Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on July 7, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Continued discussion from:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is either 1 of 2 things happening here: Either we have a couple of posters here who are quite honestly the most uninformed, uneducated, blind Kookaide-drinking people I have ever in my life heard from, or we have a couple (or maybe the same) poster(s) who are just posting idiocracy for their own, sick, perverted humor. Well, going with the first premise for now, I have some questions:

Something like "Things will change so we won't have to work.... if we choose not to work, those that choose to work can support us (or something like that, I'm laughing too hard to bother to page back to look up the exact quote)....

Oh good grief. That pretty much says it all. We've got some people here who are lazy, lazy, lazy, and want you and I to work hard to support them. Why don't we all quit our jobs - I'm sure we can get Merky and Sarah to work hard enough to support us. I have no problem whatsoever with helping to support people who CANNOT work, or are truly unable to find work, but I don't feel like supporting the lazy. I certainly would prefer to "choose not to work". Maybe we could take turns. This is my decade to not work. Sarah, Murky, get off your butts. I'm hungry.

Sarah - ever hear the old saying "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"??? As you get older, and (hopefully) mature, you will find the truth in that. 9/11 is so like history........ well, the Trade Centers were bombed in '93, Bin Laden declared war on the US in '94, (Clinton was president then, since you don't study history I doubt you knew that) - good thing under his administration we had the attitude that that was so like, yesterday, and could ignore it - so that 3,000 people could lose their lives in 9/11. I honestly don't know, Sarah, if you've ever taken a history class in your life, and seen what ignoring things has done to the world (study pre-WWII actions by many politicians).

"There will be no rich, no poor" - on this, you may be right. Acting like 9/11 never happened, it will only be a matter of time before a nuke gets smuggled into the country, or widespread poison in our food/water system(s), so..... there will be no people. Period. Rich OR poor. Or anything in the middle.

Bush made sure his rich friends don't have to pay taxes.
Back it up. Show us proof. Last I checked, like has been said earlier, the richest few percent pay over 1/2 the taxes in this country, including Bush and his "friends", as you put it.

Continued....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Socialism has never been "treed" in this country. Well, I don't know exactly what putting socialism up a tree with a bunch of dogs at the base barking at it will do, but I wouldn't know, since I'm just a plain country folk that knows how to spell. I've met alot of "city folk" in my life who weren't very bright. Sarah, your ignorance just absolutely astounds me. As does your stereotyping. Hey, I've met some black and Mexican people who weren't very bright. So I guess I can say that blacks and Mexicans aren't very bright. (Of course, I've met some that were absolutely brilliant, and alot of dumb white people, but I'm trying to take Sarah's attitude and stereotype). Socialism HAS been "treed" in other countries, and none of those countries are as prosperous as the US, and have plenty of problems of their own. Do some research and find out, instead of just swallowing whatever your ultra-liberal professor feeds you. I've never "treed" swallowing a bunch of poison, either, but I've seen that those that do seem to be worse off than me, so I've learned from looking at the history of those people to be smart enough to not repeat it. Even though some of them did it, like, way back, like even before 9/11, like, so long ago, like, so yesterday.

Geesh. How hilarious has this thread gotten, people?

Saray, Merky - please print out all your predictions - if Obama is elected, please report back to us in a year or 2 from now on how many of them actually come true. And, if most do, please report on the state of the economy and the world. Please don't just go silent. Whoever is elected in November faces a country and a world with alot of problems. Some created by the current administration, some created by the prior administration, some created by the 20 administrations and policies before that, some that would have happened and are happening regardless of what anyone in the past would have done, some not nearly as big a problem as they would have been due to the actions of the current administration, the prior administration, and the actions/policies of the 20 previous administrations.

By the way - I've stated on other threads how we have such a big segment of people in this country who worship Obama as the Messiah - I was somewhat ridiculed for that view. Anyone still think I'm making it up?

BTW - I did not bother to spell-check any of this, so if I misspell some words, or chase anything up a tree with my dogs, please just chalk it up to my country folk upbringing, and contrast it with Sarahs, slick, sophisticated, witty, informed, city-slicker prose - ROFLMAO......

Sarah, Merky - if you truly believe in yourselves, it's been fun, and you've helped to educate alot of people (although I suspect not quite in the way you intended - intelligent readers here will understand what I mean) - and if you're all doing this for kicks, hey, it's still been fun, but either way, you truly have my deepest sympathies.....

Posted by MelissaGarrison (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

unless they go to the library, i find it strange that someone with no job living on food stamps somehow finds the money to pay for the internet... just saying...

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we are dealing with a couple or perhaps one conservative genius, or someone who really knows how to stir things up. Melissa makes a point I have been thinking about. I am going with the theory there is some serious chain yanking going on here. My gosh, there couldn't be two people this stupid who can read, let alone log onto the internet, and both of them wind up on this site.

Posted by trashman (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure is nice to see that stupidity breeds stupidity---aka muddy water and sarah!!!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, me thinks there is some playing going on here - except, I truly have heard some people that are just about that googly-eyed over Obama. They may not say things quite as stupid as our 2 resident 3-year old posters, but pretty close. Ya gotta admit, there ARE alot of people in this country who just want life to be a free handout, and will vote for whoever promises that. So who knows..... as I said, personally, even if this poster or posters IS a "genius" (I would not use that term, myself - just based on their scruples, or lack of) - either way - if this kind of behavior is what they resort to to "stir things up", then they still have my pity. I kindof view the extreme left as having no scruples whatsoever, (whatever means gets you to your goal is justified), so to me, personally, a conservative resorting to this kind of stuff I pretty much place in the same bucket.... just my view.....

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 2:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that it is probable that we were duped by Merky and Sarah. However, I don't think that we should be so hard on him/her/them for the prank. What they were doing is called satire, which is a legitimate method of making a point. Political cartoonists use it all the time. Did you notice that no overt Obama person joined the debate? They were as taken off guard as the rest of us. I did get a kick out of the person who faked being the editor of the paper (an obvious Obamaite) trying to get Sarah to stop her posts for fear that it was hurting Obama, but at the same time was afraid to attack her. Of course, the best part of all was that what Merky and Sarah were saying could have been, and probably is, the way that many Obama supporters feel. I think that Merky and Sarah did an excellent job of pointing out how ridiculous the Obama message is, while having a riotous good time. It was a classic.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you are absolutely right jayhawker, I think it was one of the most clever things I have ever seen done. I also noticed no big Obama lovers chimed in, because what could they possibly say? My hat is off to them if they duped us, I think it was brilliant.

Open_eyes is correct saying there are people like that, but if you read all the posts, you notice a certain cleverness that would be hard to accidently have if you weren't pretty intelligent.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep, I notice now that the cat is out of the bag, they are suddenly silent. They (or he/she) did pretty good at playing dumb, also. I mean, a pol sci major, and doesn't even know what month the new president actually takes office? - LOL.

Well, satire is usually presented as such beforehand, and even though in my first post, I stated I wasn't sure which was which, I decided to go along with it for a bit. I will admit it was pretty clever.

Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What? Merky & Sarah were posers? Well kudos to them because Merky certainly sucked me right in. Actually I enjoyed the fact that he/she sounded like such a complete idiot, I was hoping others would see why Obama might not be the way to go in the next election.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To the writer of this article (Julius): You mentioned the Republican's "unrelenting quest for power". And exactly what do you think is the goal of the Democratic party? You really believe that all Democrats, and only Democrats, have a pure and nobler purpose? Or 98% of all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, for that matter? C'mon, pull your head out of the sand......

I've read many an Obama-adoring column stating things like (one example here) "Obama refused to resort to many traditional tactics in his contest with Hillary Clinton, never attacking her personally. In this way, he appeared to rise above the "petty politics" of the past and embody a newer, ennobled mode of political action...."
Have you done a little research into how Obama first got elected to his first political position in Chicago? He got everyone else on the ballot eliminated (including the sitting incumbant, who won the previous election with 83% of the vote) - by cherry-picking over the petitions and getting enough names eliminated so that he could run unopposed. Many of the names were eliminated purely because they were printed, instead of written in cursive. So basically, after working to increase voter registration, he gets those against him thrown out. Hows that for a "hanging chad" technicality? What is that slogan I heard alot in the last couple of elections....something like "Every Vote Counts"????? Guess they should change it to "Every Vote For ME Counts, And Nobody Else's Matters".... Yes, it was all perfectly legal - but don't pull stunts like that and then complain to me about "Hanging Chads".....Sounds like "tactics" to me - and not very "ennobled" ones, at that. And what was his ultimate goal? My guess is that it had something to do with an "unrelenting quest for power"........... LOL

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The true meaning of Socialism is government
"of the people, by the people, for the people"
~ Abraham Lincoln

Just food for thought. Before I get lynched, I don't support either of these so called candidates. Neither of them is qualified to be president. Obama is too wet behind the ears, and McCain has never managed or run anything except his office at the senate. I just think that is an interesting quote from and exceptional American. It really doesn't sync up with Webster's definition of socialism, but on its face it seems like a logical and valid statement.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ

When, and in what speech or venue did Lincoln say the quote attributed to him?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Damn those pesky bloggers....
I have been duped. Some chowderhead bastardized the Gettyburg Adress and presented it as a factual statement. Then an even bigger chowderhead (me) repeated it. While it is an interesting statement, it has about as much to do with Abraham Lincoln as hammers with fried eggs. I should have known better. The strange placement of the quotes should have given it away.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Must have been moveon.org or the Huffington site. Neither have an ounce of credibility and would pervert Lincoln's Gettysburg Address for their own leftwing purposes. They are as dangerous to America's future as the ACLU.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the little I've read Lincoln was a blend of populist capitalism in the economic arena. He championed and signed the Homestead Act of 1862 which made large tracts of government owned land available for low cost purchase. He also championed government support in the construction of the transcontinental railway during his only full term in office. In 1862 he signed legislation that provided huge grants for universities under the Morrill-Land Grant Colleges Act. He signed into law the National Banking Act, sowing the seeds of our current banking system.

In a speech to soldiers toward the end of the Civil War he argued that when the war ended they would be right to expect just compensation for their labor. But he was hardly a socialist. He also told those gathered that what they were entitled to was "an open field and a fair chance."

That sounds much more like capitalism than it does socialism to me.

One of the problems with the internet is the proliferation of jaded and twisted "facts." I suspect we've all been prey to them in one form or another if we use the internet. All too often we look for information that will support our respective points of view. I don't think OutsiderJ is unique in this regard.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Netloafer...

I don't identify myself as left wing and certainly not a socialist. I registered as a Libertarian to avoid most of the current political labels (plus I have a huge amount respect for state's rights and individual freedoms). However in a "two party system", which is essentially what we have in American today, I generally make a list of the candidates' stance on the issues. I try to identify the ones I agree with and the ones I don't. Whichever candidate I am in agreement with most overall is the one I vote for. If I had to identify, I would say that I was politically conservative (low taxes, good defense, small government, etc.) and socially liberal (domestic policy, civil rights, helping the less fortunate, etc.).
The ones that stump me every election though, are health care and education. Maybe its just me, but I don't think anyone has been on the mark with these two in 30 years. Unfortunately for me health care is a HUGE issue this election. Maybe I'll just write in "none of the above", like that Richard Pryor film.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I forgot to mention that I don't remember where I lifted that quote. I was searching socialism because of the numerous times it had been mentioned in this thread. I was looking for something current and thought provoking. What I found was something old, but fascinating (well...would have been fascinating to me had it been legitimate).