The Quote Of The Day

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Quote Of The Day

  1. Scio, Scio says:

    I hope he does pardon Libby. but you know he can't win at this point. Nothing he does will suffice to rebuild support among conservatives or change minds among liberals. In that case, my action would be to spare an old man some jailtime and let him retire.

  2. TedWest says:

    I agree with you, but I see it a little differently. This isn't about Libby, it's about Bush. Every time he has encountered a circumstance that called for boldness and courage, he's not exercised either, unless one sees the "surge" as courageous? I see it as just the opposite.
    Didn't you find it fantastic that a journalist became jury foreman, and that that same guy asked, "Where is Rove/?" He could have asked, "What are we doing here when there was no crime to investigate?" Or he could and should have asked, "Where is Armitage?"
    Bush should have stepped forward that day and said, "Enough is enough." He then should have detailed why – that Fitzgerald was a rogue prosecutor. that there was no crime. and that in any event, no one in his administration was responsible. He should have acknowledged his mistake in appointing Fitzgerald, and he should have acknowledged the liberal and media guerrilla war on Republicans and conservatives.
    To do otherwise passes on the job of finally confronting it to someone else – i.e. someone with courage.

  3. A VOICE says:

    Just like in the Nixon era, the Republican politicos were able to cover up the crime, but in doing so they got caught in the criminal conspiracy. It was the cover-up that eventually brought down those in the Watergate scandal that had violated their oath of office and abused power.

    Little has changed with right-wing Republicans; they would like to dishonestly sweep the criminal outing of a CIA agent under the rug.

  4. TedWest says:

    I thought I'd had you pegged, but I see now that I'm only just starting to realize just how big of an idiot you actually are.

  5. Then shouldn't the CEO of Enron have gotten a pardon as well?

  6. A VOICE says:

    “just starting to realize”

    Should one be flattered or insulted if another person is slow to recognize idiocy? “Tis enough to negate one’s concern about such a person’s evaluation.

  7. TedWest says:

    It's not bad enough that you're a dope, you insist on showcasing it?
    I didn't say I was slow to recognize that you're a idiot, I indicated surprise at the scope…
    So now you've left me wondering, which came first, the lack of comprehension or the idiocy?

  8. TedWest says:

    Armpit, it's not enough for you entities that sorta resemble actual people to confine your stupidity to your own sites? It doesn't rub off you know, and it's not catching, it just makes rational people want to put you out of our misery.

  9. but it is rational, if the argument of pardoning Libby is simply because he's old….and it was an honest question, didn't mean to be irrational.

  10. TedWest says:

    I'm sure almost every irrational person was acting in good faith and "didn't mean to be irrational."

    The problem is that we live in an age when it's so easy to be, or mistaken for same, and unlike days gone by, society defends rather than ridicules fools.
    But I still prefer the latter.
    That's because there was a study a few years back that really frosted me. It found that not only do stupid people not know they are stupid, they actually think they are smarter than smart people.
    And of course the self-esteem craze hasn't helped that one bit. As a result, people not only feel confident in expressing any opinion, idea, or…. analogy no matter how absurd, they actually seem to think they are depriving society if they withhold it.
    But all opinions are not created equal.
    That said, I don't want you to assume that I intended for any particular part of what I just to apply to you.
    Everyone says stupid stuff from time to time, and you are obviously sincere and gentlemanly, so it's entirely possible that I overreacted. I mean, in light of Voice's inanities, can you blame me?
    So I'd like to be equally sincere in pointing out where you went astray so perhaps we can wipe the slate clean and start anew.
    Now if I understand you correctly your comment resulted from a very narrow line of reasoning in which you concluded that Scio's only criterion was that both Libby and Lay are/were old, and so if the President were to only take that one factor into account, he should pardon both?
    But then he should also pardon thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of others as well, right?
    And that establishes how preposterous Scio's opinion was, and you and I owe it to him to mock him indefinitely.
    But as with Voicey's ill-considered observation, you appear to have failed to realized the complexity of Scio's comment, a common occurrence among liberals (though I apologize for such a horrible insult if you're not) who seek to avoid complexities since they interfere with the conclusions they want to reach.
    But getting back to Scio…
    First off, he was saying what HE would do. He can only suggest that to the President, and I'm sure he will when they next meet.
    And the bigger part of what you missed is because that silly Scio didn't have the courtesy to post every single point he took into account in arriving at his proposal, so you and I don't know with 100% certainty that we'd agree or not.
    Me, I chose to agree because I think I know the line of reasoning he employed. But even if I don't, simple logic, fairness, and even justice would demand that Bush do what Scio would do.
    That's not to say Bush will, since to date, he's skillfully avoided much that is logical and right.
    You, on the other hand, took the "clean slate" approach in choosing to assume that "old" was the sole condition, as in first there was no reason to pardon Libby, then it was discovered that he was old, and thus he should be put out to pasture – or perhaps more accurately, allowed out to pasture… or maybe simply pasteurized?
    OK, but I must say that not only can such simplistic reasoning (if we can all it that) be dangerous, it can lead people to speculate as to how one is able to dress himself.
    So if nothing else, here's what I hope you take away from this: anyone can be as stupid as he wants to be. He can be as illogical and partisan as his ill-formed view of reality allows, which is to say, as much as his friends, family, and employer, to name a few, can stand. And even more than that if he's a loner.
    But if he brings it -here- it's a problem, and if he is unable to see the error in his thinking when it's brought to his attention, and then if he gets all militant about it or without mentioning Voice by name, he takes the passive-aggressive route in defense of his stupidity… well, there's gonna be trouble,because I don't care who subscribes to what ideology, I only care about what's logical and true. Oh, and what's good for American-Americans.
    An I expect as much from others when they come here. I mean you don't see me arguing with idiots on their sites, do you?
    OK, stop the browbeating, I admit I did it once and it didn't work out, so we split up by mutual agreement, but we remain friends.
    As long as I never see him again..
    So now, getting back to you, I have to say that since I also look at things from a comedic standpoint, when I first read your original comment, I thought there was a slight possibility that you may have been trying to make a joke – a bad one, but a joke nonetheless. I mean, there's a lot of that going around lately, Kerry, Coulter, Southern Fried Hillary…
    So if I were your consultant rather than your host – and judge, I'd advise you to go with the botched joke plea.
    And resolve not to repeat it.
    I'll let you off with community service, if you promise not to do it here.
    And with warm regards, I remain,

  11. A VOICE says:

    Decider in Chief Bush—the Typhoid Mary of culturopathy—can bring some new condition into existence by doing no more than just saying that it is so. If that proclaimed is not readily apparent and becomes broadly doubted—like democracy or progress in Iraq—he disregards his previous claim (mission accomplished) and just repeats it anew in different words. But the poor chap is now losing ground with some of his former right-wing supporters. So they now preoccupy themselves with questions of idiocy—perchance it is better to be preoccupied that occupied with idiocy?

  12. X says:

    This needs to be the Quote of the Day:That's because there was a study a few years back that really frosted me. It found that not only do stupid people not know they are stupid, they actually think they are smarter than smart people. Thanks, Ted.

  13. A VOICE says:

    How bright would one be if they had a limited amount of intellectual capacity and use some of it to figure out that they were stupid? Would new understanding make them smarter than they were before they had done the figuring? If they had become smarter because they realized they were stupid, could they turn more stupid into smart?

    I wonder what Forrest Gump’s mother would say about this–is she the one that did that study that has been quoted?

  14. TedWest says:

    No need to thank me, if I can help just one idiot like yourself understand and accept who he is, that's thanks enough.
    But you do have a ways to go: see, spending time reading someone you consider to be of lesser intelligence is not too intelligent in itself, but then doing it for the purpose of finding a quote to confirm your opinion, and once having found it, instead of just moving on, you take still more time, even if it is only a drive-by, to post the quote along with a brilliant rejoinder (I'm talking by stupid people standards).. well, let's just say that one has to give strong consideration to the idea that you were one of the subjects in the study.

  15. TedWest says:

    The prosecution rests.
    And advises that you not act as your own defense lawyer.

  16. X says:

    Priceless. Keep it coming.

  17. Scio, Scio says:

    I'm flattered that you spent so much time discussing my brief comment.
    Also, I think that being mocked is awesome. It means people
    actually listened to you enough to poke holes in your statements…rock
    I post old college papers on my blog from time to time and would be
    ecstatic if you found time to criticize my conclusions. I
    received high marks on them but developed a paranoia about grade

  18. TedWest says:

    I suppose I should be flattered, but I've been at this for quite a while in a forum setting where the wackos were, if not any more rational, at least considerably more skilled than here.
    So I know from experience that you can't get through to anyone since they hold the views they want, not the ones that make sense.
    I would try to slow them down and get them to focus, thinking that if we could take it one step at a time, we might make some progress. No. They all have attention deficits, and when you think you have them in a logical dilemma, they'll change the subject. or provide a convenient non-sequitur as Armpit did you. So they know this much: logic is not their friend.
    I'd be happy to give you my opinion on a paper, and I am flattered that you'd want it.
    Warm regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s