Tuesday, September 13, 2005


ok, now bush has actually copped to being an idiot and appointing fellow idiots to run shit that idiots shouldn't be running, and has accepted blame for the mismanagement of this whole louisiana situation.

we tried to impeach clinton for a slobjob, and no one even died. can we impeach bush now? please? quickly, before he kills a shiteload more people.

darth sardonic


Blogger The Inquisitor said...

These 'bloggers' are giving others who use blogs as a soapbox a bad name -

intellectually speaking. You can't just impeach a person just because he

can't 'get the jiggy with it', in time with our tune. You have to wait for the elections for that. Impeachment is something that is considered on a constitutional basis where verifiable and unconstitutional transgressions have been committed. Being an 'idiot', a 'moron', i believe, is not unconstitutional. If it was, the electorate responsible for putting Bush in the White House for a 2nd term ought to be the first to be 'impeached'.

These 'bloggers' ought to be reminded that while the ability to state an opinion is validated solely by the gift of speech the value of this opinion is based on at least some semblance of an attempt at systematic analysis with basic recourse to dictionary and institutional definitions of terms utilised.


4:42 AM  
Blogger darth sardonic said...


i went to reply to your comment on your own site and find it's not available. so i imagine you simply lurk about commenting upon people's blogs with whom you disagree, or to whom you feel mentally superior, without any real original thoughts of your own.

since i can't find yours, i'm guessing that mine is doing little to give yours a bad name, as you say.

i am not so backwards or uninformed on gubernatorial matters that i would assume or even think that an impeachment can be carried out based on one punk stay-home dad's blog, and if you really think that my tiny and oft unread little blog is going to in any way affect matters other than in the thinking of my small band of readers, then i am highly flattered. my point is simply this: if the word "impeachment" could be so casually tossed about with clinton's indiscretion, might it not be applicable here? since we can't get him tried as a war criminal, and/or for manslaughter?

i don't disagree that the electorate should first be impeached. i think, personally, that the electorate is a sneaky way to piss on the little man, as my vote only counts for so much within the state that i vote, and that state only counts for so much. then we wonder why people take the attitude that there is no real reason to go out and vote. furthermore, i am not suggesting that bush be impeached as a result of being a moron and an idiot, and having a god complex, he can't help that, that is just him, just as i cannot help being a sarcastic bastard (and, yes, that has gotten me into serious trouble in the past), i'm suggesting we get him out of office before he kills another significant amount of people through his own negligence.

and finally, since you have stepped into my domain, in this blog, i am greater than the president, greater than god. i state my opinions as fact in this blog because they are, within the scope of this blog. i need no recourse to a dictionary, a thesaurus, or an encyclopedia, because i state what i feel. i certainly needn't put up with your pompousness, self-righteousness, and self-agrandizement, as obviously no one is reading your blog, as it is simply not there. however, i believe that opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they all stink, so your comment, however full of itself that it may be, will stand, and thank you for sharing your views.

darth sardonic

8:47 AM  
Blogger darth sardonic said...

one more thing: who still says "get jiggy with it"? come on, man, it's the 21st century for christ's sake!


8:48 AM  
Blogger The Inquisitor said...

Much of the comment was not forwarded with you or your brief statement in mind but the issue itself and its relation to bloggers.

Secondly, its strange that you think that a comment appearing on your blog must appear on the commentator's site. What, pray tell, is the logic there? I address issues out of interest in the issue itself. Personally, I don't find a thrill getting 'one over' the average American. Not much of an achievement there. Not being sarcastic here. The culture can be psychologically determined to be largely in the 'juvenile' state when one takes a look at the tendencies of toddlers and adolescents and compares it to various aspects of American culture. No doubt you will take that as an insult, but a simple objective and brief perusal of the relevant fields will prove my point. If I want an intellectual exercise, I look to the left (your left) of the U.S. of a. And by the way, no thought is original. All of them are born of opposition and observation, save those that are genetically inherited.

Now whilst you may not be uninformed and etc, etc, to think that Bush, along with other flora and fauna, cannot be impeached in reality, it undoubtedly adds to the mass of motivational resources that pushes people in various directions. Not everyone may be endowed with your level of knowledge and intelligence, or be as unimpressionable to counter it. People are highly impressionable creatures, which is why, for instance, many Americans still believe that the 'War on Terror' started with America's invasion of Afghanistan as opposed to the flooring of the Twin Towers.

As for words, rhetoric and big words. That would be expected from a culture whose chief international export is The Simpsons. The mentality, that 'if it can't be said with a few simple words, then it ought not to be said at all' only serves to compromise the communication of reality that requires more than a 'doh!' or a 'duh!'. The art of language is related to the art of thought. Passion, persuasion, poetic forms, imagery, etc, serves as a practice in multidimensionalising oneself as well as providing the readers with such practice. This is especially vital in an age that is fast becoming Simpsonian in character. The compromising of the former can lead to the compromising of the latter.

What a 'blog is' and what 'a blog ought to be' has to be appreciated along with what the 'world is' and what 'the world ought to be'. With the world on fire, and one's parent's and children in flames, to 'blog' in the usual sense of the word is gross negligence and especially in a globalised world. I'm not saying that we ought not to indulge in the superficial or trivial, what I’m saying is, we have to complement it with socially inquisitive and empathetic pastimes too.

Those who don't see all inhabitants of this planet as one family will undoubtedly become the proverbial 'blogger' whose best argument for anything is that which is to be found at the end of your 'comment' and which, you'll excuse me, for not reproducing here.

The right to an opinion does not equate with the quality of an opinion. That's what makes them all potentially 'stink'. It's the attempt to qualify them that gradually moves them from the locality of public conveniences to the vicinity of the halls of discourse.

Finally, asserting the objective value of the fashionability of statements begs justification which can never be forwarded on the basis of reason. Rather, it is symptomatic of a mind that is nothing more than a reflection of the billboards of a particular space and time.

I hope that satisfies the wonderings and questions you forwarded. Now you can go back to being playing 'God' at this site.


6:16 PM  
Blogger darth sardonic said...


let me begin by admitting i am a dumb yank (i am not fond of the term "american" coming out of anyone's mouth, as my brazilian and argentine friends can be referred to as "americans"--however, "yank" works beautifully), and i understand that you would rather not have a battle of wits with me. (and yet, here we are).

you misunderstand my statement about not being able to get to your site through the links in your comment. i understand that your comment would not appear at your own site. it is a comment on my site, not yours. not really sure what you were shooting at there.

interesting that you use my site to launch a general comment to the world in regards to an issue. i hate to reinform you that my reading base is so miniscule as to provide little except sarcastic replies to your comment. i think it's humorous that you generalize us yanks as all having a simpsonian mentality, and in acting like juveniles. have you spent much time in the us of a? and while i maintain no illusions that we yanks are in any way superior to anyone else (rather, i believe we are the "texans" of the world--we think we're the biggest, smartest, and best, while we only prove that we are the biggest pains in the ass), i've met several brits who think that "monty python's flying circus" is the heighth of hilarity (and i tend to agree with them), and england itself has a long and storied history of pushing their own ways upon the world and not treating every new indiginous homo sapien they encountered as an equal. not in recent times, mind you, but in history. how do you think the us of a came about in the first place?

language, ah language. i am a big fan of language, in all its forms. and while i could fill an entire book with dicksonian ramblings, and i might even feel really good about myself, and hey, see how much smarter i am than that person over there, it really doesn't do much for making the rest of the "inhabitants of the world" around me feel like "one family" (and, by the way, if you had read any of my blog beyond the impeachment piece, you would already know that that is how i view the inhabitants of this rock, (being "third rock from the sun" as opposed to "plymouth rock") as well as the fact that i realize this world is "on fire" and that i "complement it with socially inquisitive and empathic pastimes", but it's really just easier for you to read one (short, i might add) post, discern i'm a "simpsonian" yank, and swoop in to prove how advanced you really are.

as to the value of an opinion, you could not be so one-sided as to believe that an opinion is only valuable if backed by volumes of research and fellows who opine the same. "the halls of discourse" as you put it. surely you would realize that one might find backing for nearly any opinion, no matter how convoluted, while also finding oneself securely ensconced within a group of like-minded individuals. and surely you wouldn't feel that the proles down at pub should be obliterated from the earth, but you would presume to tell them their opinion doesn't matter, or should not be shared, as it lacks value?

blogs were begun not as a mode for a few of the intellectually elite to get together and discuss what's wrong with the world so much as an online diary that others might read, share, and comment upon. just like "the simpsons" serves some entertainment purpose (while not so intellectually expanding as, say, "coupling" or "so graham norton"), those of us who "blog" on a lower intellectual level than you and your friends still serve some purpose in the grand scheme of things. you need us as much as we need you.

now, i don't hope to convince you to ever see things from my point of view, so i will go back to being a "juvenile american" and leave off trying to convince you that my own little bit of cyberspace warrants your acceptance.

thanks for making what would have otherwise been a dull day beyond interesting.

darth sardonic

7:20 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I agree with your original blog post completely. It is ridiculous to allow a liar and now admittedly, a fuck up, to stay in office.

11:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home