Comments on: Belgium Explained To Slovenes (And Whoever Else) In Ten Easy Lessons http://www.pengovsky.com/2008/11/30/belgium-explained-to-slovenes-and-whoever-else-in-ten-easy-lessons-10/ sex and politics Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:31:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Dr. ARF http://www.pengovsky.com/2008/11/30/belgium-explained-to-slovenes-and-whoever-else-in-ten-easy-lessons-10/#comment-117071 Dr. ARF Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:15:46 +0000 http://www.pengovsky.com/2008/11/30/belgium-explained-to-slovenes-and-whoever-else-in-ten-easy-lessons-10/#comment-117071 My take on Rupel? Well, you said it : same ole, same ole. It's about politicians wheeling and dealing. I know P. was more than a bit shocked about Pahor saying one thing and then doing the exact reverse, but at the end of the day, that is what politicians do. The only thing one can theorize about is the reason for it (just like P. ended his addendum : "Why?"). At first glance, it seemed as if Rupel had a snow ball's chance in hell to get appointed to any kind of position. Out with the old, in with the new, you know? However, the man seems to have more political lives than a full litter of kittens, including their mum and dad. And so, one is left with just that one question : what prompted Borut Pahor to appoint Dimitrij Rupel as special envoy for foreign relations, given his - gathering from what I found out about the man on this blog - gross incompetence to fulfill such a post in a manner representing Slovenija internationally in a positive light? In light of Rupel's past dealings and his firm statement only hours before, what was it that prompted Borut Pahor to appoint Rupel? What reason did he have? That's what I would like to know, and I think I'm not the only one. Because apparently, no one saw this one coming. Like Anciaux is not a party animal (in the political sense), but rather and Anciauxist - these words come from the weekly blog of respectable politicologist Carl Devos, professor at the Gent University, who came to the same kind of conclusion - albeit rather more eloquent and insightful - as I did in this post of mine (and in the continuing chapter about Anciaux in my to be published last post), so Rupel is a Rupelian. Rupel only looks out for Rupel and it doesn't seem matter what means he must use to do so, or to what lenghts he'll go in order to get what he wants. The only thing that separates the two, apart from political ideologies and different countries, is the fact that Anciaux really makes himself believe that he's doing this for the good of mankind, while Rupel isn't hindered by any kind of conscience, it seems. Rupel seemingly has no scruples; Anciaux uses his to justify himself. Once again, you said, it, chère collègue : same old same old... My take on Rupel? Well, you said it : same ole, same ole. It’s about politicians wheeling and dealing. I know P. was more than a bit shocked about Pahor saying one thing and then doing the exact reverse, but at the end of the day, that is what politicians do. The only thing one can theorize about is the reason for it (just like P. ended his addendum : “Why?”). At first glance, it seemed as if Rupel had a snow ball’s chance in hell to get appointed to any kind of position. Out with the old, in with the new, you know? However, the man seems to have more political lives than a full litter of kittens, including their mum and dad. And so, one is left with just that one question : what prompted Borut Pahor to appoint Dimitrij Rupel as special envoy for foreign relations, given his - gathering from what I found out about the man on this blog - gross incompetence to fulfill such a post in a manner representing Slovenija internationally in a positive light? In light of Rupel’s past dealings and his firm statement only hours before, what was it that prompted Borut Pahor to appoint Rupel? What reason did he have? That’s what I would like to know, and I think I’m not the only one. Because apparently, no one saw this one coming.

Like Anciaux is not a party animal (in the political sense), but rather and Anciauxist - these words come from the weekly blog of respectable politicologist Carl Devos, professor at the Gent University, who came to the same kind of conclusion - albeit rather more eloquent and insightful - as I did in this post of mine (and in the continuing chapter about Anciaux in my to be published last post), so Rupel is a Rupelian. Rupel only looks out for Rupel and it doesn’t seem matter what means he must use to do so, or to what lenghts he’ll go in order to get what he wants. The only thing that separates the two, apart from political ideologies and different countries, is the fact that Anciaux really makes himself believe that he’s doing this for the good of mankind, while Rupel isn’t hindered by any kind of conscience, it seems. Rupel seemingly has no scruples; Anciaux uses his to justify himself. Once again, you said, it, chère collègue : same old same old…

]]> By: dr. filomena http://www.pengovsky.com/2008/11/30/belgium-explained-to-slovenes-and-whoever-else-in-ten-easy-lessons-10/#comment-117062 dr. filomena Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:21:57 +0000 http://www.pengovsky.com/2008/11/30/belgium-explained-to-slovenes-and-whoever-else-in-ten-easy-lessons-10/#comment-117062 same ole, same ole tell me, my esteemed dr. friend, what is your take on the dr. rupel issue? same ole, same ole

tell me, my esteemed dr. friend, what is your take on the dr. rupel issue?

]]>