If you want to be free.

Sarah proved she’d have been my favorite GOP candidate by opting out and bigfooting the idea of a 3rd party.  This song springs to mind:

Smile, Sarah.    

In unrelated news, a cautionary photo of an inbred cat:

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to If you want to be free.

  1. Mountainbear says:

    3rd party won’t change anything. Maybe for a short while, but on the long run you’ll be just as F-ed in the A as with 2 parties.

    Let me explain.

    Over here we have 7 main parties. I can vote for:

    1) the socialists
    2) the communists
    3) the green socialists
    4) the party-formerly-known-as-conservatives-now-hugging-socialist-ideas
    5) the “liberal forum”, which is not liberal (read libertarian) at all, but wants more EU
    6) a so called “right wing” party (by the media), which is, when dissected, really nothing else but “patriotic socialist”
    7) another so called “right wing” party (again by the media), which is, again, nothing else but “patriotic socialist”.

    Sure, the two “right wing” parties want to stop giving money to the EU and Greece, they want out of the Euro and EU, they want to control immigration. Yes, that is good. However, looking at their tax and spending ideas, there is NO difference at all with the other 5. They say nothing about less spending or lowering the taxes. They will continue with the current nonsense and will rather focus it on the country, which doesn’t change a damn thing. We’re already bankrupt!

    And these “Stinking Seven” quarrel in parliamant and on tv. When elections come they hack at each other. Throughout the year they attack each other over minor issues and stuff the media blows up to ridiculous dimensions. But once it’s about the real power, they’re all quick to forget their quarrels and form coalitions. They’re very fast to hug their opponents and I don’t really want to know what’s going on behind closed doors.

    The whole system is a hoax. 2 parties, 7 parties, there is no difference. Ultimately they will only care about power and piss on the tax paying and working population.

    • MG says:

      The US has a semi-tradition with 3rd parties though. We have one show up over an issue the public is dissatisfied over, it ramps up until it makes in-roads in 1 – 2 elections, then vanishes as the main parties co-opt its message since it’s popular.

      I really see that dynamic running currently.

      That dynamic is a flavor issue in the end and doesn’t fix the fundamental issues we’re seeing with governance however, as you said. The people will be more sated than they were, but the long term issue remains; at some point another refinement of the relation between the people and government has to happen.

      • wormme says:

        Yes. But God willing this won’t turn into a third-party situation. The Ruling Class and the Takers are roughly half the populace. One more electoral success might be enough for them to take us over the Rubicon. Assuming we haven’t already crossed, of course.

  2. MG says:

    Credit where credit is due:
    Perry seems to be getting onto a vastly better track…

    The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas educational residency bill was vastly different.


    I regret the comment from the debate. It was a poor choice of words, and it wasn’t fair to those who disagree with the policy.

    Some of his trying to explain the policy needs to be shortened IMO, and kept out of talking explanations (if explained at all); declaratively moving forward only, explaining the past is bad.

    I have a horrible suspicion that he didn’t start with this because his advisors didn’t want to use the same model of defense Romney is over Massachusetts.

    As a detail aside; a part of the explanation hurts the ‘chump change’ argument of his supporters while not being terribly strong on its own.

    In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.

    So, the drop in the bucket argument is kinda not good with that; costing tens of millions means what I pointed out in the other comment: Small population isn’t so small an effect when we’re talking tens of thousands per; this is just the obverse direction from what I stated.
    But in the end, this is still weak as an argument, the population affected by this isn’t a locked amount of total available people. Drop them and the college will get others, via admissions, filling the slots for no real loss on its end. If anything they’d have a few more out-of-State which would increase the income slightly.

    Again, really it’s a massive improvement from him and the basic line is the one he needed:
    No Federal DREAM Act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s