Debt-Ceiling Mania (Annie Lowrey & Conn Carroll)

[Bloggingheads]

[rcocean]

I'm glad Conn agrees that Mitt is a shoe-in for the nomination. First, let me discuss Pawlenty. T-Paw was always just the establishment backup to Mitt. That was his only reason for running. As Conn states, he has no constituency except moderate Establishment Republicans. Mitt, instead of imploding, has kept those "its his turn" Chamber of Commerce types - so T-Paw fading.

As for Mitt, he's a shoe-in because he appeals to several key Republican groups.
First, the establishment. Second, the moderates, who hate all that social conservative, abortion, guns, etc. stuff. Third, the dumbkopf's who think its "Mitts turn". Fourth, the Southern boys who'll vote for Mitt because he's a man in a business suit.

Never forget the unfailing stupidity of the Republican voters. They preferred Ford over Reagan in '76. 40% wanted Bush over Reagan in 1980. Dole and McCain were their choices in 1996 and 2008. And don't forget that same 40% voted for McCain in 2000, 'cause Bush II was too "radical".

Mitt is their perfect Republican candidate. He has executive hair, he'e both for and against abortion, he's incredibly dull, has no charisma, and wasn't a popular politician - he couldn't be reelected and lost to Teddy for Senator. He's Jerry Ford with a full head of hair.

Fortunately for him, Obama seems determined to alienate Middle America. Michelle Goldberg loves that, but it won't get him elected.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by rcocean

I'm glad Conn agrees that Mitt is a shoe-in for the nomination. First, let me discuss Pawlenty. T-Paw was always just the establishment backup to Mitt. That was his only reason for running. As Conn states, he has no constituency except moderate Establishment Republicans. Mitt, instead of imploding, has kept those "its his turn" Chamber of Commerce types - so T-Paw fading.

Pawlenty seems pretty bland to me, but as far as politics go he's Edmund Burke compared to Romney as far as I'm concerned.

Still, there is Perry.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Pawlenty seems pretty bland to me, but as far as politics go he's Edmund Burke compared to Romney as far as I'm concerned.

Still, there is Perry.

If you want a who's bigger on both spending and craziness than Bush: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07...ising-for.html

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by apple

If you want a who's bigger on both spending and craziness than Bush: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07...ising-for.html

Not to be a downer, but to me the most salient point in your article was:

Last month, Perry made Texas history by signing a two-year state budget that cuts overall spending for the first time in over 40 years.


That means that as far as a record goes (Compared to the paltry single term of Mitt Romney), Perry is "street's ahead" as Pierce in Community might say.

Perry isn't the ideal ideological conservative? I agree. But the only way a true Conservative can rise to power is with either a mastery of public relations or with a military record that makes him Hector reborn. Neither is available; so Perry will do.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by rcocean

Never forget the unfailing stupidity of the Republican voters. They preferred Ford over Reagan in '76. 40% wanted Bush over Reagan in 1980. Dole and McCain were their choices in 1996 and 2008. And don't forget that same 40% voted for McCain in 2000, 'cause Bush II was too "radical".

Err, OK, RC, I'll bite: Who are the "they" in the establishment that always win on the Republican side? Gimme a break, wouldja? Let's take them in turn, shall we? Reagan gave Ford a good run for his money in the '76 primaries, but primary challenges against a sitting president are very rarely successful. Otherwise, we might have had President Ted Kennedy or President Pat Buchanan. (Thank God we didn't!)

Forty percent wanted Bush I over Regan in 1980. So I guess "the establishment" lost that round, but what exactly do you want? Lotsa people voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama. Are you saying only Democrats should be democrats? You do believe in selecting candidates by majority vote, I assume.

Yes, Dole could be called the "establishment choice" in 1996, I suppose, so that's one round to them. Nobody was going to beat Clinton that year anyway.

McCain was "the last man standing" in '08. And remember, four years earlier, he ran as the outsider. Do you seriously believe Mike Huckabee would have done any better? I doubt it. And Bush II had all his dad's establishment types behind him in 2000. I guess you hate the "establishment candidate," except when you don't.

And Reagan, who began as the insurgent in 1976 went on to become the favorite by a large margin in 1980, Bush I's resumé notwithstanding.

Basically what we get is vintage RC cola (with the usual splash of bitter lemon): "People who don't like my brand of paleocon populism are all elitist, milquetoast fools." But again, you never come out and say who you think SHOULD win or how s/he can do so. You simply find fault.

Je t'accuse!

Signed,
Your (wannabe but'll never be a member of the) Establishment Friend,
RF

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

But again, you never come out and say who you think SHOULD win or how s/he can do so, you simply find fault.

That's his schtick.

So how do you get the accent aigu thingy over the 'e'?

[rfrobison]

On my Mac keyboard its [option]+"e" then "e" again. When I can't remember the shortcut keys, I just paste in the symbol from Word.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

On my Mac keyboard its [option]+"e" then "e" again. When I can't remember the shortcut keys, I just paste in the symbol from Word.

You can also Google a word and then copy and paste it from a source document with all of its diacritics intact. A plain latin spelling, even an approximation, is usually all you need to start.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

You can also Google a word and then copy and paste it from a source document with all of its diacritics intact. A plain latin spelling, even an approximation, is usually all you need to start.

Thanks, Jeff!
Love, sadhat

[harkin]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Err, OK, RC, I'll bite: Who are the "they" in the establishment that always win on the Republican side? ...............
..........Basically what we get is vintage RC cola (with the usual splash of bitter lemon): "People who don't like my brand of paleocon populism are all elitist, milquetoast fools." But again, you never come out and say who you think SHOULD win or how s/he can do so.

You're mischaracterizing a lot of conservatives like myself (the 'paleo' is a dead giveaway, although it's apt when applied correctly and specifically, we see ourselves on the end of a catastrophic phase of applied socialism - the end of the paeleozoic ended in mass extinctions of lifeforms, the apex of socialism will be the death of freedoms and the real birth of the overlord state).

There is a growing number of conservatives who are tired of the suit-wearing sellouts who make huge promises of personal responsibility, limited government and fiscal sanity who forget all that when they get to the state or national capital. The problems we have right now with fiscal implosion due to democrats being in league with overcompenstaed public unions was aided and abetted by republicans claiming what they did was compromise when it was nothing of the sort (akin to Obama saying compromise is raising taxes now and spending cuts after a few years which would never materialize, like the compromises Reagan made). Look at the Governator and the way he caved in to the unions and their (complicit) media blitz when he tried to get them to make even small concessions to reality.

I did not vote for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2 or McCain because I refused to be complicit in what I considered unfitness for the job (the same reason evenmoreso for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Hopey Changey Spendalot). I acknowledge the argument that a vote not made is a vote in the opponents favor but I just can't do it.

Give us a candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Teleprompter-Lite and call him out on his BS and duplicity in a way even the msm cannot spin and democrats can understand and I'll not only vote, I'll canvass. Is it Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake or Marco Rubio? No idea because they havent jumped in. I don't think it's any of the announced and I'm positive it isn't a governor who enacted a state healthcare plan that's an unconstituional money pit.

And RC Cola is just fine. I'm not much of a soda drinker but when I do it's still preferable to Pepsi.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

There is a growing number of conservatives who are tired of the suit-wearing sellouts who make huge promises of personal responsibility, limited government and fiscal sanity who forget all that when they get to the state or national capital. The problems we have right now with fiscal implosion due to democrats being in league with overcompenstaed public unions was aided and abetted by republicans claiming what they did was compromise when it was nothing of the sort (akin to Obama saying compromise is raising taxes now and spending cuts after a few years which would never materialize, like the compromises Reagan made). Look at the Governator and the way he caved in to the unions and their (complicit) media blitz when he tried to get them to make even small concessions to reality.

Give us a candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Teleprompter-Lite and call him out on his BS and duplicity in a way even the msm cannot spin and democrats can understand and I'll not only vote, I'll canvass. Is it Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake or Marco Rubio?

Did you vote for Tom McClintock in the recall? I did and canvassed and got real pissed off when the GOP backed Arnold. But what the hell are you going to do when it always comes down to the lesser of evils? That's just reality in these here united states. The country is never going to be as conservative as you would like.

PS. I don't think the person who the post originally refered to would support any of the folks you mentioned, so paleo-conservative remains undefined, at least for now.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Did you vote for Tom McClintock in the recall? I did and canvassed and got real pissed off when the GOP backed Arnold.

While I'm a native and still live in CA part-time, I'm registered in another state so I didn't follow McClintock extra close, everything I heard was preferable to Arnold and later the prospect of Fiorina/Whitman as the best that conservatives could put forward was pretty depressing. The silver lining was that the dems have screwed the state up so bad that a real candidate might've won (I would have liked to have seen a Moonbeam/Poizner debate).

Originally Posted by badhatharry

But what the hell are you going to do when it always comes down to the lesser of evils? That's just reality in these here united states. The country is never going to be as conservative as you would like.

I have no good answer to that but I just can't bring myself to pull the lever.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

PS. I don't think the person who the post originally refered to would support any of the folks you mentioned, so paleo-conservative remains undefined, at least for now.

The descriptors here are known for their inaccurracies.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

While I'm a native and still live in CA part-time, I'm registered in another state so I didn't follow McClintock extra close, everything I heard was preferable to Arnold and later the prospect of Fiorina/Whitman as the best that conservatives could put forward was pretty depressing.

I agree that the Whitman/ Fiorina thing was sad. But, darn it, since you're registered in another state that may mean your vote can actually count. Not so for me (except in the primary).

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by harkin

You're mischaracterizing a lot of conservatives like myself (the 'paleo' is a dead giveaway, although it's apt when applied correctly and specifically, we see ourselves on the end of a catastrophic phase of applied socialism - the end of the paeleozoic ended in mass extinctions of lifeforms, the apex of socialism will be the death of freedoms and the real birth of the overlord state).

There is a growing number of conservatives who are tired of the suit-wearing sellouts who make huge promises of personal responsibility, limited government and fiscal sanity who forget all that when they get to the state or national capital. The problems we have right now with fiscal implosion due to democrats being in league with overcompenstaed public unions was aided and abetted by republicans claiming what they did was compromise when it was nothing of the sort (akin to Obama saying compromise is raising taxes now and spending cuts after a few years which would never materialize, like the compromises Reagan made). Look at the Governator and the way he caved in to the unions and their (complicit) media blitz when he tried to get them to make even small concessions to reality.

I did not vote for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2 or McCain because I refused to be complicit in what I considered unfitness for the job (the same reason evenmoreso for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Hopey Changey Spendalot). I acknowledge the argument that a vote not made is a vote in the opponents favor but I just can't do it.

Give us a candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Teleprompter-Lite and call him out on his BS and duplicity in a way even the msm cannot spin and democrats can understand and I'll not only vote, I'll canvass. Is it Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake or Marco Rubio? No idea because they havent jumped in. I don't think it's any of the announced and I'm positive it isn't a governor who enacted a state healthcare plan that's an unconstituional money pit.

And RC Cola is just fine. I'm not much of a soda drinker but when I do it's still preferable to Pepsi.

Well, since I wasn't characterizing you at all, I don't see how I could be mischaracterizing you...

Re: RC Cola. Meh, I've always been a Cherry Coke man, m'self. Guess that's why the other RC and I don't see eye-to-eye. No doubt I'm too syrupy for his taste.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Cherry Coke man

The most disturbing admission yet. :-)

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by stephanie

The most disturbing admission yet. :-)

I.B.C. root beer? Good stuff!

I will now share a personal anecdote: My wife is Japanese. About nine out of 10 Japanese hate root beer. Not a big seller here. They claim it tastes medicine-y.

And most of my Japanese friends are baffled by Monty Python. When I found the woman I was dating liked root beer and was laughing along with "The Holy Grail," I knew I'd found The One.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

I.B.C. root beer? Good stuff!

That's more like it.

And most of my Japanese friends are baffled by Monty Python. When I found the woman I was dating liked root beer and was laughing along with "The Holy Grail," I knew I'd found The One.

This is adorable.

I'm a boring Diet Coke person usually (yeah, yeah, nutrisweet, I don't care), but I love good root beer. And I'm always delighted to happen upon Dr. Brown's Cream Soda.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

That's more like it.

This is adorable.

I'm a boring Diet Coke person usually (yeah, yeah, nutrisweet, I don't care), but I love good root beer. And I'm always delighted to happen upon Dr. Brown's Cream Soda.

Yikes to both!

Snapple diet peach-flavored iced tea. Yum!

Okay, Pepsi One is a good treat on occasion.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yikes to both!

Snapple diet peach-flavored iced tea. Yum!

Okay, Pepsi One is a good treat on occasion.

I wonder which split is more difficult to resolve, Coke vs. Pepsi or pop vs. soda? Or perhaps sweetened vs. unsweetened ice tea? Is regular coffee black or some monstrosity with cream and sugar?

Once upon a time I created this whole list of dichotomies that I'd make people pick (quickly! you can't think!), with the idea that it would become a personality or compatibility test. It was mostly literary (Tolstoy/Dostoevsky, Hemingway/Faulkner, Austen/Brontes, Plato/Aristotle, so on), but I clearly needed to add beverages. And something about mayo/ketchup/aioli on fries, of course.

My beverage answers are: Coke (but only diet), pop (but I actually use both, I'm a moderate!), unsweetened, and black.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I wonder which split is more difficult to resolve, Coke vs. Pepsi or pop vs. soda? Or perhaps sweetened vs. unsweetened ice tea? Is regular coffee black or some monstrosity with cream and sugar?

Once upon a time I created this whole list of dichotomies that I'd make people pick (quickly! you can't think!), with the idea that it would become a personality or compatibility test. It was mostly literary (Tolstoy/Dostoevsky, Hemingway/Faulkner, Austen/Brontes, Plato/Aristotle, so on), but I clearly needed to add beverages.

I'm hoping you gave up on the idea of testing compatibilities. There's only a limited number that really matter, IMO.

And something about mayo/ketchup/aioli on fries, of course.

Heh. I remember that one really well.

I've discovered a mix of mayo, fat free sour cream and mustard, at 2:2:1 proportion, that tastes really good for all kind of purposes (sandwiches, dips, with veggies, and I bet it would be great for fries too!

My beverage answers are: Coke (but only diet), pop (but I actually use both, I'm a moderate!), unsweetened, and black.

Soda for sure, artificially sweetened, and variable with coffee. Some coffees are naturally sweet and don't require sweeteners or cream/milk. The regular coffees that you find in most places or really dark roasts, I prefer Splenda and fat free milk.

Yes, I know, I'm not expecting much compatibility there. But none is needed.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I'm hoping you gave up on the idea of testing compatibilities. There's only a limited number that really matter, IMO.

Oh, it was mainly a joke, because my bf at the time and I had discovered that we answered differently on ALL of the them, or all the ones that immediately came to mind. So we kept making up more and started making it into a test.

Yes, I know, I'm not expecting much compatibility there. But none is needed.

Heh, I still like you anyway.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Oh, it was mainly a joke, because my bf at the time and I had discovered that we answered differently on ALL of the them, or all the ones that immediately came to mind. So we kept making up more and started making it into a test.


Heh, I still like you anyway.

I like you too, Stephanie.

But, seriously, compatibility (in friendships or romantic relationships) is highly desirable for several big item aspects, the rest don't matter so much.

[ledocs]

Stephanie said, apparently:

Once upon a time I created this whole list of dichotomies that I'd make people pick (quickly! you can't think!), with the idea that it would become a personality or compatibility test. It was mostly literary (Tolstoy/Dostoevsky, Hemingway/Faulkner, Austen/Brontes, Plato/Aristotle, so on), but I clearly needed to add beverages.

I like this idea. Not necessarily for choosing mates. There, I think, differences might work just as well as similarities (an interesting empirical question). Here are my answers:

Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Austen, Plato.

Leo Strauss, so it was reported to me, used an Austen v. Dostoevsky test to distinguish the prudent from the imprudent, or the people with sophrosune from those who lack it. He had a notebook in which he kept track of this, so he could know who his enemies were.

(That last sentence is a joke.)

I am an INTJ in the Meiers-Briggs matrix, if that's what it's called. But one could perform the same kind of test on the literate population using these dichotomies and similar tests, and the results might be instructive, especially when correlated with empirical evidence about "happy" academic and literary couples versus divorced ones, and so on.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I wonder which split is more difficult to resolve, Coke vs. Pepsi or pop vs. soda? Or perhaps sweetened vs. unsweetened ice tea? Is regular coffee black or some monstrosity with cream and sugar?

Once upon a time I created this whole list of dichotomies that I'd make people pick (quickly! you can't think!), with the idea that it would become a personality or compatibility test. It was mostly literary (Tolstoy/Dostoevsky, Hemingway/Faulkner, Austen/Brontes, Plato/Aristotle, so on), but I clearly needed to add beverages. And something about mayo/ketchup/aioli on fries, of course.

My beverage answers are: Coke (but only diet), pop (but I actually use both, I'm a moderate!), unsweetened, and black.

Your test would only work for very well-read people. Elitist!

I don't suppose my answers will be very meaningful, as I've read fewer than half the authors/thinkers on your list, and even then, mostly excerpts, but here goes: Dostoyevsky, Hemmingway, Bronte, Aristotle, Ketchup, Coke (Classic), unsweetened, black.

I eagerly await the analysis. But aren't you muscling in on Ocean's turf? She may come after you for practicing without a license.

[rfrobison]

Oh, I forgot: Pop. (Denver boy)

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Your test would only work for very well-read people. Elitist!

I don't suppose my answers will be very meaningful, as I've read fewer than half the authors/thinkers on your list, and even then, mostly excerpts, but here goes: Dostoyevsky, Hemmingway, Bronte, Aristotle, Ketchup, Coke (Classic), unsweetened, black.

I eagerly await the analysis. But aren't you muscling in on Ocean's turf? She may come after you for practicing without a lisence.

Er, now that I read more closely I see I have to amend my responses. I do prefer my coffee with a bit of cream and sugar, and my tea lightly sweetened. Will this throw off my results?

[uncle ebeneezer]

Ha!! i was about to say the same thing as I realized I haven't read most of those authors either. My test would be mostly obvious stuff:

burger vs. hot dog
NY-thin vs. deep-dish/Sicilian (pizza, obviously)
blonde vs. brunette
Beatles vs. Stones
Star Wars vs. Star Trek
turkey vs. ham (American holiday meat)
bacon vs. sausage
marinara/meat vs. alfredo
football vs. baseball (what is real national past-time?)
apple vs. pumpkin (pie)

can you tell, I'm hungry

and of course for my tennis obsession:
Nadal vs. Federer

PS- in Northeast Boston suburbs people called soda "tonic". That used to drive me nuts.

My answers:
Burger (though a good chilli-dog rocks)
Any and all pizza (slight nod to NY thin)
Brunettes (honorable mention to redheads )
Beatles
Star Wars (original 3)
Turkey
Bacon (unless we're talking Italian sausage or kielbasa)
Meat sauce
Football
Apple Pie
and a coin toss on Fed/Nadal. Both are almost unfathomably amazing to watch.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

burger vs. hot dog
NY-thin vs. deep-dish/Sicilian (pizza, obviously)
blonde vs. brunette
Beatles vs. Stones
Star Wars vs. Star Trek
turkey vs. ham (American holiday meat)
bacon vs. sausage
marinara/meat vs. alfredo
football vs. baseball (what is real national past-time?)
apple vs. pumpkin (pie)

can you tell, I'm hungry

and of course for my tennis obsession:
Nadal vs. Federer

burger
thin, usually (but I love Lou Malnati's on occasion)
Beatles
neither
turkey! (the more controversial question is lamb vs. ham for Easter, and the answer is, of course, lamb)
bacon
marinara
football -- this and turkey are the easiest choices
apple
Federer

edit: oops, missed one -- brunettes (or brunets, I guess)

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

edit: oops, missed one -- brunettes (or brunets, I guess)

Wow, when I read brunettes or blondes, my immediate assumption was that it would only apply to women. I really don't know how you would use similar terms for men.

[Ocean]

Here are my answers:

burger vs. hot dog: hot dog (turkey franks)

NY-thin vs. deep-dish/Sicilian (pizza, obviously): Used to like Sicilian, now I like super thin crust.

blonde vs. brunette: Nah.

Beatles vs. Stones: Beatles

Star Wars vs. Star Trek: Star Trek

turkey vs. ham (American holiday meat): None.

bacon vs. sausage: Sausage but only really, really pushing it.

marinara/meat vs. alfredo: Alfredo.

football vs. baseball (what is real national past-time?): basketball

apple vs. pumpkin (pie): Apple pie


and of course for my tennis obsession: Nadal vs. Federer

No idea.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Ha!! i was about to say the same thing as I realized I haven't read most of those authors either. My test would be mostly obvious stuff:

burger vs. hot dog
NY-thin vs. deep-dish/Sicilian (pizza, obviously)
blonde vs. brunette
Beatles vs. Stones
Star Wars vs. Star Trek
turkey vs. ham (American holiday meat)
bacon vs. sausage
marinara/meat vs. alfredo
football vs. baseball (what is real national past-time?)
apple vs. pumpkin (pie)

can you tell, I'm hungry

Ah, now this I can do...

Burger
Deep-dish
Brunettes (N.B. to Steph: I think for men it would be "Bruns," but we'll have to confirm with Florian if he makes it back from exile)
Stones
Trek (Are you kidding?)
Turkey
(Italian) sausage, otherwise bacon
Marinara
Football
Cherry, silly!

and of course for my tennis obsession:
Nadal vs. Federer

Michael Chang

[uncle ebeneezer]

Chang was very fun to watch. But he would be lucky to win a set on Fed or Nadal. Chang was like Agassi without the offense. Whereas Nadal is like Agassi with even more offense. And Federer is just, well...God*.

*I actually prefer Nadal most of the time, but Federer is the most God-like player of all-time in that he shows such perfect form, grace, and a casual yet fierce personality.

That must sound really odd coming from such an atheist as myself.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Chang was very fun to watch. But he would be lucky to win a set on Fed or Nadal. Chang was like Agassi without the offense. Whereas Nadal is like Agassi with even more offense. And Federer is just, well...God*.

Was God. Best player of all time, though.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Chang was very fun to watch. But he would be lucky to win a set on Fed or Nadal. Chang was like Agassi without the offense. Whereas Nadal is like Agassi with even more offense. And Federer is just, well...God*.

*I actually prefer Nadal most of the time, but Federer is the most God-like player of all-time in that he shows such perfect form, grace, and a casual yet fierce personality.

That must sound really odd coming from such an atheist as myself.

In truth, although I don't really follow tennis that closely, I'd have to agree that Chang was not really of Federer's or Nidal's caliber. My choice was more out of admiration for his determination and success against players who had bigger guns, as it were, and admiration for Chang as a person, speaking of God...

[uncle ebeneezer]

I loved Chang too for all the same reasons. I have always loved a good underdog. And at his size, Chang was always the underdog when facing Sampras, Agassi, Courier and many other of the dominant players from that era. His evangelical side was not something I was aware of until years later (really until I read Agassi's book, which I highly reccomend).

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I wonder which split is more difficult to resolve, Coke vs. Pepsi or pop vs. soda? Or perhaps sweetened vs. unsweetened ice tea? Is regular coffee black or some monstrosity with cream and sugar?

Once upon a time I created this whole list of dichotomies that I'd make people pick (quickly! you can't think!), with the idea that it would become a personality or compatibility test. It was mostly literary (Tolstoy/Dostoevsky, Hemingway/Faulkner, Austen/Brontes, Plato/Aristotle, so on), but I clearly needed to add beverages. And something about mayo/ketchup/aioli on fries, of course.

My beverage answers are: Coke (but only diet), pop (but I actually use both, I'm a moderate!), unsweetened, and black.

Heh - Dostoevsky, Hemingway, haven't read, Plato, diet coke, soda, artificially sweetened ice tea, Starbucks Sumatra brewed extra-strong in a french press with seven Splendas and double half&half. And Mayo!

[stephanie]

Oh, on the non-beverage ones I'm much less partisan than I was when I created the list. Tolstoy/Dostoevsky and Plato/Aristotle were the original ones (also Hector/Achilles, I forgot that one). I was hardcore Tolstoy, Aristotle, Hector, and also Faulkner (my favorite author, sometimes, and I didn't like Hemingway), and Austen. I think those would still be my choices, but I've come around on Dostoevsky so it's about even, I admire the Brontes much more than I did (I think Villette in particular is brilliant, though I don't love any of the Bronte books, Emily or Charlotte, like I do Austen), and I now like Hemingway a lot.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Heh - Dostoevsky, Hemingway, haven't read, Plato, diet coke, soda, artificially sweetened ice tea, Starbucks Sumatra brewed extra-strong in a french press with seven Splendas and double half&half. And Mayo!

Do I have to decide on writers/thinkers too?

Okay, I can't decide between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, I liked both back when. Hemingway, although I don't know Faulkner too well. Clearly Emily Bronte. With the limited knowledge and memory of these two, I can't decide between Plato and Aristotle.

Sorry, I'm terrible at picking favorite anything when it comes to writers/thinkers/books.

Flavors are much easier.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Since moving to LA I have discovered the divine beverage known as Jarritos. Orange or Lime are the best*. Right up there with Mexican Coke (real sugar.)

I don't get Monty Python though, never have. For stupid/silly I always preferred the Airplane/Naked Gun kindof schtick.

*That reminds me, maybe y'all can help me. They have a Tamarind soda too that I like and I can't quite figure out what Tamarind is similar to. Any ideas?