Define a righty...

...and remember lefties, this is your chance to tell them what you really think! ;)

The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

My score was 2 out of 10. :)

Republican National Convention Schedule

New York, NY

6:00 PM Opening Prayer, led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell
6:30 PM Pledge of Allegiance
6:35 PM Burning of Bill of Rights (excluding 2nd amendment)
6:45 PM Salute to the Coalition of the Willing
6:46 PM Seminar #1: Getting your kid a military deferment
7:30 PM First Presidential Beer Bong
7:35 PM Serve Freedom Fries
7:40 PM EPA Address #1: Mercury, it's what's for dinner
8:00 PM Vote on which country to invade next
8:10 PM Call EMTs to revive Rush Limbaugh
8:15 PM John Ashcroft Lecture: The Homos are after your children
8:30 PM Roundtable discussion on reproductive rights (MEN only)
8:50 PM Seminar #2: Corporations: the government of the future
9:00 PM Condi Rice sings "I Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man"
9:05 PM Second Presidential Beer Bong
9:10 PM EPA Address #2 Trees: the real cause of forest fires
9:30 PM Break for secret meetings
10:00 PM Second prayer, led by Cal Thomas
10:15 PM Lecture by Karl Rove: Doublespeak made easy
10:30 PM Rumsfeld demonstration: How to squint and talk macho
10:35 PM Bush demonstration of trademark deer-in-headlights stare
10:40 PM John Ashcroft demonstrates new mandatory Kevlar chastity belt
10:45 PM Clarence Thomas reads list of black Republicans
10:46 PM Third Presidential Beer Bong
10:50 PM Seminar #3: Education: a drain on our nation's economy
11:10 PM Hilary Clinton Pinata
11:20 PM Second John Ashcroft Lecture: Evolutionists: the dangerous new cult
11:30 PM Call EMTs to revive Rush Limbaugh again
11:35 PM Blame Clinton
11:40 PM Laura serves milk and cookies
11:50 PM Closing Prayer, led by Jesus Himself
12:00 AM Nomination of George W. Bush as Holy Supreme Planetary Overlord

Fun Extra Activities for those attending session above:

Global National Roulette - Rumsfeld spins the wheel to see which nation will be the next one "made safe for democracy."

Dealing with the poverty issue: Dick Cheney gets to kill as many people below the poverty line as he can in one hour. Those who die will be accused of not following proper hunter safety rules.

Bonfire on the White House lawn: All copies of the Constitution will be thrown into the flames ans Republican members of Congress will dance around it dressed like Iraqi's and giving war whoops.

Halliburten Door Prize: The winner gets to charge the US military $200/gal for gas in Iraq and keep the proceeds for one entire year.

Army night in the DC ghetto: Watch as all young black males between the ages of 18 and 30 are rounded up at gun point and given the choice of joining the army or facing the firing sqad.

Laura Bush and Connie Rice mud wrestling match. The winner gets to keep her man and the loser has to go to bed with Jeb Bush.

Homeland Security surprise arrests. The names of liberals will be put into a hat and drawn at random. Those names picked get surprise 3:00am visits by Homeland Security, declared unlawful enemy aliens and a free trip to Cuba for life.

7:35 PM Serve Freedom Fries
:lol:

...

"Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs."

Hate is a little strong...I like "are disgusted with" better. :p

"Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs"

*chuckles*
Interesting that 1 out of 10 and 0 out of 10 are identical.

I thought the test would offer some sort of insight, but it just tells you what you already knew when you made your selections. Kinda pointless.

Interesting that 1 out of 10 and 0 out of 10 are identical.

Yes..you would think it would be a little lighter...perhaps leave out "utterly" before "incompetent" or something.

I got a 0 as well.

Aliantha wrote:

The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

My score was 2 out of 10. :)

Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.

That is so accurate!

Your score is 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a True Believer in President Bush. Your loyalty and devotion to him is matched only by your desire to see his liberal detractors locked away and declared enemy combatants. Given the chance, you'd gladly vote Bush a third term, and if America were so blessed, you'd be perfectly content if Bush were president for life.

I didn't even select the "Right" answers for each of the questions, However, I did choose "He won, get over it" and "It was Clinton's Fault"

It goes down the right side of your slacks.

Aliantha wrote:

The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

My score was 2 out of 10. :)

You did better than I. ;)

Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.

Wow, that's amazing... they hit the nail right on the head.

Your score is 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. You think Bush has some redeeming attributes, but generally speaking you are not a fan. You may have supported him at one point, but now you have misgivings about the job he has done as president. You'll be glad to see him leave the White House, and just hope he's not succeeded by someone worse.

Bango, right on target. Some of the questions lumped you into either the seething bush haters group or the dim bulb 'waiting for the rapture' group' though.:neutral:

9th Engineer wrote:

Bango, right on target. Some of the questions lumped you into either the seething bush haters group or the dim bulb 'waiting for the rapture' group' though.:neutral:

I got a 2 out of 10. The one question I answered yes on was a question on family values, which I support. Of course, the question did not address the difference between supporting family values and imposing them through legislation and acting like a complete jackass.

I have come to the conclusion that righties are defined by the fact that they invariably live their lives under the delusion that everything they do is right. Their way of thinking leaves no room for personal growth or the possibility that there could be a better way to live. It leaves no room for compassion or the likelihood that at some time in their lives, they will require aid because for some reason out of their control, they've found themselves in a hole.

Lefties live under no such delusions. They realize we live in an imperfect world and as such, prefer to leave the door open to suggestions which may improve the world we live in for no better reason than that there can be a better way to live.

Aliantha, I'd say you don't know any conservatives: this theory you've constructed doesn't describe me or any conservatives I know (who run rather to libertarians rather than authoritarians anyway).

The main thing about conservatives is they recognize the Welfare State as an expensive failure that makes the cost of employment too great for an employer to bear. They count it among the unendurable and unnecessary intrusions of state power to distort an economy until, malformed beyond sustaining, it collapses. Thus, they reject socialism and all its works.

It is not right to say they have no room for compassion, as the Left would have it. Conservatives' style of compassion, though, is of the latter clauses in the "give a man a fish..." aphorism. Alms, they reckon, are not a cure for the problem. Creating an ability, that's their idea of the ticket. Conservatives understand the idea of creating wealth, and embrace it. Leftists never did, not deep down. Lip-service should be given only lip-service's due.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Teach a man to make fishnets and he gets to work sitting down, under a roof, and other people bring him fish, in trade."

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Teach a man to make fishnets and he gets to work sitting down, under a roof, and other people bring him fish, in trade."

And if the sap stupid enough to still be fishing gets injured getting fish for the net weaver, fuck him. There's always someone else who can fish in his place.

ehhh... Just give it time. Eventually a tsunami will come along and the whole problem will be solved without anyone so much as raising a finger.

Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.

Wow...even I didn't know I hated him that much.

I know I get a "0" without even bothering to do the quiz.

I got a 1

Happy Monkey wrote:

And if the sap stupid enough to still be fishing gets injured getting fish for the net weaver, fuck him. There's always someone else who can fish in his place.

You're young, aren't you, HM? Trying a little too hard is an occupational hazard, and the only cure is the wisdom maturity brings, and maturity is only bought with time. One thing you'd do well to understand is that compassion is a very old-fashioned virtue. For instance, did you know you can find it all through the Bible -- lauded as a good thing, and enjoined upon all persons -- both Old Testament and New?

The so-called "progressives" did not invent compassion: instead, they've tried to make it compulsory, and have thus given it all the good name of a first-century middle-eastern tax collector. Those guys weren't IRS men, but strongarm men for the Roman Imperium. They worked on commission, in essence, taking for themselves a percentage of what they took in.

The price of this approach to what is advertised as being compassionate is too high: what the "progressives" truly progress at the end of the day is the power of the State. Regressing the power of the State instead leads to greater freedom generally, and greater freedom is the surest recipe for prosperity there is.

Whattaya know, I aced the test with 10 of 10.

As a joke, I suppose this is all right:

"Your score is 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a True Believer in President Bush. Your loyalty and devotion to him is matched only by your desire to see his liberal detractors locked away and declared enemy combatants. Given the chance, you'd gladly vote Bush a third term, and if America were so blessed, you'd be perfectly content if Bush were president for life."

But were it construed as a serious remark, a good half of it is incorrect.

The crazier of the detractors, though, do skirt treason, by Constitutional definition. Just look at John Kerry, for the most respectable of an extremely bad lot: always, always the man ends up in the tank for America's foes: Daniel Ortega, Saddam Hussein, not one single weapon for American forces ever ever... there's the standard-bearer of the anti-Republicans. What a low character.

10 out of 10!! Bwahahahahaaaaa... This can't be real, UG. Now I know, you're an imposter, not even Bush himself would get 10 out of 10. ROTFLMAO, this is soooo funny....

BTW Daniel Ortega ain't not what we was before. I believe he found God and became a TV pastor. Like Bush a newborn Christian. And Ortega a US foe? Did he attack or threatened to attack the US and A?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Aliantha, I'd say you don't know any conservatives: this theory you've constructed doesn't describe me or any conservatives I know (who run rather to libertarians rather than authoritarians anyway).

The main thing about conservatives is they recognize the Welfare State as an expensive failure that makes the cost of employment too great for an employer to bear. They count it among the unendurable and unnecessary intrusions of state power to distort an economy until, malformed beyond sustaining, it collapses. Thus, they reject socialism and all its works.

It is not right to say they have no room for compassion, as the Left would have it. Conservatives' style of compassion, though, is of the latter clauses in the "give a man a fish..." aphorism. Alms, they reckon, are not a cure for the problem. Creating an ability, that's their idea of the ticket. Conservatives understand the idea of creating wealth, and embrace it. Leftists never did, not deep down. Lip-service should be given only lip-service's due.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Teach a man to make fishnets and he gets to work sitting down, under a roof, and other people bring him fish, in trade."

There's no one who would argue the logic of your fish quote. We've heard it plenty of times before. The biggest problem with this thought is that things don't always go according to plan, and not everyone can fix things by themselves.

That's why there are social services. The state benefits from the citizens, so in return, the citizens are entitled to benefit from the state. The state takes taxes from the citizens. Most citizens do this because they recognize that the state needs a contribution from all citizens to provide services for the citizens.

If a citizen doesn't benefit from the state, then the citizen will possibly leave.

Now ask yourself, what countries do most immigrants come from, and why are they comming to your state? The answer is invariably because the state will help them more than in their country of birth.

This is good and bad of course. For one thing, you have the issue of illegal immigration etc. Refugees. Political asylum seekers. The list goes on.

You wouldn't have that problem if 'the state' didn't offer social services. That'd be a plus, however, if a country is pretty much founded on immigration, then I wonder where that leaves you in the end?

You can't have it both ways i don't think.

sometimes i honestly think UG is really Radar just screwing with us.

Either Radar or tw...

Aliantha wrote:

You wouldn't have that problem if 'the state' didn't offer social services. That'd be a plus, however, if a country is pretty much founded on immigration, then I wonder where that leaves you in the end?

You can't have it both ways i don't think.

Which is why there's no worthwhile national economy that is just purely one thing, without any admixture, sprinkling, or soupcon of another. (I do hope they may someday fix this board's invariable habit of blowing a post right up if you try keying in a special character via ASCII coding with the right-hand keypad. Then I could have my cedilla.)

Hippikos wrote:

10 out of 10!! Bwahahahahaaaaa... This can't be real, UG. Now I know, you're an imposter, not even Bush himself would get 10 out of 10. ROTFLMAO, this is soooo funny....

BTW Daniel Ortega ain't not what we was before. I believe he found God and became a TV pastor. Like Bush a newborn Christian. And Ortega a US foe? Did he attack or threatened to attack the US and A?

Quite real, I assure you, Hippikos. If you're not just funning me, then I'd suggest you get yourself a more expansive set of paradigms. You can't cope with or understand the likes of me otherwise.

Let's see, there were the elementary-school textbooks adding revolutionary fighters to grenades; there was the new national anthem literally calling the U.S. "the enemy of mankind." There was the hurry-up-and-attack try at exporting a Sandinista revolution to neighboring El Salvador. We helped, without the assistance John Kerry should by rights have rendered, to remove the Sandinistas before they became more than a national problem. I accept that Sandinista Nicaragua was an enemy, and a Soviet client state.

It was also totally incompetently run. They couldn't keep the lights on in Managua. You could have run the place better yourself, as could I.

Give 'em their due, Communists were well aware the United States is not only their antithesis, but the one operation that can completely destroy collectivist totalitarianism, and invalidate that philosophy merely by existing. Communism anywhere must acknowledge the greatest capitalist success story as its greatest enemy in the profoundest sense.

I only expect an aged Daniel Ortega to screw things up in Nicaragua again, but what's different is he has fewer opportunities -- I hope -- for that now. I haven't heard that he's been spending the last twenty years learning better.