (Government run health & medical care, at its best, right?) Walk through the halls, walk through the waiting rooms of the clinics, walk up on the wards. It is unconscionable! Next go to a church...Jewish, Lutheran, Catholic...any church or synagogue and ask them to tell you how the PEOPLE of their place of worship assist the sick, the poor, the downtrodden, the impoverished, the unfortunate. THEN talk to me! And don't have the arrogance or audacity to NOT VISIT these institutions or you will continue to contribute to the suffering in our world!!!!! Just ask yourself, "To whom do I contribute my wealth, my time, my comfort?" (Do you volunteer in any soup kitchens, visit the sick in the hospitals, donate time or money to the Red Cross...especially in times of extreme crisis? Or do you just sit on your overweight butt on your soft, cushy couch in your climate controlled house with clean sheets and soft pillows and a refrigerator full of food and watch the suffering on your expensive entertainment center with surround-sound, blah, blah, blah, as it occurs and never pick up the phone? Do you feel good because you think your taxes are doing your part to relieve pain and suffering, (where ever those taxes are actually going!), so you're off the hook? The money taken from you by the government NEVER goes to people or ares where it can do the most good! It has been PROVEN over and over again, and has been talked about so damn often... the waste of government, the failures of programs, the lack of success, the corruption, etc! by the politicians themselves! I could puke! They haven't a fricken clue and and they keep asking for more! John Fitzgerald Kennedy, circa 1963, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Think about that, Teddy Kennedy!
#28
Old 07-30-2009, 04:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,173
She's hopeless.
#29
Old 07-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: East of Lake Wobegone
Posts: 4,514
No, she's not; that's actually not an incredibly inane response.

Seems you want to beat her with facts and reason rather than "oh, shove off", so you've got some work cut out for you, Hampshire. I think you've shot yourself in the foot by straying from the topic she initially presented, but if you want to continue her game....

Perhaps respond with "cite". I think it's rather well documented that the government, for all of its faults, does a better job taking care of people in poverty than the mish-mash of private and religious-based efforts that existed back in the day when the poor were shoehorned into tenements and breastfeeding babies died because their mothers were malnourished. So lay down a "what do you mean by 'many public programs'?" and ask her to pull out facts and cites.

At the moment she's laying down all this "think of the troops" guilt-trip attempt. That's easily ignored (unless you want to search out stats on how much of the DoD budget goes to health care and how much goes to tanks, and ask her why we should have to choose between the two).
#30
Old 07-30-2009, 04:23 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by turner View Post
So you believe that justifies taking what is earned through hard work? What happened in the Soviet Union was near 100% employment but extremely low productivity by western standards becasue there was little or no incentive to excel.

As for what would happen, the "haves" find ways to keep their money and if they own businesses may cut back on the workforce making those who still have jobs work harder without making more money.
The corporate system just exploits labor, it doesn't reward it. Those who get the rewards aren't doing any work, they're just parasites who live off the labor of others. Then what happens when their greed causes their plantation systems to fail? they want that same working class to bail them out.

The idea that there is any kind of correlation between wealth and hard work is laughable. Corporotacracy is a serf system.

Last edited by Diogenes the Cynic; 07-30-2009 at 04:24 PM.
#31
Old 07-30-2009, 07:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by turner View Post
So you believe that justifies taking what is earned through hard work?
So you believe wealth represents hard work, and not luck, a network of people who have inordinate access to wealth because their ancestors seized it by violence or deceit, favoritism, or corrruption? Interesting.

I'm sure that in some cases wealth does represent hard work. I'm much less sure that it is so in the majority of cases. Few people work harder then immigrant dishwashers -- certainly not the CEOs of auto companies, for example.
#32
Old 07-31-2009, 03:55 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
So you believe wealth represents hard work, and not luck, a network of people who have inordinate access to wealth because their ancestors seized it by violence or deceit, favoritism, or corrruption? Interesting.

I'm sure that in some cases wealth does represent hard work. I'm much less sure that it is so in the majority of cases. Few people work harder then immigrant dishwashers -- certainly not the CEOs of auto companies, for example.
What you're saying is apples and oranges. Most people on this board would probably think my salary makes me wealthy and I work my ass off, but I don't do menial labor. I manage and lead people and essentially herd cats from other organizations to meet the overall goals of my organization. That IS hard work. To get there, I paid my own way through college working from the time I was 14 in a fish store--not a tropical fish store, but a place that was a combined market, smokehouse and fast food place. Lots of dirty jobs (in fact I recommended it for the "Dirty Jobs" show). It taught me how to show up for work on time, take crap from people ( a skill EVERYONE should learn, but few bother to--its easier to complain), save money and most importantly, it taught me I did NOT want to do that for the rest of my life. So I improved myself, worked my ass off and got an engineering degree that, again, I paid for. Now make pretty good money.

Do CEOs work hard? Yes. Similar to me, they work long hours, do manage and lead (though I agree I'd dispute some of their effectiveness). Do you think they walk right out of college and "poof" their CEOs? They worked their way up. Did they have a leg up do to the schools they went to and the contacts they made? Sure, but lots of people go to Harvard. Some end up as CEOs, some as the Unibomber. I think luck has little to do with success generally.
#33
Old 05-27-2016, 03:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1
Sorry I'm a few years late, but this will come up again

The argument used is a specious hijack of an actual economic principle.
.
The original argument is called Pareto optimality, which states, "a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off".
.
There is one catch though, and that is, it's only true if the market is competitive and efficient, and that's where it all falls apart, and where you can engage Ms. Palin and the people who circulate this rubbish.
.
Economic Wealth = Land + Labour [+interest on Capital]
.
The two main components say, that you can only produce Economic Wealth, if you can freely apply your Labour, to freely available Land.
.
There is no such thing as freely available Land in most parts of the world.
.
All Land has had is rights of use sold to people and therefore it's a monopoly, and this is where all wealth inequality comes from.
.
What you require, is a Pareto improvement.
.
"For instance, if a change in economic policy eliminates a monopoly and that market subsequently becomes competitive and efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency, in the sense that the monopolist could hypothetically be compensated for its loss while still leaving a net gain for others in the economy, a Pareto improvement."
.
So how would one stop Land being a monopoly?
.
If you charge Rental on the Economic Value of Land, and use that Rental for Public Purpose, or redistribute it equally as a Citizens Dividend, that would take away the current economic incentive to monopolise Land rights.
.
At the same time, you can remove all other taxation in the market like Wages, Corporate Profits and Intellectual Property, which is in line with what Ms. Palin wants to achieve as well, and which will create more demand for product.
.
Employment will go to 100% and there will be a shortage of labour in the market to meet demand. Wages will rise naturally to attract better quality workers to achieve higher efficiencies.
.
The idea of charging a Rental on the Economic Value of the land is called Georgism, based on the economic philosophy of Henry George, an American politician and economic philosopher, as put forth in his economic treatise, "Progress and poverty".
.
He called in Land Value Tax (LVT), but this was before "Tax" had became a swear word, and technically it is Economic Rent of the communities property, and not a Tax.
.
#34
Old 05-27-2016, 05:47 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 39,795
Oh, someone please do us all a favor and close this thread.
#35
Old 05-28-2016, 09:49 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 28,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Oh, someone please do us all a favor and close this thread.
Not feeling enriched?

OK, thread closed.
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: dime jokes get her done midevil mmorpgs panties crotch dunedin pronunciation trane xl 14c heironymous machine flintlock pistol range coon pecker uses dicks peeing joker red hair ziploc microwavable home depot key duplication pho calories large bowl can you write a check on anything potassium gluconate 595 mg dosage people who don't dream have personality disorders bernadette "bonnie" wauck hanssen angioectasia in the cecum how to win ring toss hotels that don't require a credit card how to tell if someone is blind mini ziplock bags drugs