Which poster makes the least sense?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Tough call.-

[Dereich]

Oldiesfreak is a standard hack and Bushie is clearly in self-denial. BRTD's way of thinking is completely alien to any normal person.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

BRTD, as he's the most well off and mentally capable of them all--he just chooses to ignore that latter trait.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Oldiesfreak is a standard hack and Bushie is clearly in self-denial. BRTD's way of thinking is completely alien to any normal person.

[Goldwater]

Oldiesfreak is a standard hack and Bushie is clearly in self-denial. BRTD's way of thinking is completely alien to any normal person.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I voted Oldiesfreak since Bushie is just in denial. Oldiesfreak's logic defies common sense. Of course I make perfect sense to myself.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Oldiesfreak is a standard hack and Bushie is clearly in self-denial. BRTD's way of thinking is completely alien to any normal person.

Pretty much....

I voted Oldiesfreak since Bushie is just in denial. Oldiesfreak's logic defies common sense. Of course I make perfect sense to myself.

Um, obviously Oldies and Bushie make sense to themselves too...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, and that's probably why neither will vote for themselves in this poll.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, and that's probably why neither will vote for themselves in this poll.

That makes perfect sense.

[Mechaman]

Given the way this thread is worded, probably BRTD.

I would say that the person who is the most screwed in the head is probably Bushie.  Frankly, the man has some severe mental problems that need to be revealed by a psychologist or some sh*t.  And his natural tendencies towards conning people left and right, all in the name of God, is disgusting.  If this were thirty years ago the man would have a multi-million dollar "evangelical" empire with five different Boeing Jets that he uses to bang high priced prostitutes in.  So of course, while I find the poster Bushie a disgusting parasite of a tax paying citizen, I in no way think he makes less sense than BRTD (getting to that in a minute).

Oldiesfreak. . . . . . . . makes some sense.  Sure, his view of politics is illogical and irrational but it's conceivable how someone who has an average amount of sanity and is normal in the mind and maybe even above average intelligence can get around to his way of thinking.  I mean good god, he isn't that much different from some "editors" on Wikipedia (admittedly, you have to have a sh*tload of time on your hands to find that out) in the talk section.  IN fact, given that Oldies at least acknowledges that Know Nothings largely went to the Republican Party, he's a good degree more honest than some wikipedia editors I've come across.  Overall, I'd probably say he makes more sense than either BRTD or Bushie, even with his irrational thinking.  Hell, he probably makes more sense than JJ (who butchers the meaning of polls).

With all that said, BRTD makes no sense.  Like absolute zero sense.  Words can't possibly describe the amount of effort it would take to try to understand, just attempting to make some sense of BRTD.  Because, you can't.  Gay racists make more sense than BRTD does.  Gay disabled racist chauvinists make more sense than BRTD does.  Gay disabled racist chauvinistic animal lovers make more sense than BRTD does.  White Supremacists for Obama/Biden 2012 make more sense than BRTD does.  Homosexual Black Women Directors for McCain/Palin make more sense than BRTD does.  George Wallace voters for Jesse Jackson '84 make more sense than BRTD does.  Communists for Joseph McCarthy for President '52 make more sense than BRTD does.  Republicans for Slavery make more sense than BRTD does.  Mountain bikes with no seats make more sense than BRTD.  Nickelback fans make almost as much sense as BRTD does.

With that said, he's still saner than Bushie.  Which is saying a lot.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oldiesfreak is a standard hack and Bushie is clearly in self-denial. BRTD's way of thinking is completely alien to any normal person.

Yeah, true.

(I voted option 4 for the lulz though)

[anvi]

I make the least sense.  I thought you all knew that by now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I voted Oldiesfreak since Bushie is just in denial. Oldiesfreak's logic defies common sense. Of course I make perfect sense to myself.

Except when you go bipolar on yourself when it comes to your own polls...

[Goldwater]

So BRTD has three clones?

[MaxQue]

JCL or CountryClass.

[minionofmidas]

Dave Leip.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I voted Oldiesfreak since Bushie is just in denial. Oldiesfreak's logic defies common sense. Of course I make perfect sense to myself.

No, it doesn't.  My logic makes perfect sense; certainly more than yours does.

[politicus]

Memphis.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak. . . . . . . . makes some sense.  Sure, his view of politics is illogical and irrational but it's conceivable how someone who has an average amount of sanity and is normal in the mind and maybe even above average intelligence can get around to his way of thinking.  I mean good god, he isn't that much different from some "editors" on Wikipedia (admittedly, you have to have a sh*tload of time on your hands to find that out) in the talk section.  IN fact, given that Oldies at least acknowledges that Know Nothings largely went to the Republican Party, he's a good degree more honest than some wikipedia editors I've come across.  Overall, I'd probably say he makes more sense than either BRTD or Bushie, even with his irrational thinking.  Hell, he probably makes more sense than JJ (who butchers the meaning of polls).

How?  The Wikipedia editors mostly subscribe to the liberal revisionist history on civil rights.  What's illogical or irrational about my thinking?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I make the least sense.  I thought you all knew that by now.

Well you're a close second to some old fart from CA......very close! 

[traininthedistance]

How?  The Wikipedia editors mostly subscribe to the liberal revisionist history on civil rights.  What's illogical or irrational about my thinking?

The fact that you dismiss the straightforward truth as "liberal revisionist history", for starters.

[Maxwell]

Memphis.

You mean MR. Logical Fallacy

[Mechaman]

Oldiesfreak. . . . . . . . makes some sense.  Sure, his view of politics is illogical and irrational but it's conceivable how someone who has an average amount of sanity and is normal in the mind and maybe even above average intelligence can get around to his way of thinking.  I mean good god, he isn't that much different from some "editors" on Wikipedia (admittedly, you have to have a sh*tload of time on your hands to find that out) in the talk section.  IN fact, given that Oldies at least acknowledges that Know Nothings largely went to the Republican Party, he's a good degree more honest than some wikipedia editors I've come across.  Overall, I'd probably say he makes more sense than either BRTD or Bushie, even with his irrational thinking.  Hell, he probably makes more sense than JJ (who butchers the meaning of polls).

How?  The Wikipedia editors mostly subscribe to the liberal revisionist history on civil rights.  What's illogical or irrational about my thinking?

Emphasis on the "some editors", good sir.
I've come across on Wikipedia (in the "Talk" section of the "Know Nothing" article) an editor who seemed oblivious to the Republican leans of Know Nothing members:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Know_Nothing#Link_to_the_TEA_Party_Movement
Like I said, you at least have enough intellectual honesty to admit the GOP of the 19th century was somewhat flawed (I suggest you try to take as many compliments as you can dude, instead of just focusing on the negatives).  I admit, this is only one example but there are probably at least a few others.
Also, "liberal revisionist" history?  Wikipedia is by far the most non-biased history source I've ever read!  You can't even call Hitler an objectively evil man due to their NPOV policy!  Read any of the 1850-1870 articles and you will see that more often than not the blame is (rightfully) given to the Democratic Party for opposing freedmen rights and the Republicans are played up for being pro-Civil Rights.
However, even with the NPOV policy sometimes bias does come through.  You can see these squabbles between editors on the "Talk" section of controversial articles.  More often than not though, the objective facts of the matter win.

If someone reads history with an open mind, and not a predetermined set of biases Wikipedia is the best source of info they can get.  That is what happens when you get thousands of people editing articles every day over the few elitist intellectuals who make the information for Encyclopedia Brititania or what have you.  I will fight anyone to the death who argues otherwise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How?  The Wikipedia editors mostly subscribe to the liberal revisionist history on civil rights.  What's illogical or irrational about my thinking?

Shut thy mouth.

[MATTROSE94]

All of the members mentioned on this thread make sense in my opinion, although I may disagree with their viewpoints at times. For the member that makes the least sense to me overall, I'd probably go with Mookiffuttiff, as he posted some jibberish on the Election What If board under the title "Dre Headphonesgzabl mlvr jnybkvhsm xtjtay eaio nyocihmch m." I'm pretty sure that Mookiffuttiff is a sock account though.