Time Circuits

Wow. I post a rambling journal entry on my thoughts and look what I start. This is nuts. Sorry, folks, I never meant to start a full-scale politics war here. I meant the religion argument, but not this current one. I probably should have put a warning at the beginning, but I figured that the icon for "journal entry" would be enough. Hrm.

Anyway, I might as well clarify some things here since people have taken certain words of mine further than they should have. First of all, Lio Convoy is correct - most of the time, I make comments out of left field. I do this when I'm not trying to be serious (and I wasn't trying to be serious in my McCain entry) so that, hopefully, people will realize this. I'd like to believe there's a difference between the way I write in a post like this and in a post like my previous one. Apparently, there isn't much of one. Gatekeeper was probably the only one who recognized my idiocy-on-purpose, but then he lambasted himself with a shitty post. From now on I shall use the journal entry for my silly posts and others for my somewhat coherent ones.

Secondly, my "deification" of Bill Clinton is a response to the idiots who think that him lieing about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was bad. And maybe I see nothing wrong with his actions regarding that incident because I, too, am a liar and accept it. This, I don't know. But I do know that I honestly am proud that he stood up to the Republicans and won: it was a smear campaign that went on for far too long, designed to get him out of office. I like to imitate his voice and say things like, "Come to Bubba, you sexy laday!", and make fun of him just like everyone else. But my true opinion of him is that, yes, he is a good person. Whether he was a good President or not, as Peps stated, is way too early to determine; we're still figuring out if Reagan was a good President. (And for the record, a good person doesn't always make a good President - look at Jimmy Carter.) I really would like to meet Mr. Clinton, to shake his hand, but not because I think of him as some sort of ideal person which I aspire to - mostly it's just because A) he's famous and B) he seems like a real "buddy" kind of guy. So Lio, I'm sorry if you've misconstrued my jabs at "idiots" as actual fanaticism for the guy. But hey - he sure likes those lesbians!

Lastly, I do not condemn G.W. Actually, I think he's doing a pretty good job - he, too, is standing up to the frequent attacks made upon him and he's continuing to do his work. Just like it's funny to imitate Clinton and say things like, "I did not have sexual relations with that sleeping bag," it's just as funny, to me, to poke fun at the fact that our President takes naps and to call him a namby-pamby. "Namby-pamby" is a funny adjective. I don't think Bush did as good a job as he should have in picking out his cabinet. And while it's funny to joke that he's just a figurehead puppet controlled by Cheney or some other Republican, he's not that stupid. Nobody who can get through Yale is stupid - no amount of legacy, parental influence or money can coerce a college degree from Yale. He jumped into the water before he was ready, that's all, and now he's a little nervous - that's understandable. I just don't think he was the best choice to lead us. A good choice, maybe, but not the best. I still stand by my statement that John McCain or Al Gore would've been much better, despite Gore's "robotic" persona or McCain being conservative. (I am, after all, a partisan at heart.) I condemn John Ashcroft and Matt Hale because I think they're bad people for real reasons. Dubya is almost as lovable as Bubba AND he even looks like a monkey instead of a hillbilly.

So again, I'm sorry if I was misread. I hope that clears some stuff up. Stone is wrong though: Mr. Clinton may be able to play the saxophone, but just because he was President doesn't mean he is any good at it. My own memories shall follow, hopefully. Have a good night, folks.