Just a question

Ought lawyers

who contrary to better knowledge

defend extremely evil criminals

to be considered extremely evil criminals themselves?

All these fucking voters

Sometimes when talking about stupidity in general and in particular I'd ( like to) say that
I do not only agree with Bernard Shaw but am convinced not 98 but 99,99 percent of human being should not be allowed to cast a vote.

"Oh my god. And you do, of course, belong to the 0,01 per cent."

"Of course, my dear. However, for something completely different. When in private, please just call me Sean."

Well, that's a 30 and some years old running gag between Mrs. J. and me.

Now would not many people know me as well as Mrs J. does ("One can never be sure whether you are serious, joking or provoking.").

People who do not know me might therefore not get puzzled, but think "What a fucking arrogant cunt of an asshole!"

Mind you!! I am not swearing and thus making one step backwards on my quest to become the politest blogger in this universe and those yet to discover! Just quoting what some people might think I am.

End of the beforegoing.

As I did not tell you cannot know there has not only been a thrilling election campaign in Germany, but even an election.

Apropos election. Congress in Iran. Voting in the 21st Century. A participant from Zimbabwe standing together with one from China, the whole culminating in following dialogue:
- Do you have elections in China, too?
- Elections. Oh yes! Evely molning, evely molning.

Well, back to German politics. May I assure you they (the German politicians) don't cause erections?
Or?
Well, erecting middlefingers, if one does interprete the party which came second correctly - the party of the non-voters (28,2 per cent).

Which is why one - if not the most neutral nonpartisan and unbiased - tabloid said nearly half of Germans polled ahead of the parliamentary elections were in favo(u)r of introducing compulsory voting. Full article here.

Excuse me. Compulsory voting? 100 percent of the 99,99 percent idiots forced to give evidence of their idiocy, so that above mentioned 0,01 percent have to suffer?

Blimey!

Well, I am but a German. Almost none of my readers are. Which is why Germany's foreign minister to come very probably would not be a regular reader of this blog. [Although he could learn a bit English here - by reading the comments of native speakers].

Anyway, let's speak in general. About Ireland, f.e..
Will the majority of the Irish voters have yesterday said "Yes" or "No" during the(ir) second (!) referendum about the so-called Lisbon-Treaty?

To explain the exclamation mark behind second: I wonder, when politicians will start to accept a No.
Got it? Only about one year ago in a referendum the majority of the Irish voted "No"!

Mind you!
Those Irish voters who voted "Yes" - well, at least some of them - would have prefered that No-voters should not have been allowed to vote, due to their utter stupidity.

I do not know the result of today's referendum, but I am pretty sure:
In case the EU-lobby does not need to plan a third referendum in Ireland, those Irish voters who (yesterday) voted "No" - well, at least some of them - would prefer that Yes-voters should not have been allowed to vote, due to their utter stupidity.

Got it?

If not, don't worry. Politics is very very complicated.

Ah! You mean this post is a mess?

Ha ha.

Of course! If I'd be clever I could make at least ten posts of this.

A perfect sentence, by the way. The one above. 14 words. Fucking perfect.One word more (means: the 15th), and most people would not be able to understand it - according to the most intelligent masters of one German news agency.

Calm down. The German news agency does, of course, only think the average German to be too stupid to understand the meaning of a sentence containing more than 14 words.

For reborn US-Americans - just to give an example - 13 or perhaps less words might be too many/much.

Anyway, forget both the stupid Germans and the stupid US-Americans.

This post is not about them.

This post is a) about discussing a political question, about b) them bleedin' cuss words and about c) the question if suffrage should be universal.

. . .

In case you do not wish to follow the given links, do not follow your wish.
While Bock the Robber since September 22nd offers the chance to discuss the pro & contra of a Yes or No to the so-called Lisbon Treaty, one day later Miss Mogg asked - to cut her (provocative) question short - if there should indeed be "one (wo)man one vote".

Well, and the "Egg" - doubtful at his best - is arguing for thinking twice or thrice before f.e. writing a very German philosopher's name phonetically right but de facto wrong.

Ha ha ha ...

I enjoyed this.
And you?
Omg? :)
Ah, may I remind you? OmS would do. :)

Anyway, what's your vote?

Oh! You did not understand the question(s)?

Here they are, again! In less than 14 words.

What do you think about
- one (wo)man one vote, (regardless of any individual stupidity)
- and about swearing in general?

Without bashing an eyelid
wishing
the peace of the night.

Just a question 0001

What do you think when coming to think ...

... about love.


Yes!
Right now (!) I am determined to ask my readers 1,ooo questions.
Please, feel free. Write your thoughts without fltres.

Be aware of that this very first questions might be (one of) the most difficult. :)