Monday, August 21, 2006

Pin the tail on the donkey.

Have you ever seen a group so totally devoid of ideas, yet somehow certain they are right?

Since the 2006 elections are fast approaching and the war is the most important national issue, wouldn't it be helpful to prepare a simple flow chart to compare the Bush administration's policy on the war with that of his Democratic critics?

One would think such an exercise would be unnecessary, since everyone knows what each side is advocating. But as ridiculous as it seems, no one has yet to flush out the Democrats on their position and the consequences flowing from it. They continue to hide behind their naked criticisms of President Bush and his policies, offering no intelligible alternative policy.

Nonsense, you say. Democrats are demanding withdrawal. Are they? To be sure, they make loud noises about withdrawal, but when Republicans have forced a vote on it, most of them have run for the tall grass. Instead, they throw out meaningless or misleading terms like "benchmarks" or "redeployment," which buy them more time to slander Bush without offering a plan of their own that can be evaluated or for which they can later be held accountable.

Nothing beats the sense of brotherhood and camaraderie I feel whenever I visit this place. It's just OOZING with warm fuzziness.

Thanks for that, RW.

Love the Ronald Reagan quote up top^ on your home page.

Hi and good night!
if they had a real plan, it would only last a few days until the next brainless idea came out and they adopted it as their savior of an idea.
Now, now Nicole,

Nothing about this site is oozing warm fuzziness, just truth.

You're Welcome!

Buy Danish,

It seemed a little dated until you realize that nothing has really changed except maybe instead of Marx they are looking Amadinajihad or whatever the hell his name is.

That's true, but I like David Limbaugh's idea of putting them on the record as much as it's possible to put a liberal on record. They are slippery little critters.
Greetings, RW, from the nut-job state. Hope all is well with you. You know, I’ve been stumped trying to find an answer to the question you posed to “progressives” regarding Lieberman/out of step with CT voters. I can’t seem to find anyone to address the question to up here. However, things are looking up – today a new group and a professor have jumped into the fray. The New Haven Peace Council and John Orman from Fairfield University are appealing to the democratic registrar of voters to rid the state of this menace. (Orman takes it one step further – he wants the name totally off the November ballot.) So, your question’s a good one. . .and I’ll find out if Peace has a .org or Orman has a .edu and pose the question. Please stand by.

And if Lieberman has indeed created a “fake political party” as Orman accuses, is that perhaps the one that a “progressive” would be a member of? Just askin’ :-)

Your friend, Honu

The obvious answer is that Lieberman is not out of touch with the Connecticut voters so they want to throw him off the ballot and not let the voters have a say. So called progressives are not really fans of free elections.
Sorry, RW -- was just trying to make you laugh with all the nonsense up here.

Have a nice evening. . .

Trust me, the gyrations they go through does make me laugh and I appreciate you passing on the "inside baseball" on the whole thing. Thank you!

I guess it's that time. Goodnight!
RW: I always try to remain optimistic. No sense in being anything but,in my opinion. But when I hear two Democrat political strategists limit the Republican's chances while at the same time admitting that the security of America is screwed if the Democrats win, I'm inclined to become more than concerned.

I have successfully flipped a Democrat recently. I'm good for one. When I visit Wooten's, I find out that I am a "wishy-washy" moderate with no convictions. When I visit ml's I'm a "neo-con religious fanatical facist".

There's no place for poor @@. Whoa is me.
A quick question RW. I'm learning to adjust to my technical inadequacies. Three sites...Malkin, lgf & Wikipedia. Can't link to any of them. Is there something common between the three that I'm missing?

Sorry to bother, but it limits me and is frustrating.

When you say you can't link to them, do you mean you can't reach them from a link, can't reach them at all, or can't create a link using them? Or none of the above I guess, you wishy-washy neocon fascist you!
RW: I can't reach them at all from a link through Google or anywhere. I get a blank screen with a "Done" at the bottom of my screen.

Semper keeps telling me to just play around, but that can be very risky advice when the object of my curiosity is a computer.

BTW, you forgot ^^^ "ass". :P

Glad you are back from all that heavy contract work, when you could have spent your days playing with US. Next thing we know you will be loafing at Indian Rocks.

Wooten is having many of the same sad crew from mls showing up there, as you probably know. Some "regulars" there are trying to dump Getalife who is still babbling the same old stuff. I thought @@ sounded good about her property and what is going on. Any sensible comments there usually get "heckled".

Someday, RW, I will ask you about Mom & Pop stores as my ideas were different from yours. C'est la vie.

You've got something clogging up your computer memory. I'm not really sure where to tell you start, but it sounds like it needs a good cleaning out.


I doubt our ideas of Mom and Pop stores are much different. I used to love the little country stores around our neck of the woods, but the inner city stores were a lot different.

So you're doing contract work. If you're happy, I'm glad. If you're not, I'm hopeful. But you'll do what you've gotta do cause that's who you are.

I'll get the laxative for the computer? Two tablespoons?


I wanted to apologize before you read it at ml's. Washington State took a cheap shot at you and I had to respond.


Okay, I'm not RW, but what are you apologizing for?

I came here to commend you for your statement. And compliment you for having the patience to read through lengthy and self-congratulatory posts from Huge and WS. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

I was so busy dealing with rushncap's "problems" that it flew right past me.

No apology necessary, your comment was right on the money. It's like Andy says, "frisk the liberal first." Not only is it a complete misrepresentation of the facts it was exactly what you called it, a cheap shot. I left a little additional response.
Buy Danish,

Here's a little more about those poor "Asian looking men" that were forced off the plane in Malaga.

Thanks for the update on the "Asians". I seriously doubt they were "wiseasses" as I don't think that is part of their culture, so that leaves us with the choice of #1 or #2.

Islamic roulette anyone?

Did you notice that the Daily Mail or whatever that paper was never posted our comments, of which I'd bet there were thousands because of the Drudge link? They only approved the "Great cartoon ML" sort of stuff. What a bunch of suicidal wankers.
Buy Danish:

I was apologizing for being the consummate troublemaker that I am without intending to be.

Well, that's not 100% true, sometimes I intentionally plan to engage in playful trouble.

I'm missing something critical that is required to engage in conflict unless, of course, somebody really p*sses me off, but it's rare.

Hell, I have to take a test to figure out who I am. First time I took it, I was a "wishy washy" moderate. Semper read the questions aloud to me and then filled in my answers and I became a conservative. I've lost my direction.

I'll go find it. :-)
Buy Danish,

I noticed that they also had the nerve to say "this is what people are saying" above the few comments they selected.


I came out as almost a perfect overlap with Ronald Reagan on your test.

Wow. I took the short test and it said I voted for Clinton and Kerry, although it had me as a Libertarian. Are Clinton and Kerry Libertarians? I thought they were Libertines.

This test must be what rushncap uses to judge morality. I'll try the longer version tomorrow - it will probably having me voting for Jimmy Carter while sleeping with the Shah of Iran.

This statement of yours is more telling to me -

"I'm missing something critical that is required to engage in conflict unless, of course, somebody really p*sses me off, but it's rare."

Not me. I'm a pit bull.

I know. I wrote them back and told them what a bunch of rubbish that statement was. For the longest time it said that "0" comments had been received, when I knew for a fact that they'd at least gotten 2.

Re the moral matrix test, did you take the long or short version, because I'm really jealous that you came out as Ronald Reagan.
Buy Danish,

I took the long test which takes about a minute. I'm not sure why they bother to have two. I've seen a test that really is in depth and places you on historical graphs etc. (I came out right in the same section with Reagan there too), I'll try to find it tomorrow.
I'm calling for a re-test on that test. No way. It's telling me I'm a Clinton loving liberal!! What??
I had no idea how many Clintonistas visited here!
Buy Danish:

No're a bulldog?

I'll have to go back and see which president I'm sleeping with. It's a shame Cheney was never president.

It's pretty obvious what the "Socialists" advocate. It included activists & environmentalists with income redistribution. If only there had been a question "Is Mike Luckovich your favorite political cartoonist?...we'd know for sure.

RW: Post your test here so that I can do a comparison.
Here's another one.

My results:

You are a

Social Conservative
(36% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(81% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Strong Republican


Amazing, huh! I bet you had me pegged as a poodle.
Isn't a pit bull a terrier?

Right again - Pit bull not bull dog. Not a poodle regardless.

I took your test and I came out

Social Conservative
(35% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(73% permissive)
Buy Danish,

The odd thing about that last test is that "strongly agree" is prechecked on all the answers, so if you happen to skip something your results could be really skewed. (Not that I don't think they are already setup with built in biases)
Social Liberal
(61% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(68% permissive)

You are best described as a:


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

Must of been those pre-checked answers:)
Jay not jay,

It must be all that social permissiveness that has the other test putting you with Clinton.
well, the other test is only 2 questions.

So I listen to the Beatles once every so often, this test says I'm socially permissive 61% of the time!

But Clinton worthy??

/oh the shame...

I think not

Anyone else gonna post their stats?
Jay not jay,

That two question test has a sixteen question option. It's still shorter than the one I posted. See if you're still Clinton's running buddy after sixteen questions.
Viewer Alert:

San Fran Nan coming up on Letterman. I bet Leno just got a rating spike.

That other one says


But, Gore gets:

(99% permissive)

internet/environment hero
(99% submissive)
Jay not jay,

Libs like Gore couldn't take the test because there is no place to discuss how the question made them feel.
Here ya go, RW -- as much as the test instructed no "fence-sitters", look where I placed!! (Like y'all didn't know this about me):

You are a

Social Liberal
(63% permissive)

and an...

Economic Liberal
(36% permissive)

You are best described as a:


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness <--- I like it!!!

Thanks, RW -- that was cool!


Believe it or not very few people that describe themselves as fence sitters take one of these tests and comes out as a centrist.

It appears that you really do know yourself, and I'm not being a smartass when I say good for you!

Or they could make it easy for them and add one more option to every question:

___Strongly agree Bush sucks

Good night!
Jay not jay,

That would take the stress out of it for them. Goodnight.
Not referring to you Honu:) (Just Gore)

Goodnight again!
RW -- Thank you, my friend.

Now, I took that Mensa test that the AJC (don't gag) had on their site a couple of days ago. I got 7 out of ten correct and I KNOW I'm NOT Mensa material. There is still a question I'm trying to answer.

Proselyte -- can only be anagrammed into one word. I CANNOT figure out the word. Can you? Thanks!
Jay not jay -- thank you for clarifying :-)

Have a nice evening. . .

OMG, RW -- I am so pissed right now!!!! I am the biggest idiot!!! And just yelled a really bad word at you. (Would you like to join my sister and I in our weekend, on-line Literati games?!!!)

Have a great night, RW.

P.S. I agree 100% w/Pin the Tail. . .I can relate to flowcharts and haven't seen anything yet from the dems that would stick on one. Thanks for that article.

It could be literacy or it could be incredibly bad fashion sense. :-)

Goodnight and you're welcome, although the credit should go to David Limbaugh.

I took your test and found that I am a "booger" in the left nostril of Ronald Reagan.

Social Conservative
(26% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(76% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Strong Republican

JayNot: No matter who you hang with, I think you're great.:-)

Buy Danish: You...a poodle? :P

I'm a "mutt" doubt about it.
I was 92.03% with President Bush and 93% were to the left of me.

Go figure.

Yeah, me!
Oh Oh

I slink away in the deepest depths of disgrace.

I didn't take the test. Worse still, I would never have thought of polyester.

May I still post? I promise I am 99.9% conservative (Well, nobody is perfect.)
Truth -- YOU?? Shirley, you jest!
Well's kinda hard looking at the picture of "you" and finding out that 93% were to the left of "you".

It's a "eye/brain" malfunction for somebody like myself.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?