Yesterday’s “Think On It”

If you missed it, start here, then come back.

For the rest of y’all here are my quibbles

#1: Their 2A language is too vague for my liking. I could very likely get most of their policy statement out of Obama. Any third party needs to set down a firm stand on this issue if they’re wanting to pull some people away from the two large parties. We know the Dems would jail us and that the Repubs would sell us out the first chance they thought they had. No party and no candidate will get my support or my money without a Constructionist view of the Second Amendment. If they want to put some icing that cake they can list out some of the current laws they will work to repeal once in office.

#2: Their statement on “Energy Independence” seems to be straight from the Green Party. There can be no discussion of this topic by thinking individuals until both sides agree that the term means resources already in demand (aka: oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear) and that the first priority of a nation is to secure for processing the resources the nation has at it’s disposal within its boundaries. Fixing said statement upon untested and/or not yet discovered energies is to dream of pixie dust, which just so happens to NOT make the lights in my house come on or fuel my truck. Pixie dust can wait until we are independent with the energies we need today and tomorrow.

#3: As Linoge pointed out yesterday, these Whigs support “Hate Crimes” laws. Evil, ignorant and precisely unAmerican rules such as these whittle away and the fabric of a society and are completely unnecessary for adults to interact. Oooh, he violently mugged a guy because he is rich. And, oooh, he violently mugged a guy because he is gay. Why should one criminal get a harsher sentence? If they’d support a strong Second Amendment, they wouldn’t need to support “Hate Crimes” laws.

Any of these things alone would serve to turn me off a political party. However, a website is a website, so I’m going to go in a bit more and start a discussion or two to see just how serious they are at getting folks like myself (and you) to join up. If their platform is set in stone, then so be it. If they’re willing to hold honest discussions, you’ll be the first to find out.

On a side note, Anthony pointed out yesterday that there is no tax plan available to read.

That is frightening.

Also, their fondness for Theodore Roosevelt is giving me the willies. They talk a Federalist talk, but speak highly of one of the most statist Presidents we had before FDR. TeeAhh liked to empower the federal government to do some frightening things. This I’ll need explained in detail from someone at or above mid-level management.

This entry was posted in Life in the Atomic Age. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Yesterday’s “Think On It”

  1. Anthony L. says:

    I guess the heart of the matter is could a 3rd party be successful? I believe, now more than ever, yes. This is the best opportunity for a valid 3rd party to develop and flourish.

    A couple of things. I would very much like a 3rd party to hold as close to the original intent of our founders and the Constitution, as I am sure many of us would prefer. I am not so sure that that is absolutely possible, nor, given the desperate need for a 3rd party change, advisable.

    I do, however, believe that a workable alternative can be had that would satisfy enough people for a 3rd party to be possible, and yet address many issues that are over due for change, or re-setting, such as States rights, taxes and 2A rights. I believe a serious and sensible platform on these issues alone will go a long way toward addressing a lot of what I like to call “red herring” issues, such as gay rights and abortion.

    There are many other issues to discuss, but as Phil said, that is what a forum such as this is for. Thanks for the opportunity.

Comments are closed.