8-Bit? More Like 2-Bit

(Atari 2600 Label Maker)

A Really Inconvienient Truth

Bush vs. Gore.

Predictable

So predictable.

Sorry, Lewis, not buying it. Not for a minute.

"I Was Only Kidding"
"Wierd Al" Yankovic

When I said that I'd be faithful
When I promised I'd be true
When I swore that I could never
Be with anyone but you
When I told you that I loved you
With those tender words I spoke
I was only kidding
Now, can't you take a joke?

When I said that I need you, baby
When I told you that I really care
When I said that I can't live without you
When I said I'd follow you anywhere
When I said you could always trust me
When I said I'd never leave you flat
Well, guess what? I was only kidding, baby
I can't belieeeeve you fell for that! You're so gullible...

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) You thought that was for real?
I was only kidding
Now I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but the fact remains
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Baby, baby, I was...
(I was) only kidding
Well, I guess I got you pretty good, now listen...

When I said that I love you, baby
From the very bottom of my heart
When I said that I miss you so badly
Every second we're apart
When I swore that you're just getting more and more
Beautiful every day
Well, I was only kidding, honey
What's the matter with you anyway? Let me tell you something

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) You understand, don't ya?
I was only kidding
Well, I guess it probably hurts you alot, but you gotta know
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Come on now, get a clue
I was only kidding
I really love you... NOT!

When I said you oughta marry
When I said that we should settle down
Well, I was pullin' your leg there, honey
I was just foolin' around
You see, I -- I never meant to upset you, darlin'
I never meant to hurt anyone
I was only kidding, baby
Why don't you just put down that gun?
Let's talk this over

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Whatch where you're pointing that thing
(I was only kidding)
Hey, I'm sorry if your heart is broke... you gotta realize
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Aww, yeah
I was only kidding
Now, honey, can't you take a joke?
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I didn't lie to you
I was only kidding... Yes indeed
(I was only kidding) Baby, baby, you know
(I was only kidding) Hey!

In order to Save the United States We Were Forced to Destroy It

It's unfortunate when someone you dislike is elected. In the last few years, the political left in this country has let it eat at their souls, their hatred of the selected-not-elected Emperor Chimpy Dubya McHitlerburton having grown to a category-5 storm of sheer incoherent rage, so much so that there are some who would be perfectly willing to stick the US Constitution in a shredder if it meant they could be rid of him.

Case in point, "noted raconteur and Bon Vivant" (I'm not making that up... it's in his author page) Martin Lewis has a solution for the world's Dubya problem... have General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "relieve the President of his command."

Yeah. That's right. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

Dear General Pace,

I just want to say, in opening, that I love your salsa.

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Wow, first paragraph out of the box and we've already hit the lefty standard, "quagmire." We're in for a fun ride, folks.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero

BABY KILLER!!!

Isn't it odd how leftists suddenly become so pro-military when they want something?

- who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

The President has that authority, Lewis. The Chairman serves at his discretion... it's part of the whole "civilian control of the military" thing that, as we shall see, you don't quite understand.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice.

He's allowed to do that. Comes with the job.

Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

"Ignoring advice" is not a violation of the law, Mr. Lewis.

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

Impossible. The duties and powers of the President of the United States are clearly spelled out in The Constitution (you might want to look it up, Lewis) and there is no provision for taking away one power while leaving others. The President is the Commander in Chief. Article II, section 2. If he's not Commander in Chief, he's not President. You don't get to mix-n-match Constitutional powers and duties. If the military removes him from this duty then they are removing themselves from civilian control, a completely unconstitutional and insanely bad idea.

But, hey, if it weren't for insanely bad ideas the left would have no ideas at all. Let's continue, shall we?

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

Why, it's as simple as that!!!

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

I'd prefer to invoke § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government. On you.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

The Posse Comitatus Act severely limits the power of the military to enforce laws upon civilians. They may police their own, but they have no, repeat no authority to arrest the President, a civilian.

Article 133 reads:

"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

President George W. Bush is not a commissioned officer, a cadet, or a midshipman. He (and I have to repeat this for the terminally stupid) is a civilian. As such, he doesn't fall under the very law you're quoting to try and get him arrested.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup.

Yes you are. The military has NO authority to remove the President, relieve his of any of his duties, or anything else of the sort. Saying that you're not advocating a coup is laughable when that's clearly what you are doing.

You are an honorable patriotic man.

Stop kissing his ass, Lewis. Assuming he ever reads your post (and I'd be surprised if someone hasn't passed it along to him as a joke), you're not going to impress him by telling him how wonderful he is. You're asking him to step beyond the bounds of his post, violate the Constitution and the law, just so you can be rid of a man who you're going to be rid of in about a year and a half anyway.

If I were General Pace, I'd be insulted. In fact, I'd be calling the Secret Service right now, and asking those humorless gents to have a word with you, and perhaps explain the laws of this land to you before subjecting you to them.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

That is exactly what you are doing. The power of the President as Commander-in-Chief can not be separated from his civilian duties... it IS one of his civilian duties, and as such is not answerable to anyone except Congress or the Supreme Court acting in their Constitutional roles. Congress may impeach, but the military may not simply decide they have had enough and arrest him, no matter how pissed off they may be.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

So the Pace has a legal responsibility to violate the law? Oy vey, I need an aspirin.

Look, pinhead, the UCMJ does not supersede the Constitution, except in the Bizarro World that you and most of the left lives in these days.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

Really? That's your criteria? If that was the case, the military could have relieved Bill Clinton of his power as CiC. Oh, and by the way, perjury is also a violation of the UCMJ, Mr. Lewis.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Jesus H. Cthulhu, do you even understand our laws? Short of a declared national emergency, the US military doesn't have the authority to place civilians under military arrest. If Congress impeached the President and he refused to step down upon being removed from office you might have a point, but barring that sort of profound national crisis what you're advocating is a military coup.

Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) All officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers shall have authority to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this Code and to apprehend persons subject to this Code who take part in the same.

(sigh) THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. He is a civilian. See that word? CIVILIAN. Someone needs to tattoo it onto your forehead in reverse letters so you can look it in a mirror every time you brush your teeth.

I understand that it would not be an action to undertake lightly.

Actually, if you believe that the United States military should arrest a President with only a few years left in his term simply because your hatred of the man has overwhelmed what little common sense you have, you "understand" nothing.

In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

But, hey, feel free to throw that all away and spit on the oath you took simply because a pencil-dicked leftist "bon vivant" wants you to.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

Goddamit, you don't show responsibility to your nation, your code of honor, and to the US Constitution by destroying them.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

You baby-murdering fascist killbot.

General Pace - please save the US.

By instituting a military coup and violating the Constitution. What's the old phrase... "in order to save the US we were forced to destroy it?"

Respectfully yours,

Martin Lewis

Do you TRULY want to go down this road, Mr. Lewis? Once you open that door there's no going back, ever. Every President will be subject to arrest and trial by the military should they decide to do so, based on the remarkably vague criteria you've established. Once the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has that power, it won't be given back. Ever. Rather than a military that is told what to do by the President, we will have a President that is told what to do by the military.

I'm a conservative, Mr. Lewis, but I'm not one of those screaming hate-filled Michael Savage "hang all o' them libruls" types. I've voted for Democrats on occasion (rarer and rarer occasions, granted), and have grown to loathe the Republican Party almost as much as I hate the Democrats. I want you to understand this clearly, because I'm going to say something to you that I've NEVER said to anyone regardless of how much I may disagree with them:

GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.

Pack your things and go. You have no business being here. You're a twit who has seen too many military courtroom dramas and thinks that they apply to the real world. You clearly do not understand our laws, but that's never stopped a Huffington Post writer before. You have advocated the overthrow of our civilian government merely to remove a man from office who will be gone in a short time anyway. You have called on the military to overstep its Constitutional bounds and remove itself from civilian control. In more civilized times you'd be tarred and feathered. In these politically correct times you probably won't even be arrested.

Now I'm sure you're going to try and spin this as "A Modest Proposal," and make comments on just how upset we righties are getting over this.

Piss off. You're right we're upset. I'm sick of people like you, sick to my very black right-wing soul of people like you who understand so little of history, understand so little of just how precious and rare civilian control of the military is in human affairs, how important it is to maintaining the institutions we in the West hold dear. In the vast majority of human history it has been the military that has done the controlling, not the other way around. Have you given the slightest thought to the long-term consequences of your idea, Mr. Lewis? I doubt it. Your hatred of Bush trumps everything.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008, how do you think the military is going to react? Do you think they're going to be happy taking her orders? They loathed her husband, and I'm guessing they'll be even less thrilled with her. Now give the military the power to arrest her for violating the UCMJ... how many minutes do you think it'd take them to come up with an excuse? Five? Ten? There's an old saying, Lewis, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. The weapon that you wish to use to remove the hated Dubya from power can easily be used against a President that you like as well. And it would, have no doubts.

Personally, I'm not cool with that, even if Lady Macbeth wins the election.

Fortunately, General Pace IS an honorable man, and will ignore your idiotic plea. You should be happy about that, Lewis, because in years gone by an officer like him, his honor insulted by someone like you, might have challenged you to a duel.

And dueling violates the UCMJ. You wouldn't want him to get in trouble, now, would you?

Weep for the Future

How frightening is it that, among the top Democrats seeking the nomination, Hillary Clinton is the most reasonable and qualified?

Hillary. Clinton.

Barak Obama seems like a nice guy... likable, charismatic, not scarily partisan or dogmatic. The problem is, unfortunately, that there's really no reason at all why he should be President of the United States. He's unerringly liberal, has shown that he has little clue about the rough details of foreign policy or the tough choices that all Presidents must make.

Of all the top-tier nazghul, John Edwards is the most frightening. A foppish former trial lawyer who has mastered the art of political pandering in a way that John Kerry could only dream of, Edwards promises all things to all people with nary a thought of how to pay for them. That, of course, he can figure out once he's sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office. He's the kind of person who should be kept as far from power as is possible. In a sane universe, John Edwards would be selling used cars in Raleigh Durham.

Hillary Clinton is the most hawkish, the most realistic of the Dems, which is like saying that Police Academy II was the best of the Police Academy movies... perhaps, but they ALL suck. This is, of course, the woman whose proposal for solving the "health care crisis" in 1993 was to nationalize 15% of the American GDP and create a Canadian-style system. She has been pounding the issue since she announced her candidacy roughly 27 years ago, so I have little hope she's learned her lesson. At least she's willing to acknowledge that there's a little problem with Islamic terrorists that can't be solved by making nice.

I don't think I've seen a more pathetic group of Democrats running for President since 2004. I mean, time and time again you Dems force me to vote Republican simply to keep your latest pandering socialist out of office. Are there ANY John F. Kennedys or Harry Trumans left in your party, or have the Kos lunatics completely taken over? You hate the fact that people like George W. Bush win office? Give me an alternative. How about nominating someone who isn't going to create more bloated government programs, who isn't going to neglect the defense of the country, who isn't in the pocket of the far-left psychopaths who seem to be running your party.

Is that too much to ask? Don't bother to answer, I already know what you're going to tell me.

(Tap, Tap, Tap, Checking Watch)

Fred, I like what you have to say.

GET ON WITH IT!!!

Chicks Dig Giant Robots

Steven Den Beste (formerly of USS Clueless fame, now anime blogging at Chizumatic) has posted a Too Many Words™ about why mechas in anime are stupid... big, impractical, and almost impossible to build, giant robots are extremely unlikely to ever see the fields of battle in the real world, he's absolutely right. However, as he points out:

So what's this big exception? That's easy: telling a fun story in animation. None of the problems described above are at issue because you don't actually have to build or operate the mecha. You just have to draw it. In your virtual universe you can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can conjure power out of thin air. You can create perfect bearings. You can construct your machine out of materials which can't possibly exist without changing the universal electrical constant. You can ignore gravity, too, if it's inconvenient. And phlebotinum is available in unlimited quantities.

The only place where mechas are practical is a place that doesn't exist. And they're a good solution because they look really cool. Or at least some of them do.

That's pretty much all the argument one needs... they're cool. Giant robots appeal to the 13-year-old-boy in all of us, and that's why they're so common in anime (as well as American animation).

As for me, while I'm only a casual anime fan, sometimes you just want to see a city levelled.

Islam in Europe

The Suck of the Century

I'm usually pretty good at picking out interesting fiction, and I love a good disaster story. I can find a good one without too much effort, which makes the misses all the more painful. Take for example Category 7, by Bill Evans and Marianna Jameson. It's a "thriller" about an artificially-created superstorm that is set on New York City, except that the authors forgot to put in any thrills. Instead, we have page after page of cliched characters and poorly-written dialog, starting with a chapter detailing our villain, a scientist/businessman with a God complex and a break-a-few-eggs mentality. Never seen THAT before. None of the other characters are more interesting

It only got worse from there, to the point where I was able to see what was going to happen well before it did. And since I already knew what was going to happen, there was no need for me to finish the book, was there?

I Don't Want to be Elfstar Any More.

Wonderful news.

August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages.

The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players.

After all, it's only been a year and a half since I shelled out for the D&D 3.5 rulebooks, so it makes me happy to have to spend large amounts of money for yet another set of rules with only minor differences from the previous ones.

How about I just save myself the trouble and wait until D&D 4.5 comes out?

Mrawgrlgrlgrlgrlgrrgle

Obey or Be Destroyed

Presented by Frank J, who approves this message.

The RNC. We Care.

In the mail yesterday arrived a survey called the "Republican Party Census Document," (really, a fundraising pamphlet designed to make it look like the RNC cares what Republican voters think) ... and y'know, just sending it back (without a generous contribution) doesn't express my disgust at these people right now. So, as any reasonable evil right-winger would do, I decided to blog my answers. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

1. If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans fight back?

Undecided. I've always felt the creepily-Orwellian-named "Patriot Act" was a mixed bag... while it contains some useful and needed tools for the fight against terrorists, it is also too easily open to abuse.

2. Should we stop Democrats from cutting funding for our intelligence agencies or bringing back Clinton-era restrictions on inter-agency communications?

Umm... YES. Do you need to even ask? What would happen in the odd circumstance that you didn't get a "yes" answer from most of the people in this so-called census... would you let the Democrats do whatever they wanted to the intelligence agencies without a fight? Why are you even asking me this? Do your goddamned jobs, Republicans!

3. Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to further attacks on America?

Yes. Air strikes, carpet-bombing, particle beam weapons, nuking the site from orbit, etc. In short, what should have been going on from day one of this so-called "War on Terror™." Treat it like it was a real war instead of an exercise in nation-building.

4. Should we do everything we can to stop democrats from repealing critical border and port security legislation?

I'd answer yes, but exactly what "critical border and port security legislation" did you actually pass when you were in power? The borders are less secure than they were when Bill Clinton was in office, our port security is a joke, and here you are trying to shift the focus to the Democrats. How about doing everything you can to actually pass some meaningful border and port security legislation? That would be a good start. Of course, why start now?

5. Should our homeland defense forces use profiling to protect our nation?

Yes, for gossake. We're not being attacked by seventy-year-old grandmothers, or seven-year-old children. Our enemy is almost invariable young, male, and Muslim. It is a sad sign of our politically-correct times that we can't even mention this fact. Paying extra attention to them is only logical. This doesn't mean we have to treat young Muslim males like lepers, but it only makes sense to give them a little extra scrutiny.

Economic Issues
1. Should we continue working to permanently repeal the inheritance or "Death Tax."

Yes. Better yet, pass the Fair Tax and you won't have to worry about it at all.

2. Should President Bush's successful income and capital gains tax cuts be made permanent?

Yes. Good luck with that, now that you've lost control of Congress due to your incompetence and arrogance.

3. Should Republicans renew the fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment?

"Renew?" When did you actually fight for it? For the entire duration of your control of Congress you spent money like drunken sailors, showing yourselves to be every bit as corrupt and greedy as the Democrats. Yet you want me to believe that you'd start fighting for a balanced budget now?

Hmm... how do I politely put this? Bullshit.

4. Should Republicans unite to keep our pro-growth achievements from the past six years intact by blocking new federal government bureaucracy and red tape?

Oh, why start now?

5. Should Republicans in Congress oppose the new wasteful government spending programs proposed by the Democrats and their new leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

I'd be more impressed if you hadn't spent the last six years passing your own wasteful government spending programs. Now that you've lost control of Congress you expect me to believe that you've suddenly become fiscal conservatives? SPARE ME. Go ahead, oppose Pelosi and Reid, but don't try to convince me that there's any motive behind it other than power and control of governmental purse strings. If you get power back you'll quickly revert to your old ways, just as the Democrats did.

Domestic Issues 1. Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigration?

Yes. yes, yes, a thousand times YES. The problem, though, is that I don't believe for a nanosecond that you actually want to stop illegal immigration. The amnesty bill you almost passed (with the help of the Democrats) put the lie to that. We in your base had to fight like rabid wolverines to get you to back down on that abortion of a bill, and even with its defeat I'm not sure you got the point. You've paid lip service to the issue but made little meaningful effort to stopping illegal immigration or enforcing current immigration laws.

Secure the borders and I'd be perfectly willing to discuss amnesty for the illegal aliens already here, or a guest worker program. Until you show me proof that you're capable of taking the issue seriously, shove it.

2. Should we continue working for serious tort reform to protect individuals and small businesses from predatory lawsuits?

"Continue?" You might sense a trend in my questioning of why it took a political defeat after six years in power to get you to look at this issue. Anyway, how about instituting a "loser pays" system like so many other countries have? It's never going to happen, of course... you Republicans are too wishy-washy on the issue and the Democrats would never stand for it, a tricky problem since you lost power to them due to your own idiocy.

3. Should we make sure President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair hearings and up or down votes in the Senate even when Democrats threaten a filibuster.

Yes.

4. Should Republicans in Congress protect America's private property rights from eminent domain?

How dare you even ask this. YES. Do your jobs. You shouldn't need a "census" to tell you where to stand on the subject.

Social Issues
1. Do you think Congress should pass the Federal Marriage Amendment?

No. Don't screw around with the Constitution on such a trivial issue.

2. Do you want us to defend the recently-passes partial birth abortion ban from attacks by the Democrat majority?

Yes. Although I'm generally apathetic about abortion as an issue (and loathe both fanatical sides), partial birth abortion is a sickening procedure and should be banned.

3. Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need?

Well, when you put it that way, yes. What, am I supposed to say no?

Defense Issues
1. Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations commanders?

No. On the other hand, it would serve as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, since the left doesn't show the slightest caring about crimes committed by U.N. "Peacekeepers." Let a U.S. soldier point sneeringly at a prisoner's wee-wee and it's a scandal worth literally months of solid new coverage and outraged cries of Democrats, but let U.N. Peacekeepers rape kids and the press and the Dems yawn.

2. Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?

Yes. And any nation that harbors or supports them.

3. Should we fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the pentagon's budget?

(extreme sarcasm)
Noooooooo. You should just let them cut the budget to the bare bones to pay for ridiculous social programs and pork spending.
(/extreme sarcasm)

Stop asking questions you should already know the answers to.

4. Should Republicans continue to support the State of Israel?

Yes. Partly because it's the only democracy in the Middle east, partly because they're the only ones serious about fighting terrorists (at least until recently), but mainly because it pisses antisemites and Islamofascist fanatics off. And anything they think is a bad idea deserves serious consideration.

5. Do you support economic sanctions against North Korea and Iran to stop their nuclear weapons programs?

As much as I'm thrilled with idea of psychotic fanatics armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man and threatening to start World war III every fifteen minutes, I'm gonna have to reluctantly say yes to this.

6. Do you agree that sowing the seeds of Democracy and freedom in the Middle east is a worth goal?

Worthy? Yes. Achievable? I'm not so sure.

Republican Party
1. Do you support the election of republican candidates across the country and the rebuilding of our majorities over the next ten years?

You have failed me for the last time, Admiral.

Undecided. I dutifully voted for you time and time again (less and less to keep you in power as much as to keep your opponents out of it), but you DESERVED your loss in 2006. You had grown arrogant, treated the money of taxpayers as it was your personal trust fund, made no meaningful efforts to secure the borders, and ignored the wishes of the people who put you in power. And rather than learning from your defeat, you continued to make the same mistakes even after you were the minority party. I will support individual Republicans on a case-by-case basis, but if the choice comes down to electing a Republican-in-name-only or a Democrat, I will either vote third party or leave the space blank.

How about doing something to actually earn power, and then get back to me.

2. Did you vote in the year blah blah blah?

Yes. Given the state of things, I'm more and more wondering why I bothered.

3. Will you join the Republican National Committee by making a contribution today?

No. No way in hell would I send you a dime after your own incompetence and greed put the Democrats back in power.

Conveniently, the census gives me other choices than sending a contribution...

• Yes, I support the RNC, but I am unable to participate at this time. However, I have enclosed $11 to cover the cost of tabulating my survey.

It costs you $11 to tabulate a frikkin' survey?!? And I wonder why Republicans can't seem to spend money efficiently any more than Democrats can... I could hire a minimum-wage schlub to tabulate the results for a hell of a lot cheaper than that. Of course, it's very likely that the envelope gets opened, the checks taken out, and the census forms are tossed in the trash untabulated. Considering the discontent in the Republican base and continued Republican idiocy, it's not like anyone at the RNC is actually paying attention.

That's not the best part of the census... the best part is the next bubble:

• No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.

Don't insult my intelligence. And don't try to blame us, tools, if you continue to lose. It will be due to your own failings, and not because I didn't cut you a check. It will be because you ignore the groundswell of support for REAL illegal immigration reform (an actual fence, crackdowns on those who hire illegals, etc.). It will be because Republicans spent the last six years gorging themselves on pork spending. It will be because you did little to oppose the Democrats when they weren't in power in Congress, and you continue to do nothing now that they are.

So... does that answer your questions?