If your politicians suck, look in the mirror

Carlin had moments when he was just a miserable prick, but a fair amount of the time, he was right on. For the first half of this rant, he was. I'll address the second half in my second half.

I am amazed more and more about the idiocy of those in political office. With every story I read, I'm facepalming so much there's an indent on my forehead and where my fingers fall on the sides. What fascinates me is that this person was elected to office by people who liked them. Well... maybe not necessarily liked, but "Anybody but a Democrat/Republican/Old White Guy/Black Guy/Woman/Mexican/Asian/That Guy". Those people make me giggle like a school girl. And if you've never seen a fat guy with a beard giggle like a school girl, good for you.
You are presented with two bowls of shit to eat. One is liquid, one is solid. The "Anybody but..." Syndrome says "I have to chose between these two, I'll chose this one". So you don't want the liquid shit, you'll take the solid one. A removed observer would say "Are you fucking high?" because the right answer to the dilemma is neither.
Andrew Wilkow, on his radio show, has addressed this in regards to dealing with Progressives. In short, their answer to you when you say you're for smaller government or you want to cut spending or whatever is "So you want people to die/be stupid/go hungry/etc..."; their choices being Statism or Nihilism. If you can think logically, as in the two bowls of shit scenario I laid out for you, you'll know that the true answer is found elsewhere. To me, this was what the 2012 Presidential Election was all about.
My preferences from the start were Cain, Johnson, Paul, Bachmann. I wasn't going to vote for anyone else. And Bachmann was going to be a stretch vote for me, as she's a little not right in the head, but she's at least not full retard like the rest of the pack was. But with those candidates, I at least felt some level of trust and could agree with most of what they stood for. So on the final ticket, it was King Barry I (I'd rather live through a century of Wile E. Coyote prat falls than vote for him), Mittens (same scenario, but as Daffy Duck) or Gary Johnson. I voted for Johnson. Now, the rank and file were quick to scream "A vote for Johnson was a vote for Obama!". No, a vote for Johnson was a vote for Johnson. If Willard wanted my vote, he needed to earn it. Just by being "The Other Guy" doesn't earn my vote. And this is the problem with politicians now.
The overwhelming majority of these fucktards are, as Carlin said, a representation of the general public. I don't care what party they're affiliated with, stop and look at those who are most in the spotlight and you'll see the average schmoe in all of them. They live their lives on the backs of others; getting away with doing the least amount of work possible, while still holding up the facade that they're doing something. They pay lip service to helping others, but if it doesn't benefit them in the short AND long run, they won't touch it. They are quick to tell others how to live their lives...

Don't do drugs

Guns are bad

Marriage is sacred

Save the environment

Money is evil

Help small businesses

...but if it affects them, fuck you, they'll do what they like because they're "smarter than other people". They will rack up debt on top of debt on top of debt, but when the bill comes do, they're suddenly surprised and demand help paying it. Please, tell me this isn't a cross-section of the average person in this country.

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM!

The people voting for the politicians are what needs to change and this should scare the ever loving shit out of you. Why? There's over 500 politicians in Washington. A pittance in comparison to the population of the US. You can change the ideas of these people or just get them out of the way. That's simple. Over 220 million people CAN vote in the US. Now obviously, the variety of their political and social views mean there's no single consensus of ideas, but that's where it starts to get real fucking frightening.
130 million people voted in the Presidential election in 2012. 10 million less than in 2008. So roughly half of the population didn't vote in that election. In the "off years" (every other year - elections are held annually, if not more often), it's usually pathetically less.
Statistically speaking and it's important to say it that way because we are dealing with real numbers, but if you were talking statistics, the election was a 50/50 split. Reagan had a mandate. Obama - barely won. So 1/4 of the eligible voting public voted for Obama, 1/4 voted for Romney. So if 3/5 of the people WHO didn't vote last year actually made a choice for someone else, we'd have someone else as president. This is why the line "A third party can't win" is complete horseshit. They could win, but only if people got off their fucking asses.
That's what's scary about it all - The majority of people in this country don't care. They tend to call themselves "moderates" and when someone is either too left or too right for them, they cry "Why doesn't anybody compromise?!?!" and they don't find another candidate to vote for, they just don't vote. A moderate is someone who doesn't want to live with the consequences of making a decision by themselves. This is why they're "middle of the road".

Pot's okay, but all other drugs should be illegal

No one says you need to drive a Yugo, but let's be reasonable

The government shouldn't tell people what to eat, but some people are just too fat and we need to help them

I'm all for free speech, but hate speech shouldn't be allowed

Now, I'm sure some bright soul is saying "Wait a minute. A lot of those people who didn't vote for Mittens of King Barry I believe in freedom and liberty! They just didn't like the choices and didn't vote." You had a third choice on the national ballot: Gary Johnson. And let me be clear here, this isn't a plug for Gary Johnson. He had his flaws, but his entire platform was the free people ought to be allowed to make their own choices, as long as those choices didn't directly take away the rights of others. What's not to like about that? 

And there's another voice out there falling back to the "Anybody but that guy" argument: "King Barry I was so bad that we had to get him out of there and that meant I had to vote for Mittens!" So you were willing to trade one statist for another? Make no mistake, Romney was a statist. He just wanted to "manage" it better. Was he as bad Gingrich? No, but that's like saying "Was Mussolini as bad as Hitler?" Again, back to my two bowls of shit analogy.

Reps who call themselves bi-partisan. Calls for compromise. People who say "everyone can give a little in this debate, right?". All of these people are fuckers. Now some would say I'm giving the same "It's either A or B" options. And at some level, you're right. But my choices are freedom, with all the pleasure and pain that comes with it, or some level of government control, with it's sliding scale from creepy intrusion to tyranny and despotism. You can have a free society with government; we did for a long time in this country. But that means not putting up with the 500 elitists in D.C. who believe they know better than you. It means having the balls to vote OUT someone who's acting like a nanny, even when they're in "your party", and voting IN someone who is willing to fight for your right to be left alone.

If you continue to vote for "the lesser of two evils" you're still voting for evil and when government continues to stay shitty, pick up your chosen bowl, grab your spoon, and start investing in Callard & Bowser-Suchard, the company who makes Altoids (owned by Wrigley), because your breath is going to stink.