Yeah, well what rhymes with purple?



And nurple doesn't count. That's not a real word.

If slant rhyme counts, then "hurtful."

aka Michale Graves, from the 1990's and beyond Misfits?

burple
i.e. powdered drink mix from the 80's that came in an expandable container. apparently if you expanded and compacted the container quickly, it would make a "burping" sound.
my mom wouldn't buy it for me. my burping skills are supreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burple

That's not what I think of when I hear the word burple.

It won't be very long before I have half of Madison on killfile.

Beat ye to it, ol' boy.

... Oh. You meant on the internet.

meh.
2308 University Ave.
come get me
baby.

Chuck Norris does not age, he simply turns around and round house kicks time in the face.

This is for Dalen:

Take two pies -- one for 1979, the other for 2003 (using the latest IRS data).


Divide the 1979 pie into 10 equal slices. If the slices were eaten according to the distribution of income in 1979:


-- The richest 1 percent of taxpayers would get one slice.


-- The rest of the top 20 percent would get four slices.


-- The other 80 percent of taxpayers would split five slices.


Now, divide the 2003 pie into 10 slices.


-- The richest 1 percent would get nearly two slices.


-- The rest of the top 20 percent would get a little over four slices.


-- The other 80 percent would split four slices.


In 1979, the top 20 percent of taxpayers had about as much income as the other 80 percent combined. In 2003, the top 20 percent had 60 percent of the income, leaving just 40 percent for the rest. The richest 1 percent nearly doubled their share.


Let's look more closely at the upward shift in income.


In 1979, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers had about 15 percent more combined income than the richest 1 percent. In 2003, the richest 1 percent had twice the income share of the bottom 40 percent.


The richest 1 percent share of reported income jumped from 9.6 percent in 1979 to 17.5 percent in 2003. The bottom 40 percent share fell from 11.3 percent to 8.8 percent.


Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston puts the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else in stark perspective. He examined the income reported on tax returns of the top 0.01 percent -- about 14,000 households with at least $5.5 million in income.


From 1950 to 1970, for every additional dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162.


From 1990 to 2002, for every additional dollar earned in the bottom 90 percent, those at the top brought in an extra $18,000.

Dude, you're only encouraging Borg, whose material is not anywhere near as spot-on as yours.

Furthermore, this will lead to another slapfight between the whipped Senator LooGAR and the soy latte drinking Haq, during which Haq will post testimony demonstrating that FDR's measures exacerbated the Depression. Then, Billy G and Billzebub will enter the scene, and at that point, hell's a-poppin'.

It is illegal to sing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit in Sarasota, Florida.

chuck norris doesn't sleep. he waits.

STP stands for Scientifically Treated Petroleum

Amount of money given back to 'Joliet' Jake upon his release from prison at the beginning of The Blues Brothers:

$23.07


Man working the evidence room in the same scene:

Frank Oz

The Disappearing Lower Class

What disappeared between 1970 and today was not the middle class but the lower class. The table below shows the percentage of households without certain basic middle-class necessities in 1970 vs. today.

Item: Percent Lacking in 1970 to Percent Lacking Now

Telephone: 13.0% to 2.4%
Complete Plumbing: 6.9% to 0.6%
Refrigerator: 17% to 0.1%
Stove: 13% to 0.3%
Color Television: 66.0% to 1.1%
Vehicle: 20.4% to 10.3%

Today, 68.6 percent of households own their own homes. This is an all-time record, four percentage points higher than in the 1970's.

Next, consider some items that would have been viewed as luxuries in 1970. The table below compares the prevalence of these goods in the average household in 1970 with their prevalence in 2001 in households with incomes less than $15,000.

Item: % of All Households Owning in 1970 to % of Poor Households Owning in 2001

Dishwasher: 26% to 18%
Clothes Washer: 62% to 57%
Clothes Dryer: 45% to 45%
Cell Phone: 0% to 23%
Large-screen TV: 0% to 25%
Answering Machine: 0% to 37%
Cable or Satellite TV hookup: 0% to 64%
VCR: 0% to 74%
Microwave Oven: 0% to 75%

Economic historian and Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel considers statistics like these and concludes:

"Indeed, we have become so rich that we are approaching saturation in the consumption not only of necessities, but also of goods recently thought to be luxuries...Virtually everyone who is old enough and well enough to drive a car has one. In the case of television, there are 0.8 sets per person (2.2 per household)...The level of saturation for many consumer durables is so high that even the poorest fifth of households are well endowed with them."

Given these statistics, what explains the fact that, adjusted for inflation, the pay of the lowest-wage workers has not increased much over the past thirty years? There are a number of factors involved, but I suspect that the largest component of the explanation is a shift in the composition of the low-wage work force. In the 1970's, many of the people at the bottom of the wage scale were heads of households. Today, many low-wage workers are providing second or third incomes to families.

The important point to bear in mind is that "the bottom fifth of the wage distribution" does not represent some permanent group of people. Instead, it signifies the earnings of workers who at that time have the lowest levels of skills and experience. My college-age daughters, doing temporary clerical work, are in the bottom fifth. But even if the income of the bottom fifth were to stagnate over the next twenty years, my daughters will earn higher incomes as they acquire valuable knowledge.

"I suspect..." Now that's proof positive.

There is no question, the poor today consume more than the poor of the 19th century. Indisputable.

And of course everyone in south central LA and the south Bronx who are "well enough" to drive has a car. Of course.

i have tons of these and i cant remember a single one right now