Adam Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Does anyone remember the old tag line from the movie "Aliens vs Predators"?It was along the lines of "No matter who wins...we lose." I have to give credit for that to a friend of mine. It's funny in the old days (we have been friends for 23 years now) he was a hard core conservative. I was a die hard liberal. Nowadays we are within 4 out of a hundred points on most scales of measuring ideas. Extremely moderate basically. The independent vote is growing IMO and hopefully we can develop at least a 3 party system. Ross Perot as bat sh-- crazy as he was lost a chance at a legacy by failing to produce a legitimate 3rd party. Hey he was right about NAFTA though. Thats why you vote for independents- the democrats and republicans will call that a wasted vote, but if the percentage of votes for independents goes up each four-year cycle, they will take notice. They want people to believe that the only election that matters is the current one- far from true- change takes time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 First, yes you can expect a significant portion of the drowing people to swim 50 yards. Second, you can make a lot more lifelines by not making them all 3 times longer than necessary. Because contray to popular belief, the supply of rope is not endless. NOT! Better yet... Maybe expect a significant portion of drowning people to just stand up and realize that they are drowning in 3' of water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 NOT! Better yet... Maybe expect a significant portion of drowning people to just stand up and realize that they are drowning in 3' of water! Man, just when I thought the metaphor couldn't be stretched any thinner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 LaRouche had me thinking about this: As it's been pointed out, the third party candidates can be legitimate whackjobs. For example, a man ran against Bloomberg in the last mayoral election under the "Rent is Too Damn High" party line. He was batshit crazy. Like, scaled-the-Brooklyn-Bridge-with-a-machete-in-his-mouth-and-halted-traffic-crazy. Sometimes you wonder where the hell these people come from. "Born with a weary eye plain to see, my oh mythese crazy ideas, oh they don'tlast longbut they come and they go inAmerica" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Man, just when I thought the metaphor couldn't be stretched any thinner... Sorry Gum... I wasn't around to "play" earlier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Sorry Gum... I wasn't around to "play" earlier! No, I know you weren't. Nor was I, but I think we did succeed in extracting a moderate level of poignancy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 And Fred Phelps would call your lifeguard a faggot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I gotta do it...Holcomb's Arm would throw you a lifesaver with 3.5 yards of rope on it, and tell you it's your fault because you're drowning in the wrong place. Way to fill up your inbox. Check "Bungee Jumper" if you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 The truth about democrats and republicans The truth? They both SUCK! I hate partisan politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 What? No one bashed Bush yet? Figueres! Bush would let you drown, just like he left al-Zarquari sit safe and pretty in the Northern part of Iraq--the part Saddam didn't control--before invading so he could have an excuse to invade. Bush would then claim Iran was behind you being pulled out to sea and left to die. Most experts would say this was not true, but Fox 'news' would take up the crusade, O'Reilly would be screaming, Hannity would be yelling and Alan Colmes would say, "yes but Democrats think appeasement works, and you have to give them credit for at least being consistent." Gotta love the 'balance' in the fascist propaganda network! Cheney would appear on Rush Limbaugh and say that your drowning was not in vein, and that Democrats had better get out of the way. It says a lot about this White House that they have to go to Limbo and O'Reilly to be interviewed. Rush would agree and call Democrats girlie-men for not wanting to use up the troops in a new war. They enlisted, didn't they? Hell, more young men will die in traffic accidents in the next three centuries than will die in a twenty occupation of Iran. Rick Santorium would take a break from protesting at an abortion clinic to give a speech on the need to attack Iran, and then finish with a word about how all life is sacred and abortion is wrong. The Israeli Knesset will then award him the medal of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 What? No one bashed Bush yet? Figueres! Bush would let you drown, just like he left al-Zarquari sit safe and pretty in the Northern part of Iraq--the part Saddam didn't control--before invading so he could have an excuse to invade. Bush would then claim Iran was behind you being pulled out to sea and left to die. Most experts would say this was not true, but Fox 'news' would take up the crusade, O'Reilly would be screaming, Hannity would be yelling and Alan Colmes would say, "yes but Democrats think appeasement works, and you have to give them credit for at least being consistent." Gotta love the 'balance' in the fascist propaganda network! I tried...I just couldn't get a good handle to make a funny joke out of. I thought of going with your joke...but then, I was trying to be amusing, not totally bug-!@#$ insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I tried...I just couldn't get a good handle to make a funny joke out of. I thought of going with your joke...but then, I was trying to be amusing, not totally bug-!@#$ insane. I think you hit the nail on the head. There just isn't anything funny about Bush. A dangerously stupid man who believes the right wing propaganda that is being spewed constantly on Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I think you hit the nail on the head. There just isn't anything funny about Bush. A dangerously stupid man who believes the right wing propaganda that is being spewed constantly on Fox Which, at the end of the day, is no different than you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I think you hit the nail on the head. There just isn't anything funny about Bush. You know...just this alone would have been a decent post. You've got to learn when to quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 You know...just this alone would have been a decent post. You've got to learn when to quit. I thought not knowing when to quit was the definition of a partisan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I thought not knowing when to quit was the definition of a partisan? I thought it was the definition of "stupid". But then, stupid is arguably the definition of "partisan" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I thought it was the definition of "stupid". But then, stupid is arguably the definition of "partisan" as well. No, stupid is much more a priori-ish. As in the conditions for the possibility of stupidness manifesting are already kind of hardwired in your DNA. Not knowing when to quit can be a manifestation of stupidity but it doesn't define it. One can be "not stupid" and also not know when to quit, especially when motivated by an excess of righteous zeal that blinds rational sensors from modifying said behavior and examining an issue from multiple perspectives and viewpoints, which is the definition of a partisan. Because all partisans aren't necessarily stupid but all partisans don't know when to quit, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Because all partisans aren't necessarily stupid but all partisans don't know when to quit, imo. Good point. I don't agree with it (I think partisanship, in that it requires a stance on a given issue to be predetermined without any knowledge of said issue, is fundamentally stupid), but it is a good point. The rest of your post...well, let me put it this way: if stupidity is determined by genetics, what's it's heritability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Which, at the end of the day, is no different than you are. Get your taxes done there Darin? Har Har. Maybe you could slip a note in with them saying that 90% of the Federal government is illegal. Just to let them know you hate them. Someday that FDA will be abolished! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Get your taxes done there Darin? Har Har. Maybe you could slip a note in with them saying that 90% of the Federal government is illegal. Just to let them know you hate them. Someday that FDA will be abolished! Well. I'm sure that showed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts