DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 17, 2012, 03:22:36 PM
-
Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
"Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii"
The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry,
includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other
authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/fad8617d.png)
-
Breitbart was the least bright of all the Barts.
-
Breitbart was the least bright of all the Barts.
great dodge
attack messenger
try to change subject to source instead of information
-
The information is bogus, just like the unlamented Dimbart.
Birthers are the most idiotic of the racists.
They are the most racist of the idiots as well.'
-
The information is bogus
What is your source that the agent booklet is bogus?
-
Breitbart wasn't a birther.
-
d'oh
-
According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the Dystel.com website "the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama's literary agents" was using the Barack Obama "born in Kenya" language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.
Check link below, wait or hit "Impatient" tab, then scroll down to the "O" letter section
Then XO can try another excuse because Breitbart is 100% correct.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html)
-
Obama was not born in Kenya.
-
Says Professor Obamacare-is-only-1000pages
-
This isn't a big issue to me.
If Obama has some minor problem like this turns out to be true I shall shrug.
There are some genuinely bad problems with Obama that don't have anything to do whit where he was born.
I doubt not that there are hundreds of people who were born in Kenya and if given the chance would be better presidents than BHO.
-
Just another nail in the coffin, at this point
-
He will be reelected and it will be amusing to hear you complain.
-
Says Professor Obamacare-is-only-1000pages ;D
-
He will be reelected and it will be amusing to hear you complain.
Will you have anything to be cheerfull about?
I hereby take a wild guess, that you have some intrest income and some capitol gains to harvest.
Might not be so , but for the sake of arguement let us imagine that it is.
In the middle of your retirement will you be happy to see taxes on capitol gains and intrest income rise a lot?
-
In the middle of your retirement will you be happy to see taxes on capitol gains and intrest income rise a lot?
In the middle of your retirement if you get sick and are told there is a waiting list to see
a specialist or get a procedure done because the system is overwhelmed in part due to
taking care of illegal aliens will you be happy?
-
Just look at England for that answer.....waiting periods of months, to even years. Folks doing whatever they can to come HERE for their treatments & procedures, knowing both the quality and the far quicker access is paramount
-
My money is invested in IRAs.
Therefore I do not pay taxes at the capital gains rate.
Any interest income I receive would be paid on the amount withdrawn from my IRA at the usual rate that everyone pays.
I expect taxes will go up, because there is no possibility that the deficit can be paid off by spending cuts alone.
-
I expect taxes will go up, because there is no possibility that the deficit can be paid off by spending cuts alone.
Why not?
What makes it more powerfull to make the government drain the economy more , than it is to make the expenses of the government less?
-
Perhaps if they simply abolished something large, like the Navy, they could balance the budget with no tax increases.
But they need to go beyond a balanced budget, they need to pay out more than they are taking in.
The only solution is to take in more.
-
When you take in more, you dimish the sorce.
The scorce is most of us and the limits to which we CAN be diminished are in sight.
-
If what you say is true, then there should be no taxes at all.
That would mean no service.
The debt cannot be paid off without raising taxes.
-
If what you say is true, then there should be no taxes at all.
That would mean no service.
The debt cannot be paid off without raising taxes.
If what you say is true then , all moneys,earnings and savings,... should be taxed at 100% resulting in lots of service ?
There is a minimum and a maximum rate of taxes that the economy can possibly stand and the govbernment can use to operate, moveing beyond the max collapses the economy just as surely as moving below the minimum would collapse the government.
Persistant high unemployment , while a large government is maintained , strikes me as a sign that the Maximum is being approached.
-
You have guys like Romney making $22 million a year and paying under 15% to the IRS.
That is NOT overtaxation.
-
You have guys like Romney making $22 million a year and paying under 15% to the IRS.
That is NOT overtaxation.
Why is it not?
What would be the level of taxation that would be reasonable and sustainable?
-
A top bracket of around 35% (which would not mean that anyone would pay a total of 35%) would seem to me to be optimal.
There are too many expenses to set the rate at 15% for guys like Romney and 30% for someone who actually has to get their hands dirty doing real labor.
-
What about 15% for interest income, same for capitol gains, and less for income tax, perhaps zero?
?
The economy is struggleing under its load, making it carry more can't be the answer.
-
Of course it is the answer. If the "Job creators" who are rolling in money use that money to hire and pay employees, then the money they spend is deductible.
"Use it or lose it."
Interest income is no big deal unless you are loansharking. Interest rates are 2% or less.
Tax the fatcats on 35% of everything over $250K and see what happens.
It is not like they are spending it.
-
More than half of the money we are talking about is pension plans.
Retirement is tough enough to plan , should the government take a mor eactive interest in keeping us all working longer?
-
It is not like they are spending it.
they are spending it, they are putting it in banks that loan people and companies money, they are investing it capital markets that fund companies, company start-ups, company expansions, research and development....as opposed to sending it to Washington so they can give it away to people that hate us in Pakistan. I would prefer not stealing the money from the people that made it and let them choose how to spend it instead of giving more loot to the morons in Washington that didnt make the money and are on record of wasting billions in taxpayer funds.
-
And yet, let's placate Xo's flawed conclusion for a moment......say they aren't spending......ITS THEIR MONEY. They can spend it or not spend it on anything they want. It's not the Government's job to make people spend money or lose it. The founders would be rolling in their graves, if that became the guiding function of Government. Of course, they already are with Obamination Care
-
It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.
If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".
-
It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.
EVERYONE spends their money, both fat and skinny, both rich and poor
If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".
Doesn't matter....ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT ANYONE DOES WITH THEIR MONEY, SO LONG AS ITS LEGAL.......IT'S THEIR MONEY. IF THEY WANT MORE, ALL THE POWER TO THEM......AS LONG AS ITS LEGAL
-
All Power to the Oliigarchs, cries sirs Huzzah! Huzzah!
-
Close....ALL POWER TO WHAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT, FREEDOM, AND EVERYONE KEEPING AS MUCH AS WHAT THEY'VE EARNED. Huzzah! Huzzah!
But so notable, how you've been following this thread, responding when no question has been posed, but when a direct serious question (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16731.msg141148#msg141148) is asked of you, you're no where to be found. Quite illuminating
-
It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.
If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".
You might be speaking of someone who in order to make his business expand 15% will hire thirty more people.
Not because he needs the extra income , more like he likes running a more leading and successfull company.
Would you like him better if he decided his company was large enough and didn't try to expand it?
Why did you hate those thirty guys?
-
That is a rather fanciful speculation. It is rather like saying that Jesse James robbed from the rich so he could give to the poor.
The reality if that he and his gang robbed from anyone who had it and divvied the spoils up among themselves.
Can you name the thirty guys Romney hired as a result of not paying that 20% more, so I can perhaps hate them personally?
Next you will be telling us that Mitt Romney should be spared from pay ANY taxes at all, so he can build a car elevator in all his homes, which of course will mean that he will have to hire elevator contractors and workers to build them.
-
I think it is silly for you to call this fancifull.
Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.
It matters not a whit whether the employer is generous or stingy, either way they would hire the labor and skill that they needed to run and expand the business.
However much the government takes from the public more than it absolutely must , the public isw cheated just that much.
Even if the government were really as generous as it claims to be and was hiring the maximum and giving away as much as possible , just the unavoidable waste involved in transduction garuntees that the money will be less efectively put to serving the people than it would be if left in the peoples hands.
Who exactly are we speaking of? The people who are qualified and usefull but who are turned away from being hired, also all the people who are hired but whose wages are depressed by the competition.
Perhaps there will be another new industry created by space exploration, I don't think we can depend on it , but perhaps.
Will we allow the government to piss away all the new work the way we did the computer and software industrys?
-
Plane is kinda touching on the BIGGEST problem when it comes to Government vs Private sector function. It's not the Government's money. Its money they've taken via taxes, so they're functioning using other people's money.
And unfortunately, when it comes to human nature, people just aren't the same stewards of someone else's money, than they are of their own. That's why fraud, waste, and abuse are far more rampant in Government programs, compared to the Private sector. It's also why both indentification of those problems take so long to come to light, not to mention any "fix". There's just not the same dedicated function, when its not your money you're wasting, using.
Companies that have voluntary investers & stock holders, which can include their own employees, have an intimate need to make things work, or else people leave, investers pull their cash, profits go down, companies go under. There's a stake involved....literally survival of the company/business. It's GENERALLY why bad employees are fired on the spot, good products are removed for better products, and defective products are recalled for corrected ones.
Yes, OCCASIONALLY some business will try to push a really cheap unsafe product, and they do so at their risk of lawsuit, if not worse. And THAT's where Government can play its more appropriate role in oversight and some regulation. But bottom line is that the private sector, by both design, and human nature, is far more likely to produce better products, better outcomes, with greater efficiency, and less money, than anything the government could ever dream of approaching
-
Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.
====================================================
Not true. That is like saying that every time you spend $5.95 on something other than a KFG chicken dinner, you are saving a chicken's life.
Perhaps that equivalent annual wage was used to do buy a robot that did the work of three men (because it doesn't need sleep).
The fact is the person not taxed does NOT always, or even most of the time spend that money on a new job.
It is fantasy to think that this happens.
All businesses are not infinitely expandable, either. At some point, people will not eat Screaming Yellow Zonkers or Cheesy Poofs.
What we are into now is not the end of industrial America. It is the beginning of robotic Industrial America, and unemployment is NOT because of Obama or taxes at all. Unemployment exists when a person is replaced by a robot.
The owners of the robots are not inclined to share their products or their money with anyone else. Of course, that means that if they are selling consumer products, there is a dwindling consumer base.
If in 1955 it took the equivalent of 50 man hours to build a car, the men who built that car would get paid, and could buy a car every several years. In 2012, it requires only 7 man hours, then only about 1/7th the cars will be bought by those who make them.Of course, it is more complex than that, but if consumers are not being paid to work, then they cannot afford to consume.
-
Says Mr Obamacare-is-only-1000pages
-
Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.
====================================================
Not true. That is like saying that every time you spend $5.95 on something other than a KFG chicken dinner, you are saving a chicken's life.
Perhaps that equivalent annual wage was used to do buy a robot that did the work of three men (because it doesn't need sleep).
The fact is the person not taxed does NOT always, or even most of the time spend that money on a new job.
It is fantasy to think that this happens.
All businesses are not infinitely expandable, either. At some point, people will not eat Screaming Yellow Zonkers or Cheesy Poofs.
What we are into now is not the end of industrial America. It is the beginning of robotic Industrial America, and unemployment is NOT because of Obama or taxes at all. Unemployment exists when a person is replaced by a robot.
The owners of the robots are not inclined to share their products or their money with anyone else. Of course, that means that if they are selling consumer products, there is a dwindling consumer base.
If in 1955 it took the equivalent of 50 man hours to build a car, the men who built that car would get paid, and could buy a car every several years. In 2012, it requires only 7 man hours, then only about 1/7th the cars will be bought by those who make them.Of course, it is more complex than that, but if consumers are not being paid to work, then they cannot afford to consume.
If a worker is needed but the money to hire him is taken as taxes that job is exactly eliminated.
It might really prevent KFC from buying some chicken carcasses if the customers had tight money and had to buy the smaller meals.
Your example works fine, thank you.
-
No, it doesn't. Not unless all KFC franchisees are compelled to invest in expanding that particular business. And they aren't. Most aren't compelled in any way more than you are to dine with the Colonel. Many would diversify. Perhaps they would buy real estate and hold it until someone wanted to buy it from them at a profit.
The compulsion to expand a KFC franchise is not the Law of Gravity, neither is the compulsion to dine with the Colonel.
-
No, it doesn't. Not unless all KFC franchisees are compelled to invest in expanding that particular business. And they aren't. Most aren't compelled in any way more than you are to dine with the Colonel. Many would diversify. Perhaps they would buy real estate and hold it until someone wanted to buy it from them at a profit.
The compulsion to expand a KFC franchise is not the Law of Gravity, neither is the compulsion to dine with the Colonel.
I don't get your point.
Do you mean that the effect is distributited and no particular chicken is saved?
I suppose so , it is hard to show most of the time that a tax increase resulted in a certain particular job loss, but without question if there is less money availible for hireing there will consequently be less hireing.
There is a law of Gravity involved, check out Darwin , natural selection is a general principal , applicable in many situations.
Some businesses do grow and some do not, the ones that do overtake those that dont, the ones that want to grow count for maor than the ones that want to stay small.
It is legitamate for a small business , run by Mom and Pop to decide for reaqsons of their own to stay small, but there is nothing Mom and Pop can do to prevent the hireing at Wallmart of all the workers that Mom aNd Pop refuse to. But ,.... The Congress can take the wages of thousands away from Wall Mart and as a direct consequence Wall Mart hires just exactly that number fewer.
Even if you can't name particular people not hired , does not mean they are not real people .
-
If a person has a smaller tax bill, he can do whatever he wishes with the money6 thus obtained, and not all opf tghe options involve hiring anyone to do anything.
You are assuming that hiring more workers is the inevitable result of lower taxes. It is not.
-
If a person has a smaller tax bill, he can do whatever he wishes with the money6 thus obtained, and not all opf tghe options involve hiring anyone to do anything.
You are assuming that hiring more workers is the inevitable result of lower taxes. It is not.
But it is!
Unless there is some other problem going on , lower taxes directly lead to hireing.
Directly , I reinterate.
Especially in circumstances like we have now , when there are high taxes causing a drag on the economy, it is quite likely that a steep decrese in taxation would speed the economy as Forest Gump sped up when he lost his braces.
How do you think that any hireing at all is ever done? You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.
I am sure that some employers are smart enough to know that the worker that is worthy of his hire is the sorce of the profit.
-
You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.
==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.
Not all, probably not even most, tax reductions would be used to hire more people. They could use their extra money to buy robots or other machinery to produce more without increasing the payroll. They might even use it to move the headquarters to Bermuda, Sark, the Caymans, or to set up a new factory in China.
-
You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.
==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.
Not all, probably not even most, tax reductions would be used to hire more people. They could use their extra money to buy robots or other machinery to produce more without increasing the payroll. They might even use it to move the headquarters to Bermuda, Sark, the Caymans, or to set up a new factory in China.
The main reason to move to China is the tax break and the lower wages.
So what do higher taxes and high minimum wages do for this?
-
You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.
==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.
Hard to expand, much less maximize profits with that approach
-
That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.
-
That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.
Outsorceing is never hireing fewer people , it is fleeing unions and high taxes.
Useing robots sometimes replaces workers , sometimes not, sometimes robots are doing work no human being can do and fixing a bottleneck so that there can be more people hired.
I think you are totally right to think that few companys think of themselves primarily as employers, but in many businesses each employee brings forth a certain part of the profit and in that case the more the merryer.
-
That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.
What I deny is that companies are trying to mechanize their entire existance, cutting out employees altogether. You seem to think business functions in a static bubble, where they get to a certain size, and ...... that's it......they now function to cut out employees, and maximize what they can within that self contained confine. Not possible to expand, and not possible to expand WITHOUT EMPLOYEES, under that warped scenario. And without that expansion, they can't maximize their profits
-
If a company can make widgets with robots.
There may be no more employees making widgets , but there will be employees minding robots.
The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.
Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.
-
The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.
This is hardly automatic: I can see a TV set in every room, but no one is going to buy 20 TV sets or 15 pressure cookers.
Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.
It buys more robots, and one guy to operate them.
All the former widget makers are still out of work.
=====================================================
-
Damn auto industry, putting all those horse and buggie employees out of work
-
The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.
This is hardly automatic: I can see a TV set in every room, but no one is going to buy 20 TV sets or 15 pressure cookers.
Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.
It buys more robots, and one guy to operate them.
All the former widget makers are still out of work.
=====================================================
Is this really the experience we have?
Time was that only the wealthy could afford something so labor intensive as a car.
Now people below the poverty line have two.
-
They have two used cars at best.
They do not have 50 new cars.
There is such a thing as a saturation point for any product.
Socks are cheap. How many more pairs do you think you might own if they were free?
-
They have two used cars at best.
They do not have 50 new cars.
There is such a thing as a saturation point for any product.
Socks are cheap. How many more pairs do you think you might own if they were free?
If clothes were free I would throw away my washing machine.
-
I really doubt that.
You would have to pay to get dirty clothes hauled away if everyone threw clothes away.
There is a limit to the number of identical items people will buy, in any case.
-
I really doubt that.
You would have to pay to get dirty clothes hauled away if everyone threw clothes away.
Why?......so they pile up. Big whoop, its their house, their pile. They can do whatever they want with it, so long as it doesn't push over into someone else's "pile"
There is a limit to the number of identical items people will buy, in any case.
Why?......because you say so? And who said they'd have to be "identical" anyway? They're simply free ::)
-
Free products are actually not available.
The point is that people will not buy an infinity of identical products.
If people have no job and no money, they are not likely to buy anything.
-
We used to buy newspapers.
We used to throw them away or start fires or wrap china in them.
Now we buy laptops , which can display the news for a few years in a recyclable way.
But the paper was never free, it was just very cheap, now we have a system that is not quite as cheap but is so much more versitile that it is worth the diffrence.
-
Free products are actually not available.
Free products...SOCKS....was brought into the debate by you. It's a hypothetical, or so I was to assume
The point is that people will not buy an infinity of identical products.
Not the point, since no one was referencing buying identical things. Is every one of your socks "identical"?
If people have no job and no money, they are not likely to buy anything.
Unless its "free".....then whalaaa.....no more need for washing machines
-
I have decided to buy only gray socks, so all my new socks are indeed identical.
The point is that there is a limit to the number of things people will buy.
Here in Miami, and perhaps in other places, the mattress companies have decided to convince people that they need to change their mattress every eight years. They have this ad where they tell people that every year your mattress soaks up gallons of sweat and half a pound of skin flakes. They show this by pouring salt and water on a sponge.
This is a good way to convince people to buy a mattress PAD and wash the sucker often, perhaps, and maybe put a sheet of vinyl under it. But not convincing to buy a mattress every eight years. The skin flakes will mostly be washed out in the laundry. The sweat evaporates.
Again, if all products are made with robots, and people have no jobs and therefore no money, who will buy those products?
The ultra righties are squawking about how unemployed people are not paying taxes and leaving taxes up to them to pay. They have far more money than they ever had, and will not employ people. This makes no sense.
Every time I drive by the Port of Miami, there is another rusty ship or two piled high with used mattresses and bicycles, bound for Haiti.
-
I have decided to buy only gray socks, so all my new socks are indeed identical.
LOL....you you just debunked your own claim that no one just buys identical stuff. Same brand, length, thickness, & size. Impressive
The point is that there is a limit to the number of things people will buy.
NOT IF ITS FREE......THEN THEY'RE NOT BUYING IT. THAT's the point, when YOU injected free items into the topic
The ultra righties are squawking about how unemployed people are not paying taxes and leaving taxes up to them to pay. They have far more money than they ever had, and will not employ people. This makes no sense.
It makes no sense because you have no idea of what "fair" means any more, as the ultra lefties have mutated it over the years. Not to mention your complete relinquishment of the terms freedom & liberty, and your attempts at interchanging the terms promote & provide, when they actually have seperate definitions
-
Yeah, like you are an expert on anything.
I do not buy INFINITE QUANTITIES of gray socks. They are cheap. They sell them at Dollar General, and I get a "buy $25 for $20" coupons every week, I could buy 100 pairs or 1000 pairs, but 10 pairs is all I need and that it the limit.
Your logic is screwed up, really screwed up.
-
Yeah, like you are an expert on anything.
Brilliant response. Folks can clearly note who's losing this debate now
I do not buy INFINITE QUANTITIES of gray socks.
YOU'RE THE ONE REFERNECING THE STRAWMAN OF The point is that people will not buy an infinity of identical products, AS IF THAT'S THE POINT. YOU KEEP DEBUNKING YOUR OWN ASANINE CLAIMS. If something is free, people are going to naturally take as much as they can manage....and likely more. There's no logic that items must be identical
Your logic is screwed up, really screwed up.
Strike III......you're outa here. You were better off simply not answering........that's probably why you've been so silent on the more direct questions posed to you.
-
Continue to make a fool of yourself, sirs.
You lost the argument and went down in smoke and flames, your charred and smoldering remains are but mute testimony to your monumental lack of intelligent thought.
-
Continue to make a fool of yourself, sirs.
You lost the argument and went down in smoke and flames, your charred and smoldering remains are but mute testimony to your monumental lack of intelligent thought.
As everyone can note, again, "brilliant response", devoid of any attempt at addressing any issue, and instead saturated with grammar school snarking. The sign of pure defeat, but too bit an ego to deal with it with any level of maturity. Sad for a supposed "professor"
-
You are a poor judge of what is sad and what is not.
-
If you want a Shcmoo you can have one , and another as many as you wish.
And a Schmoo will give you anything, absolutely anything including its own self for you to eat and its whiskers to pick your teeth.
http://www.deniskitchen.com/docs/new_shmoofacts.html (http://www.deniskitchen.com/docs/new_shmoofacts.html)
http://www.lil-abner.com/shmoo.html (http://www.lil-abner.com/shmoo.html)
(http://deniskitchen.com/docs/shmoofacts.stuff.jpg)
The Shmoo first appeared in the strip in August 1948. According to Shmoo legend, the lovable creature laid eggs, gave milk and died of sheer esctasy when looked at with hunger. The Shmoo loved to be eaten and tasted like any food desired. Anything that delighted people delighted a Shmoo. Fry a Shmoo and it came out chicken. Broil it and it came out steak. Shmoo eyes made terrific suspender buttons. The hide of the Shmoo if cut thin made fine leather and if cut thick made the best lumber. Shmoo whiskers made splendid toothpicks. The Shmoo satisfied all the world's wants. You could never run out of Shmoon (plural of Shmoo) because they multiplied at such an incredible rate. The Shmoo believed that the only way to happiness was to bring happiness to others. Li'l Abner discovered Shmoos when he ventured into the forbidden Valley of the Shmoon, against the frantic protestations of Ol' Man Mose. "Shmoos," he warned, "is the greatest menace to hoomanity th' world has evah known." "Thass becuz they is so bad, huh?" asked Li'l Abner. "No, stupid," answered Mose, hurling one of life's profoundest paradoxes at Li'l Abner. "It's because they're so good!"
Ironically, the lovable and selfless Shmoos ultimately brought misery to humankind because people with a limitless supply of self-sacrificing Shmoos stopped working and society broke down. Seen at first as a boon to humankind, they were ultimately hunted down and exterminated to preserve the status quo. (Thought extinct after the 1948 adventure, one Shmoo always seemed to escape to Dogpatch's Valley of the Shmoon to form a new colony and a later plot revival by Capp). Licensed Shmoo merchandise became a huge phenomenon in the late '40s and early '50s, spawning a wide variety of dolls, toys, glasses, wallpaper, belts, books, jewelry, balloons, clocks, ashtrays, cannisters, salt & pepper shakers, dairy products, banks, belts and ear muffs. There was even an official Shmoo fishing lure! These are all highly collectible items today.
-
I had a pet Schmoo when I was a lad. It was ceramic, though, and I think it got broken.
I was very fond of Al Capp until he started gassing off about how the Vietnam War was so great.
I disagree that Schmoos would be all that bad in reality.
-
You are a poor judge of what is sad and what is not.
Says Professor Obamacare-is-only-1000-pages-long
-
I had a pet Schmoo when I was a lad. It was ceramic, though, and I think it got broken.
I was very fond of Al Capp until he started gassing off about how the Vietnam War was so great.
I disagree that Schmoos would be all that bad in reality.
A lot of Al Capp's work is stubtle thought experiment.
Every now and then he was not stubtle at all, and made a clear point with vigor.
One of the tag lines from the Shmoo is that the Earth is a Shmoo.
I fount that very thought provoking.