Right, have you got a dictionary to hand? Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.
So, Uncle Gordon has set out on the path to Hades already trodden by the self-styled Messiah Blair by inviting the crumbling, urine-soaked bitch Thatcher round to his gaff for tea and a chat.
The dribbling, rotund Scots calculating machine then, as Blair had done, praised the T creature to the waiting press.
While no doubt masturbating over a copy of Female Geriatric Psycho Bitches Monthly, he said he admired her because she was a "conviction" politician.
Cue dictionary: "Conviction" - unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence.
Turn back a few pages and you find: "Bigot" - person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning.
I don't know about you, but I find the phrases "without need for proof or evidence" and "irrespective of reasoning" in the contexts in which they are used a tad similar.
Forward again to where you were: "Conviction" - alt. final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed.
Now I always thought Archer and Aitkin were this country's leading conviction politicians? Maybe there's something we don't know? Has the old, doddering, blue-rinsed excuse for a Fascist ex-dictator got a criminal record (other than anything by Cliff)? Biting the heads off babies in a built up area, perhaps? Lighting a fire with unemployed miners in a national park, maybe? God knows she SHOULD have been collared by the filth fucking years ago. Living off fucking immoral earnings would have been the first rap I'd have pinned on her.
Sorry, got carried away there. Where was I? Oh, yes. So, do you think Brown was, just like Blair, fawning over a piece of human excrement because, deep down, he's bluer than a blue thing, politically speaking, or was he perhaps being very clever with his choice of words?
Did he mean to say the Grantham Gitess was a strong leader who trusted her instincts or that she was a bigoted jailbird? Makes you think, doesn't it? No? Ok, fair enough.
I still can't make up my mind about Brown, really, but I do fear the worst. Just wait and see. He's done the Thatch bit so now, like Blurr, he'll be jetting off next to worship at the feet of the man who taught the Devil and Jim Davidson everything they know - Murdoch.
Nothing for Grantham................yet.
4.2
2.7
8
1.6
0
5.9
Shaggy Blog Stories
13 comments:
Nothing for Grantham ,eh? I'm confess to being a tad surprised.
I'd bet my entire life's income to a leper's tagnut that Brown will turn out to be every bit as selfish, immoral and vilely loathsome as Blair and Thatcher ever were. It's a pre-requisite for getting to be PM. Politicans all have two things you should never trust in; everything they say, and everything they do. And the only pleasure you'll ever get out of any of them is when they get caught doing exactly what they self-righteously fulminate the most about. In the case of the left, they're all selfish and corrupt. In the case of the right, they're all arse stabbing perverts. Liberals, it goes without saying, combine the worst qualities of both.
BGT
BGT,
You know me - I give everyone the benefit of the doubt before condemning them.
The reason politics as it stands doesn't work is only the self-obsessed, greedy and ruthlessly ambitious can, because of their characteristics, get into positions of power. The genuinely gifted who care deeply for others and their welfare and the good of the country at the expense of themselves cannot and will not do the "stabbing others in the back" thing and so never make it.
Homer (no, not that one) had an idea which would have worked - to handpick a future generation of leaders, breed them and then keep the offspring away from everyone else for life, pay them all the same modest wage and genetically instill in them the desire merely to serve. I actually suggested it at the Labour Party conference in 4BC but was ushered out of the door and told it was a bit too extreme.
You have persuaded me to come clean.
it's an education this blog
ILTV,
Funny you should say that. All the women I have been out with say that I am an education. Actuallly, what they really say is "Well, that's taught me a lesson!"
"a future generation of leaders, breed them and then keep the offspring away from everyone else for life, pay them all the same modest wage and genetically instill in them the desire merely to serve".
You dissapoint me Reg.
What you are saying is, we should have a leader, who secretly controls his puppets, the eledged leaders, who in fact serve him instead of serving the nation( I say nation not country).
So in fact, you recomend the so called "wife-husband" leadership, where the husband is the one claiming to be the boss, and the wife actually is.
Secondly, someone has to take the not so easy to take disizions, and those, eager to serve, are usually not the ones to take them.
We are talking about leadership Reg, and not about runing a Kebab stand.
Btw., what do you expect from people, playing Happy Families with Scurra.
And Reg, dont put yourself down like that. Its not your fault. Your British, ofcourse women are dissapointed with you.
whenever anyone says teacher, I think about that Abba song and the one The Police sang!
Fish,
No, no, no, noooooo! The whole point is there IS no leader, just a disassociated GROUP of leaders whose role it is to serve. The people who select them in the first place stand down having done so. No wife-husband thing. Anyway, it's not my idea, it was Homer's. Have a word with him. I've got his Fax number if you want it?
No,
you see, there is no way for this to work, since leadership and serving dont go together from the start.
That is why, the rest of the world, has representatives, elected by the people, for the people, FROM the people.
The British, are the only ones not being able to decide. Do we keep a leader, or do we elect representativs. You want it all. And in the end, not one does his job the way he should.
Too bad you are so fucking civilized, you cant even have a revolution like the fucking French.
Fish,
Again, you've missed the point. I know leadership and servitude don't work together in the modern world. That's precisely why Homer proposed doing what he did! - to get a race which at once leads AND serves.
I have no idea what you are on about with your rant against the British wanting it both ways? We elect representatives and they elect a leader - that's the same the fucking world over. The Queen is just someone to throw stones at.
Are you seriously telling me that this by the people, for the people from the people bollocks is in existence today? Look at the fucking Yanks. More people voted for Gore than Bush yet he rigged it and so got in. At the peak of Thatcher's power she attracted 30 per cent of the vote - that means 70 per cent didn't want her.
The so-called democratic voting system in use today is wank. You get to vote only for the people THEY decide you should vote for - not the people you really want to vote for or who really should be in leadership.
As for a revolution, we've already had one but I'm certainly not against having another one. As for the French, who, in their right fucking mind, wants to be like the fucking French?
Read Homer - he explains it better.
I got the point, Im just commenting its unpropobillity.
No, ofcourse electing sistems are only theory, while the reality always finds a way to corrupt things. It is human nature to desire power, and even Homers idea could not prevent the NEW race, from eventualy evolving and becomeing greedy.
I use to live under a dictator, in a country, that did not allow us to leave, and threatened us with death, if we would not do as told.
We had only one party, and a leader, elected for life.
No freedom of speech(unless you were suicidal and hated your family), an imaginary right to vote(since you voted for only one party), and a law, that said" people are only allowed to do, what this law says they can do. The Police are allowed to do anything, except what is forbiden to them(which was nothing)."
I know what voteing sistems of this world are like, and I have Democracy written in my toilet, so I can take a crap without haveing to have a coupe of coffe first.
But you see, its not the politicians, and its not the sistem. Its the stupidity of people voteing them, that is the problem.
So, Homer was wrong from the start, and was not askeing himself the wright question. IF, THAN WE NEED A NEW RACE OF VOTERS, NOT LEADERS!
Im sorry if I get on your nerves. Do say, and I will stop, and keep on working on my kebab idea.
Oh and Reg, thank you for recomending me. Its an honnor.
Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish!
You are in absolutely NO WAY getting on my nerves. You are a MOST welcome new reader. Thew cut and thrust of debate is what it's all about. If we all thought the same then we would be living in 1984land. The only annoying people are those who disagree with you but cannot argue why - they just have an opinion for no reason. You are certainly not one of those.
And, incidentally, I fully agree with your last point. Yes, it IS the voters who are at fault, definitely. When Thatcher got in the first time I was annoyed. When she got in again I was baffled. When she got in the third time a massive light bulb came on over my head and I realised it was not HER who was at fault, it was the bloody electorate for voting for her.
Please carry on with you comments and criticism - it's good to have intelligent people to thrash out the ills of the world with.
And thank you for recommending me as well. Likewise, an honour.
Post a Comment