Taking lunch on the Tuesday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan in an alley off Jefferson Street downtown | Altered with Pixlr Express
“I haven’t trusted polls since I read that 62% of women had affairs during their lunch hour. I’ve never met a woman in my life who would give up lunch for sex.”
Erma Bombeck
January 8, 2013 - 10:00 AM
Judging by the picture, I don’t see why RT didn’t title this one, “Coalition of Angry White Ladies protest uranium Mining”
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/318746
Just saying…
I read your Morgan Griffith answers and they are interesting. The only one I will chime in on is Social Security. I am 40 years old. I have paid into SS for over 22 years. I have invested in the stock market for 15 years. If I stopped putting money into my IRA now I will have a bigger benefit at retirement from that account than I will from SS if I continue to pay into it for the rest of my earning years.
My question is: Why is there such an uproar to letting those like myself,who want to take the risk, opt out of the SS system and plan retirement on our own? If it means some kind of requirement to show I am putting the same amount that SS would deduct into my IRA I would go for it and gladly supply the info. There is no reason to make fully aware individuals who can control thier spending and provide for thier retirement to invest in a losing proposition as it pertains to ROI.
Excellent post, nuscott. The answer to your question is that the Fed wants access to the FICA funds that we and our employer pay into the system. That money now goes into the general fund and not into the SS “lockbox” promised by many politicos. They say SS is funded for the future, but how can that be? We have $87 trillion in debt and unfunded mandates and my best guess is properly funded programs will be raided sooner rather than later.
I’d be fine with getting to opt out of Social Security…provided I get a reimbursement of my entire 16+ years of contributions, rolled into an IRA or 401K of my choosing. I’m 32…
OJ, there are quite simple ways to preserve SS benefits as is. Remove the income cap on which taxes are assessed. Raise the taxes slightly, like Reagan did.
People like Big Momma cry that abolishing the cap is unfair, because the maximum benefit for multimillionairs won’t climb with as their (dollar) contributions do. Cry me a river.
THOSE SAME co-called “conservatives” don’t bat an eye at cutting benefits for the middle class workers who are under 55, who have paid into the system their entire working lives. Down the road, they’ll keep cutting benefits, too.
Dan, if those efforts were done, I would prefer that first.
But if I’m going to get screwed by the politicians over Social Security, I’d rather get screwed now so I can dump that money into a private fund sooner rather than later…
nuscot, if you don’t pay into SS and your IRA tanks and you don’t have enough to live on, do I have to support you with my tax dollars? Remember, you’ll have taken out your money, so none of the SS pool will be yours.
For those interested in the figures for what is paid into SS/Medicare,
and what the expected benefits would be – from the non partisan
Urban Institute:
http://www.urban.org/publications/412281.html
I would let my benefits go if I could opt out soon. They can have what I paid in no questions asked. Just get me out of this!!!
Social Security is similar to a defined benefit pension plan which is very different than a 401k plan. SSI has disability and survivor benefits and of course, retirement benefits. Social Security provides guaranteed benefits (401k doesn’t).
BTW, the Social Security trust fund is invested in US Treasury Bonds and backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. Social Security doesn’t add to the federal deficit.
non partisan Urban Institute
That’s a good one.
Start phasing out benefits and contributions now. A small amount for 64 year olds. A little more for 63-year-olds and so on. This was a lying promise by the far left in the 1930s. It predictably failed. We’ll pay through the nose, but we’ve got to stop this bottomless pit entitlement now.
There is ONE thing Europe does better than us, and that’s sugar control. When I was a child, a friend brought me a jar of Nutella from Germany. I thought it was the best thing I’d ever eaten. Then I found it at Waccama about 20 years ago. Today it’s everywhere. The American version of Nutella is so sweet its practically inedible. Ditto for soft drinks. You get a coke in Europe and it has about half the sugar. I can’t drink this crap they sell here.
I don’t know how it got to be that way or what test group they’re using here.
hey Justin,
I’m with you. In fact, I think that angry lady might be the same horrifically angry ahh, lady, pictured by the RTs protesting legislation during last year’s general assembly.
Speaking of ladies,
what did you folks who watched last night’s Alabama-Notre Dame game think of ol’ brent musberger’s comments about A.J. McCarron’s Miss Alabama girlfriend? Speaking for myself, I haven’t been able to see just what it is that ESPN and ABC see in that guy for, like, decades. His comments last night were essentially the same thing as saying, “WOW! HOLY COW! WHAT A PIECE OF MEAT!”
Yep. That’s our 73 year-old sports announcer-man. Supposedly he’s the best there is, eh? Well, heck, what’s the big deal? CNN shows a simulated sex act on NY’s Eve with Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin….as the ball dropped, and it draws nary a peep. Go figure.
“Start phasing out benefits and contributions now. A small amount for 64 year olds. A little more for 63-year-olds and so on. This was a lying promise by the far left in the 1930s. It predictably failed. We’ll pay through the nose, but we’ve got to stop this bottomless pit entitlement now.”
–Comment by Suzie.
See? I was right. The RWers don’t actually believe a one-time benefits reduction for folks under 55 will “save” Social Security. They want a PHASE OUT. The entire program needs to be abandoned over a number of years.
Griffith hinted, through his leading question on the survey, that he was in favor of a one-time reduction. But that’s not the real play here. The true one is just as Suzie has described. For onces she’s being honest.
Make sure you shout that from the mountaintops, for all to hear. Because politically, this is a dead-ender for anyone who puts it out there. I don’t care how gerrymandered the House districts are. The GOP will go down in flames if enough of its members support SS phase-out.
Suzie, I think a lot of it has to do with government subsidies for the corn industry, who have taken that and applied it to finding dozens of uses for corn…from food to fuel, sweeteners, thickeners, extenders…you name it. Look at ingredient labels for a lot of cheap/low cost foods, and it seems like practically every one of them has corn syrup or cornstarch in them.
The phrase, “starve the beast”, coined by republicans within the Reagan Administration, has been a republican strategy for at least 30 years – it became a term meaning, less money should go towards Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid with the goal of eliminating these programs.
It appears that this continues to be the republican goal, as expressed by Paul Ryan,when he proposed “privatizing” Social Security and Medicare, putting the funds into the hands of Wall Street – as well as reduce benefits and raise the retirement age.
Suzie, you’re not wrong about Nutella.
Somewhere and angel got its wings.
Yes Other John, Corn Syrup is in way too many items as a sweetener for that exact reason. If you make too much of it, you have to find somewhere to put it.
Justin, someone needs to get angry at the recommendation of that committee. The only Representative whose county is directly affected by the proposed uranium mining voted against it. Watkins, Powhatan County, Chairamn of the committee voted for it. Why?? Someone needs to investigate if he has a financial stake in the mining!
I drove through that area a couple of weeks ago and almost every yard has a sign opposed to lifting the ban. Uranium mining in Virginia is irresponsible, risky, and a disaster waiting to happen.
The Farm Bill, which, I think, was extended during the fiscal cliff debate, includes several billion dollars of agricultural subsidies amongst other things. However, the subsidies mean, for example, that we pay more for sugar than anywhere else in the world. It also means that it is cheaper to eat “junk” food than a good healthy diet. Corn fed vs. grass fed beef increases the fat content in the beef which may make it taste better, but increases the health risks to us humans. At the same time we support these agricultural products thru billions of dollars of subsidies, we spend billions of dollars trying to educate our citizens to eat healthy diets. Can you see the conflict here? I live in, grew up in and benefitted from agricultural interests. Nonetheless, the ag subsidies program doesn’t support the small family farm it was originally intended to support. It’s an area of the federal budget I think we could eliminate.
Suzie, I think a lot of it has to do with government subsidies for the corn industry, who have taken that and applied it to finding dozens of uses for corn
Doesn’t that figure, OJ? Government dollars screwing something up. And now we have the rather corpulent wife of our so-called president spending $5 billion for her bogus “nutrition” initiative. Maybe she’ll use government billions to undo something else that cost the government billions. Note the common denominator.
They want a PHASE OUT. The entire program needs to be abandoned over a number of years.
Sure, I want a phase-out. Even if it were legitimate, government has no business in the retirement account business. But it’s not legitimate. It’s nothing but a money-grab Ponzi scheme. The leftwing has done so many immoral things to Americans.
We already know ethanol has been a disaster. It’s the quickest way to ruin a lawnmower or trimmer.
“…putting the funds into the hands of Wall Street”
Imagine what would have happened if Bush had succeeded with his scheme to privatize SS ahead of the 2007 market crash. The clowns on Wall Street already have our pensions to lose through the infamous 401k swindle, their wet dream is to siphon off Social Security, too.
And what does a Queen of the May know about a string trimmer?
Wouldn’t a shift in ground water patterns potentially leach uranium into our streams, rivers, bays and oceans? This would be similar to the continuous natural leaching of oil into the Gulf of Mexico that occurs at a fairly high level every day. I believe the opportunity for us an to mine an inexpensive and highly effcient energy source far out weighs the far-fetched worst case environmental issues. The project would be under great scrutiny. There is some risk with all pursuits, whether they be large or small. We need new energy sources, energy independence, jobs and tax revenue. I suggest we use best practices to safely mine the uranium!
Does anyone know of an actual uranium mine/milling operation in the United States that has not been later declared a environmental disaster?
Imagine what would have happened if Bush had succeeded with his scheme to privatize SS ahead of the 2007 market crash. The clowns on Wall Street already have our pensions to lose through the infamous 401k swindle, their wet dream is to siphon off Social Security, too.
Depends on if you are considering the intentional cratering of American business by the Communist obama administration.
I see the saint @23 continues her (ahem) misinformation after having been corrected on another thread regarding First Lady Michelle Obama:
“And now we have the rather corpulent wife of our so-called president spending $5 billion for her bogus “nutrition” initiative. Maybe she’ll use government billions to undo something else that cost the government billions. Note the common denominator.. ”
The First Lady, Michelle Obama, is not spending any taxpayer money promoting “nutrition” – the physical fitness initiative for children is named “Let’s Move”. This initiative is fully funded by Foundation money – provided by corporations and donations – with no taxpayer money being spent – let alone the fabricated “5 billion”.
I corrected your bogus claim on another thread The next time you post this “misinformation” it may be looked at as a blatant lie….
does anyone know why ESPN has just apologized for ol’ Brent Musberger’s salacious remarks about the girlfriend of an Alabama football player? Yet, Musberger himself is, ah, silent?
“The project would be under great scrutiny. “
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
“I see the saint @23 continues her (ahem) misinformation…regarding First Lady Michelle Obama…The next time you post this “misinformation” it may be looked at as a blatant lie”
comment by Hillary
I see no reason to wait until next time.
Saw an interesting poster today. It read:
You can tell Monopoly is an old game. There’s a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.
Anybody here remember playing Monopoly???
oh yes! Monopoly! I almost always win! Great game. In fact, I win most often by buying up and/or trading for the properties between Go and Free-Parking. Oh, the luxury tax. You know, since I usually won, it never bothered me much. But, the losers sure fussed about having to pay it.
Ron, are you suggesting that there is some “real life” parable here?
From Daily Beast; The Incompetent Party.
Michele’s obesity campaign would be a mite more believable if she weren’t quite so chunky. $5 bil. could at least buy her a personal trainer.
Monopoly is probably banned in the public schools. It teaches the wrong messages. It’s right up there with keeping score at sporting events.
does anyone know why ESPN has just apologized for ol’ Brent Musberger’s salacious remarks about the girlfriend of an Alabama football player? Yet, Musberger himself is, ah, silent?
I personally think it’s beyond ridiculous ESPN would apologize.
Monopoly is a game that depends to a huge extent on the roll of some dice. Hard work and perseverance count little in it, and luck counts a lot.
40.Monopoly is a game that depends to a huge extent on the roll of some dice. Hard work and perseverance count little in it, and luck counts a lot.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 9, 2013 @ 12:08 am
Which is exactly what we would be doing with our social security trust fund if we turned it over to wall street as bush, ryan and the Republicans would like to do.
“Justin, someone needs to get angry at the recommendation of that committee.” -Bill Purdue
Bill and others… I was just making light of the situation because about a week ago RT posted an article about a coalition of “Black Pastors” were speaking out against it. So, I was just saying the headline should have been about a coalition of “Angry White Ladies”… I obviously missed the mark of this one! LOL!
Which is exactly what we would be doing with our social security trust fund if we turned it over to wall street as bush, ryan and the Republicans would like to do.
Dave and Art Hill have illustrated the leftwing MO. Their side destroys institutions, the blames them for not peforming well.
We see it with the economy, and we see it with the health insurers. Right now in California, health insurers have been forced to raise their premiums because of obamacare, and now the lefties are screaming “Profiteering!”. Premiums will rise again next year. This is all by design (as I correctly predicted). Government forces the insurers to raise their rates, then screams about their greed. The aim, of course, is to drive them out of business and institute government single-payer and total takeover.
suzie’s other lie about Michelle Obama is the “corpulent” part. Michelle is chunky only to those who believe the “right” body size is “twig.” suzie simply can’t post without lying or insulting.
“Monopoly is probably banned in the public schools. It teaches the wrong messages.”
And that message is what? That the ultimate goal in life should be to own everything and bankrupt everybody else?
Besides, do you really want kids sitting around for hours playing a stupid game that requires no thinking at all? Maybe you could propose that for the HV curriculum.
hey wayne,
Please show me the bush, ryan, and Republicans plan you refer to which would “turn our social security fund over to Wall Street.”
The only plan of a similar nature that I can re-call would have given folks the “option” to allocate some of their collected FICA taxes to qualified private investment opportunities, if they wished.
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but I don’t think so. I think you are.
”
Monopoly is probably banned in the public schools. It teaches the wrong messages. It’s right up there with keeping score at sporting events.
Comment by Suzie — January 8, 2013 @ 11:46 pm”
And having 15 ‘valedictorians’ in one graduating class.
Monopoly is not banned in Salem City Schools. It’s just not a very effective teaching tool, considering how long it takes to complete a game. Teachers are under considerable time restraints to cover SOL mandated material so that no child gets left behind.
Actually, Contra, if you’re talking about HV, that would be closer to 60 so-called “valedictorians.” Everybody gets a medal.
Comment by Frank — January 9, 2013 @ 9:39 am
“Please show me the bush, ryan, and Republicans plan you refer to which would “turn our social security fund over to Wall Street.”
The only plan of a similar nature that I can re-call would have given folks the “option” to allocate some of their collected FICA taxes to qualified private investment opportunities, if they wished.
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but I don’t think so. I think you are.”
Frank here is the info on your Wall Street comment…
“Ryan, chosen by Romney on Saturday as his running mate, may be an even better choice from the industry’s perspective. While the seven-term congressman has become popular as the Republican Party’s most visible spending hawk, that’s not what appeals to Wall Street (which actually prefers high levels of government spending).”
“ Wall Street loves Ryan because he’s bringing back an old idea: he wants to privatize Social Security.”
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-14/commentary/33183908_1_social-security-paul-ryan-privatization
Hey Hillary,
Many thanks for providing the link. After I read through it, I see why Wayne has chosen to not respond to me, and I’m really glad that you did.
Wayne’s point was that Ryan et al tried to “turn over Social Security to Wall Street…”. My point was, I thought he was wrong, and that Ryan et al only wanted to “give folks an option” to allocate “some” of their FICA tax toward “qualified private investments”.
According to your link, paragraph #6 agrees with me: “In 2005, Ryan proposed the Social Security Savings Guarentee & Prosperity Program Act. Under the proposal, workers would have been able to funnel at least half their Social Security deductions into a private account…managed by the Social Security Administration…”. (oops, I had thought that that money might have been managed privately…thanks for setting that straight).
Looks like Wayne already checked it out, and to save face, chose to not pursue the continuation of his mis-understanding, in public.
I also note the next to last paragraph, which reads thusly: “The problem with the proposal, as with many privatization proposals, was the loss of cash to the federal government. The government, after all, uses Social Security to pay for stuff and then writes an IOU to the tax-payors.”
Looks like you put the finger directly on ol’ Wayne’s discomfort with the idea of privatizing even a portion of Social Security. Ol’ Wayne is a lib, and as such he wants to keep peoples’ hands off what HE feels is the “government’s” money, in this case the FICA-tax-fueled cash cow which the government effectively steals from.
Hillary, thanks for your help.
Here is another nifty Facebook quote pammala may have missed: “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire“. ~George Monbiot
Frank, let me save you some trouble, parsing people’s posts for a fact you can pick apart is not going to work out well for you.
Frank@7:22 PM
Here’s the part that “hey Frank” conveniently left out from the link which Hillary provided. Nice job of selective reading there “hey Frank”
And I didn’t retire from the field. I just hadn’t had time to deal with your foolishness earlier today.
“In 2005, Ryan proposed the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act. Under the proposal, workers would have been able to funnel at least half of their Social Security deduction into a private account. The account would have been managed by the Social Security Administration and invested in a portfolio made up of anywhere between 50% and 80% stocks. The rest would have been in bonds.
Again, you may agree with this proposal because you believe like Ryan that it will “save” the program for future Americans. Or, you might disagree with it on the grounds that the program will remain “underfunded.”
Regardless of your position, there’s no denying who it would benefit: big brokerages.
That’s because even though SSA would “manage” the program, it would need Wall Street’s help: brokers, market-makers, specialists, you name it. Suddenly the financial industry would be getting up to $340 billion, half of Social Security’s 2011 revenue, for fees, commissions and other value-added services.”
Now what part of that don’t you understand “hey Frank”?
hey wayne,
welcome back! sandi must have gotten me mixed up with you, ’cause you are doing the, ahh, “parsing”.
You initialy said, “bush, ryan, and the Republicans…would turn over Social Security over to Wall Street”. I said I thought you were wrong. Hillary sent a link to an article that says very clearly, “you are wrong”. ‘Needing Wall Street’s help’ to manage “up to half of Social Security”is a long way from “turning all of Social Security over to Wall Street.” Seems to me you are letting your wild imagination run way too wild with whatever it is your eyes tell you is between the lines you are reading in Hillary’s well-timed and very illuminating article.
Wayne, you libs have it soooo wrong. The FICA money going into Social Security isn’t Social Security’s “revenue”, silly! It’s our TAX dollars going into the social security piggy bank, to be raided by folks of your ilk to fund govenment spending in general…and you and i get IOUs. Wow! Whoopee!
Oh, and Wayne, thats EXACTLY what the article Hillary sent us the link to plainly says, if’n you were to comprehend it.
Very sad, suzie has nothing ore than the old disproven Contra and gdad are the same person schtick. When you don’t have facts, just continue to recirculate the old lies.
Dan, please do not remove poster #55′s post (@ 10:11pm). It’s unattributed use is a clear violation of U.S. Copyright Law, and I would like for the stupid poster’s selfish theft of someone else’s intellectual property to remain publicly visible, so that the poster’s liability exposure to the actual consequences of such blatant dishonesty can be maintained. (And, yes, I will be notifying the copyright holder). Thank You.
http://vocalcoach.hubpages.com/hub/Me-Myself-and-I-A-Humorous-Poem-To-Make-You-Smile
The poem was copyrighted in 2011 by the author, Audrey Hunt.
Sorry Warren, but I had to remove it once I became aware it was copyrighted material.
Suzie, have you no shame?
(Dumb question, eh?)
“Sorry Warren, but I had to remove it…”
Party pooper.
40.Monopoly is a game that depends to a huge extent on the roll of some dice. Hard work and perseverance count little in it, and luck counts a lot.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 9, 2013 @ 12:08 am
Which is exactly what we would be doing with our social security trust fund if we turned it over to wall street as bush, ryan and the Republicans would like to do.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 9, 2013 @ 1:20 am
What social security trust fund? It does not exist. Privatization is far
superior to Governmentization which is what this administration intends. How many T-bills have you invested in lately?
I guess stealing other people’s work is just “capitalism”.
So did Suzie claim to have written that poem? I’m a little late to the thread.
It was not copyrighted material. Nowhere have the words been published.
Dan removed something because he felt like it. Those were original words. The framework was borrowed, but the words were original.
Very sad, suzie has nothing ore than the old disproven Contra and gdad are the same person schtick. When you don’t have facts, just continue to recirculate the old lies.
Think about that the next time you post the ‘Suzie is YAJ’ crap.
Frank, in what world is half a long way from the whole? You claim ‘Needing Wall Street’s help’ to manage “up to half of Social Security”is a long way from “turning all of Social Security over to Wall Street.” In reality it isn’t. One reason that the Ryan plan failed the first time he tried it was that “the plan required more than $2 trillion for the first 10 years of transitional funding.” That is a lot of cheese under any administration.
It is more than fair to say that we would need lots of luck “if we turned it over to wall street as bush, ryan and the Republicans would like to do“. That is true on both counts. YOU Frank, are the one who referred to some specific “plan”, not Wayne. I tried to tell you that parsing posts is not your strong suit.
Ryan and the GOTP have been at this for years.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/28/barack-obama/radio-ad-barack-obama-says-paul-ryan-tried-change-/
You do not have to like how Wayne said it, but he did not say anything that is not true. The ONLY reason they have not proposed turning the whole system over to Wall Street is that they know they cannot get that done. Even as we know that “the crash of 2008 would have stripped nearly 60% from retirement investors’ stock portfolios whether they had built up their nest eggs by “phasing in” or all at once. If you’d been about to retire on that hoard, your plans got changed in a hurry.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120821
You might as well deny the sun is in the sky as to claim that privatization of Social Security has not been a GOTP goal.
“So did Suzie claim to have written that poem? I’m a little late to the thread.”
–Comment by John Wilburn
No. She introduced it as “Here’s a little poem for you,” then never noted it was by someone else, copyrighted, etc.
No. She introduced it as “Here’s a little poem for you,” then never noted it was by someone else, copyrighted, etc.
That’s a blatant lie. But no matter, Gdad saw it, and that’s all that matters.
Dan: No. She introduced it as “Here’s a little poem for you,” then never noted it was by someone else, copyrighted, etc.
Suzie: That’s a blatant lie. But no matter, Gdad saw it, and that’s all that matters.
Here’s the top of the comment, and the way Suzie introduced the poem. There was no attribution to the author there, or at the end:
“Looks like Gdad found someone to talk to. Here’s a little poem he could sbare with his friend “Contra”:
“But no matter, Gdad saw it, and that’s all that matters.”
Sorry to disappoint you, suzie, but I didn’t bother reading the whole thing once I saw it was just another variation on one of your standard lies. No need to waste my time.
“The framework was borrowed, ”
Which any person with even a shred of decency and civility would have noted from the start.
And how about suzie’s idiotic claim that it was copyrighted because it hasn’t been published anywhere?
Dan, if you have time (if not, no big deal), how much of what suzie posted was “original”?
“Those were original words.”
Sure, just not yours.
Dan, if you have time (if not, no big deal), how much of what suzie posted was “original”?
Every couplet was different from the original. but Dan can’t show that because it would prove he’s full of beans on the copyright issue. I got a couple of emails about it this morning. My friends thought is was hilarious. Sorry most of you missed it.
Gee, suzie’s got her “friends” reading the blog to keep up with her pithy postings. How many other folks actually have friends reading the blog just so you can get some badly needed praise from them? None?
As I said, suzie, anybody with a shred of decency and courtesy would have noted that they had adapted somebody else’s work. Your “adaptation” was obviously either so close to the original that somebody recognized it and was able to google it, or it was so much more creative than the dreck you normally post that folks knew it wasn’t really yours.
Frank @50 – Wow! Even providing you a link with FACTS somehow turns into your distorting those FACTS so you can crow that your opinion is the correct one…
Frank – reading is fundamental – comprehension is essential. I suggest you go back and read that link which lays out quite succinctly how the republicans have pressed for the privatization of SS and how Wall Street is obviously supportive and gleeful of these republican efforts.
“suzie’s got her “friends” reading the blog to keep up with her pithy postings. How many other folks actually have friends reading the blog just so you can get some badly needed praise from them? None?”
Most of my friends don’t bother reading this blog. . .
Suzie has friends who email her about her comments on this blog? Wow. If I ever get that needy and desperate for affirmation, please feel free to shoot me in the face… with a cannon loaded with sledgehammers.
That’s a big ol’ bundle of pathetic swaddled in a wet blanket of sad.
Most of my friends don’t bother reading, Dan.
“adaptation” was obviously…so close to the original that somebody…was able to google it,
comment by gdad
That’s exactly the case, gdad. The stupid poster didn’t even bother changing any of it, only left off some of the final stanzas that didn’t suit the intended effect. What a stupid poster.
In case it was overlooked, there was a true example of an original adaptation on the blog last month, based on Poe’s “The Raven”, which in any case is a P.D. work.