Go team, fight, fight, fight
Speaking of crap sandwiches
Melissa Clouthier is none too happy with those worthless Libertarians who don’t want to play the game:
Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?
All I can come up with? It’s just an excuse to not put skin in the game. It’s a hedge so that when the new Congress is, yet again, human, fallible and horrors! political, the libertarians can be smug, superior and say, “I told you so.”
This condescension and this cynicism is worse than useless.
If you are not willing to get in there and make a difference. STFU.
It’s odd to me that someone can, objectively, look back and say that there’s a difference. Or that there will be. The Republicans are not going to fix this. They had their shot to stick to their smaller government principles. And they failed miserably. They made the biggest government ever up to that point. Obama is just continuing that. How is anyone gullible enough to believe that this time it will be different? Honestly.
Sure, we have some of these tea party candidates. And, you know what, I hope they do change things. And if they had a shot at winning here, I’d support them. I wish them luck. But I have my doubts they’ll change anything.
If the choice is between not making a difference and being left with my smug sense of self-importance or not making a difference and no smug sense of self-importance, then it’s not really a choice.
The only reason I ever vote for Republicans is because I like their court picks better.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Having tasted both parties fruits, I have decided I would prefer my hell in a hand basket to be of the GOP design. Either way, it doesn’t look good for the US long term.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:29 am
My take on the matter:
Go vote, because the prospect of even a little less evil justifies getting to the polling place.
I have no illusions that it’s going to solve the root problem, however.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Voted Absentee. Leaves me free to monitor Election Night, and be ready to go to Condition Orange if the Anointed One’s Minions start to pull some Crap.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:02 am
No, not true Geek. At gunpoint, there is no choice between picking the lesser evil. There are many many things I wouldn’t do at gunpoint to save my own life, even if complying and doing the lesser evil *might* produce a better outcome. Have you heard of the Wichita horror? They were executed anyway.
Voting is supporting a corrupt and evil system. Becoming a politician in hopes to change from within is even worse; akin to joining AlQueda and not being as evil as the rest in hopes to change them from within.
I do not consent to taxation, to killing foreigners in my name, to the violation of my natural rights.
“Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” -Thoreau
October 19th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Uncle, You are 100% right. All politicians are scum. The big thing right now is that people are running to republicans first and foremost to try to bring Obama to a screaching halt. Rome is burning, and we have to put out the fire first before we can move forward.
No, RINOs are not the answer. Conservatives are.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Uncle, you are 100% wrong. Spending is controlled by the House, and every year the House was in Republican hands, the gross public debt fell as a fraction of GDP. You seem to credit Bush and Obama for spending since 2006 — you fail civics: neither of those persons voted for a spending increase. Presidents are required by law to spend every cent allocated by Pelosi’s House.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I wish we would stop talking about each party like it is an unchangeable thing “out there”. As I look at what people have started doing at the local levels over the last two years to change the make-up of the Republican Party (and you can see it in the “upstart” Tea Party candidates as well) I actually have some hope that we can get out from under both the current parties. We don’t need third parties if we can change the ones we have (big if).
October 19th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Agreed, Erick. The big challenge for the tea party backed candidates, however, is going to be *also* fighting against Boehner and his buddies as they are *already* talking about compromise to get what they want passed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/gop-house-leaders-push-compromise/
Darrell Issa: “It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda”
Um, no, moron, that’s *not* clear. What’s clear is that we expect you stop this locomotive heading straight off the cliff. I’d rather see *nothing* passed in the next two years, including a refusal to fund any of Obamacare, than for a compromise to be struck with this collectivist scum.
Idjits.
As PJ O’Rourke said, “The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.”
October 19th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Parties are made of people and people die, but bulky and invasive Institutions need to wither entirely and their building-blocks razed to the ground, and salt thrown down onto them, and napalm and Agent Orange spread around, before they can be replaced.
The reason we have an Impeachment process is to circumvent the bloody necessity of the Assassination process, which still occurs with some frequency in our system though far less than the regularity of many of our counterparts south of the border where it is routine where they believe El Presidente is a position for life (or until life ceases).
20 attempts, 4 successful, 2 possible – out of 44 Presidents – that’s a little less than 10% removal rate and a fairly high attempt figure.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Congress is 100% responsible for spending increases. Presidents like Obama can only give them the green light … it is the Congress’s foot on the accelerator.
Rather than looking at spending vs. which President is in power, I would suggest looking at spending levels vs. which party controls Congress at the time.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Bingo.
Presidents cannot authorize spending unless Congress authorizes it first. Congress can, however, override the President’s refusal to authorize spending.
In fact, Congress can override almost anything a President does. The party in control of Congress has the most control of the government, especially if they have a veto-proof majority.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
So what you are saying is that it’s better to not bother trying than to try and fail.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
oh you can try. but telling me that my crap sandwich is good for me just pisses me off to no end.
October 19th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
>>Voting is supporting a corrupt and evil system.
Horseshit.
October 19th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
“The Republicans are not going to fix this.”
…and then we’ll vote THOSE ones out of office, and replace them with someone else who will.
Me, I’m sick of handing the field (and the referees, and the rules) to the Evil Party because the Stupid Party aren’t sufficiently this or that.
No matter how we detest the compromisers in the establishment Republican Party, they are orders of magnitude better than the Democrats who en bloc rammed ObamaCare into law.
Asl yourselves this one question: assuming Teh Stupid Party were in control of Congress for a long time, how long would it take them to pass an extreme kind of nationalized healthcare like ObamaCare? Twenty years? Fifty? A hundred? Never?
It took the Democrats TWO.
I’m sick of hearing the bullshit about how the Dems and Repubs are the same. They’re not. Not even close. This past Congress has just proved that.
Time to clean the Democrats out, and take back control of our country. We can take care of the RINOs later.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
To put it bluntly, because I don’t believe O’Donnell. Given a choice between Mike Castle and Mike Castle with a side of Jesus, I’ll take Mike Castle.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
And there we have it, folks. Want to know why Libertatrians aren’t going to help keep an actual “bearded Marxist” out of office?
Because they agree with his stance on Chirstianity (i.e. against it).
There’s patriotism for you. Be proud, Storm Dragon, that your love of country is now on open display.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:32 am
Yes, yes, everyone who not love Republican tribe heap big chief belong evil tribe.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:46 am
The time to deal with squishy Republicans is at the nominations.
The only reason the Republican sandwich has crap in it was because you were not actively preventing the occasional monkey in the R party from flinging poo … in the D party, the monkeys are in charge.
If you don’t like crap sandwiches, you need to pick a party, take it over, and gut and kill all the poo flinging monkeys before it is sandwich makin’ time. If you can’t get rid of them all immediately, you had best be ready for some poo flinging.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:04 am
“And if they had a shot at winning here, I’d support them. I wish them luck.”
Maybe if you supported them, they’d have a shot at winning.
I’m not enamored by the Tea Party, in general. But, I do vote for the person whom I think will do the best job in the office. Their chances of success don’t really play a part in my decision.