The Teabag Follies Continue!

I was the one that showed that the system was changing...but as the article points out, the eradication of welfare is hardly an option as the current improvements have a LOT of improvement to be made.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, let's reform welfare programs even more! The current improvements are the result of cutting welfare and requiring recipients go to work... we need to do more of that, because the results show it works. You seem to want to move backwards, in spite of this evidence. Do you want to HELP the situation, or not?
 
I was the one that showed that the system was changing...but as the article points out, the eradication of welfare is hardly an option as the current improvements have a LOT of improvement to be made.
Click to expand...
Dixie said:
Oh I agree, let's reform welfare programs even more! The current improvements are the result of cutting welfare and requiring recipients go to work... we need to do more of that, because the results show it works. You seem to want to move backwards, in spite of this evidence. Do you want to HELP the situation, or not?
Click to expand...

Notice folks, that Dixie CANNOT AND WILL NOT deal with the FACTS that Walsh and his fellow neocon/teabagger congressional reps are playing him for a sucker with these hollow posturing of refusing the healthcare aspects of their Congressional benefits packages (as shown in the opening post of this thread).

So instead, Dixie dodges down the path of the age old right wingnut gripes against welfare. Now as the chronology of the post shows, Dixie just IGNORES the part to the article I linked that demonstrates the flaws in the "work for welfare" program. The major flaw is that the "required" jobs essentially create a permanent indentured servant class, as the minimum wage salaries (no benefits or security)coupled with little or no training/further education result in. There are successes, but they are the exception and NOT the rule. That was in the article that Dixie does not like to acknowledge.

Dixie just can't bullshit or dodge his way past me, folks. But that won't stop him from repeating his tired ploys time and again.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Notice folks, that Dixie CANNOT AND WILL NOT deal with the FACTS that Walsh and his fellow neocon/teabagger congressional reps are playing him for a sucker with these hollow posturing of refusing the healthcare aspects of their Congressional benefits packages (as shown in the opening post of this thread).So instead, Dixie dodges down the path of the age old right wingnut gripes against welfare. Now as the chronology of the post shows, Dixie just IGNORES the part to the article I linked that demonstrates the flaws in the "work for welfare" program. The major flaw is that the "required" jobs essentially create a permanent indentured servant class, as the minimum wage salaries (no benefits or security)coupled with little or no training/further education result in. There are successes, but they are the exception and NOT the rule. That was in the article that Dixie does not like to acknowledge.Dixie just can't bullshit or dodge his way past me, folks. But that won't stop him from repeating his tired ploys time and again.
Click to expand...

Chicklet, I used your own source to show you, the situation got better with the reform of welfare. Everything seems to be "the exception" to you, the countless examples of people who have come from poverty to become very wealthy and prosperous... and now, the millions of families who were on welfare, now holding down steady jobs and making it on their own. So the RULE must be, that most people are lazy and don't want to do anything, and we shouldn't force them to, we rich white people should just shut up and pay them, is that about the size of it, you dishonest cunt?
 
Taichiliberal wrote:

Notice folks, that Dixie CANNOT AND WILL NOT deal with the FACTS that Walsh and his fellow neocon/teabagger congressional reps are playing him for a sucker with these hollow posturing of refusing the healthcare aspects of their Congressional benefits packages (as shown in the opening post of this thread).

So instead, Dixie dodges down the path of the age old right wingnut gripes against welfare. Now as the chronology of the post shows, Dixie just IGNORES the part to the article I linked that demonstrates the flaws in the "work for welfare" program. The major flaw is that the "required" jobs essentially create a permanent indentured servant class, as the minimum wage salaries (no benefits or security)coupled with little or no training/further education result in. There are successes, but they are the exception and NOT the rule. That was in the article that Dixie does not like to acknowledge.

Dixie just can't bullshit or dodge his way past me, folks. But that won't stop him from repeating his tired ploys time and again.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Chicklet, I used your own source to show you, the situation got better with the reform of welfare. Actually, the article showed that the situation got better for SOME, NOT the majority. And the statistical drop in welfare rolls in various states does NOT reflect how many people are kept on those low paying jobs, or state budgets that diminish welfare funding. It "got better", but not by much, and the "better" does not address job training, benefits or wages that match the COLA. Everything seems to be "the exception" to you, the countless examples of people who have come from poverty to become very wealthy and prosperous...Again, you make this sweeping statements and generalizations. "Countless examples".....over what period of time? In what ratio to the general population? Put up or shut up. and now, the millions of families who were on welfare, now holding down steady jobs and making it on their own. "Millions"? Says who? The article didn't say "millions" And the "jobs" are MANDATED, not direct hires....it's an indirect indentured servitude that essentially keeps the majority of recipients at a minimum wage situation with NO benefits or COLA match....a part of the article that a Dixie dunce like you keeps trying to ignore. I thought jokers like you Dixie, swore that gov't was bad and could not create good jobs. But it seems if gov't gives you a guaranteed minimum wage labor force to applied in ANY situation, you're okay with that. :palm:So the RULE must be, that most people are lazy and don't want to do anything, and we shouldn't force them to, we rich white people should just shut up and pay them, is that about the size of it, you dishonest cunt?
Click to expand...

Notice folks that our Dixie dunce let's his sheet slip out by implying that "the white man's burden" is alive and well. Only a fool would believe that Dixie is "rich", must less intelligent....and if Dixie is deluded enough to think he's rich or that rich white folk give a damn about him...well, so much more to pity Dixie. And since I've printed NOTHING that resembles this absurd "rule" our Dixie dunce is babbling about, it's evident that Dixie's mental flatulence is hard at work again.

Someone needs to clue in this Dixie dunce that the MAJORITY of people on welfare in America are SINGLE WHITE FEMALES WITH KIDS. So not only does Dixie have it in for minorities, but also white folk who are not "rich". yet Dixie has NO problme with outsourcing, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the wealthy. Why am I not surprised?

Bottom line: DIXIE AND HIS ILK GOT PLAYED FOR FOOLS BY WALSH AND HIS FELLOW TEABAGGING CONGRESSIONAL BUDDIES...and Dixie just can't come to grips with that.
 
Notice folks that our Dixie dunce let's his sheet slip out by implying that "the white man's burden" is alive and well. Only a fool would believe that Dixie is "rich", must less intelligent....
Click to expand...

Not to mention, WHITE!

This thread is a good example of how much more intelligent I am than you, I took your own source, showed you not only how it proved you wrong, but directly contradicted the argument you were making. I relegated you to sputtering nonsense and claiming everything to be "the exception" and not "the rule" when the fact is, it's indeed the rule that more people are better off under welfare reform laws, because less people are on welfare. Poverty levels have dropped, employment among those in poverty has risen, and basic standards of living have increased. You claim it's not the majority, but it has to be, for the statistics to improve. If it weren't happening for the majority, the opposite would be the case.

As for "rich" ...I don't know, I guess it depends on what you consider "rich?" I don't consider myself to be rich, but put it this way.. I never have to work another day in my life, if I don't want to. My children are taken care of as well, and my funeral costs are paid for... so, I am doing okay.

Now being WHITE... That might be a little tougher challenge for me to back up. I think I do have some German and Irish ancestry, but I am 1/16 African-American, and 1/8 Cherokee Native American. I am also 1/8 Asian and 1/16 Creole. There is some more Native American in there, I can't recall if it's Choctaw or Creek... So, I have a very diverse heritage. I didn't realize someone like you would be so hung up on race, though...weird.
 
Dixie said:
Not to mention, WHITE!

:palm: Post #45, Dixie wrote, "...we rich white people". Now that Dixie's racism has been exposed, he suddenly becomes a coward and tries to imply something contrary to his previous blatherings. As the chronology of the posts shows, I did not inject race into this discussion....Dixie did. The Dixie Dunce Rides Again!


This thread is a good example of how much more intelligent I am than you, I took your own source, showed you not only how it proved you wrong, but directly contradicted the argument you were making. I relegated you to sputtering nonsense and claiming everything to be "the exception" and not "the rule" when the fact is, it's indeed the rule that more people are better off under welfare reform laws, because less people are on welfare. Poverty levels have dropped, employment among those in poverty has risen, and basic standards of living have increased. You claim it's not the majority, but it has to be, for the statistics to improve. If it weren't happening for the majority, the opposite would be the case.

And as I predicted, folks...Dixie just regurgitates the same opinionated bile that was factually disproven in post #45. Our Dixie Dunce is all headline and no content as usual.

As for "rich" ...I don't know, I guess it depends on what you consider "rich?" I don't consider myself to be rich, but put it this way.. I never have to work another day in my life, if I don't want to. My children are taken care of as well, and my funeral costs are paid for... so, I am doing okay.

:palm: Post #45, Dixie wrote, "...we rich white people". Now that Dixie's racism and class prejudice has been exposed, he suddenly becomes a coward and tries to imply something contrary to his previous blatherings. As the chronology of the posts shows, I did not inject race or class warfare into this discussion....Dixie did. The Dixie Dunce Rides Again!

Now being WHITE... That might be a little tougher challenge for me to back up. I think I do have some German and Irish ancestry, but I am 1/16 African-American, and 1/8 Cherokee Native American. I am also 1/8 Asian and 1/16 Creole. There is some more Native American in there, I can't recall if it's Choctaw or Creek... So, I have a very diverse heritage. I didn't realize someone like you would be so hung up on race, though...weird.
Click to expand...

:palm: Post #45, Dixie wrote, "...we rich white people". Now that Dixie's racism has been exposed, he suddenly becomes a coward and tries to imply something contrary to his previous blatherings. As the chronology of the posts shows, I did not inject race into this discussion....Dixie did. The Dixie Dunce Rides Again! But he can't get past the FACT that Walsh and his fellow teabagging congressmen are playing him for a SUCKER. Nor can he get past the FACT that his bigoted and class-ist babblings are NOT as cut & dry as he believes.

And for the record: If Dixie is so financially well off, why the hell is he carrying on about a welfare system that DOES NOT affect him, since he obviously acheived his (and his kids) fiancial security over the last few decades?

Hold onto your seats, folks....because Dixie's little pointy hooded brain is going into overdrive with insults, rhetoric, repetition of past assertions, lies, dodges and denial to handle this one. Good fun to watch the Dixie Dunce dance. ;)



 
Taichiliberal said:
.






:palm: And once again folks, our Dixie Dunce does the neocon shuffle of excerpting the parts of information that only agree with his myopic and biased viewpoint. Here's some more information from the same article that dopes like Dixie would rather pretend didn't exist:

..... More than half of those eligible for welfare payments don't get them — a sign, critics say, that the new system discourages people who need help from applying. "We now simply have a system that provides less help in times when people are without work," says
Mark Greenberg, a liberal welfare expert at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

the sources this pinhead TCLiberal expects us to believe as unbiased and objective is laughable in the extreme......and the clown does it on a regular basis...."yep, If you don't believe me, just ask me"....TC's asinine motto....

Now as the chronology of the post shows, Dixie railed and wailed all the anti-welfare cliches that have been around since the late 1960's. I was the one that showed that the system was changing...but as the article points out, the eradication of welfare is hardly an option as the current improvements have a LOT of improvement to be made.

So once again, our Dixie Dunce just makes a fool of himself by regurgitating old mantras and right wingnut claptrap....while trying to dodge the FACT that the new teabagger congressional reps via Walsh are playing him for a SUCKER!
Click to expand...
.
 
bravo said:
And once again folks, our Dixie Dunce does the neocon shuffle of excerpting the parts of information that only agree with his myopic and biased viewpoint. Here's some more information from the same article that dopes like Dixie would rather pretend didn't exist:

..... More than half of those eligible for welfare payments don't get them — a sign, critics say, that the new system discourages people who need help from applying. "We now simply have a system that provides less help in times when people are without work," says
Mark Greenberg, a liberal welfare expert at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

the sources this pinhead TCLiberal expects us to believe as unbiased and objective is laughable in the extreme......and the clown does it on a regular basis...."yep, If you don't believe me, just ask me"....TC's asinine motto....
Now as the chronology of the post shows, Dixie railed and wailed all the anti-welfare cliches that have been around since the late 1960's. I was the one that showed that the system was changing...but as the article points out, the eradication of welfare is hardly an option as the current improvements have a LOT of improvement to be made.

So once again, our Dixie Dunce just makes a fool of himself by regurgitating old mantras and right wingnut claptrap....while trying to dodge the FACT that the new teabagger congressional reps via Walsh are playing him for a SUCKER!
Click to expand...

:palm: Folks, Bravo just gets dumber with each posting....and I didn't think that was possible!

What's Bravo "proof" that the information I provide is in error? Why, it's a Liberal Think Tank! Forget the FACT that Bravo has (once again) edited the information I provided to leave out information that (once again) disproves Bravo's rantings...forget that Bravo can't logically or factually disprove what Greenberg....it's liberal, it's critical of somehting Bravo likes, so it's wrong. But Bravo's okay that liberal scion CLINTON initiated the program, right? Hmmm, and before Bravo's bites his tongue off to lie about that one, here's something else he left out:

In Kansas City, a team of civic leaders working with the state and county governments enjoyed success in the mid-1990s moving women from welfare to work. Caseloads declined by about 60%, leaving only about 6,000 families on welfare rolls.

In recent years, however, the state stopped subsidizing employers, making the program less inviting. State aid for work supports such as case managers has declined. The welfare caseload has held steady since 1999.

"I think we're back at the drawing board," says Marge Randle, family support director for the Kansas City regional office of the state Department of Social Services.

The state faces new pressure from Washington to move those remaining on welfare to work. Even parents who make the jump often remain mired in $6.50-an-hour jobs. That's a big step up from the average national welfare grant of $445 a month for a family of three. But until they double those wages, the gains they make are roughly offset by cuts in food stamps, health care, child care and energy assistance, which are based on income.

"We're punishing the people who won't work, and we're punishing the people who will work," says Berta Sailer, who helps run a child care and family services center for low-income Kansas City residents. The average income for a family of four in her program is $12,000, well below the federal poverty threshold of $19,307. "I think our moms really feel that they're headed nowhere," she says.

Bravo's like the village idiot, sitting on a wall thumbing his nose at everyone while oblivious to how absurd and mentally deficient he is. Bravo STILL can't comes to grips for being played for a sucker by his neocon leadership regarding healthcare, as shown in the opening post of this thread. "Bravo" indeed!
 
Last edited:
That crap in Post # 50 is a revelation...

That nonsense boxed with the heading "Originally Posted by bravo "
is nothing but a fuckin' lie.....I didn't post that shit....actually it looks like
the shit YOU would post .....

Not only are you a pinheaded clown, YOU'RE A FUCKIN LIAR TOO....

you're pwned again....you fool.
 
bravo said:
That crap in Post # 50 is a revelation...

That nonsense boxed with the heading "Originally Posted by bravo "
is nothing but a fuckin' lie.....I didn't post that shit....actually it looks like
the shit YOU would post .....

Not only are you a pinheaded clown, YOU'RE A FUCKIN LIAR TOO....

you're pwned again....you fool.
Click to expand...

It's not the first time he's been caught plagiarizing. :palm:
 
bravo said:
That crap in Post # 50 is a revelation...

That nonsense boxed with the heading "Originally Posted by bravo "
is nothing but a fuckin' lie.....I didn't post that shit....actually it looks like
the shit YOU would post .....

Not only are you a pinheaded clown, YOU'RE A FUCKIN LIAR TOO....

you're pwned again....you fool.
Click to expand...

:palm: Post #48 DOES NOT contain the information "Originally posted by Dixie", as we see here http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=773117&postcount=40

When Bravo decided to pick up the gauntlet for his equally ignorant compadre, he obviously didn't properly quote the post....or there was an error in the system. I responded to what BRAVO posted, as that was all I had to originally go on.

All of which STILL doesn't change the FACT that Bravo's totally inept at trying to defend what that Dixie Dunce failed to accomplish. But rather than be an adult and admit the error of their beliefs and "logic", Bravo nearly orgasms over an error in attributing authorship to silliness that I easily debunked. Seems Bravo and his fellow neocon parrots will jump at anything to try an distract from the FACT that Walsh & company played them for suckers, and that they were proven wrong even on their alternative subject, as the chonology of the posts shows.

:palm: "Bravo" indeed.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Post #48 DOES NOT contain the information "Originally posted by Dixie", as we see here http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=773117&postcount=40

When Bravo decided to pick up the gauntlet for his equally ignorant compadre, he obviously didn't properly quote the post....or there was an error in the system. I responded to what BRAVO posted, as that was all I had to originally go on.

All of which STILL doesn't change the FACT that Bravo's totally inept at trying to defend what that Dixie Dunce failed to accomplish. But rather than be an adult and admit the error of their beliefs and "logic", Bravo nearly orgasms over an error in attributing authorship to silliness that I easily debunked.

:palm: "Bravo" indeed.
Click to expand...

I've never seen you "debunk" anything here, Chicklet. You always CLAIM that's what you've done, but there is no evidence of it, if you follow the chronology of the posts. Aside from that, you seem to have basic trouble with properly using bbcode, quoting posts, etc. Perhaps you should try to become less ignorant at posting, and maybe it would make some difference in what you post? I doubt it, but at least you would be less ignorant.
 
Dixie said:
I've never seen you "debunk" anything here, Chicklet. You always CLAIM that's what you've done, but there is no evidence of it, if you follow the chronology of the posts. Aside from that, you seem to have basic trouble with properly using bbcode, quoting posts, etc. Perhaps you should try to become less ignorant at posting, and maybe it would make some difference in what you post? I doubt it, but at least you would be less ignorant.
Click to expand...

As the chronology of the posts shows folks, this Dixie Dunce got his trap shut royally on Post #47. ONLY after the moronic attempts of Bravo to salvage his defeat does Dixie reappear to blow smoke....but Dixie STILL can't logically or factually refute or disprove Post #47 and it's references. (remember folks, Dixie dodged down this avenue after being unable to deal with the FACTS of being played for a sucker by Walsh and his cronies.)

I don't ever expect clowns like Dixie to admit he's wrong on any account....my motives are to simply demonstrate to the readers how folk like the Dixie Dunce are proudly and willfully ignorant along with being insipidly stubborn. Facts and logic (along with a healthy dose of honesty) will ALWAYS be the undoing of the likes of Dixie and Bravo. Now let's watch them sputter and fume and repeat their neocon silliness ad nauseum. :)
 
Last edited:
Let's follow the Chronology of a PWNING....

Post #1, Chicklet complains that wealthy individuals should have to pay for their own health care, contradicting the Democratic premise that government should provide every American with affordable health care.

Post #2, Dixie points out the hypocrisy in Post #1, and Post #3, Chicklet demands a link and charges that Dixie has "ignored the facts."

Posts #16, 17, and 28, Chicklet prattles on about how dismal and awful things have been for those in poverty, since welfare reform. By Post #30, Chicklet posts a link to a USA Today article, which is supposed to support his contention that poor people are much worse off... but the actual link indicates just the opposite, and this is pointed out by Dixie in Post #37, with an actual excerpt from Chicklet's USA Today link.

Post #40, Chicklet accuses Dixie of cherry-picking information to make his case that Chicklet is full of shit. Post #42, Chicklet accuses Dixie of "not dealing with facts", even though Dixie posted the actual text found in the link provided by Chicklet. Chicklet goes on to accuse Dixie of repeating "age old right wingnut gripes", even though, Dixie posted an excerpt from Chicklet's own source, which completely refuted what Chicklet claimed.

Post #45, Chicklet admits that some people are better off with welfare reform, but it is "the exception, not the rule" ...even though, in order for statistics to show an overall improvement across the board, more people would have to be better off, which means it's the rule and not the exception. By Post #50, Bravo has pointed out the same contradictions, and Chicklet launches into a tirade of posts claiming Bravo is defending Dixie, and he is "editing information" to make his point.

By Post #55, Chicklet has been reduced to carnival barking at "the folks" to step right up and witness what a fool he has made of himself! He urges you to follow the chronology of the posts, which, as you can see, illustrate a desperate man, trying to save face in light of his own stupidity, and unable to do so after repeated failed attempts. Chicklet should probably be urging "the folks" to read the posts in non-chronological order, and ignore any posts not made by him! This would be the only way any rational person could conclude Chicklet made a valid point... and that valid point would likely be, that welfare reform worked, but much more reform is needed. He could have just said that in Post #1 and saved us all a lot of chronology following!
 
Dixie said:
Let's follow the Chronology of a PWNING.... :palm: Hold your noses, folks...our Dixie dunce is about to mentally defecate.
Post #1, Chicklet complains that wealthy individuals should have to pay for their own health care, contradicting the Democratic premise that government should provide every American with affordable health care.

Post #2, Dixie points out the hypocrisy in Post #1, and Post #3, Chicklet demands a link and charges that Dixie has "ignored the facts."

Posts #16, 17, and 28, Chicklet prattles on about how dismal and awful things have been for those in poverty, since welfare reform. By Post #30, Chicklet posts a link to a USA Today article, which is supposed to support his contention that poor people are much worse off... but the actual link indicates just the opposite, and this is pointed out by Dixie in Post #37, with an actual excerpt from Chicklet's USA Today link.

Post #40, Chicklet accuses Dixie of cherry-picking information to make his case that Chicklet is full of shit. Post #42, Chicklet accuses Dixie of "not dealing with facts", even though Dixie posted the actual text found in the link provided by Chicklet. Chicklet goes on to accuse Dixie of repeating "age old right wingnut gripes", even though, Dixie posted an excerpt from Chicklet's own source, which completely refuted what Chicklet claimed.

Post #45, Chicklet admits that some people are better off with welfare reform, but it is "the exception, not the rule" ...even though, in order for statistics to show an overall improvement across the board, more people would have to be better off, which means it's the rule and not the exception. By Post #50, Bravo has pointed out the same contradictions, and Chicklet launches into a tirade of posts claiming Bravo is defending Dixie, and he is "editing information" to make his point.

By Post #55, Chicklet has been reduced to carnival barking at "the folks" to step right up and witness what a fool he has made of himself! He urges you to follow the chronology of the posts, which, as you can see, illustrate a desperate man, trying to save face in light of his own stupidity, and unable to do so after repeated failed attempts. Chicklet should probably be urging "the folks" to read the posts in non-chronological order, and ignore any posts not made by him! This would be the only way any rational person could conclude Chicklet made a valid point... and that valid point would likely be, that welfare reform worked, but much more reform is needed. He could have just said that in Post #1 and saved us all a lot of chronology following!
Click to expand...

:lies:

1. Walsh stated that he's so against the Obama Healthcare Reform law, that he's going to forgo the healthcare portion of his Congressional benefit package, despite his wife having a pre-condition that insurance companies won't cover. I pointed out this is an empty gesture (not to mention insane), as Walsh is a wealthy man quite capable of (and HAS been) paying his wife's medical bills. As anyone with a 8th grade reading level can see, I state NOTHING remotely akin to what Dixie alleges.

2. All one has to do is read Post #13, 16 and 30 to understand the extent of Dixie's dishonesty and delusions. All I did was point out that Dixies' claims of multitudes going from rag to riches is the exception and not the rule in this society (unless Dixie counting every success story since the Mayflower landed). To date Dixie has provided NO PROOF of his claim. As the rational reader can see in the chronology of the posts, it is Dixie who railed and wailed against the welfare system with every 1968 cliche he could muster. All I did was provide a link that demonstrated that while "work to welfare" has made some improvements, the majority of welfare recipients have not fared any better than being stuck in minimum wage jobs with no benefits or training (sort of an indentured servitude, after a fashion). In other words, you can't just eradicate a system that has saved and improved lives just because it's flawed, as our Dixie Dunce would have us do.

3. Possibly the most fantastic display of Dixie's convoluted logic is his blathering regarding Post #45. Read it for yourself, and then have a good laugh at how Dixie tries to salvage his failed assertions by saying, "even though, in order for statistics to show an overall improvement across the board, more people would have to be better off, which means it's the rule and not the exception". Somebody needs to explain to Dixie that we're not talking about what it would take to bring statistics up to his expectations....we're talking about what's going on NOW...and what's going on NOW DOES NOT SUPPORT DIXIE'S ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS. Again, our Dixie Dunce kepts trying to substitute his supposition and conjecture for facts and the logic derived from those facts


The rest of our Dixie Dunce's ramblings are just a rehash of what I've deconstructed above. As I said before, I don't expect POS like Dixie or Bravo to admit error on any level....my motives are to simply demonstrate to the readers how folk like the Dixie Dunce are proudly and willfully ignorant along with being insipidly stubborn. Facts and logic (along with a healthy dose of honesty) will ALWAYS be the undoing of the likes of Dixie and Bravo. Now let's watch them sputter and fume and repeat their neocon silliness ad nauseum.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
As the chronology of the posts shows
Click to expand...

my son told me a story of a fellow employee who began every question with "customer wants to know......" regardless of whether there was a customer involved or not.....after hearing it a few hundred times his floor supervisor told him....."if I hear that phrase from you again I will fire you, just ask your question"......the guy was silent for a minute, his face was getting red, his breathing increased rapidly......finally he blurted out "Customer wants to know how I do I ask this question".......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top