enough silliness

i have had enough of the silliness of my blog posts lately. there has been too much of me pretending to believe ridiculous bullshit, of both the variety that is obviously just one big joke that nobody takes seriously, and the variety that lots of people do take very seriously even though it is still bullshit. anyway, what is the point of that? it is just silly. and i don’t think there is anything wrong with that, except for one thing. it is supposed to be funny, but i don’t find it funny anymore. it is just old humor now, old and worn out, long ago having ceased to be funny. and what is the point of peddling your wares when all you have to offer is old, stale, unfunny humor? i ought to have something new and fresh to say. besides, there are plenty of serious topics to talk about. like, for instance, i could talk about presidential candidates. i have not been keeping up with the news about them because that requires watching a lot of long debates. i know that my favorite candidate, dennis kucinich, has no chance of winning, and the democratic candidate will be hillary clinton or barack obama, probably. i still dislike hillary clinton, but it has never been an intense dislike, just a mild one. i can still vote for her if she runs against a republican. but against fellow democracts, i would definitely pick anybody but hillary. the other democrats are all ok i guess. i don’t like any of the republicans except ron paul, but even he is kind of annoying and i disagree with him on lots of issues. he is the only republican i would consider voting for. so, the only way i could vote republican is if he ends up running against hillary clinton. in any other matchup i would vote for the democrat. i did hear in the news that clinton had a dispute with obama about whether we should talk to our enemies. obama supports talking to them and clinton opposes it. naturally, i agree with obama, and think that diplomacy is a good idea. hillary clinton agrees with the bush administration and prefers to be “tough” on our enemies. what does that mean? letting them do whatever they want, and doing stupid things like economic sanctions that never work to try to punish them, unsuccessfully... or using military force. anyway, john mccain and mitt romney are both bad candidates, and the real contenders for the republican nomination are rudolph giuliani and fred thompson. rudolph giuliani used to live with homosexuals, has been divorced, and was pro-abortion. and fred thompson is a hollywood actor who used to be a lobbyist for a pro-abortion group. mitt romney is also famous for being a flip-flopper on this, but then again, who among the republicans is not guilty of that? fred thompson keeps playing this stupid game of pretending he doesn’t know whether or not he will run, even though he is like 2nd place in the republican polls after rudolph giuliani. and everyone forgets rudy giuliani was unpopular as mayor until 9/11/2001. as for hillary clinton, her only selling points are her gender and her husband. if she were a male senator of the same age without an ex-president spouse, she would be maybe 1% in the primaries, if that. why can’t we look for someone with substance instead of someone packaged as a black or a female, the hot new brand name candidates that just arrived on the market? and does anyone remember there was a candidate in 2004 running in the democratic primary who was both black and female at the same time? and hardly anyone voted for her that time around. how times change. i just hope people look seriously at the policies the candidates are presenting, and examine the personalities and intelligence level of each of the candidates, and their stands on all the important issues. unfortunately, i do not seem to have done that very thoroughly, at least not yet. there is too much information to process.