Saturday, February 11, 2012

Meanwhile, on Binaryworld...

Because I didn't sign the petition to get Santorum on the ballot in Indiana, I obviously want Romney to win.

This is the logical end result of applying the professional sports mindset to elections...

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ironic, because the Willard's strongest argument* is that he's the electable lesser-evil-than-Obama candidate.

One could just as easily say that a primary vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama.

Alath
Carmel IN

* Note for the frothing politically rabid - I am not endorsing this argument either, just reporting it.

Ancient Woodsman said...

Throw'em for a loop and tell them that you're voting for Eisenhower again 'cause he's such a nice young man.

I did that to a pollster last month before our primary here, got a short silence and a "well, then...uh..."

Mattexian said...

I'm still making up my mind between Sam Houston and Jefferson Davis; I'll let you know how that pans out.

Borepatch said...

I'm ready for this election to be over.

Roberta X said...

It probably already is.

LC Scotty said...

Binaryworld-can you get there from Flatland?

Kristopher said...

I'll bet Mr. .50 cal has no clue who the local Republican Committee person is for his district.

If you just hide for 3 and half years, and have no involvement in a political party, other than a voter's reg card ... then why in the bloody hell do you think your opinion on who should run for nomination will be a factor in choosing candidates?



Allowing the state governments to meddle in the nomination process was a big mistake. Contributing party members should just choose a candidate, and let the voters make their decision in November.

All parties should be treated like minor parties as far as the .gov is concerned.

Rabbit said...

When the choices are a tossup between "shit sandwich" and "giant douche" it's understandably difficult to be enthused.

Anonymous said...

I feel your pain. I think that the only hope for small government types is maximum feasible chaos leading to a brokered convention. And even then about half the possible outcomes are as bad as the current choices. Newt, at least, would provide entertainment. He would spend 4 years throwing bombs in random directions but Washington is a target rich environment.

Firehand said...

Reminds me of the clown who was lecturing that "Gas prices are obviously not yet at a point that causes the average person a problem. Because if they were, those people would be buying new, small, more fuel-efficient cars." It apparently never occurring to dumbass that most of those people cannot AFFORD to turn in a paid-for older car and buy a new something; practical things like that apparently being beneath the notice of Academics such as himself.

Only somewhat related: couple of years back was talking to daughter and said something along the lines of "Ok, if someone nowadays wanted to really scare politicians in this country, instead of a Guy Fawkes mask, what mask would you wear as you went on your merry way? Daughter thought all of two seconds and said "Andrew Jackson." Maybe we can write him in...

Brad K. said...

I have two hopes.

One is that the election is held on schedule, and the other is that we get a change of President.

I shudder to think of the "buy me" loyalties and principles of the Newt and the Mitt'n. But the proven "I bought *my* seat, nyah, nyah" prospect of not changing Presidents makes me hope and dream that the Democrats will draft Hillary to head the ticket in 2012. I would prefer almost anything to the two uber-RINO's or another four years of Constitutional decay.

And please amend Obama's Hate Crimes bill, striking "protected class" and making it a crime for anyone to prey on anyone for their orientation or race. Gack.

Crotalus (Don't Tread on Me) said...

This is all just bread and circuses for the masses. I doubt I'll even bother with them this time.

Lanius said...


It apparently never occurring to dumbass that most of those people cannot AFFORD to turn in a paid-for older car and buy a new something; practical things like that apparently being beneath the notice of Academics such as himself.

In the impoverished, pox-ridden province of the EUSSR where I reside, people commute many miles to work on $1000 vehicles such as old Škoda Favorit cars, or diesel Peugot's.

One guy I know bought for $1000 a diesel Peugot car (a small car, five doors but cramped), spent another $1000 on overhauling it, and now has a reliable car that gets about 70 mpg, with a top speed of roughly 95 miles..(as if you ever use anything above 70 mph while commuting..)

Tam said...

Lanius,

That is a complete non-sequitur. If a person were poor, and already HAD a paid-for car, why would they spend two thousand dollars that they could have used on living expenses to buy a car that might save them $10-$50/mo. in gas?

Plus, your little used Eurodiesels don't exist over here. Too pollute-y for our EPA.

Able said...

Tam
You know what? The lowest petrol (gas) price here (PRUK) is £129.9 a litre. That's around £5.90 a gallon (they changed it to litres so we wouldn't have CVA's at the pumps). That equates to around $9.28 a gallon - and guess what? We're still driving, and SUVs and sports cars are as popular as ever. The argument of pricing people out of their cars is stupid, the depreciation and insurance on a car is enough to make petrol prices annoying but not decisive (especially when you have to drive to work).

As to the actual point, we have three identically idiotic and self-serving parties here (the leaders of which make me wonder if there's a lab producing party leader clones). I'd vote UKIP but then I'd be harangued for 'letting Labour/Conservatives/Liberals back in' not that I can tell the difference. At least there are minor variations in your politicians.

If you don't want him, can we have the 'invisible man' for Prime Minister please. I'd say Lady Thatcher was needed but we'll never be lucky enough to see her like in power again :-(

Ruth said...

If I could get a car, that got 70 mpg, for $2000 I'd have already got it and told the puppy he was just going to have to suffer in the back seat.

Course, not only are those cars not availible here, but I live in NY state where they tax the hell out of desiel and I'm not sure even that mpg would make up for the price difference.

Angus McThag said...

You're obviously the kind of person who'd vote for Kang and not Kodos.

Lanius said...

$50 a month is $600 per year.. which may be a lot to someone who earns say 12 000$ per year.

Also, if they have a paid for car, they could sell that and buy a more economic one.

Too-pollutey?
Well.. possibly the old ones.
You know that half of Europe now drives modern TDI cars that get like 65 mpg and can push 120 mph?
I doubt they are too pollutey--- our enviromental agencies are rabid dobermann attack dogs compared to the de-barked, de-toothed quadriplegic chihuahua of the EPA.. all new diesels for the past decade and something had to have a thingie called the particulates filter or something..

The only reason TDI's are banned is probably that the pathetic losers in US car industry can't make them and they bribed EPA crooks to make them illegal...
So much for free enterprise and innovation ;-)

Tam said...

Boy, Lanius, be it firearms, autos, emissions regs, or economics, you have no intention of being completely fucking ignorant on a topic stopping you from holding an opinion on it, do you?

Yeah, tiny diesels are too magic for Detroit to figure out. GM probably couldn't make them; we'd have to import Opel Corsas.

Firehand said...

Son told me about the Ford Rangers available in Europe with a new-generation turbocharged diesel: clean, very good mileage, lots of power. And we can't get them because of that 'de-toothed' EPA and the enviroweenies. Because they're evil diesels. Apparently the word causes the greenies to break out into almost as bad a rash as 'nuclear'.