Jump to content

Sketch Soland

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,749

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Sketch Soland

    Sketch's real name is Bobby!

    in Off the Wall Archives

    Posted

    Pinky got boring after awhile and that's why she ended up at the glue factory. I must admit that goats intrigue me.

     

    How can you not be intrigued? Yes sir!

     

    Where do you think the expression "got my goat" came from?

     

    There is a long and deep tradition of goat plowing.

     

    It would be the height of arrogance for Sketch or any of us to claim that they originated the religion of goat plowing on this planet.

    Sketch's real name is Bobby!

    in Off the Wall Archives

    Posted

    You are clearly mistaken, Sketch is found here still searching for that perfect woman.

     

    I've heard that Sketch actually is a shapeshifting goat!@#$er who can take the forms of various humanoid like XY containing vessels in order to record multiple dating videos to be broadcast over the internets, in hopes of finding the long lost sleeper female agent of the shapeshifter race "embedded" in the Earth many centuries ago to "plant seeds" so that world domination vis a vis shapeshifting goat!@#$ers can commense post haste.

    Sketch's real name is Bobby!

    in Off the Wall Archives

    Posted

    If that's not Sketch it's someone doing a dead on balls impression of him! :thumbsup:

     

    It is Sketch for sure!!. Where is he? He's the bestest, most sexually engorged goat !@#$ing poster of all time! Where did he go? Someone call the Goat Plower Society of the Macroverse and ask for the President! That's gotta be him! No one plows a goat like SKETCH SOLAND!! That's the word on the street anyway!

    Another pastor disaster for Obama

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    The problem is when people get high and mighty after cherry picking what a person says. I have said some outrageous things in my life. A lot of them. And yet they may be less than 1% of what I say and stand for, but most of them are the complete opposite of what I usually say and stand for.

     

    In no way, zero, would I think my friends have any responsibility whatsoever for everything I say, nor should it reflect badly upon them because they chose to hang around me.

     

    Even 99% of what Reverend Wright actually says is very acceptable if not gospel to even his and Obama's harshest critics. Most if it is about God and your faith and helping the poor and your neighbor. And yet they completely utterly disregard the 99% and just associate the inflammatory 1% to someone that to my knowledge has never even come close to saying or standing for any of that. In fact, everything points to just the opposite.

     

    If anyone here actually believes that Barack Obama stands for what Pfleger said that was so inflammatory last Sunday, that person is a !@#$in' **** in my opinion. And if you're playing the guilt by association game, that's what you're doing.

     

    All this talk about who you associate with is total and utter garbage. Every single person -- you and me and Barack and McCain alike -- associates with, talks with, shares views with, gets advice from, listens to, sits down in church with and gets endorsements from both good and bad people, racists and goddamners, thieves and liars, saints and scumbags.

     

    I'm with ya Kelly. Lucid words. :unsure:

     

    Most PPPers will ignore this sentiment, however.

    Futures and Oil prices

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Think of it as the 100-yr flood. Which is easy when the 100-yr old theories on the socialist Fed are resurrected. If Fed was socialist it would certainly be a lot more proactive in stopping perceived bubbles and slowing run-away growth instead of acting as Mr. Wolf to Vincent & Jules.

     

    Managing an economy from a centralized authority is socialist.

     

    If you deny that, then you do not understand what "socialist" means.

    Futures and Oil prices

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    For the umpteenth time, it was not a Bear Stearns bailout, but of its creditors. If you can't get that distinction straight, perhaps you should go back to extolling poopy pants.

     

    And you draw a distinction to deflect the point that I made.

     

    So what, now, about this act we are both referring to, is NOT an EXECUTION of managing the economy?

     

    That's a mighty broad definition of what the Fed is doing and I suggest doing more research on its job.

     

    I would suggest dropping your condescension, as that certainly does not reflect an intelligent human being (which you seem to be to me), nor will it lend to an intelligent debate.

     

    May as well throw every single government agency into the socialist camp if you're going to be using that barn sized definition.

     

    I throw every federal gov't agency not explictly allocated for in the Constitution of the United States into the socialist camp. My preference is to adhere to the document that is the foundation of our country, a document which does not allow for the centralization of power in such manners.

     

    And we're not even arguing semantics.

     

    You are. "Bear Stearns" vs. "Creditors". An economic bailout from a centralized managing authority was still authored. You deny this?

     

    There's no such thing as a pure unregulated free market anywhere in any industry because the market swings would be too drastic.

     

    O RLY? A lot of Austrians would absolutely laugh at this statement.

     

    There's no such thing as a free market in industry today because those who have money/power like to keep money/power and get more of it.

     

    Hence, the Federal Reserve and other centralized banks.

     

    As soon as you introduce any form of regulation, you eliminate the "free" portion of your ideal.

     

    So let's coin and regulate currency based on something like gold. I'm game.

     

    The question among reasonable people is what level of regulation is sufficient to keep markets functioning properly and provide constant growth without subjecting the economy to massive shocks from the ineviatble downturns.

     

    Your definition of "reasonable people" reveals your bias. There are plenty of reasonable people who argue that such managing of the economy is what results in "booms" and "busts".

     

    You can debate the merits of a true free market, but paint it against a 30-yr cycle of massive depressions.

     

    Again, you say this like it's stone cold fact, when it is merely dogmatic recitation of an economic schema/philosophy.

    Futures and Oil prices

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Correct in theory, grossly wrong in execution. Few people can successfully argue that the financial services industry should be free of all governmental regulations and controls.

     

    The bailout of Bear Stearns was not managing the economy?

     

    Managing the economy is not socialist?

     

    Managing the economy does not eradicate a free market?

     

    Do you need a more concrete example of execution than that?

     

    I would be careful using a phrase like "grossly wrong in execution".

    BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Perhaps its just me, but isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to only now believe the guy because he tells you what you want to hear? I'm sure that the liberals running around didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth a week ago.

     

    IMO, Scott McClellan has absolutely no credibility. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

     

    McClellan is NOT the main issue here.

     

    Democrats and Republicans will focus on McClellan.

     

    As usual, PARTISANS MISS THE POINT.

    BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    "Insider." Right. The guy was easily the most incompetent press secretary I can remember and only got his job because W. likes Texas people with connections. He was a complete embarassment (who it was fun to forget about) but now he wants to make a little money appealing to the Left since the Right wants nothing to do with him. I find it hard to believe that someone who had more trouble than W. stringing sentences together could ever write a book.

     

    Not that it matters. The press will cover this like its a huge story and I wonder how many of the "mainstream media" will bother to wonder why McClellan only had the fortitude to do the right thing and speak out after he got paid to write a book.

     

    Nevermind. Let's all pretend this guy was ever competent, let alone important. :rolleyes:

     

    Who cares if he's competent or not?

     

    McClellan is not important.

     

    Who cares about McClellan?

     

    Why do you feel the need to deflect the issue by ragging on McClellan?

     

    You should ask yourself that.

    Futures and Oil prices

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    The Fed doesn't print money

     

    No, but it tells the Treasury how much to print. Then the Fed "distributes" the money as "the banker's bank".

     

    The Fed was supposedly created to address "banking panics" by "managing" the economy and "maintaining" steady growth, etc.

     

    Or, in other words:

     

    ERADICATING THE FREEDOM OF THE MARKET TO REGULATE ITSELF

     

    The Fed is the enemy of the free market.

     

    The Fed is a socialist institution.

     

    That which controls the money controls the people.

     

    And Roughing the Faking or Faking the Roughing thinks we live in a democracy! :rolleyes:

     

    I will firebomb the Fed

     

    THE END

×
×
  • Create New...