Why the majority of politicians are jokes

I've been thinking about this lately...the overwhelmingly vast majority of the leaders we elect are idiotic, pompous stooges, mindlessly obedient to whatever social norms or fucked-up status quos happen to be in place, incapable of innovative thought or political discourse.

I think true intellectuals or thinkers intimidate the public. Noam Chomsky should be the president of the United States, but he'd never get elected, because he has a mind that's actually capable of questioning the moronic presuppositions that govern the lives of those who do get elected. I also think a nation's philosophical geniuses, the artists, poets, etc. who are most fit to determine policy, are not typically people who desire power or domination the way those who run do. I honestly believe that candidates run to stroke their own egos, prove something to Daddy, compensate for their microscopic dick...whatever. They're a bunch of pretentious toddlers who think they know a thing or two but really need to be smothered.

My dream would be a ballot boycott in which all of a country's voters refuse to sanction the leadership of such slaves to custom and demand that somebody who actually knows how to think be put forward. But alas, it'll never happen, of course....people see two stooges presented to them and assume that one must be decent...the voter completes the Three Stooges, naturally.

Socialists are all idiots...

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.

---

Yes, I'm aware that most politicians have degrees; I'm just saying they're incapable of truly innovative thought or any kind of bold challenge to established doctrine if it's rooted too deeply in the public consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Socialists are all idiots...

---

I don't think you could argue socialists are any more idiotic than the hardcore laissez-faire types. I think the difference is that the former are actually interested in an economically egalitarian land, while the latters' interest lies primarily in seeing just how little they can pay their Third World workers, and just how many tax breaks or corporate welfare they can squeeze out of the government.

Anyway, I remember reading something in "Stranger in a Strange Land" about how politicians reflect the populace and therefore just as self-serving and custom-bound.

What I'm saying is that some people who enter politics actually ARE intelligent- Clinton is one, and Kucinich is certainly another shining example- however, to be effective as politicians they must learn to work within a framework for the office that doesn't allow for very much flexibility in approaching problems. I think to attract 'better' politicians, or allow existing ones to really shine, there must be some fundamental changes to the very structure of our government that allow for more creative and cooperative problem-solving. A three-party system is one relatively simple place to begin, since it encourages a LOT more cooperation across the hallways than a 2-party one does. And hey... more parties is more fun! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

I don't think you could argue socialists are any more idiotic than the hardcore laissez-faire types.

---

Yes, I could... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

What I'm saying is that some people who enter politics actually ARE intelligent- Clinton is one, and Kucinich is certainly another shining example

---

Debatable... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Socialists are all idiots...

---

Capitalists are all greedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

Capitalists are all greedy.

---

According to idiot socialists... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

According to idiot socialists... :D

---

No, according to capitalism itself. If you aren't greedy, you can't make as much money as humanly possible, therefore not a capitalist.

it does seem like there aren't any 'great men' in politics anymore...a sane person would run away from a job that compells people to dig around their past, make up lies about them, and harrass their families, but a stupid person might put up with that for the pension/health benefits and cheap freedom fries in the house cafeterias

I agree.Most politicians who run for office are on a quest for power.Palin is a good example:she's already been found guilty of abuse of power....How about the Alaskan Senator?....friggin 7 felonies,yet he still wants to hold his seat.America's politicians are for the most part greedy,self-absorbed,pigs....but hasn't it always been that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

No, according to capitalism itself. If you aren't greedy, you can't make as much money as humanly possible, therefore not a capitalist.

---

Making money isn't about greed. Capitalists give more to charity than socialists do. Socialism is more about greed, they want what others have earned. Socialism is actually more like thievery.

Do you grow or just smoke?
What if I said that you have to give me 39% of all of your marijuana so I can give it to people I deem needy?

Socialists never were too bright...

"...more like thievery and slavery."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

What I'm saying is that some people who enter politics actually ARE intelligent- Clinton is one, and Kucinich is certainly another shining example- however, to be effective as politicians they must learn to work within a framework for the office that doesn't allow for very much flexibility in approaching problems. I think to attract 'better' politicians, or allow existing ones to really shine, there must be some fundamental changes to the very structure of our government that allow for more creative and cooperative problem-solving. A three-party system is one relatively simple place to begin, since it encourages a LOT more cooperation across the hallways than a 2-party one does. And hey... more parties is more fun! :D

---

I agree with all of that, except for the claim that Clinton is intelligent. Other than a flashy degree which anyone can get if they study hard enough, I've seen no evidence of that. I will give him this: environmentally he was pretty solid, but other than that he basically stayed true to idiotic custom: the War on Drugs, economic imperialism, etc. Oh, and the didn't inhale line rivals the worst Bushisms for stupidity.

Don't forget, John P. Walters has a masters degree. Noam Chomsky had some interesting things to say about how you can be supremely educated and still be an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Making money isn't about greed. Capitalists give more to charity than socialists do. Socialism is more about greed, they want what others have earned. Socialism is actually more like thievery.

Do you grow or just smoke?
What if I said that you have to give me 39% of all of your marijuana so I can give it to people I deem needy?

Socialists never were too bright...

---

You could also say that every dollar a corporation earns that is dumped into the lap of the stooge who inherited the company instead of being equally distributed among the workers that make such a company possible, is also theft.

Under capitalism, corporations reign, and under communism, the government reign. Both corporations and governments are immoral and frightening institutions, so I embrace socialism as the happy medium.

"instead of being equally distributed among the workers"

Like I said, socialists are all idiots... :D

clinton was intelligent...he could asorb huge amounts of information and give speeches without notes...such a waste!



In the 1992 election campaign, Will Shortz, crossword editor of the New York Times, visited the then-candidate Bill Clinton's Manhattan hotel room, with a specially-constructed puzzle. They chatted for a few minutes about crosswords when Clinton noticed the puzzle, clicked on his watch timer, and started solving the puzzle. However, he was soon disturbed by an urgent phone call.

In an interview for Brill's Content Magazine, New York, Shortz recalled the event: "So he clicks off his watch timer and goes over to the telephone and he's talking animatedly and a few minutes into the call I hear his timer click on again and I look over and, in astonishment, I see, while he's talking on the phone, he's continuing to solve the puzzle."

When Clinton finished the call, Shortz checked the puzzle for accuracy. "It was absolutely perfect and he had finished it in six minutes and 54 seconds," said Shortz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

clinton was intelligent...

---

Debatable...

moistening his cigar in that woman, ms lewinsky, was definitely a stupid move

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

"instead of being equally distributed among the workers"

Like I said, socialists are all idiots... :D

---

I like how you offered no legitimate reason why the workers aren't entitled to their share of the profits, but merely called me an idiot. Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

moistening his cigar in that woman, ms lewinsky, was definitely a stupid move

---

He nearly ruined cigars for me but committing perjury wasn't too bright either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

I like how you offered no legitimate reason why the workers aren't entitled to their share of the profits, but merely called me an idiot. Nice.

---

I'm glad you liked that but it should be obvious, except to idiot socialists, that the "entitlement" is what's wrong with it. What workers are "entitled" to is to be paid what they agreed to work for. Some companies "offer" profit sharing but they aren't entitled to it.

how about the idiot socialists running the banks who were 'entitled' to be bailed out and even nationalized by the government thanks to their fiscal negligence? this year's christmas bonuses will be courtesy of the taxpayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

how about the idiot socialists running the banks who were 'entitled' to be bailed out and even nationalized by the government thanks to their fiscal negligence? this year's christmas bonuses will be courtesy of the taxpayer

---

Many capitalists were against the bailout but doesn't make socialism any better nor more acceptable. Additionally, that's not socialism, it was wrong but not exactly socialism either.

As I remember, that idiot socialist Roosevelt was a lot better for Depression-era America than that pillar of laissez-faire, Herbert Hoover.

income assistance programs are not socialism: they don't even interfere with the free markets

the federal government buying up some of the largest financial institutions in the country is socialism by definition


so·cial·ism
noun
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

I like how you offered no legitimate reason why the workers aren't entitled to their share of the profits, but merely called me an idiot. Nice.

---

Because they don't own the business, that is why they are not "entitled" to anything. What risk do they take? They still expect their paycheck, even of the company loses money.
I never had an employee give me any money when my business lost money that month. They still wanted to get paid, how greedy can you get.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

As I remember, that idiot socialist Roosevelt was a lot better for Depression-era America than that pillar of laissez-faire, Herbert Hoover.

---

Actually that idiot socialist Roosevelt extended the Depression a good 5 years longer than it would have been. WW2 got us out of it finally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

Because they don't own the business, that is why they are not "entitled" to anything. What risk do they take? They still expect their paycheck, even of the company loses money.
I never had an employee give me any money when my business lost money that month. They still wanted to get paid, how greedy can you get.:D

---

Socialists think they're owed far much more than they are really worth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

income assistance programs are not socialism: they don't even interfere with the free markets

---

Redistribution of wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is socialism by any rational definition. The government preventing economic collapse by investing in businesses is not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

Actually that idiot socialist Roosevelt extended the Depression a good 5 years longer than it would have been. WW2 got us out of it finally.

---

Exactly, FDR's New (raw) Deal was bad for America and we're still paying the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

"instead of being equally distributed among the workers"

Like I said, socialists are all idiots... :D

---

You have to be one of the most offensive, horrible people I've ever had the displeasure to meet. I agree with rebgirl 100%, I hope to god you get banned so we dont have to deal with you calling everyone an idiot like you're some sort of genius or some bullshit. Go to a shrink and get your superiority complex checked out.

Also, LOL at you disabling your reputation, I'm not even slightly surprised. I'd disable it too if everyone thought I was a douche bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

You have to be one of the most offensive, horrible people I've ever had the displeasure to meet. I agree with rebgirl 100%, I hope to god you get banned so we dont have to deal with you calling everyone an idiot like you're some sort of genius or some bullshit. Go to a shrink and get your superiority complex checked out.

---

So, in your deluded socialist world, it's OK for you but bad for me? Thanks for proving me right, yet again and thank God for the ignore feature... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

So, in your deluded socialist world, it's OK for you but bad for me? Thanks for proving me right, yet again and thank God for the ignore feature... :D

---

Is this guy serious? Like....really? Alright bro, if you wanna steal from the poor to line your own pockets that's your right, but karma's a bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Making money isn't about greed. Capitalists give more to charity than socialists do.

---

while they do give more money, they actually give exponentially less of a total percentage of their GDP. They give more because they have a lot more money, but percentage wise they actually give far far less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Redistribution of wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is socialism by any rational definition. The government preventing economic collapse by investing in businesses is not the same thing.

---

this is what I do not believe. The whole entrie world is not going into the apocalypse because we are not going to bail them out. They want you to BELIEVE that our way of life as we know it is going to end if we don't start throwing free money at corrupt mismanaged business'.

Some people just cant see past the fear tactics; just like the good ole bush times. "If we don't invade now were all going to get nuked!" and look how real that threat was :wtf:


simply put, the government is giving money to business'. how that is not socialism is beyond me. Oh yeah, must be because im just some "dumb socialist" :rasta::rasta:

"Redistribution of wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is socialism by any rational definition."

- that would mean the republican party is socialist, and the usa is a socialist country

Some call socialism theft....true, but theft from thieves, for the benefit of their victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

"Redistribution of wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is socialism by any rational definition."

- that would mean the republican party is socialist, and the usa is a socialist country

---

Today it pretty much is.

can you name some capitalist countries that are not socialist?

If that is your definition of socialism, then John McCain is a socialist politician. Fucking Bill O'reilly is a socialist by that standard.

Look. Learn what these words fucking mean. Then debate the concepts.

Also along the joke lines....
I just heard Obama deployed 17 000 more troops to Iraq.

Anyway. Guys, just stop arguing over which group of people is better.
It's a tactic which is used to divert attention from the fucked up things the government is doing. You're all arguing for nothing. Any system can work if it's played out correctly.

The whole reason these systems even have names is because some people looked at some guidelines for what this group would stand for. They decided yeh that's good, we'll do that. In the start most systems have good and bad things. Once they get played out for a bit it just gets more and more corrupt and I can guarantee even socialism, after time, would end up almost identical to what we have now.

How glorious would it be if the vast majority of people in the US actually understood something about polotics and whats best for them on a governmental level.
I would love to see a day when the election comes around and America is presented with the same two choices weve always, but instead of a winner the ballots are counted and by an overwhelming majority the nation casts a vote of "no confidence" for either cantidate.
You would be able to hear me laughing from europe. That is how funny that would be. :D
Seriously though the US needs to do away with the laughably stupid two-party system, even just adding another party, JUST ONE, would be a huge improvement.