while i've been away.....
was away at a WoW house... where all the comps are always in fully-utilised mode, so i didn't have much of a chance to blog despite my wanting to write about several things.
things are in full swing now that i'm back at work (:() but i still really wanna blog about the horny politician.
so an em-ian minister pulls a clinton.... and is considered a HERO cos he 'apologises' about it in public.... though how it's called an apology is beyond me.
what about it irks me?
statements such as 'she is a PERSONAL FRIEND' (hohoho) and 'unsure whether it was old or new'... right....
and his 'next course of action' has yet to be decided: 'I will think about it after meeting the press.' (and fucking 'em female press ppl silly? they're all personal friends)
and then the police are coming down on those who own/distribute the DVD.... HUH?? it's an offense... right...
here's the thing: if he were an opp leader, he'd be crucified downside up by now. and subject to all forms of verbal and what-not abuse on his character...
and really now, his being recorded fucking a 'personal friend' silly should be ample proof of a lack of moral credibility, and he should step down from politics gracefully.
even Clinton would probably have done so if such proof were circulated around the US of A, in, say, Arkansas.
in all seriousness, my bitterness with the ruling team aside:
i'm not saying it's right to invade one's privacy with recordings and such... it IS. but would there be such a crackdown and hue-and-cry on the invasion of privacy if it were, say, an artiste? or just an ordinary person like you or me? or if it were an opposition leader?
yes, temptations abound. perhaps the marriage has long been dead.... but he is STILL married. is it more right for him to maintain his marriage for the sake of posterity (and because it clouds the eyes of the public, therefore, making it easier to enter politics) and then fuck 'personal friends', or 'not-so-personal friends', rather than get a divorce and fuck 'friends' as a bachelor?
it's one thing to be a single man with a fuckbuddy. quite another to be a married/unavailable man with a fuckbuddy.
if you're a confirmed bachelor/bachelorette who doesn't pretend to want a relationship/emotional entanglement, it's a completely different ballgame than a man or woman who has ties that bind.
yes, he may be a good politician, leader of the people, one who does the duties of his office faithfully. perhaps. but betrayal of trust is betrayal of trust. if he were a good politician, etc. etc. then his error in judgment is one the people of his constituency as well as himself has to pay heavily for. which is very very sad... because in all fairness, he HAS been a good Minister of Health, in my opinion.
but fair is fair. pay for his error he has to. and firstly, he has a lot to make up for. to his wife and children, most of all, if they still mean a lot to him. if his marriage has long been over, then it's perhaps about time he stop the farce and file for divorce. if said 'personal friend' is someone he has long wanted to marry, then do so. it's better than living a lie. and lying to the public.
whether it were just a fling, or an emotional entanglement, is BESIDE THE POINT. it doesn't make his behaviour any more RIGHT. in fact, an emotional entanglement, makes it even sadder. because the poor woman AS WELL AS his poor wife has to suffer in silence for such a LOOOOONNNNGGGGG time. how idiot politicians interviewed in the papers (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/6/focus/19931882&sec=focus) can make one less 'sinful' than the other just shows how SHALLOW and SUPERFICIAL some people are. and how they hold DOUBLE STANDARDS for different groups of people.
yes, after marriage, you may still meet another man or woman that you fancy. but is it RIGHT to pursue both at the same time? marriage is a CHOICE. it is a COMMITMENT. it means choosing to fuck one vagina or one penis for the rest of your fucking life (pun intended). it means keeping yourself emotionally, mentally and physically LOYAL to ONE PERSON until you die (or the marriage gets dissolved). it means RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.
like a job: if you're working for someone, you may still find another job that you fancy. should you pursue both at the same time too? certainly not. you WOULD get fired. and you WOULD receive disciplinary action. but in marriage it's ok? shouldn't you suffer the same fate? isn't a person's tie to another person more important than a person's tie to a job? both are COMMITMENTS. why is one less important than another?
in an ordinary citizen, such behaviour is wrong. ordinary people suffer censure for it. in a politician holding office, does that make it OK? certainly not. perhaps we should make all politicians who say stupid things like that step down as well. because i'm deeply ashamed to hear such idiocy coming out of the mouths of our elected MPs.
but in all sarcasm for the ruling team:
perhaps i should join the party too, so i could fuck around with 20 year-old male gigolos at 50 and call them personal friends. and then still arrogantly say that i'm unsure about how old the tape was, just so ppl will think i 'masih bocor' at 50.
seriously. this place is going steadily downhill. it makes me sick.
the self-aggrandizement and egocentricity of emian politics and politicians sickens me. this just epitomises such disgustingly low-life behaviour.
and the datin.... what the fuck? 'trying to pull a hillary?' was the first thing i told the boy when i read the papers.
i swear by God's footstool and by the heavens, if the boy ever pulls a 'datuk CSL' on me, i'd:
a) call the courts on him and get him crucified.
b) empty his savings and make them MINE.
c) tie him up to a chair next to his own bbq pit, build a slow fire, cut up his stomach with a katana (yes, trust me, i know ppl who collects swords as a hobby), pull out his intestines slowly and start slowly roasting it over the slow fire (while he's still alive, yes...) while:
d) getting several HUGE-ASS STEROID-ADDICTED IRON-PUMPERS in gimp-suits to gang-rape his ass..
e) get all my friends to make a recording of said unwilling homosexual orgy
f) distribute said recording for FREE
g) carve some curses into his sorry penis with a blunt apparatus
h) castrate said sorry penis with said bloody blunt apparatus
i) by the time all that is done, if he isn't dead yet, he'd wish he was.
i know he reads my blog :P and i know that the above was a resurrection of my coldly graphic male-bashing a la Sixth Form. yes, i knew precisely why most guys feared me. i know. there's prime example there. well, i don't care. all the better for him to know that he shouldn't humiliate and cross me that way unless he wants to be tortured and killed slowly and painfully and even more humiliatingly.
but he's an intelligent man :D with a past of his own. i'm sure he knows better ;)
things are in full swing now that i'm back at work (:() but i still really wanna blog about the horny politician.
so an em-ian minister pulls a clinton.... and is considered a HERO cos he 'apologises' about it in public.... though how it's called an apology is beyond me.
what about it irks me?
statements such as 'she is a PERSONAL FRIEND' (hohoho) and 'unsure whether it was old or new'... right....
and his 'next course of action' has yet to be decided: 'I will think about it after meeting the press.' (and fucking 'em female press ppl silly? they're all personal friends)
and then the police are coming down on those who own/distribute the DVD.... HUH?? it's an offense... right...
here's the thing: if he were an opp leader, he'd be crucified downside up by now. and subject to all forms of verbal and what-not abuse on his character...
and really now, his being recorded fucking a 'personal friend' silly should be ample proof of a lack of moral credibility, and he should step down from politics gracefully.
even Clinton would probably have done so if such proof were circulated around the US of A, in, say, Arkansas.
in all seriousness, my bitterness with the ruling team aside:
i'm not saying it's right to invade one's privacy with recordings and such... it IS. but would there be such a crackdown and hue-and-cry on the invasion of privacy if it were, say, an artiste? or just an ordinary person like you or me? or if it were an opposition leader?
yes, temptations abound. perhaps the marriage has long been dead.... but he is STILL married. is it more right for him to maintain his marriage for the sake of posterity (and because it clouds the eyes of the public, therefore, making it easier to enter politics) and then fuck 'personal friends', or 'not-so-personal friends', rather than get a divorce and fuck 'friends' as a bachelor?
it's one thing to be a single man with a fuckbuddy. quite another to be a married/unavailable man with a fuckbuddy.
if you're a confirmed bachelor/bachelorette who doesn't pretend to want a relationship/emotional entanglement, it's a completely different ballgame than a man or woman who has ties that bind.
yes, he may be a good politician, leader of the people, one who does the duties of his office faithfully. perhaps. but betrayal of trust is betrayal of trust. if he were a good politician, etc. etc. then his error in judgment is one the people of his constituency as well as himself has to pay heavily for. which is very very sad... because in all fairness, he HAS been a good Minister of Health, in my opinion.
but fair is fair. pay for his error he has to. and firstly, he has a lot to make up for. to his wife and children, most of all, if they still mean a lot to him. if his marriage has long been over, then it's perhaps about time he stop the farce and file for divorce. if said 'personal friend' is someone he has long wanted to marry, then do so. it's better than living a lie. and lying to the public.
whether it were just a fling, or an emotional entanglement, is BESIDE THE POINT. it doesn't make his behaviour any more RIGHT. in fact, an emotional entanglement, makes it even sadder. because the poor woman AS WELL AS his poor wife has to suffer in silence for such a LOOOOONNNNGGGGG time. how idiot politicians interviewed in the papers (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/6/focus/19931882&sec=focus) can make one less 'sinful' than the other just shows how SHALLOW and SUPERFICIAL some people are. and how they hold DOUBLE STANDARDS for different groups of people.
yes, after marriage, you may still meet another man or woman that you fancy. but is it RIGHT to pursue both at the same time? marriage is a CHOICE. it is a COMMITMENT. it means choosing to fuck one vagina or one penis for the rest of your fucking life (pun intended). it means keeping yourself emotionally, mentally and physically LOYAL to ONE PERSON until you die (or the marriage gets dissolved). it means RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.
like a job: if you're working for someone, you may still find another job that you fancy. should you pursue both at the same time too? certainly not. you WOULD get fired. and you WOULD receive disciplinary action. but in marriage it's ok? shouldn't you suffer the same fate? isn't a person's tie to another person more important than a person's tie to a job? both are COMMITMENTS. why is one less important than another?
in an ordinary citizen, such behaviour is wrong. ordinary people suffer censure for it. in a politician holding office, does that make it OK? certainly not. perhaps we should make all politicians who say stupid things like that step down as well. because i'm deeply ashamed to hear such idiocy coming out of the mouths of our elected MPs.
but in all sarcasm for the ruling team:
perhaps i should join the party too, so i could fuck around with 20 year-old male gigolos at 50 and call them personal friends. and then still arrogantly say that i'm unsure about how old the tape was, just so ppl will think i 'masih bocor' at 50.
seriously. this place is going steadily downhill. it makes me sick.
the self-aggrandizement and egocentricity of emian politics and politicians sickens me. this just epitomises such disgustingly low-life behaviour.
and the datin.... what the fuck? 'trying to pull a hillary?' was the first thing i told the boy when i read the papers.
i swear by God's footstool and by the heavens, if the boy ever pulls a 'datuk CSL' on me, i'd:
a) call the courts on him and get him crucified.
b) empty his savings and make them MINE.
c) tie him up to a chair next to his own bbq pit, build a slow fire, cut up his stomach with a katana (yes, trust me, i know ppl who collects swords as a hobby), pull out his intestines slowly and start slowly roasting it over the slow fire (while he's still alive, yes...) while:
d) getting several HUGE-ASS STEROID-ADDICTED IRON-PUMPERS in gimp-suits to gang-rape his ass..
e) get all my friends to make a recording of said unwilling homosexual orgy
f) distribute said recording for FREE
g) carve some curses into his sorry penis with a blunt apparatus
h) castrate said sorry penis with said bloody blunt apparatus
i) by the time all that is done, if he isn't dead yet, he'd wish he was.
i know he reads my blog :P and i know that the above was a resurrection of my coldly graphic male-bashing a la Sixth Form. yes, i knew precisely why most guys feared me. i know. there's prime example there. well, i don't care. all the better for him to know that he shouldn't humiliate and cross me that way unless he wants to be tortured and killed slowly and painfully and even more humiliatingly.
but he's an intelligent man :D with a past of his own. i'm sure he knows better ;)
