For instance:
Same pill, different Armani suit. The woman is beholden, beholden, beholden.
Same pill, only meaner. I don't care that the man is a lapsed Catholic and cheats on his wife. I care that he's a jack-booted fascist pinhead who delights in dreaming up ever more clever ways to whip us into blind obedience.
Kinda the same pill, only much, much cuter. But we all know what happens when we elect cute guys to office, right? They're either assassinated or their names are forever stained by naughty sexual misconductivities. Or both. Barak, honey, go save the world some other way. But stay cute, 'kay?Gah, then there's THIS guy:
Forget the fact that he's a moron, er, Mormon. I simply refuse to vote for anyone who spends more time on his hair than I do.But, wait . . . what's this?
Huh. What do you know? Okay, give Moi a glass of Pinot to go with that pill and yeah, I'll swallow it.
15 comments:
The Best political commentary I've read! And I have read a baajillion. Thanks for the smile.
I had the same conversation with my brother this weekend; He went down the list and I kept saying "next" "next" "next".
Well done.
Sigh...I guess I'm going to have to get serious about choosing a candidate soon. I wonder how many really great candidates there might be out there who just don't have the money to run? More and more it seems to be a rich kid popularity contest. Geesh, how would we know who to vote for if we never saw a picture of the candidates or knew how much money they had???
I can't believe that Shrillary is currently the most electable candidate.
I can't believe the Repubicans can't come up with somebody more electable than Shrillary. And I'm not a Repubican.
(you read that right - Re-pubic-can.)
Mr. Paul seems honest, but then he did help elect Ray-gun. I distrust anyone even vaguely associated with Ray-gun. Or Tex-ass. And he's totally un-electable, too honest to be a Repubican.
I can't believe I like Shrillary... but not much better than the other idiots. I have only two reasons to vote for her, and they're both in her bra. What is wrong with me?
pee ess - his sign fails to mention that he's pro life, pro gun, and anti homersexual union. his views on the federal reserve scare the bejeebus out of me.
though I find his anti-regulatory stance intriguing, ultimately, he's just a libertarian in repubican clothes.
This election is like being held at gun point and asked: "Which do you prefer? Death by drowning or by lethal injection?"
Oh, do not get me started on the Republicans (heh, you wrote pubic). Moderate Log Cabin-ites anyone? Helllloooooo? Am I all alone in this here canyon?
And watching the debates? Their PR people just need to coach them in one thing and one thing only: Answer the freakin' question. And quit thanking God, your mom, your trophy wife, and your children, none of whom had anything to do with the fact that you're here. Nope, you got yourself into this mess all by your lonesome. Cowboy up and answer the question!
As for Paul, I'm aware of his other views, some of which I have major problems with. However (supposedly) he doesn't believe that the government has a right to legislate in those areas. In other words, believe what you want, but keep the gub'ment out of it. Easier said than done, though.
What I want is a Frankenstein Candidate: a little of her, a little bit of him, eye of newt from that guy, bat's wing from this dude. Because none of them quite fit.
But we all know the bottom line though, right? "Anyone's better than the shrub". Well, except for Giuliani.
very nice, It really won't matter if you believe the Mayans....
I just saw Joe Biden and was impressed that he at least knows how to work the congress to get something done and May have some ethics????
..I'm still stickin' with John Edwards-from the last election.he has my interests at heart.
Now all we need is a run-off election. Why the HELL don't we have that, again?
(doris - I happen to be an Edwards fan, too. He got my vote last time.)
And, really, did you have to mention Pinot? *cries*
Magill: Uh, the Mayans are going to take over? Cool.
Doris Rose: Doris Rose and John Edwards, sittin' in a tree . . . He's pretty, too.
Meghan: Oh, gosh, sorry. At least I didn't mention Pinot AND allergy medicine. Sorry. I'll stop now.
The Mayan Calendar covers the last 16 mil years and it ends Oct 28 2011 when the world as we know it will end and depending on your interpretation ( a new world / or the rapture ) will begin
Magill: Well, so long as the New World and/or Rapture also includes chocolate. And plenty of crap magazines for Moi to read.
If I had two to choose from, it would be, ironically, Kucinich or Ron Paul. I heard Kucinich interviewed by Tavis Smiley some months back and have no doubt that he is the most moral of the bunch, but that's not an electable position these days.
As a more or less former libertarian, I heard Dr. Paul say something in a debate a few weeks ago that made me wonder if he'd thought through his own positions that clearly. He was saying how important it was that the market and capitalism control the health-care debate, but then went on to say how health care is totally screwed up in this country because of corporations. How he could imply that corporate actions and free-market/capitalism were unrelated baffled me.
"How he could imply that corporate actions and free-market/capitalism were unrelated baffled me."
Hmmm . . . maybe because, as the libertarians and Austrian economists believe, true laissez faire capitalism has nothing to do with corporations, which are primarily beholden to shareholders and not first and foremost to the production of a product or service and value for value exchange between producer and buyer?
OK. Thanks for the education. I didn't pay good enough attention during my years editing for economists.
Interesting conversation I had at, of all places, Bonnaroo. I met a woman who was undertaking doctoral work at Rutgers in some obscure application of economics, and she began educating me about how Marxist economics is not discussed in American universities (she was Asian/Indian) . . . how all American students learn about is capitalism, yet Marxism (aside from all that communism stuff) actually has an entirely different take on what most U.S. money people take for granted as The Truth. Actually a very interesting conversation in a most unlikely place.
Post a Comment