I am not a happy boy
Today I was all set to make a mirthful post about something stupid and funny. Instead I'm pissed off. Four more years of that corrupt asshole Rod Blagojevich, Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the presidency, the Chicago Democrats have their machine in full swing, and I won't even get to watch Donald Rumsfeld tear apart reporters.
*sigh*
At least there's still John Bolton and his moustache of fury.
*sigh*
At least there's still John Bolton and his moustache of fury.
posted by Poke | 4:25 PM
20 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey Poke, tell me about Nacy Pelosi and about Rod Blowjob. I don't know much about them.
the both suck alot... fury clouds my mind.
haha, I found this clip
Who was a better choice for Governor in your mind?
I actually like something I heard from Roe Conn on WLS. When he votes in IL, he isn't voting for that guy to get into office, he's voting for him to go to prison. and given the history of IL politics, that's not a bad system.
And I think topinka was a slightly better candidate. mostly because Rod was so bad. fuck, it's one of them, the ex-socialist Green party guy or teh Constitution Party guy running a write in campaign.
Voting yesterday was like choosing between throwing your best friend into a pool filled with man eating sharks with lasers on their snouts or killing them with millions of paper cuts.
They both sucked but even choosing the lesser of two evils was hard in this election. Rod bankrupted us and put us in super debt until 2014 (or something) while Judy worked with our great ex-governor who is in jail (she had to know something was going on).
Well that sucks.
And that's why I voted in Minnesota. I still can't believe Hatch lost after being ahead for as long as he was.
And I think Blagojevic was the first guy on Daily Show to ever ask if the interviewer was serious.
And Poke, I like Roe Conn's viewpoint on that. Good god. I'm glad IL is consistently Demo, but shit. Can we get some non-corrupt ppl in office?
"Can we get some non-corrupt ppl in office?"
no.
Dead serious.
not in IL.
seriously, even golden boy Obama isn't clean.
Why do our leaders need to be clean of corruption anyway?
Oh, and what's the dirt on Obama? I'm curious now.
andy, you're not serious about that corruption question, right?
Well, I think the trend is that people who tend to seek power aren't very saintly. There's the fact that they are human, and the bigger fact that they are power-hungry humans. To demand that our politicians are completely 'clean' seems too Utopian to me. I am a realist. Politics gets done by wheeling and dealing, there really is no escaping that.
Of course, the question good people have to ask themselves is: How much are we, as a people, willing to put up with until we pick up our arms and 're-format' the system?
Now, I'd still like Poke to detail the dirt on Obama. I'm curious to what sort of picture Poke will paint.. I'm still trying to pin down where Poke stands politically and I find these latest discussion we've been having to be very fascinating.
The dirt on Obama has to do with a land deal with Tony Rezco, who was Roddy boy's close friend/fund raiser and was just indicted for a whole heap of shit.
And I don't expect anyone to be squeaky clean. But I do expect a much higher level of cleanliness in public service. it's all a matter of what was done and whether it was a private matter (off color jokes to a friend, adultery, etc) or if it was public (embezzling the tax payers' money).
I agree with poke on his comments about where he expects political cleanliness.
and Andy, I find your thoughts about the "re-formatting" of government interesting. Are you saying that basically we just have to deal with bullshit until we're fed up and change it...? Basically, that seems to me like it would lead into a never-ending cycle. When we change it and instill a new power, it seems you're saying that inherently those who now have the power will be corrupt and start to create new bullshit. And a whole new generation will have to come and "re-format" the previously "re-formatted" system.
Yuck!! I don't like that idea =P I think if people took a more sound look at the candidates and weren't so eager to latch onto pointless mudslinging, we'd manage to get some decent folk into places of power.
In other words, back to what Poke said, we should be able to have a logical head on us about what aspects of a candidate's life determine their qualifications to be a leader. Keeping in mind that we are indeed all human, we can weed out the important pieces (the public bits) from what doesn't matter (the private aspects) and make a good decision.
To think that everyone who seeks power in some way is inherently corrupt seems a stretch to me.
spamlol
I'd like it to be that clean, too, Poke. If the government is gonna tax us, they better damn well not use that money for personal betterment... otherwise the government has no right to tax us.
@Hans, Yes'em I am saying that. If a government becomes harmful to it's own ends (i.e. to serve the good of the people and to respect our unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.) then it must be dissembled. This is in our Declaration of Independence.
"Basically, that seems to me like it would lead into a never-ending cycle. When we change it and instill a new power, it seems you're saying that inherently those who now have the power will be corrupt and start to create new bullshit. And a whole new generation will have to come and "re-format" the previously "re-formatted" system."
Yes, you've got it. :) That's right, it is an un-ending cycle. 'The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance' and all that.. if we truly want freedom we have to always keep a close eye on those who lead us and if they get out of line we have to take back our freedom, even if it means violently.
Sure, if people took a more sound look at a lot of thing the world would be a better place.. but that's not how the universe is, there is no Utopia.
And.. I don't think it's a stretch to think that those who purposefully seek power tend to be more corrupt. There are two types of leaders: Those who hunger for power (the corrupt) and those who have it thrust on them, make the best of it, but prefer not to be in power(the just).
Now of course, that doesn't mean the corrupt are bad leaders.. sometimes a corrupt leader can be a a great leader because they tend to get things done. Sometimes things need to get done.
Hmm. Kinda sucks, but yeah, that makes sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home