search
top

Why Bother Being a Republican?

It seems to me that Senate President Joe Scarnati really shouldn’t bother putting an R after his name. I’m no self-proclaimed party purist, but generally members of the GOP fall into at least one of a couple of groups – those who support free markets or those who are socially conservative. Sometimes it’s a mix of both, but usually you find the overwhelming majority of Republicans fall into at least one of those categories.

So I’m really confused by Scarnati’s opposition to privatizing the PLCB, our wine monopoly overlords who like to overcharge and give us shitty selection. His concerns, as far as I’ve seen, really seem to be rooted in the fact that his district is rural and would have even less of a selection than they do now – so the rest of Pennsylvania’s 12.7 million citizens must suffer to make his district happy.

But what really gets me is that his district houses at least one of 45 stores that actually loses money selling booze. During each of the last two years, they’ve lost more than $10,000.

So really, he wants to keep the system so that taxpayers can subsidize his the alcohol consumption of his family & neighbors. That seems to go against both the free market & social conservative ideas that are common in the GOP.

So, Joe, why are you a Republican again?

14 Responses to “Why Bother Being a Republican?”

  1. 45er says:

    How do you lose money selling alcohol? That is perfect proof that the government sucks at EVERYTHING.

  2. Bitter says:

    From what I understand about the history of the PLCB, we should just consider it a miracle that the entire system isn’t losing money. As it is, the profit margins are incredibly low – and that’s with a monopoly on ALL liquor & wine sales here (retail/wholesale) and higher prices than the surrounding states.

  3. Dogboy49 says:

    “His concerns, as far as I’ve seen, really seem to be rooted in the fact that his district is rural and would have even less of a selection than they do now”

    Is he brain dead? Just look in any rural district (outside of Pennsylvania, of course) where the state is not in the liquor business. If there is any commerce anywhere in the district, at least one of those stores will be selling a variety of selections. What is not available locally can also be made available through online ordering.

    The only places where there is poor choice in liquor is where the state is involved.

  4. Dannytheman says:

    With the bennies that the State Store employees get after 20 to 27 years of “service”? No wonder the prices are higher.

    His bitch is probably his loss of patronage jobs he can assign! Someone he is directly related to is working there, that would be my bet!!

  5. persiflage says:

    The government could lose money if it had a monopoly selling street drugs. ‘Nuf said.

  6. Pilgrims Pride says:

    The questions of State efficiency in degrading the public are red herrings.

    While I know the masses love their liquor (they can scarcely muster the courage to awake each morning without its mind-numbing effects), there remain a few clear heads that understand the masses, given access to more and cheaper “poison” will surely take more and destroy themselves all the quicker.

    In our day and age we need the crutch of alcohol like we need the proverbial hole-in-the-head my mother always used to illustrate self-defeating ideas.

    (A “hole in the head” referred to the barbaric practice, common performed, of the transorbital or “icepick” lobotomy” that did, in fact, “cure” mentally ill patients. It simply destroyed their brains ergo no more brain disturbance. Elegantly simple, apart from its horror.)

    We need our wits. We need clarity of thought. We need people with the courage to face reality including its pain — not the fearful and weak who must dull their mind in ritual self-destruction in the face of it all.

    Get rid of PLCB? Get rid of your soul-crutch and you won’t need a PLCB corrupt, efficient or amazing.

  7. Garth Balfonse says:

    Having lived in upper Bucks County, I can confirm that the brave men and women of the PLCB — the Thin Brown Line, as it were — are all that holds Pennsylvanians back a rapid and catastrophic descent into a apocalyptic dystopian cannibalistic nightmare resembling Belgium.

  8. Phil says:

    I think Pilgrim’s Pride may have just driven my to drink.

    Not that that particular drive burns an undo amount of hydrocarbons, mind you, but he/she did it.

  9. Wow, Pilgrims Pride just….I don’t have words. Your wisdom shows the folly of my occasional glass of wine for what it is, and humiliates me to admit that I’ve partaken in rare toasts to celebrate milestones in the lives of loved ones.
    The idea of applying the same personal responsibility to my drinking that I do to my firearm handling, my free speech, and my other freedoms seems like such a bad idea, in light of what your fingers have shared with me.
    Thank you for bringing clarity to me in such a profound way!

    (Just in case anyone was unclear.)

  10. NUGUN says:

    Pilgrims Pride is going to have quite the awakening one day.

    Jesus: “Howdy Pilgrim. How about a glass of the finest vintage. Red of course.”

    Pilgrim: “What…wine? NEVER!!!! That’s a sin!!!!!”

    Jesus: “Not in my book. And if it were a sin. I drank. And that’d make me a sinner. In which case I never could have saved you from hell. So it either can’t be a sin or you can’t be saved!”

    Pilgrim: “I think I’ll have that drink now.”

    Jesus: “I made it myself BTW.”

  11. Ian Argent says:

    The significance of his nym indicating a possible christian alison escaped me. I really don’t understand christians who insist on denying others alcohol; given the biblical stories convening miracles and the injunction to partake of wine and bread…

  12. Ian, I think that’s the point being made, and I think it’s being made very well. Christ did, in fact, drink. There are people who debate to this day how much alcohol the wine had (some say less than today, others say more), but anyone who understands simple concepts can see that Christ did, in fact, drink. Any Christian that says that consuming alcohol is a sin probably has not actually read, or has read, but not understood, the entirety of Scripture. The only thing related to alcohol which is condemned as a sin is habitual drunkenness. Allowing the drink to have that sort of influence and control is what is the sin. Enjoying a glass, or drinking it with a meal, or using it to commemorate the sacrifice of our Savior, however, is not condemned, but rather encouraged.
    After all, Christ’s first recorded miracle was turning water to wine, at a party, after everyone was drunk, and the host was astonished at the quality, as the best wine was usually served first, and the cheap, low-quality used when everyone was drunk and couldn’t tell the difference. It’s at that point that He made the good stuff.

    All that said, thank you NUGUN for the awesome prediction. That’s fantastic!

  13. Firehand says:

    Don’t forget the whorehouse in Nevada: the government managed to put it out of business while selling booze AND sex.

top