Good Joke

Subject: Robotic Bartender

A salesman was trying to convince the owner of a popular bar to install the new Robotic Bartender he was selling. So, he set it up behind the bar for a demonstration.

A guy came in and ordered a drink and as the robot served him, he asked him, "What's your IQ"?

The man replied, "It's 145".

So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, investments, world trade, and so on.

The bar owner listened intently and thought, "This is really cool".

Another guy came in for a drink and again the robot asked the question, "What's your IQ?"

The man responded, "100."

So the robot started talking about the football, baseball and so on.

The bar owner thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool".

A third guy came in to the bar. As with the others, the robot asked him,

"What's your IQ?"

The man replied, "70".

The robot then said, "So, what's the Democratic Party up to these days?"

Would the moderator plese move this to the politics board.Thanks

>Would the moderator plese move this to the politics

>board.Thanks

Why ask to have it moved - It's just a joke, stupid!

It's meant to be funny and give us a chuckle. If it's in the "politics board" fewer will see it. Are your shorts too tight today?

fukamarine

>

IT IS JUST A POLITICAL JOKE ,and you are right-it is stupid.Just like the polital joke serving as "our" president select.

Now buzz off dearie.

>IT IS JUST A POLITICAL JOKE ,and you are right-it is

>stupid.Just like the polital joke serving as "our" president

>select.

>Now buzz off dearie.

Speaking of the double digit IQers - how are you democrats doin'

"dearie"

fukamarine

>IT IS JUST A POLITICAL JOKE ,and you are right-it is

>stupid.Just like the polital joke serving as "our" president

>select.

Is there really anything more obvious in the world than the fact that, had the punchline in the original post been "How's the Republican Party doing these days," this FatPigInPasadena - whoops, I mean "BigGuyInPasadena" - would have been chiming in with charteristically brilliant posts such as "LOL!!!! Good one!!!" and "HA. you tell em."

Instead, because the joke ridiculed his party, he put his hands on his hips, pursed his lips, and demanded that the joke be suppressed by being moved to a section where few people would see it. Gosh, why would anyone think that liberals are humorless angry grandmothers who can't stand dissent?

That joke was hilarious, Dick! I would just add on a couple lines to cater it to Hooboy's forum:

<<And the next guy came in and the robot said, "What's your IQ" and the guy said "60" and the robot said: "What did you think of the latest BewareOfNick post?"

And the next guy came in and the robot said, "What's your IQ" and the guy said "40" and the robot said: "Nice to finally meet you, TaylorKY.">>

Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

It couldn't be the heartless neo-conservative imbeciles who's only way of winning an argument is to SCREAM THE LOUDEST. Especially as they don't give a shit that the pap they regurgitate is nothing but a pack of lies... Al Queda and refined plutonium in Iraq, a 'middle class' tax cut that'll fix the economy right up, compassionate conservatism, leave no child behind, etc, etc, etc... ad nauseum.

The Democratic party (especially those within it responsible for Gore/Liberman's I agree, I agree, I agree platform in '00) can go fuck itself, but us progressives aren't the room-temperature IQ geniuses building a structural budget deficit that if unchanged will eventually lead to god knows what, class civil war, national insolvency 10 times worse then California's? I'd vote for the Gore of that MoveOn transcript in a second, if I could be assured it was how he really felt.

Though now that I think about it, neo-conservatives and centrist 'democrats' were pretty truthful with 'leave no child behind'. If you under-fund, completely de-secularize, and otherwise thoroughly fuck up the educational system to the point that no child can advance, they're right, none would be 'left behind'. Finally a Bush promise that isn't entirely bullshit!

Figures that Doug/FFF wouldn't get the joke. The reason that the bartender asked the low IQ guy How's the Democratic Party is because he knew he was dealing with a mindless Reborglican and that's all the guy would want to do is bitch about the Democrats. Either that or he could have said, "So, who are you posting as today, FFF?"

RE: Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

The Democratic party (especially those within it responsible

>for Gore/Liberman's I agree, I agree, I agree platform in '00)

>can go fuck itself, but us progressives aren't the

>room-temperature IQ geniuses building a structural budget

>deficit that if unchanged will eventually lead to god knows

>what, class civil war, national insolvency 10 times worse then

>California's? I'd vote for the Gore of that MoveOn transcript

>in a second, if I could be assured it was how he really felt.

When is the last time one of "us progressives" won a national election? How did George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, et al. fare?

How does it feel to ascribe to a political ideology which is third in line for being universally reviled, right behind fascism and communism (your close cousin)?

And how does it feel to ascribe to a political ideology which only 1-2% of your fellow citizens support? Must be very lonely. What do you do to battle your hopelessness?

Who are you supporting for President this year? Dennis Kucinich? Maxine Waters?

Do tell.

>Figures that Doug/FFF wouldn't get the joke. The reason that

>the bartender asked the low IQ guy How's the Democratic Party

>is because he knew he was dealing with a mindless Reborglican

>and that's all the guy would want to do is bitch about the

>Democrats.

I was going to suggest that we ask the original poster if he intended to convey the joke I heard or the one that your "brain" picked up, but you are so wrong so often - not to mention so stupid - that proving you wrong yet again is not even fun anymore.

Either that or he could have said, "So, who are

>you posting as today, FFF?"

Please let me know the maximum amount you're willing to bet about whether I ever posted here as Fin Fang Foom. Sorry, cant' hear you?

RE: Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

>When is the last time one of "us progressives" won a national

>election? How did George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael

>Dukakis, et al. fare?

I’ll be the first to admit that some of the hysterical screeching and unbelievably extreme viewpoints that come out of SOME liberals are enough to make me question my party affiliation. And I’ll also admit that it would be nice to be in a political majority that is frequently winning elections. However, do you really think people should compromise their beliefs to jump on a bandwagon – just so they can be part of the winning side? Is that how you choose your beliefs?

>And how does it feel to ascribe to a political ideology which

>only 1-2% of your fellow citizens support? Must be very

>lonely. What do you do to battle your hopelessness?

That has got to be a bullshit statistic. I don’t know what the actual number is – and would never throw one out as if I did – but that one has got to be utter bullshit.

You seem to have such definite opinions. It’s interesting that you place so much emphasis on being in the majority. Will your beliefs be less valid when the pendulum swings?

RE: Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

That's all they have, being shrill, loud, and insulting. Fine points of debate and logic? Bah! And why should his statistics need to be accurate when the commander in chief can lie to congress and the nation while performing one of the few duties he's constitutionally required to do?!

1-2%?? Right out of his ass, obviously. Nader got 2-3%, over 5% in some places, and he's about the most extreme. Not to mention, this is VOTES, many of his issues are actually supported by the majority of Americans, such as corporate responsibility...

But he paints all of us with Nader, so may we assume all republicans are much like Pat Buchanan?

Take a close look at Howard Dean. A very well respected governor who has done so much for education, health care and gay rights in his state while being far more fiscally conservative then Bush II. We see through the "right's" fits of hysterics about Dean, how they pray he'll be the candidate and have donated money to him. They're scared shitless somebody that actually does stand for what the real majority of Americans believe in will come up against their baboon as the economy collapses, the world hates us, and we've failed to accomplish our primary mission in both of the wars he's "lead" us on!

I'll see your bet and raise you twenty. And the joke, as usual, was on you.

RE: Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

>I’ll be the first to admit that some of the hysterical

>screeching and unbelievably extreme viewpoints that come out

>of SOME liberals are enough to make me question my party

>affiliation.

And yet, apparently, you don't think that these most extreme voices in your party are fairly attributable to the party itself. Do you apply that same consideration to Republicans, i.e., do you recognize that its most extreme voices are not fairly attributable to the party itself?

Also, I believe that you failed to understand that the poster to whom I responded is a perfect example of one of theose "hysterical screeching and unbelievably extreme" people in your party. After all, he said that the Democratic Party "can go fuck itself" on the ground that it was insufficiently liberal in 2000 under Gore. That is the Naderite viewpoint, which attracted approximately 1-2% of the vote in the last election.

>And I’ll also admit that it would be nice to be

>in a political majority that is frequently winning elections.

>However, do you really think people should compromise their

>beliefs to jump on a bandwagon – just so they can be part of

>the winning side? Is that how you choose your beliefs?

No. I believe that if you adhere to a particular view, you should continue to so adhere even if you're the only person on the planet who thinks that way.

But we were discussing electoral politics, where the goal is to forge coalitions of majorities in order to succeed. For someone such as this James person to complain bitterly about Bush -- even when he refuses to support the Democrats on the grounds that they are not ideologically pure enough, thereby, in essence, helping Bush to win -- is the height of irrationality and self-defeatism.

The point is not that he should change his views because he's in the minority. The point is that in electoral politics, stomping your feet and refusing to support anyone who doesn't mirror your specific ideological is idiotic, pointless, and childish -- particularly when, as is true for James, your specific ideology is supported by a tiny minority.

>>And how does it feel to ascribe to a political ideology

>which

>>only 1-2% of your fellow citizens support? Must be very

>>lonely. What do you do to battle your hopelessness?

>

>That has got to be a bullshit statistic. I don’t know what

>the actual number is – and would never throw one out as if I

>did – but that one has got to be utter bullshit.

See above. His ideology is that the Democrats in 2000 under Gore weren't sufficiently liberal enough to be worth supporting over Bush. As I said, that is the Naderite view, which attracted approximately 1-2% of the vote. Given that only a small percentage of the voting public bothered to vote, and that it is likely that Naderites were more likely to vote than the average person, the percentage I cited as those supporting James' political views probably, if it's inaccurate at all, is inaccurately high.

>You seem to have such definite opinions. It’s interesting

>that you place so much emphasis on being in the majority.

>Will your beliefs be less valid when the pendulum swings?

Most of my views are not held by the majority, and I certainly won't change them for that reason. Nonetheless, in electoral politics, one cannot have perfect adherence to one's views with any politician. Our democracy is actually predicated on that premise.

As I see it, someone who refuses to suppor the Democrats on ideological ground has no business complaining about Bush - people like James are the ones who are most resopnsible for his triumph.

>I'll see your bet and raise you twenty. And the joke, as

>usual, was on you.

Can you hear me now?

>>I'll see your bet and raise you twenty. And the joke, as

>>usual, was on you.

>

>Can you hear me now?

I'll be you $1,000 that I never posted here as Fin Fang Foom. If you agree, we will devise a method we both agree to for determining who is right beyond doubt.

Deal?

RE: Yeah, the liberals are the problem!

>And yet, apparently, you don't think that these most extreme

>voices in your party are fairly attributable to the party

>itself. Do you apply that same consideration to Republicans,

>i.e., do you recognize that its most extreme voices are not

>fairly attributable to the party itself?

Of course I do. You raise the point below, and I agree, that it is unlikely that anyone is going to align perfectly to any party platform. (At least anyone who bothers to think for himself and doesn’t just accept spoon-fed dogma.) There is a spectrum of beliefs within both parties with fringe elements on the right and left of each.

I think where we fundamentally disagree is on the influence those extreme elements have on the majority of their party and, more importantly, their party leadership. I believe the GOP is greatly influenced by the radical right and it is a very significant percentage of the membership. I think this differs dramatically in the Democratic Party, where according to the statistics you provided, the radical left Naderites constitute only 1-2%.

>But we were discussing electoral politics, where the goal is

>to forge coalitions of majorities in order to succeed. For

>someone such as this James person to complain bitterly about

>Bush -- even when he refuses to support the Democrats on the

>grounds that they are not ideologically pure enough, thereby,

>in essence, helping Bush to win -- is the height of

>irrationality and self-defeatism.

I understand your point. I don’t expect perfect alignment with the entire Democratic Party, but I’m confident that it is the best choice for me given there are only two meaningful alternatives. I fully appreciate the folly of not supporting a Democrat when the only possible result is an advantage given to the Republican.

>Most of my views are not held by the majority, and I certainly

>won't change them for that reason. Nonetheless, in electoral

>politics, one cannot have perfect adherence to one's views

>with any politician. Our democracy is actually predicated on

>that premise.

I actually don’t know where I fall within the spectrum. I’m pro-choice, anti-death penalty and pro-gun control. I do not believe in an unrestrained free market economy and I think that business should be more regulated than it is today – especially corporations.

I believe in an economic safety net that catches people when they can’t get their act together or even if they are just lazy. I believe in a reasonable redistribution of wealth via graduated tax rates so that those who can pay more do pay more. I believe that dividends – or any other income that is generated from wealth – should be heavily taxed.

I believe it is the government’s duty to find a way to make universal health care a reality – even if it means increasing taxes.

Where does that put me on the spectrum? All the way to Naderite?

Yep, skip the points you can't argue and LIE.

I love being discussed in the third person. When will we make neo-cons understand that REPEATING a LIE again and AGAIN does NOT make it true???

Example, Nader's "1-2%".

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

*2.74* Further, I am not currently a 'Naderite'. I think he's made quite a few mistakes, and is missing a great chance to run within the party and further affect the mainstream this year. But dismiss us all with him, by all means.

At the time I didn't see any difference in the public faces of Bush/Gore, but nobody had any idea what an ass Bush would become (though we had some idea as we watched him and his brother fix the election... don't worry about those darkies, but you absolutely must count these *un-dated* military votes...). Actually, ass is too kind, as the 2001 Noble Prize winner for economics said, "What we have here is a form of looting.".

I think even actual, good-hearted, real compassionate conservatives (both of them) are disheartened by the shameless piracy in the interests of big business and the rich by the Bush administration, and I will not be surprised when they drop the 'flight suit in chief' (how a man that was AWOL for the last year+ of his easy rich-boy reservist duty during Vietnam and has slashed veterans benefits can be thought of as a great leader for the military is beyond me, but I'm not going to start down that road). They will drop the inarticulate greedy chimp for a *responsible* leader such as Dean.

The way we stop this runaway train is to get the real majority off their asses, stuff some facts into their heads, and get them to vote for how they really feel. Can we do it with crap like Faux News being considered mainstream (and Bush set to veto the results of the *massive* grass-roots campaign to repeal FCC changes that soley benefit Fox's Murdock and the like) and Kobe Bryant's ass-fuck being far more important in the news cycle then our once supposedly imminent death by weapons of mass destruction? I really don't know, but it seems much more likely with a candidate that STANDS UP for SOMETHING, ANYTHING, unlike Gore 2000. I think if we could get Dean through the primary (got to change my registration to Democrat so I can vote...) Bush will loose 2004 all for himself. People will ask why am I still unemployed, why isn't anybody from Enron in jail, why are we attacking yet another country and whatever happened to the hunt for Hussien... Much like his father really...

Then again his brother was re-elected, and so was that Harris bitch, after the most obvious (and I think far more sinister) vote fraud in 20 years... so there may very well not be any hope. But giving up and accepting the tyranny of the 'religious right' minority isn't in me.