Uncyclopedia:VFH/Presidents with Ridiculously Accentuated Facial Features

Article: Presidents with Rediculously Accentuated Facial Features	Score: 3 badly photoshopped moustaches
Nominated by:	Self Nomination
For: 10	For my life's work is now complete. ~ Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p. 9/07/2008 @ 01:18 For I've seen this grow up from just a little 'stache. How fast they grow. Le Cejak • <1:36, 09 Jul 2008> Good Stuffs - UnIdiot \| \| Talk \| Contribs - 04:15, Jul 9 For - A good read (Bonner) (Talk) Jul 9, 08:42 VeryFor--Sycamore (Talk) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC) For -RA HB 11:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Testicles. Oy vey. ~ 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:30, Jul 9 For The Nixon ear hair was my idea. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC) For; and all this from a throw-away comment made on VFP. -- The Zombiebaron 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 4 lolz 2 ded prez. Chocolate Rain 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Against: 7	Against. Basically, it's little more than a collection of (intentionally) badly-done Photoshops. Not for me. Sorry. --Hyperbole 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Against I have to agree with Hyperbole Mgr. Readmesoon **my voice my work vote for me Sorry Jocke I also agree with Hyperbole. -- mundane Ape (dehydrate) (Riot Porn) 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Fucking hell** it pains me to vote against on this. A lot of time and effort was spent here, and it shows, trust me, it does. But the truth is, I don't find it funny. The idea itself isn't very consistent (some Presidents actually underwent some sort of process, others used "Google image search", still others used actual pictures) and I can't even work out whether these facial features are supposed to be real or not. I mean, Nixon's ear hair, Wilson's glasses, and Washington's eyeballs are supposed to be real, but others are supposed to the result of photoshop? I'm very confused and I don't see a solid concept. Unfortunately, Jocke, it just doesn't make me laugh. Sorry. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:19 Jul 11, 2008 Against. Per Skullthumper's dangerously-close-to tl;dr comment above. Sorry Jocke. --UU - natter 09:26, Jul 11. Against see above. --THINKER 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Against I side with the people saying it's just a lot of photoshopped images. It's not funny.--AldirTheKnight 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Against -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:54, 22 Jul
Comments	Abstain - I know voting abstain makes me look like a hypocrite, but I can't decide either way. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 20:47, Jul. 10, 2008 Hypocrisy detected – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:10 Jul 11, 2008 This is Uncyclopedia, a world where I don't have to pay attention to real world physics and have absolutely absurd anachronisms while keeping a serious voice. Presidents in this article can install their facial features however they want, even if they self-apply it to their face with "photoshop", which in this case is magical and can apply things in meatspace as well as photographs. It's supposed to be absolutely absurd, and that reflects the absurdity of the cheap photoshops. And yes, I wrote this article because I had a picture of Thomas Jefferson with a cheaply photoshopped large moustache and a picture of James Madison with a really large top hat and no article to put them in. ~ Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p. 11/07/2008 @ 15:10 I know, but for me, the absurdity has to have a little more consistency in order for it to work and for me to laugh. This is just my personal opinion. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:52 Jul 12, 2008 @ Under User: Your mom was dangerously close to tf;df. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:52 Jul 12, 2008 Abs. On second thought, I'm going to abstain. I got a little more into the piece and now realize what it's trying to accomplish, but overall its a bit too loose with the zaniness. In order for the absurdity to work in this case (as an article that follows traditional wiki formatting), it needs to be a bit more anchored. Right now the piece is juggling, when it would be better off throwing well-placed curveballs. --THINKER 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) @ Skull: You found that too? --UU - natter 13:40, Jul 14 abstain. another well-done piece that just didn't give me enough laughs to earn my vote. maybe i'm just becoming a cranky old man.--SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)