That rhyme and meter was positively Seussian. Nice work.
Once you’ve stopped congratulating yourself about how very, very clever you are, would you care to expound upon what relevence to the topic at hand either your or Squink’s posts have?
I’ve been known to kill kittens the good old fashioned way, but rape?
Weirddave: would you care to expound upon what relevence to the topic at hand either your or Squink’s posts have?
Since you ask that, I’d like to know: what relevance to the topic at hand did your post have?
The “topic at hand” is the issue of USANext using sleazy tactics to “smear” AARP as being in favor of same-sex marriage. You waded into the fray with the following irrelevant observations:
-
AARP was founded by insurance companies.
-
AARP is not non-partisan.
-
You personally do not trust AARP.
-
AARP allegedly had a negative impact on something called “CatCare”, which you still haven’t identified.
You’re hardly in a position to chide other posters for not making sense or not making a useful contribution to the thread. Go away, or Squink will taunt you a second time! 
What’s not on topic? I merely pointed out that like USANext, the AARP is a partisan organization. I firmly believe that records should be kept straight. FTR, “CatCare” refers to the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act which protected seniors against medical costs in excess of those covered by Medicare. IIRC, it would have paid all out of pocket hospital costs over about $500/yr, all doctors costs over about $1500/yr, something like half of all Rx costs, 6 months in a nursing home and it would have protected the assets of a senior with a spouse in a permanent assisted living. It would have cost seniors a grand total of $4/month, means tested so that the richest seniors paid more, but nobody ever would have to pay more than something like $700/year. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, I wish I could get coverage like that. AARP led the fight that got this act repealed because it was “unfair” to expect seniors to pay 4 whole dollars a month. ( AND BTW, all of that is from memory, some of those figures may be off, but not by much)
As for Squink, let him rant. every time he covers his monitor with spit and half eaten taco chips, I make money when he cleans it off, I have stock in Windex. 
I thought it was an organization that protected cats from all the kitten-raping and cat-eating in this thread.
Sure I can. And I react to it in the most appropriate manner: I point and laugh. Taking transparent bullshit like this seriously only sends the message that there is something serious underlying the allegations.
I don’t think they were talking about you: I think they were literally talking about sarcasm, in which you say one thing and mean another as a type of humor.
Daniel
practicing my metasarcasm
I hope you’re making a joke Dorkness or else that was a serious whoosh
(Note the rest of Czarcasm’s post.)
(note the rest of mine, with the ultra-sneaky “highlight the post!” technique 
)
Daniel
shakes tiny ineffective fist
Ohhh, that’s good I’ve never seen that trick.
What happens if your post ends up on the other shade? Is it still close enough to hide?
It might. It just well might.
Daniel
Hmmm.
MetaCzarcasm
Has a nice ring to it, don’tcha think?
Down, big fella!
I never metaczarcasm I didn’t like.
That’s what’s been bothering me about this, too. Make whatever noises you want but you DON’T piss off your own power base.
I think Rove and the Bushies figure they’ve got the gucks so sewed up on social issues that they can rape the hell out of them on economic issues with impunity. I would never have believed people could be so stupid, but I have the fact of the most recent election on hand to correct me on that point.
Hey I agree. I am amazed at the number of downright ignorant posts that just slide on by. Here’s one for example. It totally ignores that G.W. Bush has only proposed a discussion about ways to improve SS for those under age 55. Nothing has been decided, hell, nothing has even been seriously proposed, and anything discussed will not effect anyone under 55, the threshold age for AARP membership, yet certain blithering idiots go on and on with garbage like “Rove and the Bushies figure they’ve got the gucks so sewed up on social issues that they can rape the hell out of them on economic issues with impunity.” I’m wih you Evil Captor, how can people be so stupid?
The name USANext immediately made me think: Who did they screw first?
I didn’t wade through their entire site, but I did look over the first page. There didn’t seem to be any explaination of the name there or any obvious link to an About Us page. Anyone know how they chose that name? It’s not one I would have chosen.
(AARPFirst, USANext?)