UnBooks talk:See Dick

Ineresting method of making fun of things, Bravo --Hypodrive 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

umm... I'm guessing this is about American politics? SpitValve 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

reading again, I think I understand the 2nd half of it? sorta?

I don't get it. - Sikon 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a reference to the current U.S. Vice President, Dick Cheney.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Dick Forces Weigh In, Pt. I

Chapter 11: A bankrupt political process

See Dick's friend George. It is George's birthday. George likes birthdays.

See George's birthday gift. George got a donkey.

See the donkey. Donkeys are also called asses.

See George wince. George does not like asses, but he does like Dick.

See George and Dick kick the donkey's ass.--172.145.248.166 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay Ms. Coulter, not nice. Not clever. Not in the spirit of See Dick. Now go back to being what you do best, running your telephone sex line. Just sign me, the Creator, Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Put your biases aside. I think this is at least somewhat clever and funny. --172.168.198.167 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You, asking me to put my bias aside? See Dick is satire. Your "addition" is not. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion, but it is misguided in my opinion. It's pure satire of the current state of American politics. Democrats (the donkey) claim Bush is an idiot who couldn't breathe without assistance, yet for the last six years the "idiot" has pretty much gotten away with anything he wanted and usually with the majority of Democrats' support. At the same time, Republicans have increased their control over both the House and the Senate every election since 2000. And they've accomplished this all with Bush having approval ratings below 50% for at least the last 2-3 years. The donkey's getting its butt kicked and the current process is amiss (hence the Chapter 11 bankruptcy title).--172.132.142.42 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing "biases" with "patriotism," though? (I'm just asking.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking to me I am not sure what you mean.--172.132.142.42 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just happen to think the term "biases" implies that the anti-Cheney tone of the article is based primarily on ideology, when in fact, Prettiestpretty's contribution history generally suggests that she avoids political subjects and has a somewhat traditionalist socioeconomic agenda. I'm not saying she's a conservative, of course - that would be ridiculous - but I also think that people who are identifiably conservatives have a tendency, especially since 2000, to refer to practically anything that disagrees with them as being "biased," probably because so much of it really is antithetical to their own agenda(s). But the fact is, Cheney has done some extremely questionable things that almost anyone could interpret as going against the national interest, irrespective of ideology. Lots of conservatives, even Republicans, have made that interpretation - it's not just Democrats or "liberals." (This is putting aside the Whittington incident, of course - that's just funny by definition.) I do agree that the current process is amiss, but we've already got articles on Karl Rove, Fox News, Hanging chad, and the Electoral College, among others. Even I myself wrote one - see Everybody cares, and I'm thinking of temporarily coming back from hiatus to write one on the Diebold Corporation. All I can really say is that I'm more interested in fixing problems than I am in simply bashing conservatives, even if it often looks like the same thing. But when you assume the latter and dismiss the possibility of the former, it just looks like sour grapes, doesn't it? Or even worse, being a sore winner. Nobody likes a sore winner.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And vice versa too. All I did was write a silly addition to an article I found amusing. In turn, I was called Ann Coulter, told I was not nice and not witty, and that I should stick to making phone sex calls. I'm not the one who needs to unknot my knickers.***Don's clown nose, repeatedly honks horn, and zig-zags away chuckling madly***--172.132.142.42 05:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, use of the C-word might have been excessive, but the article was on the front page at the time. That tends to make people more sensitive to potentially "hostile" edits, for some reason... Anyway, I won't be offended if you won't be! But I did un-knot my knickers just now and the cleaning lady had a stroke, so maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not unknotting anything. Here's the deal, your addition, while tickling your funny bone would introduce a level hostility to the article that isn't found in a Dick and Jane book. In fact, to me, it sounded like the type of mean spirited in your face style prefered by Ms. C. So sorry if I offended. And as Some User pointed out, by the time your suggestion was made, the article had already made it through VFH. While I have to work on my matrenal instinct to protect the content of an article that I originated, one of the things that you should understand is that 1) You have no user account on Uncyclopedia, and 2) Making that type of edit to a VfH article without the user account could appear to be vandalism, which is what happens to VfH articles. So I extend my apologies, but I also would suggest that you feel your addition really has some level of merit, get a user name and then we'll talk. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not all that interested in having my addition added to the article. I am happy to express myself on talk pages. As I have only discovered this website less than a week ago, I haven't decided as of yet if I'll decide to claim squatter's rights here. If I do, then I will think of a nom de plume. P.S. Your opinion that "your addition... would introduce a level hostility to the article that isn't found in a Dick and Jane book" is odd. Some might think "See mommies and daddies. They are crying. Saddam didn't hurt them. Dick and his war killed their little boys and girls. Everybody is sad. But Dick doesn't care. 'War means job security,' says Dick." is a bit hostile. Lastly, your comment suggesting my comment on a talk page is "vandalism" is ludicrous. Why have an edit button, if others are not allowed to express their thoughts? I seriously suggest you think over your reaction here. You are really coming across as a petty partisian. Now come on, I'll unknot my knickers if you unknot yours. No one will see us, I promise. This is a talk page. No one visits talk pages. And besides, Some User has already unknotted his. It's only fair.--172.163.15.35 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am a moderate but I made articles making fun of liberals and conservatives. This article makes fun of conservatives, and your addition did not fit the flow and writing style of the article. The whole point of the article is to make fun of Dick Cheney and other Conservatives. All of a sudden you are making fun of Democrats, which does not fit the rest of the article. Can parts of the article be considered mean? I guess so. Can mean stuff be funny, yes it can. If you want to attack liberals, try articles like this one HowTo:Be a liberal which I helped contribute to. It is making fun of liberals by grossly exagerating real events and things that liberals do or support. I made fun of Dick Cheney in a later part of this talk page as well. I guess that makes me fair and balanced as I make fun of both sides. Another article that makes fun of liberals and needs help is Holy Bible: Revised Liberal Edition. We seem to have edit wars there, and parts of it need to be rewritten. I am only suggesting that you apply your talents to other articles, like articles that make fun of liberals which you seem to be good at. If you want to make fun of Conservatives try God-Fearing Republicans or Conservative Terrorists that I also contributed to. I hope you can move on and manage conflicts better in the future. A lot of stuff I wrote got rewritten or deleted, but I keep on trying to write better articles. You can do it, it just takes a lot of time. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Dick Forces Weigh In, Pt. II

Could we throw in a Kerry reference or two? Maybe: John wants to play war too. Now he does not want to play. He wanted to play before he did not want to play. Or something along those lines, I don't know. There are funnier people than me out there, I'll leave it up to them if they want. (Unsigned comment left by User:24.218.138.168, 12:52, 2 July 2006)

They don't want! Unfortunately, the article is called "See Dick," not "See John Kerry." You could always start a similar "response" article if you like, but there's already United States Presidential Election of 2004 - if it were me, I'd do some fixup on that one. It could probably use it! Just be sure you don't accidentally read Al Franken's latest book before you do that, though - too many well-cited facts in there about the whole "waffler" thing. Could cause some problems!  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the Chapter 11 should be about bankrupcy, because Dick and George and Congress changed bankrupcy laws. About biased, I wrote articles about liberals and conservatives in my edit history. I found that both sides get upset when being made fun of. There just seems to be more liberals getting upset than conservatives in the political articles but this is the first one I found that a conservative got upset. I'm a moderate myself. Anyway here are my suggestions:

Chapter 11 See Dick. Dick is upset. Dick is upset over people who cannot pay their bills. Dick calls these people deadbeats. See the deadbeats try to get out of paying their bills. Dick says that they broke a bank, bankruptcy. Dick says it cuts into corporate profits. See the new bankrupcy law. Congress passed the law and Dick's friend George signed it. See George sign the bill. See the deadbeats suffer, now they have to pay back some of their bills.

Chapter 12 See Dick. Dick wants to run again. Dick wants to run again with George. See John, John supported the war. John wants to run too. John says he doesn't want to play war anymore. This makes Dick unhappy. Dick does not like that John changed his mind. Dick calls John a flip-flopper. See Diabold. See Dick. Dick has a new friend Diabold. See Dick run, see Dick run with George. See John run. Who won? See Diabold. Diabold says that Dick and George won. John knows that he won. John knows that Diabold likes Dick better than him.

Chapter 13 See Dick. Dick wants to capture bad people by listening to their phone calls. See the NSA. Dick likes the NSA. The NSA wants to listen into all phone calls without a warrant. See Ma Bell. Ma Bell runs a phone company. The NSA says that Ma Bell must allow Dick to listen in on all phone calls. See Ma Bell. Ma Bell is upset. Ma Bell tells some newspapers, oops. See Dick. Dick is unhappy. Dick is unhappy that Ma Bell told the newspapers, it was supposed to be a secret. See The Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to prevent people on listening to you on the phone without a warrant. See Dick. See Dick ignore The Constitution. See Dick call The Constitution just a silly little paper.

--2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Following Formula is best way to reach nirvana

OK, additions are going to get added as time goes by, lets try and follow these easy to work with steps.

1. Orion Blaster has stated, and stated very well: This article is a about poking fun at Dick Cheney and the current administration. It is not about getting equal jabs at Democrats - if you want that then create an article called See Hillary or See Ted. But I can guarentee you that there are no early reader books that have the same cache as "See Dick" does.
2. Each chapter has to start with "See Dick". The content has to be laid out in the fewest words possible, and the words have to be the simplest words that you could use (one or two syllable words). At least once in a section you must repeat the new content because this is how we learn. Keep it simple.
3. The only other charecters that can be at the center of each section are top White House aids, the President, and each member of the Cheney family unless abnormal circumstances prevail (like Vice President shoots someone else).

Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine and I agree with you, but the name is Blastar and not Blaster. Orion Blaster is someone who pretends to be me via a fake account, and a common mispelling of my last name. Orion Blaster tries to pretend to be me but makes up a lot of bad stuff about me that is untrue. Blastar means mighty warrior in Vilani Galanglac, Blaster is sort of a bad word in that language which I won't translate. Just letting you know, no problem. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Chalk it up to dyslexia. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)