Apparently I Side With Jill Stein & The Democrats While Gar The Texan Sides With Right Wing Romney Republicans

When I hit the publish button on my most recent blogging and then checked to see if the blog published correctly I saw that Gar the Texan had freshly ranted.

Gar the Texan had major surgery recently, replacing some body parts that had worn out, which has required a lengthy convalescence, a motorized wheel chair, a live-in nurse and a lot of potent pain medications.

I think the potent pain medication may be the explanation for some of Gar the Texan's recent rather convoluted rantings, so I don't comment on them, since I feel that would not be fair to do, considering the boy's compromised thinking due to his medical maladies.

So, in Gar the Texan's most recent blogging, titled I Side With, Gar the Texan is talking about a website called I Side With, on which one answers a series of questions to find out which presidential candidate and party one sides with.

These type surveys are very scientific and accurate.

Apparently I side with someone named Jill Stein whom I don't believe I have ever heard of.

By party I am 93% with the Democrats, 90% with the Greens, 37% with the Libertarians and only 4% with the Republicans.

Meanwhile, that conservative nutjob, Gar the Texan, sides 37% with the Republicans.

Finally, a legitimate survey confirming that Gar the Texan is a right wing fruitcake.

Gar the Texan's best friend, Ed the Indian, also made known his Who I Side With results. Ed the Indian is like me, a sider with Jill Stein, only with Ed the Indian being 1% more of a Jill Stein sider.

I'm 13% on the side of Mitt Romney, Ed the Indian is an 8% Romney sider, while that reactionary right winger, Gar the Texan, is 57% on the side of Mitt Romney.

I am feeling just a tad embarrassed for Gar the Texan right now, but I try to keep in mind that he is in a lot of pain and heavily medicated, and thus, not in his right mind.

Hillary in West Virginia Primary

I grow tired of so many Democrats saying it's time for Hillary to give up. Neither she nor Obama will likely have enough delegates to win the nomination by the time the final primary closes.

So, what is so wrong with having an old-fashioned convention where the choice is made at the actual convention?

When Ford had more delegates than Reagan heading into the, I think, 1976 Republican Convention, I don't recollect there being cries for Reagan to drop out for the good of the party.

It's only been in recent times that there's this notion that it's to be all wrapped up by the time of the convention. That may be one reason why the conventions have not been as interesting in recent times.

What if it takes a dozen votes before Obama is finally chosen? What would be so bad about that?

The News Goons and Talking Heads would have such a fun time tracking defections and speculating about deals being made.

It would seem the Democrats would come out of the thing stronger, not weaker.

But, I don't really care about that. I just want to see an old-fashioned convention like the good old days. No Chicago type riots though, that would be a bad thing.