Good start, Larry and Reeko! I especially like the marijuana / tobacco one. That’s a perfect example.
Woah there, Cowboy. You can’t be giving out 10’s all willy-nilly like that! They should be a rare and precious commodity. Please… think of the next generation of scores. What legacy will we leave them if only 10’s and 0’s have any meaning? I don’t know about you, but that’s not a world that I want to bring a score into.
Everyone knows anything less than a 7.5 is the same as a zero anyway.
I’m not understanding how my example doesn’t fit…
Political belief: “Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins”
Belief totally at odds with the last one: “Unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican”
vs.
Political belief: “It’s wrong to drive off a bridge, and let your passenger drown”
Belief totally at odds with the last one: “Unless you’re a Kennedy”
Certainly, as Tim pointed out, it’s not the accident itself that’s morally questionable, rather it’s the 10-hour delay in actually telling anyone about it that I find reprehensible. But I didn’t realize joke threads were such bastions of nitpicking. My bad.
No, you’re not entirely wrong, but it’d be better to find an example of something that’s closer to the lines of a political belief that you could see a politician on either side actually stating in public.
That is, you could see a politician decyring “drug use” and “sexual perversions” as the “downfall of america”, but you can’t really see a politcian going on about a growing epidemic of people driving off bridges and letting others drown.
Additionally, is Kennedy really that much of a serious power player that he’s the first shot you’d use? Seriously, I don’t keep up on these things, but from the casual political corner he’s more old-news than any other politician I could think of. There’s got to be better Democrats to target than that, otherwise it looks like you’re reaching for any response.
Don’t take this as an attack on you personally, SK, it’s just that we expect better from you, because calling up the Kennedy thing is closer to something at Cherub’s level than yours.
In my defense, I thought that this was a joke thread, kinda like the “How many Bush Administration staffers does it take to screw in a light bulb” so I didn’t think to pull out my best stuff. :wink:
Nitpicking? What you said didn’t make any sense. Sorry to Desslock you here, but if had you said this:
I still would have criticized you for being lame, because, well… for all the reasons Derek said above. The one didn’t make any sense, but this version is just not very funny.
[size=2]Yeah, I know but I can’t resist any opportunity to use Desslock as a verb.[/size]
We have a ways to go until 20, folks.
Cut defense spending! Reinstate the draft!
Dead on.
I’m not understanding how my example doesn’t fit…
Political belief: “Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins”
Belief totally at odds with the last one: “Unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican”
vs.
Political belief: “It’s wrong to drive off a bridge, and let your passenger drown”
Belief totally at odds with the last one: “Unless you’re a Kennedy”
Certainly, as Tim pointed out, it’s not the accident itself that’s morally questionable, rather it’s the 10-hour delay in actually telling anyone about it that I find reprehensible. But I didn’t realize joke threads were such bastions of nitpicking. My bad.[/quote]
But what on earth does that have to do with general Democratic principles? It’s not like Democrats are well known as the “don’t drive off bridges and let your passenger drown” party. Now if the Democrats were absolutely obsessed with keeping passengers from getting killed when the drivers have accidents, yeah, but they’re not.
Isn’t that Nader’s area anyway?
Deleted: Sank to his level
Let me try one!
Military spending is a huge waste of government money, on what is essentially the nations biggest jobs program, money that could be better spent putting America back to work!
You did not title the list “20 Things You Have to Believe to Be George W. Bush;” rather, you ascribed the listed beliefs to all Republicans.
Furthermore, this defense is utter bullshit. Half that list can’t be ascribed to George W. Bush personally. I’d love to see your citation for Dubya advocating creationism, or saying that Saddam was a “good guy” (as opposed to a realpolitik ally) in the eighties, or his interest in Hillary’s cattle trades, etc, etc, etc.
Did Bush even endorse Schwarzenegger? And if he did, why is that inconsistent with saying promiscuous group sex is bad? It isn’t like Arnie is still holding orgies over at the Shriver beach house.
And even on those things that do apply to Bush – well, some inconsistencies are again there because it’s a big party and there are lots of competing factions, and the leader of the party must make sometimes-contradictoriy concessions to each of them. That’s just practical politics, and all but the most unblinking ideological purists understand its necessity.
Brad- There’s an AFL-CIO ad I’ve seen attacking Bush that is primarily about NASA. They intercut Bush talking about funding NASA with regular Americans talking about how they need jobs. Apparently the people at the AFL-CIO think that “Americans need jobs, so fire all the people at NASA” is a good point.
Here is another one for the Democrats:
Minorities deserve equal access to the best K-12 education this country has to offer, but only if it is a school filled with our union cronies.
You did not title the list “20 Things You Have to Believe to Be George W. Bush;” rather, you ascribed the listed beliefs to all Republicans.
Furthermore, this defense is utter bullshit. Half that list can’t be ascribed to George W. Bush personally. I’d love to see your citation for Dubya advocating creationism, or saying that Saddam was a “good guy” (as opposed to a realpolitik ally) in the eighties, or his interest in Hillary’s cattle trades, etc, etc, etc.
Did Bush even endorse Schwarzenegger? And if he did, why is that inconsistent with saying promiscuous group sex is bad? It isn’t like Arnie is still holding orgies over at the Shriver beach house.
And even on those things that do apply to Bush – well, some inconsistencies are again there because it’s a big party and there are lots of competing factions, and the leader of the party must make sometimes-contradictoriy concessions to each of them. That’s just practical politics, and all but the most unblinking ideological purists understand its necessity.[/quote]
Boy, aren’t we ahumorous.
[quote=“Jason_McCullough1”]
Boy, aren’t we ahumorous.[/quote]
No kidding. Brad Grenz’s entry was much better than Damien’s. Please try to get into the spirit of things, Mr. Falgoust.
Sorry, but political glurge like this just plain stops being amusing after it’s 10,000th incarnation or so. It’s like seeing the millionth variation of “why beer is better than women.” After a while, it just gets fucking annoying.
Having said that, let me contradict myself by saying Uncle Larry’s perjury entry did make me chuckle.
Oh, what the hell. My lame attempt:
Rigid ideological litmus tests should not be imposed when appointing judicial candidates because this politicizes the judiciary; however, the only good judicial candidate is a stalwartly pro-choice candidate.
I know, I suck.
It… uh… it kinda lacks a certain “zing”. How about “Politics shouldn’t matter for judicial appointees, so long as they’re pro-choice.”?