Rigging the Game
So as it turns out, the country club RINOs and elitists within the RNC did indeed rig the GOP nomination process to favor Romney in 2012. I never had any doubts personally, but here's the smoking gun.
The irony here is that by changing the rules to favor Romney in 2012, the RNC have made it nearly impossible to run the table this time around. The rule change, which cannot be altered in the 2016 nomination period, has effectively created a free-for-all situation which will make it possible for an ideological candidate to storm the convention Reagan-style. Now we just need a candidate willing to do so. There are several possibilities, people with strong leadership skills and resilient personalities who don't quail at being criticized. Christie and Jindal and the two most obvious choices, but there are others.
Let's hope somebody does it, because business-as-usual, it's-my-turn politics have put us far into dangerous territory. It's time for the greed to stop and the governing to start. Note to the hard Right: that doesn't mean you're going to get Jesus-on-a-Stick as your candidate. You may have to vote for somebody who has a different god or God than you and who may or may not be opposed to abortion, homosexuality, [insert pet moral cause]. GET USED TO THAT IDEA RIGHT NOW. Roll it around in your head. Take a long shower with it. Get comfortable with it and prepare to take it behind the curtain with you. Because so help me, if you blow the next election as you did the last one, if you sail this country further down the river of socialism/fascism based solely upon your selfish desire to live forever and your personal viewpoint of who runs the Universe, I WILL hunt your asses down and administer a motherfucking blanket party.
The irony here is that by changing the rules to favor Romney in 2012, the RNC have made it nearly impossible to run the table this time around. The rule change, which cannot be altered in the 2016 nomination period, has effectively created a free-for-all situation which will make it possible for an ideological candidate to storm the convention Reagan-style. Now we just need a candidate willing to do so. There are several possibilities, people with strong leadership skills and resilient personalities who don't quail at being criticized. Christie and Jindal and the two most obvious choices, but there are others.
Let's hope somebody does it, because business-as-usual, it's-my-turn politics have put us far into dangerous territory. It's time for the greed to stop and the governing to start. Note to the hard Right: that doesn't mean you're going to get Jesus-on-a-Stick as your candidate. You may have to vote for somebody who has a different god or God than you and who may or may not be opposed to abortion, homosexuality, [insert pet moral cause]. GET USED TO THAT IDEA RIGHT NOW. Roll it around in your head. Take a long shower with it. Get comfortable with it and prepare to take it behind the curtain with you. Because so help me, if you blow the next election as you did the last one, if you sail this country further down the river of socialism/fascism based solely upon your selfish desire to live forever and your personal viewpoint of who runs the Universe, I WILL hunt your asses down and administer a motherfucking blanket party.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 13:18
3 Comments:
I agree with everything but the homosexual thing. First, the gay, lesbian, etc... group are actually just another religion. Read summaries of "After the Ball" to see how they have been indoctrinating the youth of this and other countries in order to gain power and influence. They are no different then any organized religion in how they sell their crap. They justify any lie or half truth as long as it furthers their goals. I can be tolerant of many things I don't agree with, but I am no more tolerant of this Church of Sexual Orientation than I am of any church that demands how or what I am to think. This religion wants far more than tolerance and acceptance, they demand our government provide them with more rights, protection, and privilege than any other church has had in many years. A recent gallup poll shows they represent less than 4% of the population and they are less successful than average, which makes sense if your life focus is on your sexual being rather than on your economic success. Of course one of their propaganda rules would tell them to preach that their lack of success is because they are victims, but that's just the usual crap all religions use to deflect reality. If my only choice is a liberal democrat or a gay republican, I will not vote.
I think it unlikely, to put it mildly, that a gay Republican candidate will storm the convention. Anything is possible, but that has to pretty far out on the limb.
I was referring more to a candidate's policies, or lack thereof, than their personal sexual tastes. Personally, I do not want to know a candidate's stand on homosexuality, abortion, or any other moral issues, because it's none of my business and definitely none of the government's business.
Quite frankly, the Defense of Marriage Act was a mistake. So was the Supreme Court ruling on abortion forty years ago -- by which I mean hearing the case at all. At most, that's an issue for a state government to deal with, but even that is at too high a level for my taste.
At heart, I am a libertarian. The government exists to regulate trade, defend the common good and fix the potholes. That's all. If they focus on those issues, the erstwhile (or otherwise) government workers, bureaucrats and elected officials will have more than enough work to occupy their time. But those things don't gain them power, so they push buttons. The easiest button in the world to push is one that is tied to a controversial social issue.
As some anonymous citizen in a radio interview here in Houston recently replied in response to a question about mayor Parker's "Fruit & Veggie Week" (or whatever the fuck it was called): "How 'bout you fix the damned potholes and let me worry about what I eat for lunch?"
I do not disagree with you that there are militant gays. But there are many who are not. I know several of them personally. I don't think allowing yet another neo-socialist loser to occupy the Oval Office is a valid response to your disagreement with this tiny minority. By doing so, you have effectively let the very people you despise win the battle. Voting for Mickey Mouse or sitting out the election in a funk may be emotionally satisfying, but it is destructive to the Republic in a way which that tiny minority can never be.
We're not that far apart if at all. My point could be said another way. If a Catholic republican ran and made it clear that their goal was to expand the influence and power of the Catholic religion in this country, that would be a problem. First from separation of church and state and second because, overall, I consider the Catholic church to be nothing more than a mafia hiding behind religious dogma. Do I have good friends that are Catholic, of course, do I care if the person running is Catholic or not, not as long as their religion doesn't get special treatment. The Gays have wrapped their religion in fundamental human rights paper, but in fact they are a religion using their elected members to expand their influence and power. From Barney Franks partner running an agency he oversaw, to Greanias at Metro caught looking at gay porn, but wasn't fired like any non-gay would have been because he is of the chosen religion. Generally, this group is so compromised by the overtness of their desire to expand their religion that they are incapable of leaving their social issue out of their governance. I guess what I'm also saying is that when the two candidates are equally unsuited to govern, and I've about concluded that republicans are simply the other guy in a good cop bad cop skit working to reach the same ends as the democrats, a vote either way is of no value. I point out the LGBT issues because I am sick of watching them infiltrate every aspect of this country under the cloak of human rights, when it is clear from their own marketing documents that they are just another religion, right down to the "it's in their dna", which is no different than many of the world religions belief that a knowledge of god is in all men. It's all the same, not scientifically provable bullshit that helps the "believers" do as they are told.
Post a Comment
<< Home