we need car control

With a waiting list, and some sort of psych testing

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGAEKRCO55.DTL

--
“TANSTAAFL”


“All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

JOF wrote

>> With a waiting list, and some sort of psych testing
>
> Now you're starting to see the light. Any thoughts on what form the
> psych testing should take?

Easy:

1. Are you Canadian?

Lee

dazed and confuzzed wrote:
> JOF wrote:
> > dazed and confuzzed wrote:
> >
> >
> >>With a waiting list, and some sort of psych testing
> >
> >
> > Now you're starting to see the light. Any thoughts on what form the
> > psych testing should take?
> >
> > JF
> >
>
> For starters:
>
> You can't be a liberal.
> It's proof of poor judgment

I'm not sure that nationality and political persuasion are considered
psychoses, although the way people go on about politicians (and in
certain cases Canucks) one could have cause to wonder. Of course the
wondering may be more about the ranter than the rantee. I think we need
to take a more traditional approach to the psychological testing
criteria. Even that may well eliminate a lot of liberals. Heaven knows
most of them are headcases anyway.

JF

JOF wrote:

> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
>>JOF wrote:
>>
>>>dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>With a waiting list, and some sort of psych testing
>>>
>>>
>>>Now you're starting to see the light. Any thoughts on what form the
>>>psych testing should take?
>>>
>>>JF
>>>
>>
>>For starters:
>>
>>You can't be a liberal.
>>It's proof of poor judgment
>
>
> I'm not sure that nationality and political persuasion are considered
> psychoses, although the way people go on about politicians (and in
> certain cases Canucks) one could have cause to wonder. Of course the
> wondering may be more about the ranter than the rantee. I think we need
> to take a more traditional approach to the psychological testing
> criteria. Even that may well eliminate a lot of liberals. Heaven knows
> most of them are headcases anyway.
>
> JF
>
so you have the urge to run over liberals makes it ok to operate a car?

--
“TANSTAAFL”


“All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156906310.148212.90140@m79g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

> I'm not sure that nationality and political persuasion are considered
> psychoses, although the way people go on about politicians (and in
> certain cases Canucks) one could have cause to wonder. Of course the
> wondering may be more about the ranter than the rantee. I think we need
> to take a more traditional approach to the psychological testing
> criteria. Even that may well eliminate a lot of liberals. Heaven knows
> most of them are headcases anyway.

Stop it, you're killing me.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156906310.148212.90140@m79g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>> JOF wrote:
>> > dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>With a waiting list, and some sort of psych testing
>> >
>> >
>> > Now you're starting to see the light. Any thoughts on what form the
>> > psych testing should take?
>> >
>> > JF
>> >
>>
>> For starters:
>>
>> You can't be a liberal.
>> It's proof of poor judgment
>
> I'm not sure that nationality and political persuasion are considered
> psychoses,

No doubt.

> I think we need to take a more traditional approach to the psychological
> testing criteria.

We already discussed this at length.

It's one of the mindless, worthless mantras that you repeat.

Popeye wrote:

> > I think we need to take a more traditional approach to the psychological
> > testing criteria.
>
> We already discussed this at length.
>
> It's one of the mindless, worthless mantras that you repeat.

Sheesh. Where's yer sense of humour? No wonder you're always so grumpy.

JF

JOF wrote

> Liberals are the ones who fight to save the whales . . .

Every conservative here supports care for marine mammals.

> the seals . . .

Say what? Seems to me it's the liberals in the group that think clubbing
them to death is fine or did you perhaps think that Scott, Popeye and I are
liberals?

> the pandas

They're communists. Who gives a damn.

> the trees

Are trees endangered?

> the sharks

Wrong again, it was Mike, Bullshark and me that went to the shark feeding
meetings.

> the farm animals

Big deal. Everybody tries to protect their loved ones.

> Popeye's already offered loads of evidence, purportedly irrefutable,
> that Canucks and liberals are too cowardly, haven't the cojones to
> kill.

No, I think it was Canuck liberals he was referring to.

Lee

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156942230.299499.33200@m79g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>> so you have the urge to run over liberals makes it ok to operate a car?
>
> No no no. You misunderstood what I said.
>
> Liberals are the ones who fight to save the whales, the seals, the
> pandas, the trees, the sharks and the farm animals. Furthermore,
> Popeye's already offered loads of evidence, purportedly irrefutable,
> that Canucks and liberals are too cowardly, haven't the cojones to
> kill.

Incorrect as always, but at least you're consistent.

As many times as you've denied it,

I've told you that being a killer is in your basic nature.

>All this would seem to qualify them for the right to drive, if
> vehicular mayhem is the main concern.
>
> Conservatives, on the other hand, being the ones willing and able to
> stand up and kill as they see fit are the ones who should be carefully
> scrutinized before allowing them a permit to drive.
>
> Isn't there an elegant logic to all of this?
>
> JF
>

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156942338.846376.5080@74g2000cwt.googlegroup s.com...

> Sheesh. Where's yer sense of humour? No wonder you're always so grumpy.

Hilarious.