Quote of the Day – Wolfman (11/7/2012)

Everyone that wants to blame this on the crazy Libertarians needs to realize- NOBODY COURTED US FOR OUR VOTE. Oh, sure, we get some lip service. But nobody came out and said, “Hey, you, in the back, that just want to be left alone… What can we do to make YOU happy?” Which makes me think that we were not a critical voting bloc, yes? We were, maybe, not the moderate independents that both camps were appealing to? So why, in the fiery depths of bipartisan burning f#$%ing HELL are we the ones that are expected to compromise our beliefs and vote YOUR guy into power? How was that supposed to work? We are goddamn Libertarians, for Pete’s sake, not toeing the line IS THE ENTIRETY OF OUR PLATFORM! So we are expected to just fall into place, and vote blindly for the guy thats just as bad, bit in different ways than the other guy that sucks? I repeat: Screw you.

WolfmanJust One Election Comment
November 7th, 2012


[I was able to retain my calm today up until the point where I started seeing BS being flung about how Libertarians cost Romney the election.  Uhh, no there sparky, you accomplished that feat all on your own.

Let me explain something to people who may not be familiar with me.  I am very principled and honestly it takes a lot for me to even contemplate it.  Bill Whittle got me to seriously think about it for all of about 30 seconds.  Is Obama bad, yeah, but honestly, let's think about this from my perspective as a Libertarian, is Romney any better?

The only thing Romney had going for him is the media and other parts of government might start working as a check and balance again.  Deep down though that man would not have represented me, my desires, or what I would like to see from my government. That is what I'm supposed to be voting for, not the lesser of two evils.

The bottom line is that the Republicans could easily get the Libertarian vote, how, by running a candidate that agrees with our principles.  Why should we be the only side to comprise in the selection of a candidate?  Tell you what, run a candidate that isn't big government, doesn't focus on social issues that honestly aren't the business of government, and focuses purely on correcting the failed economic policies of the past god knows how many years, and you will finally have my attention.

This isn't as difficult as you might think.  You see that whole social issue thing is why the Democrats keep winning.  Republicans keep attacking social issues and attempt to use the force of government to force their morals on others.  Yeah there's some seriously contentious issues in there, but face it, the big one isn't going to change and all it ever does is get you in trouble.  As for same-sex marriage  let me explain something to you idiots, the government put itself in the business of marriage and there are rights and benefits that are given to married couples.  Can you explain why the state is allowed to differentiate between the two groups with regards to rights and benefits?  Because seriously that's what this all boils down to.

The government cannot compel a priest, pastor, or whatever to marry two individuals if they believe it is against their religion.  What the government can do, is create the contract of marriage between two consenting adults.  No one is forcing people to go out and have same-sex marriages either.  What is being said is the state must recognize it.  If you're church doesn't want to recognize it, that's its business, but the church has no business forcing the state to follow along with it's views.

Yet it never fails that some Republican candidate will run his mouth about it.

What about drug use?  Well, lets cut the BS and admit that the drug war has failed and the only reason it still exists is because of the jobs and money it generates for those currently involved in waging it.  Just because something is made legal doesn't mean you have to go smoke it.  It doesn't mean that it's use allows someone to being exempted from being held criminally negligent if they do something stupid.  What it does mean is someone is free to make the choice.

I could continue but the bottom line is you want my vote of support.  That means you need to run a candidate that I find worth voting for.  If you can't or don't want to do that don't even think about attempting to blame us for your loss.  If you had really wanted our vote, you would have actually courted and attempted to earn it.

Nothing pisses me off more than some ass-hat telling me that I should sell my principles up the river for their guy.  No, if you want me on your side, you need to sacrifice and provide a reason to vote for your side there boy genius.

This also ignores the fact that the margin of libertarian voters in every state would not have changed the election results.  So my Republican friends, it's your failure, own it! -B]

Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Quote of the Day – Wolfman (11/7/2012)

  1. Knitebane says:

    “The government cannot compel a priest, pastor, or whatever to marry two individuals if they believe it is against their religion.”

    Sorry, that’s where you’re wrong.

    The same thing was said about Catholic hospitals and never having to do abortions. At first it was true, then this came out:

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/08/20/aclu-hhs-try-to-force-catholic-hospitals-to-perform-abortions-becket-fund-threatens-lawsuit/

    So it turns out that, yes, the government is going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. So the idea that the government won’t at some future date, after gay marriage is made legal, force those who are authorized by the government to perform marriages to marry two people because their religious beliefs don’t permit it doesn’t quite stand up to how government does things. Government is force.

    The first step may well not *require* priests to marry homosexual couples, but once it is no longer illegal, churches will be sued for civil rights violations and they will then be required to perform gay marriages or stop marrying people all together.

    Look, what two people of any gender do consentingly and in private is not my business. When they try to drag the force of government into it, then I say no.

    I would much rather the government not be involved in straight marriages either, but that option has never been seriously discussed.

  2. I would much rather the government not be involved in straight marriages either, but that option has never been seriously discussed.

    No one is interested in that route because it is a right they exercise. The state is involved because ultimately it is a contract between consenting adults. Do I wish they were ultimately out of it, yes except considering there are LEGAL rights and powers granted by marriage, the state ultimately is going to be involved. Call it whatever the hell you want, but the state is gonna be there.

    As for comparing this to the hospital issues, I find that seriously grasping for a couple of reasons.
    1) Note that was from 2010 and there hasn’t been any movement forward in an attempt yet to try and force religious hospitals to do that.
    2) Federal funding is also tied into the issue.
    3) When you arrive at a hospital, you may not have a choice to up and leave and go someplace else to get the treatment you feel necessary for your health and safety. This is usually very rare however and usually involves severe trauma.

    Why do I bring up that last point? Because there’s a serious 1st Amendment issue in attempting to force any religious institution to provide the ceremony of marriage to someone. Why is it a 1st Amendment issue, it is directly counter to their faith. While some would say, “But they have a right to get married.” And in the eyes of the state they do and it doesn’t have to be done in a church. For example there’s this member of the state called a Judge, and he is sworn and capable of marrying people in the eyes of the state.

    The argument with the hospitals is that the patient may not have an alternative health source to seek treatment at.

    So any plaintiff that would attempt to claim their rights were being infringed regarding marriage would automatically fail because in fact they weren’t. The plaintiff could seek out any judge to be married, not to mention anyone and their brother can become ordained to marry someone.

    Yes the state is force. Never the less you’re using that as an excuse for some groups to force the state to discriminate against others. I’d be fine if they renamed marriage to something else in a legal sense, however you’re not going to get people to sign off because odds are the government would require everyone to refile and pay fees.

    Is the government force, yup, sure is. Never said it wasn’t. While some high and mighty shit stain might try and make a church’s life hell for standing up for their beliefs, I wouldn’t fault the church for shooting any lawyer who brought a suit against them either. If the ACLU wants to bring in the state who would throw guns in someone’s face, just return the favor and do it your damn self.

    • Also, read the details:

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/jul/10070612

      The case centers around emergency medicine that revolves around the health and safety of the mother. It depends entirely on what your priorities are. Abortion is a very touchy subject and is one that is tied directly to life and death, both of the mother and child.

      Again though I would like to point out, your argument was that the ACLU was telling the government it should adopt it’s interpretation of a law, not how the DOJ and government itself was interpreting it.

      If that does ever move forward, expect a serious and contentious law suit centered around the first amendment.

      • Knitebane says:

        Barron, I listed that one single link because it was clear and concise as to what was happening.

        There are dozens of other cases, from nurses in a Catholic hospital in NJ suing because the hospital administration was trying to force them to assist in abortions, to Obamacare lawsuits over dispensing the morning after pill. I can dig up quite a few of them. The details differ but the thread through them remains the same.

        The government, once it says something is okay, is going to make people say it’s okay too. Think not? Put up a sign in your business window that says this: NO HISPANICS (or Jews or blacks or any other group that FedGov has deemed a minority)

        Start a timer and wait for the lawyers to show up.

        Because no matter what you or I think about bigotry or the right of association and which one is more or less moral, the government has said that their opinion trumps all. They say that it’s a violation of some groups civil rights for you to refuse service to that group. They will take your money, your property, your freedom or your life to enforce it.

        This will happen with gay marriage. Once the law is passed that okays gay marriage anyone that exercises the government charter to marry people will have to comply and marry anyone or face the lawyers.

        Your points on the issues about the government already being deep into the taxes and entitlement system and therefore obligated to get involved are well taken. And also the heart of the issue.

        Given that the leviathan is involved, Republicans have a problem. The social conservatives don’t want abortion and gay marriage shoved down their throats and as the government is the one doing the forcing, they want their Republican candidates to take a stand and use government *against* gay marriage and abortion and the other social issues. Without the SoCons Republicans have trouble getting elected.

        By embracing the SoCons the Republicans have trouble drawing in the other support they need. There are libertarians and some independents that are fiscally conservative but won’t vote for a vocally pro-life, anti-gay-marriage candidate.

        By embracing a government solution for social issues a Republican candidate also alienates the TEA party and fiscal conservatives because, hey, he thinks more government is the answer.

        A candidate that insists that the social issues are *not* something that government should be enforcing – on either side of the issue – might well be able to thread that gap if properly articulated. The future of the Republican party has to be built on the shared values of Reagan’s “three legs of the stool” and avoid getting dragged down into choosing sides with one group over another on values they don’t have in common. By insisting and articulating on why smaller government would be less intrusive into your health care and your church you get the SoCons. By reducing the size of government and spending you get the FisCons. By embracing Federalism and letting the states deal with things like gay marriage and abortion and drug legalization you get the Libertarians.

        Romney did okay on not alienating the SoCons but when the left beat him up over the “women’s rights” issues he failed to respond at all thus validating in their minds (and some socially liberal or agnostic Republicans) that he had signed up with them. But where he really failed was not adequately explaining to the fiscal conservatives and libertarians why the author of Romneycare and a history of big-government positions had actually changed his spots. If he had. The message of “He’s not a big a spender as Obama” doesn’t motivate all that well. I know a lot of gun owners said they weren’t voting for Romney based on his 2nd amendment record in Massachusetts. They weren’t going to cross over and vote Obama and they weren’t going to just not vote at all, but they weren’t going to go in the booth and pull the lever for Romney. I saw a lot of faded Bush-Cheney stickers in the parking lots of shooting ranges. I saw a few Romney-Ryan stickers. I saw no pre-convention Romney stickers.

        That’s what I’m seeing in my county demographics for this election. We’re a pretty typical center-right county. Evangelicals turned out pretty well for Romney, Catholics not quite as much but still in good numbers. But the real shocker for me was seeing how many people voted for a Republican governor or county commissioner but Romney didn’t get the same number of votes. A significant portion of Republicans that voted on down ticket races simply didn’t vote for him. They also didn’t vote for our Republican candidate for U.S. House likely because he’s seen locally as too much in the pocket of the big GOP machine. An NRA A-rated Democrat beat him.

        A lot of Republicans (and officially Unaffilliateds like me) have bad tastes in their mouths after years of sending people to Washington that said they’d cut spending and have them get shanghaied by the GOP big-government machine. They’ve watched GOP leadership fail to go after Holder on Fast & Furious. They’re wondering if the GOP shares *any* of their values. So they stopped voting for them. I think Romney suffered the same fate.

        For me, this was the GOPs last shot. I’ve held my nose and voted for the candidate they’ve given me. I voted for Forbes over Bush in the 2000 primary but held my nose and voted for Bush over Gore and again over Kerry in the generals. And what did it get me? TARP, “I’ll sign a new AWB if it hits my desk”, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Myers, TSA, nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan and a mountain of debt.

        I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008 general (but not the primary) even though all he promised was more of the same. I did it mostly because of Palin and hope for the future of the party.

        Romney offered a vision of less spending and fiscal conservatism even though his record in government doesn’t quite match up to that. His positions on national security and social issues were less Bush-like but marginally acceptable. So I held my nose and voted for him.

        I won’t do it again. I suspected that a goodly number were already there after McCain and so far, the voter turn out and voting records seem to bear that out.

        Romney did better than McCain by a small margin because he was a better candidate, also by a small margin.

        To win, we need better GOP leadership. a plan to deal with the Democrat media and a better candidate. We also need to find a way to eject Democrat influence from our schools or in another 20 years it will be over.

        • Barron says:

          A candidate that insists that the social issues are *not* something that government should be enforcing – on either side of the issue – might well be able to thread that gap if properly articulated. The future of the Republican party has to be built on the shared values of Reagan’s “three legs of the stool” and avoid getting dragged down into choosing sides with one group over another on values they don’t have in common. By insisting and articulating on why smaller government would be less intrusive into your health care and your church you get the SoCons. By reducing the size of government and spending you get the FisCons. By embracing Federalism and letting the states deal with things like gay marriage and abortion and drug legalization you get the Libertarians.

          Exactly. My point about same-sex marriage wasn’t as much about why it should pass, as it was, “Why the hell are you even bringing it up?” There is no way to win the argument against it other than more government is never the answer. No matter what that change is coming, look at every state that had it on the ballot this year.

          So why even bring it up? All it will do is alienate a majority of potential supporters.

          The problem is the GOP is fielding shit candidates that are honestly no better than the alternative and then acting surprised when people don’t want to support them.

          All the social issues do is create a method for the media to drive a wedge and kill you.

          As for the marriage topic over all:

          The only option if you want government out of marriage is to force the state out by legal means. That’s not going to happen. Ultimately there’s actually two forms of marriage and most people don’t seem to know or understand this, there’s married according to the state, and married in the eyes of god and your family.

          You don’t need the former to do the latter. Churches could easily just say fuck off and just perform the ceremony, they just couldn’t sign the certificate. That’s all the state involvement does, allows someone to sign the certificate.

          • Knitebane says:

            I think we are in violent agreement on the cause of the problem. ;)

            But Akin and Mourdock didn’t hold a press conference and declare that they wanted to talk about rape. They got ambushed into it because the MSM trolls asked them about abortion and when they said they were against it, asked them about abortion after a rape. Then they sat back and watched (and recorded) while the poor guys shot themselves with the answer.

            On the other hand I think that if we don’t start getting federal government out of social issues (and gay marriage is a really good place to start) eventually the creeping kudzu of Big FedGov will insert itself into every part of our lives. You say that’s not going to happen.

            If it doesn’t happen we’re screwed no matter who is in power.

            As right-wingers, somebody needs to build a correspondence course for prospective Republican candidates that teaches them how to respond to left-wing MSM assaults.

            Q; “Do you think gay marriage should be legalized?”

            A: “I don’t think the government should be involved in either gay or straight marriages.”

            Q: “What is your position on abortion?”

            A: “My position is that that state legislatures are more than capable of representing their constituents on the issue of abortion. I don’t think that the Federal government is a proper venue for forcing nation-wide regulations on issues that are perceived differently in different states.”

            He doesn’t say yes, he doesn’t say no. He says, “Raspberry.”

            Let them try to make an issue out of that. But if you actually answer the question you’ve alienated one side or the other and then you lose.

          • Publius says:

            Churches could easily just say fuck off and just perform the ceremony, they just couldn’t sign the certificate.

            You’d think so, but if you comb through the statutes, in most (if not all) states, it is explicitly illegal for a pastor/priest to perform a marriage without a license. This would most likely have to go to the supreme court, where it would almost surely be overturned (the Catholics even consider marriage to be a sacrament). Probably easy to do, but definitely expensive.

            My dad used to be a Methodist pastor, and he married some guy who, about 1 week later, got into trouble for bigamy (he was still married to someone else at the time). My dad had no idea, or he wouldn’t have performed the ceremony (he required premarital counseling etc. before agreeing to do any ceremony, so it wasn’t like a lack of due diligence either). When he got the phone call from the state’s attorney, though, he was pretty worried–turns out they weren’t interested in him–but after that he waited for the paperwork to CLEAR in advance.

            The possibility of polygamy etc. probably will keep any mainstream churches etc. from pushing this issue (they are fans of centralized recordkeeping for this reason), and it could certainly prove to be a hangup in the courts as well. If you ask me, this is clearly a separation of church and state issue, and rather than being some kind of one-size-fits-all deal, the legal aspects should be drawn up individually according to individual circumstances (just like wills, trusts, etc. are already). It’ll never happen, though. Ask anyone, I’m just some kind of extremist wackjob.

  3. Pingback: Derek Ward | Giving Words to My Rage

  4. BobG says:

    The reason Romney lost is because the Republican turnout was too low; their fault and no one else’s.

  5. BobG says:

    Whoops, meant lost. Need more sleep.

    • Barron says:

      Fixed it for you.

      But yes, ultimately they had a low turn out. What I find interesting though is now many of them are complaining though that they didn’t have the Libertarian vote. Wolfman nailed that exact cause on the head.

      The Republicans are chasing issues that honestly turn most of us off and then they act surprised that we don’t vote for them. Think, how many libertarians vote Dem because of social issues.

      Tell me, why in the name of god won’t people just let other people live their lives in peace.

      • BobG says:

        Some people just aren’t happy unless everyone thinks just like them, and look at it as their duty to correct the problem.