Congratulations, Obama voters

Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” – Robert Heinlein

Congratulations, Obama voters.

So it is done. My prediction was way off. That is what I get for overestimating Americans and their desire for free stuff and an all powerful government that can meet all of their wants. So congratulations. This time we can’t blame it on Obama being an empty slate to be filled with all your hopes and dreams. You treated a job interview like a popularity contest. This time you know exactly what you are asking for, and I’m sure you’ll get it.

Sure, we’re broke, and will be getting broker, but that’s cool. You said that our kids and grandkids can figure out how to pay our bill. You kicked the can down the road. You decided if we just tax the productive a bunch more, everything will be swell. Math be damned. Less people will pull the cart and more people can ride in it, and you can continue to bitch about the greed of the people pulling and somehow assume that the cart will just keep on rolling. We don’t need budgets, and all of these social programs you are so fond of will somehow stay solvent.

Even as you can watch Europe with your own eyes, and see where this sort of benevolent socialism will eventually lead us, you go happily onward into a debt crisis. Only there is nobody to bail us out, so I’m sure that will work out awesome.

You said you wanted your government controlled healthcare, so it will stay. Sure, now that we’ve seen what is actually in it, and everybody that has to work with the thing agrees that it is an absolute job killer, it is costing us a lot more than expected, and doesn’t do much of what was advertised, but facts don’t matter, just good intentions. Working 30 hours a week instead of 40 will become the new normal.

The media will continue to not do its job, and will keep on ignoring all the scandals and law breaking from the democrats. Fast and Furious? What Fast & Furious? NBC gave it all of 8 seconds of coverage. Benghazi? Nothing to see there. Move along. Anybody who does report about stuff which falls outside of your approved narrative can safely be dismissed as a crank.

For all the ultra lefties, Obama will continue to do all of the stuff you bitched about George Bush doing, drone strikes, imprisoning people without trial, only far more. But somehow it is okay when he does it. You just said so.  For you guys, just remember, at least if there was a republican in office, the media would actually report this sort of thing. So have fun with that.

Overall, the red states got redder, and the blue states got bluer, and big urban areas won the swing states. We’re living in a country with irreconcilable differences and two competing philosophies that literally have no middle ground. One side wants a smaller government and wants to be left alone, the other side wants a bigger government that can do everything. Compromise inevitably means we’ll make government bigger, just not as big as the left wants. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. And the red states keep getting redder and angrier, and the blue states keep getting bluer and angrier, and America as a whole gets poorer and weaker.

So to close, congratulations, Obama voters. I’m sure this will work out great for you. When we revisit this in a few years and everything is limping along, broken, tired, poorer, and somehow less than we could be, I’m sure it will still be someone else’s fault, and you’ll vote again for whoever promises to pay for your good time.

206 Responses

  1. I dare anyone to say in 4 years that anything wrong is still Bush’s fault.

    • All I can do is sigh. It’s what I expected and Larry summed up my thoughts nicely. 4 Years from now we’ll have another shot, the other side will still be blaming Bush as well. Anyway, time to go deal with the gloating sore winners and look aide drinkers. Ever forward people. Next time we’ll bring a ground game.

      ~Rex

      • No, we won’t have another shot. There are already reports coming in from Colorado and Virginia, of people showing up at the polls, and being turned away because someone else voted for them. Given the administration’s record on investigating and prosecuting election fraud (which they claim doesn’t even exist. . .), they know they would get away with it.

        And now, they HAVE to keep getting away with it, because they KNOW they’d be investigated and prosecuted if the other party gets into power. Thus, they can’t let that happen.

        Welcome to Venezuela North. Because the Republic is dead. . . .and weren’t there reports, a day or two before the election, of cries of “Hail Obama” ?????

        We have to ride out the Bread and Circuses until it hits the inevitable end. Which will be bad on toast. . . .

      • @Keith Glass I’d only heard of someone in Wisconsin saying they were told they already voted via mail in ballot, the other states are a surprise to me. My head has been buried in a text book.
        I knew this rash of tons of early voting was a bad idea. Goes back to the Chicago way of “Vote Early Vote Often”.
        Voting early is only for if you’re going to be out of town, or injured/I’ll. Not even for if you’re going to be working because most States require workers to be allowed to get off work 2 hours early without penalty to vote.
        In my mind if you’re voting early for no legitimate reason, you’re either lazy, trying to game the system, or worried that your candidate will screw up somehow and you want to make sure your choice can’t be swayed.
        Sadly this won’t be investigated, and the bloody UN was trying to investigate Red states…

    • No one will be able to say that, because that “darned free speech” will be long gone by then.

    • Oh they will, Graham. Don’t you worry.

      • Sad to say, I agree with you. They reiterated last night that it was Bush’s fault. There are people blaming Bush for Libya. Libya!! Where he had the dictator eating out of the US’s hand and Obama overthrew the guy, thereby guaranteeing we will never have any power in the region again.

        I’ve seen people blame Bush for Benghazi. The electorate is unbelievably stupid. I have nothing in common with these people.

  2. Well said, Larry. Thank you for putting it in such simple language so when I share this my friends who voted Obama will be able to understand its message.

  3. If Republicans want left alone, why do they keep proposing policies that don’t leave people alone?

    They earned this loss, and will continue to lose until they drop the positions the majority of Americans oppose.

    Most Americans still oppose 0-care. But they oppose religion in politics more.

    • Sorry, Michael, that wasn’t Romney who made any religious pronouncements. That was a strawmen built by the media in conjunction with the Democrats. A total con. Romney has a proven record of not governing via religion. He never talked about it. Obama, on the other hand, told his audiences that his policies were grounded in scripture.

      Just like George W. Bush was considered a theocrat when all he did was be openly Christian, whereas Clinton had multiple photo ops with a 95 lb. bible and prayed openly on TV, somehow the press manages to paint a picture and the gullible fall for it. SoCons were pretty silent this election as far as demands go, yet you’re blaming them. You fell for the con.

      • I disagree. The Republicans are being beaten by two things: abortion, and gay rights. Until they figure out that these two issues are losing them quite a few votes, they will continue to get beaten.
        To undecided voters, Republicans are synonymous with gay bashing and anti-abortion. The Republicans must find a way to come to terms with this, or they will continue to be marginalized. Perhaps they should adopt as a part of the national platform that those two issues are properly left to each state to decide.

      • Oh yes, those women-hating, gay hating Republicians. Sorry nothing we’d do besides 100% surrendering would prevent the Left for spreading such lies.

      • @ppaulshoward:
        I don’t see how the Republicans can claim to be the champions of small, limited government while telling people how to run their lives and who they may marry. This is why the gay marriage issue is a loser.

        As far as abortion goes, it is not ever going to be illegal in this country. So the Republicans can either drop that as a part of the platform, or they can continue to lose races.

        Obama won by 3 million votes. Advocating true limited government by leaving marriage and abortion to the states may have closed that gap. It isn’t as though a national abortion platform is a principled pro-life stance, as the Republicans have no problem leaving murder laws to the states, and have no problem with a never ending series of wars.

        The so-called “small government party” got us the TSA, the PATRIOT ACT, useless war, and a trillion dollar TARP program. Hard to stake a claim on small government when you also want to regulate people’s private lives.

        I just don’t see how the Republicans are any more for limiting government than the Democrats.

      • @Divemedic You’re right to a point. TALKING about abortion is a no-win situation for Republicans. They have to avoid it at all costs.

        As for the rest, here in Massachusetts an openly gay, married, pro-choice Republican (Richard Tisei) couldn’t beat a Democrat incumbent who’s wife was convicted of laundering money for her criminal brothers (John Tierney). If the moonbats here wouldn’t elect Tisei, the won’t elect ANY Republican for any reason. They even got rid of Scott Brown because they thought he was too far right!

      • ILove the way people always forget that TSA was DEMANDED by the Democrats (“You can’t professionalize unless you federalize!”), and GWB got the Republicans to go along with it in a show of bipartisanship. Likewise, the Clinton Administration position was that Saddam needed to go, that Saddam supported terrorism, and that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats hated the Patriot Act so much that they voted to extend it. The Democrats insisted on the TARP program, but then made sure it wouldn’t actually be used on the core issue, and that conservative Republican ideas were rejected out of hand. (Although not mentioned above, don’t forget that ‘No Child Left Behind’ was basically a GWB olive branch to the Dems, pretty much written by Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy [2 years sober, now!}.)

        GWB’s problem with government growth and intrusion was that he was TOO bipartisan, repeatedly reaching across the aisle to people who had no intention of actually working or compromising with him. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice. . . well, you won’t fool me again.” (Sorry, George, you kept going back to the same parties, even though every time you went, you woke up in the bushes with your panties around your ankles, and the taste of vodka, Roofies, and vomit in your mouth.)

      • Yes, TWO years — he had to finish detoxing before the clock started. “Still drunk” isn’t “not drinking”. ;-P

    • Sadly to keep their ‘base’ happy.

      I never thought I would feel this level of disgust for my country. We aren’t perfect but we used to be better than the alternatives. I’ve watched in horror what Obama has done the last 4 years and I shudder to think what the next 4 are going to bring.

    • “Religion In Politics” only means that the News Media and Liberals hate an idea. They are more than willing to force their ideas on the religious and hate the idea that we are citizens/voters.

      • Religion is a poison. It should be abolished entirely from the human race.

      • Better talk to Mr. Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting.
        He wants to eliminate about 6 billion of the 6.5 billion people on planet Earth. Just check the Georgia guide stones. It’s right there.
        I’d call that a poisonous religion.
        Or is that just another form of the Progressive Eugenics movement (Religion?)?

    • Divemedic

      Patriot act was written before the Bush administration BY democrats. The Tarp program was Created bipartisan and Obama DIdnt have to sign it into law. The TSA I will grant you is a very republican idea But again democrats went along with it.

  4. *Less people will pull the cart and more people can ride in it, and you can continue to bitch about the greed of the people pulling and somehow assume that the cart will just keep on rolling.*

    Perfect way to put it, Larry. I’m going to remember that one.

    Simply put, Obama ran the most vapid, blatantly dishonest campaign I’ve seen in my lifetime against a man who had facts, figures and a proven record of turning things around and the vapid, blatantly dishonest campaign won. We live in Stupidland.

    I don’t want to talk to anyone who voted for Obama. They’re too stupid and expensive for me to have to deal with them on any interpersonal level. Am I being mean? Two words: lady parts. I can’t be mean enough.

    • TALK to anyone who voted for Obama ? I’ve gone beyond that. Since they chose the Free Stuff over Freedom, I’ve decided that I no longer need to volunteer or donate to charity. Let the all-benevolent Government provide for their needs.

      And if someone asks for my help, my FIRST question is: who did you vote for. If they didn’t vote, or vote for anyone but Romney, my answer will be the same: you chose Obama, either directly or indirectly. Go ask him for help.

      Liberals ? They are DEAD to me. I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. . .

      • So what you are saying even if we didn’t want to vote for Romney or Obama we were supposed to vote, Romney? Hope its worth getting rid of some good friends that is a little extreme don’t you think?

      • Reality check here: one of two men was going to win the election. Obama or Romney. A vote for anyone but Romney was a de-facto vote for Obama.

        As for “friends” that I’ve increasingly had less in common with for years and even decades, . . . it’s time to cut all but essential ties. They thought I was a fool and behind the times. I think of them as utterly delusional and as they have embraced the Suck. . . .they are lost to me anyway, beyond redemption. It’s time to salvage what we can, and batten down the hatches for the economic storm that’s coming. . .

      • Ok if that is the case then why even have other people on the ballot?

      • And I hope, Keith Glass, that your ban on liberals extends beyond personal relations to work and leisure activities? You’re done forever with liberal authors, liberal movies (Joss Whedon made a video making fun of Romney, so no more Avengers for you!), and liberal clients who want to exchange money for goods and services. Yeah, that’ll show them.

        What a great way to convince people–never to talk to them again.

      • Benb:

        Actually, yes. I’m done supporting Liberal Media, Liberal Stars, Liberal Directors, etc.

        I’m voting in the ONLY way that counts anymore: with my wallet.

        And by the way, I also state this publicly, using my real name. Where’s the courage to stand by YOUR remarks ???

      • Hi Keith,
        My name here is Benjb. I would’ve thought my name was obvious from that, but if you’re still having trouble: it’s Ben.

        Enjoy your new liberal-free life. Have you thought about starting with not talking to obvious liberals online?

      • It makes me sad to see people still think in terms of liberal vs conservative. Rep vs Dem.

        Its really the only reason I wanted Romney to win. So when he continues to bail out banks, trash the constitution, erode your personal freedoms and sell the future (oh think of the children) into debt slavery it would at least be interesting to hear the reasons given by the people who still think there is some difference between Mitt and Obama.

        You should be careful what you say about Obama, he has the right to kill American citizens on American soil if they are terrorists. What can make you a terrorist … well you might be surprised.

        He also has the right to confiscate your business, property and even force you to work unpaid (slavery) if they determine they need you. By the way, the Reps voted for this also. Check out the NDAA if you doubt me

        Mitt (or the R’s) is not the lesser of two evils. He is the exact same evil in a less interesting suit

        You have a bank account at a large bank vs your local credit union? Keep your saving/ retirement in dollars or the stock market? Congratulations, you are supporting both Dems and Rep’s

      • If I were in a battle ground state I would have voted Romney. I was in California and Obama was alwasye going to win. So I voted for Gary Johnson to help send the message that Liberty is what’s important to me.
        If it would have helped though, I would have voted for Romney in a heartbeat.

      • The world would be sore for donations if all conservatives stopped donating. While I did consider your recommendation for a second or two I can’t bring myself to punish the needy for the actions of Lib-tards.

        Conservatives outpace all charitable donations made by Liberals left and right. Not just religious donations, but secular donations such as homeless shelters and free clinics. Conservatives also donate more time, and if Liberal blood donations matched Conservative donations the Red Cross would have 45% more blood.
        On top of that Liberals donate to the Arts, “save the bees, trees and whales”. While conservatives donate to homeless/the needy.
        Before anyone says “donations to churches don’t count”. This number still holds true for Atheist conservatives.

        Conservatives are more generous with their time, money and blood than Liberals. Liberals are just generous with other peoples money.

        Anyone who tries to say I’m making stuff up Google “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” it’s an article in the NY Times.

      • @ guedenimbo

        Ordinarily, I’d agree. But the lower economic classes voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Obama. And so, it’s time for them to learn the classic lesson: Reap what you sow. I will help INDIVIDUALS who I personally find deserving. . . . but in bulk ? Never again. . . .

      • I guess it’s different for me simply because I’m still in college. I can’t help anyone in bulk yet, but I can and have volunteered where I can see the direct impact such as at soup kitchens.
        I’m still torn on this issue though, lessons need to be learned, but it’s possible for collateral damage.
        Who knows maybe if enough people have the mettle to teach the lesson like you it will finally be learned.

  5. Amen brother. I feel like I had a loved one die last night. Freedom has been traded for oppression.

  6. Well, said. You know whatever happens I will survive. I just worry for the folks that don’t have my skill set and that just don’t see what is coming.

  7. Sitting in the wheelhouse of a tugboat this morning, I was chatting with the captain and deckhand as they gave me a ride ashore. The captain noted that he made enough money to be in the upper half of the middle class- even with greater taxes and less freedom he’d be OK for 4 more years, and would probably have to work 27 weeks next year, not the usual 26, but his deckhand, living on a blue-collar salary and working hard for his money, was completely and utterly screwed, and stands no chance of advancing into the middle class if his savings are offset to pay for increased taxes.
    People are about to get what they asked for.

  8. Yeah, I remember an America where Idiocracy was a huge, impossible parody.

    • I don’t. I thought it was more of a horror/prophecy movie when I watched it.

      Though I do have to admit I wasn’t expecting it in my lifetime.

    • Remember that Idiocracy had two parts: a dumb government that was elected for entertainment value; and a rapacious corporation that advertised a sports drink as a replacement for water. It was more of a “everything sucks” film than “liberal government sucks.”

      • Actually, Idiocracy was just one (questionable, but hey, Hollywood) observation – “stupider” people are reproducing vastly more successfully than “smarter” people – which they extrapolated into their governmental, entertainment, and commercial dystopia. If you accept the movie’s underlying assumption that inheritance genetics are the only driver of intelligence, it’s all completely predictive – it’s all down hill from here.

        benjb, I have a question that would help me as I work through what you are urging here: It appears to me that you are providing advice on what to change to gain success to the “other” side from your center-left worldview, so why are you doing this? Assuming you are not just poking the wounded animals with a long enough stick (i.e. basic trolling), what motivates you to give such valuable advice to the losing side, telling them exactly what they “need to do” to beat your side in future campaigns?

        Wouldn’t you be happier if the opposition just kept on using the”losing” positions that your are urging it to discard, allowing your center-left side to continue to win for-evah?

        If you’re not just a troll, what’s in this for you?

      • Hi flyingmike, that’s a good question. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if the current Republican party continued to lose if the Republican coalition stays the way it is–anti-gay, dominated by people who think that enforcing their religious rules on others is cool (as long as those religious rules aren’t the dreaded sharia law), de facto anti-environment and anti-science, etc.) (I don’t want to be overly insulting, so please read an implicit “or so it seems to me” to everything here. I realize just stating my beliefs has a trollish quality that I’m trying to tamp down.)

        Now, I think the contemporary Republican coalition cannot reliably win, but in a two-party system, it could happen that the Republicans gain power every once in a while, even while changing only minimally. And when I imagine Boehner, Palin, Ryan, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. near the levers of power, I see a terrible outcome. (We may differ on that, eh?)

        So a couple of possible outcomes:

        1) Republicans don’t change, wither away politically–I’m okay with that (and I imagine a new party would take their place, like the Republicans replaced the Whig and Free Soil parties before the Civil War)

        2) Republicans change minimally, occasionally take power, and roll back certain progress (from my POV)–well, I prefer government to be in the hands of people who are interested in governance, which is a way of saying that I prefer Obama’s handling of Sandy to Bush’s handling of Katrina.

        3) Republicans change by re-centering their priorities–this is what I’m hoping for. But I hear Republicans say they’re the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, I look at the history and see that Republican administrations tend to increase the debt and (in certain areas) increase the size of the government. I think it would be great to bring the party’s idea of itself more in line with reality–and if you don’t like that reality, then change it.

        Now, I remember how awful I felt in 2004, I know how much it stings when you feel the country go the wrong way after what I considered to be sufficient warning. So maybe what I see right now is just the post-wound sting of losing the election.

        But right now, reading Larry’s post and some (SOME) of the comments here–you know, the comments that blame non-traditional Americans, the takers and parasites, the media, Romney’s squishiness, etc.–it just seems like people are going to take option #2 and not change or learn from this defeat. And that’s the outcome that worries me most here.

      • What Obama handling of Sandy? No, seriously? Here we are several weeks later and they still don’t electricity or heat in bit swaths of New York. Obama showed up, did a photo op, and left. Awesome.

        As for the rest of that, you realize that even with a media that is basically an extension of the democrat party and massive voter fraud, the repulicans lost by around half a million votes spread across three swing states?

        Meanwhile, looking through this thread, the main take away for me is the power of the media, since most of the detractors aren’t talking about anything republicans actually care about, but rather the trivial crap that the media says republicans care about. So yeah, so we’ll just be sure to take the advice of the liberals telling us that if we just change our stance to (personal pet project X) then we’ll like totally do better next time!

        Thanks for the advice.

      • Also, flyingmike, I first heard of Larry Correia through a writing-related podcast called Writing Excuses, whose four members Larry is friendly with and where he sometimes guests to discuss his areas of expertise. And he comes off as a funny, smart, entertaining guy.

        And I’d like to have a political argument with him that didn’t involve what I consider to be conspiracy theories and the angry despair of the conservatives who have decided to give up (or talk about secession). So all my arguments and advice about Republicans facing reality might be seen as aimed at Larry: we’ll probably never agree politically about a big number of things, but it would be great if we could have that argument while existing in the same universe.

        (And now’s the point where someone might tell me that I’m a close-minded liberal, which is fair, except for all my arguments about the misuse of “socialist” when applied to Obama, the conspiracy theories about his birthplace or who he’s a Manchurian Candidate for. Being open-minded is not the same thing as accepting someone else’s mythology.)

      • Ben, I normally don’t respond in detail to every post because if you’ll notice, I tend to get hundreds and hundreds of them. Don’t be offended. Especially after a couple of days have passed, because then there isn’t enough readership of the comments to make it worth my time to rehash topics I’ve already written about two dozen times.

  9. I agree on the whole with your post but it doesn’t repeat ad infinitum. The angrier and more intractable the two groups become the closer to the break point we come.

    We as a nation are speeding toward the cliff, half the nation is yelling look a cliff dead ahead and the other half is yelling shut up the cliff is all a lie. I don’t know how to fix that because everyone seems to get distracted by a side issues that somehow gets related to the main issue as if by magic.

    I was at dinner with friends when I said we need to cut back on government spending. This lead to several seemingly unrelated topics being thrown in the mix. As if my speaking of the issue had caused six or seven internet style pop ups to shoot up and obscure my point. I still cannot wrap my mind around how the government cutting back on the budget would force a woman to choose between food and condoms, and yes that was thrown out by one of the females at the table.

    I see no way to convince the cliff deniers that the cliff really exists because they seem to lack the ability to ignore the noise and focus on the problem. So I wonder will we truly be able to limp through the next four years?

    • William, because the Progressive Propaganda Machine and the dems…won’t LET them see the cliff.

      • Both parties are driving us towards the cliff. Check the record of Bush, Romney and the Rep’s Congress. To sit back and blame one party (or the evil media) is easy but its also lazy and wrong

  10. Hi Larry,
    I’m not going to argue with you here, because we’re not going to agree.

    But I would like to ask you what your ideal US would look like. I’m thinking about this because I was struck by a couple of things I noticed on your Twitter: at one moment, you say you don’t like so-called experts–are there some experts that you would listen to?

    And then at another moment you talk about how you don’t trust the masses. So who do you trust? What would your ideal country look like?

    If I had to guess, I’m guessing a low-tax libertarian-ish land that spent most of the tax money on infrastructure, police, and military. I am just guessing here, so I could be totally off. (Maybe only people who serve in the military get to vote?)

    • I’m not Larry, but, let me take a stab at it….A government that only spends money on those things that are explicit in the constitution. Limit the franchise, yeah maybe just those who have served, but not active, at least military folks have shown that they have some skin in the game.

      SFC (Ret)
      KSCA (Ret)
      TDCJ COV (Ret)

      • Hi Doran, I’m glad to talk to anyone about this issue on the day after the election.

        So in this US where the government only does the constitutional basics (like, “interstate commerce” is a vague phrase, so you want it interpreted as narrowly as possible, right?), what’s the status of gay marriage and drug legalization? Up to the states?

      • I would limit the franchise to anyone who contributes either through service or just paying some taxes. Net consumer of public money? No vote for you. Don’t take any form of welfare or get a 100% return? You get to vote period. The problem with limiting it to people who have served is what about those of us who wanted and tried to serve but got disqualified medically (discovered I had an autoimmune disease at meps) or whose religion is against it?

      • Hi Dave,
        So if you pay federal taxes, you can vote in the federal election; if you pay state taxes, can you vote in the state elections? And I suppose, for the sake of argument, we’ll eliminate sales tax and payroll taxes.

        But iInstead of limiting votes to veterans (for the reasons you mentioned), what if we set up a civilian corps, a sort of industrial army–instead of doing a tour in the army, you could do a tour building roads or doing other necessary work? Would that work for you?

      • Net taxpayer — I don’t care if it’s $20,000,000 per year, or only $1 — unless you pay more in taxes then you receive in UNearned government benefits, no vote for you. Note – salaries paid for employment, even as a government worker, are “earned”. So are pensions paid because of a contractual obligation – if your job contract said “20 years as a cop, firefighter, or servicemember, and you get to retire with a pension,” that is an EARNED benefit. Compensation for injuries done to you or your family by the government, or due to government service, are not unearned benefits, either. Benefits that are applied to the entire community (like public roads) do not count against you – it’s not a road given to YOU personally, after all – anyone can use it. Benefits granted solely in connection with an obligation (scholarships that come with mandatory service, GI Bill, etc.) are not unearned benefits, either – your payback may be deferred, but it still isn’t “free shit” – the taxpayers are getting paid back, either in money, sweat, blood, or some combination thereof.

        I could go with the idea that each level of electoral sovereignty (local, state, federal) be evaluated separately. Maybe you can vote in the local and federal elections, but since the state gave you a no-obligation scholarship grant that was bigger than your state taxes that election cycle, no state vote for you.

        As for gay marriage, drug legalization, etc. – the federal government is (in writing) PROHIBITED from involving itself in stuff where it has NOT been granted authority to act in the Constitution. In those area where Fed.Gov has been granted authority, its authority trumps individual state authority. EVERYTHING ELSE, however,

        If it is purely INTRAstate commerce, it isn’t INTERstate commerce – i.e., Raich was decided incorrectly (and, by extension, the follow-on case Stewart – Stewart was sacrificed because Scalia thinks weed is bad). A stronger case can be made that recreational marijuana is guaranteed by a penumbra of the Constitution (privacy – same as contraception) than that Fed.Gov can do diddly-squat to prohibit INTRAstate commerce in it. (Import/export/INTERstate commerce, yes, Congress has the authority to act – provided there is no penumbra guaranteeing your right to get as baked as a pie.) Now, smoking weed is stupid and self destructive – but freedom MUST include the right to be stupid and screw yourself up, or it is meaningless and illusionary.

        If it involves something the federal government doesn’t have a specific Constitutional role, it is none of Uncle Sam’s business. The 14th Amendment takes a lot of formerly “federal” guarantees, and specifies that they are ALSO guaranteed against state infringement, but there is still a lot of stuff the Constitution doesn’t cover – and ALL of that is reserved to either the individual states, or to individual people (10th amendment).

    • You know, your guess actually sounds quite nice. And, in fact, it sounds a lot like how things used to be before Congress gained the power to tax the people directly. If we could take our government back to those times (and somehow keep all the progress we’ve made on civil liberties)…

      Well. One can dream.

  11. Excellent article, Larry. I’ve shared it with all my conservative friends and family.

  12. Larry, considering your background, how deep do you recommend I bury my guns.

    That is, if they hadn’t all been lost in a tragic boating accident of course.

  13. “One side wants a smaller government and wants to be left alone”

    I don’t think either side has been asking for this. If we want to blame the Obama people for not facing reality, we cant turn around and ignore it our self.

    Romney (or Bush) have certainly not acted like small government guys. It seems like many people have an image of what they think the R party is etched in their minds even if its not true.

    Does Romney want smaller government than Obama, sure. But that’s probably why he lost. You just cant energize the base running as the lesser of two evils for your party.

    In the end, Romney had no plans that would save the country either. He had no plan to pay off the debt, because he cant pay it

    Math sucks

    • ” “One side wants a smaller government and wants to be left alone”

      I don’t think either side has been asking for this. If we want to blame the Obama people for not facing reality, we cant turn around and ignore it our self. ”

      Neither side was running on this platform…but that’s what I believe most people want. At least, people who have any sense.

    • Exactly true. During the primaries, everyone spends months complaining about the realities of their own party. During the general election, we ignore them and idealize them.

      It’s how republicans can still be seen as being for small government, and the democrats for civil rights. When Bush drove up the deficit and proposed a giant bailout, and Obama is putting people in jail for pot and assassinating Americans abroad. Or how Romney can be seen as a successful businessman and not a rich guy riding his daddys’ coattails, and Obama can be seen as a normal minority guy and not a Harvard graduate millionaire with a well off old white folk family.

      Neither of the parties has made real steps in the direction of their rhetoric in a long time.

  14. benjb, on November 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm said: (like, “interstate commerce” is a vague phrase, so you want it interpreted as narrowly as possible, right?), what’s the status of gay marriage and drug legalization? Up to the states? Abortion is a closed issue, but, why should I pay for that? again the states.

    • Doran, you are correct. That is the WHOLE POINT of the 10th Amendment. The powers are enumerated in the Articles and everything else is left to the states and to the people. You’d be surprised how many people absolutely don’t understand that concept.

    • Abortion is lefties murdering unborn lefties, and right now, that sounds like a pretty good use for my tax dollars.

      Remember, Planned Parenthood was started as a eugenics program to keep the black population in check. Right now, that doesn’t sound so bad either.

      Right now, I can think of one woman whom I wish had had access to safe, taxpayer funded abortion about 48 years ago. Sure as hell would have cost less than $6,000 billion.

      For every Beethoven or Einstein we abort, we lose a dozen Ted Bundies, and a million Obama phone customers. I’lll take the trade.

      • Have you ever thought of running for government? I think you’d make a pretty good Republican spokesman.

      • A very well reasoned and compelling argument. I totally agree Planned Parenthood was a plot by Margret Sanger to keep the black population in check and it is sort of working. I agree with the notion that abortion murders just the right slice of the demographic. “Lefties killing lefties” wow what a great concept; and, it saves so much money in potential welfare checks and food stamps , money we do not have to borrow from the Chinese. The only sadness is the lack of moral back bone of the American Woman who has now bowed to the siren call of Sandra Fluk and other left wing demons who urge women to have no standard but self indulgence. This is not a moral or religious argument it just simply the observation that women who adhere to liberal progressive causes generally make poor partners. I agree though the Republicans should drop all notions of Pro-Life and just let women do what they want. (They will anyway ) The election position of the Republicans should never have been for Pro Choice. It is too expensive and loses all the young women to the liberals. Hopefully these young women will find that percentage wise women who marry political science majors and liberal arts majors will find themselves working for the rest of their lives to support the family because the panty waist liberal men are all barristers at Starbucks or waiting tables at Appleby’s. You can cout on one hand the number of liberals in any Chemical Engineering class even in the Ivy League.

      • Just to remind everyone that the typical female who gets an abortion is white, middle class, and is getting an abortion as a prophylaxis. So the argument for abortion rights falls flat.
        So just ask them to ask this question: “At what point it is NOT a baby and can be killed?”

      • There was an interesting hypothesis by the guys at Freakonmics and how legalized abortion had a large impact on crime statistics. Here is a link but the interview was better if you want to look for it.

        http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

  15. From working in IT sometimes… you have to let a system fail before people realize it needs to be replaced, rebuilt and rebooted. At this point I am ready to cross my arms and just go with the system. Let the people have what they want for now and let it crash. Sooner it does the sooner we rebuild. On a personal note working in healthcare now we are worried. Its clear we are going to lose money under Obamacare. When the cuts come its not to the doctors, CEOs and the like. Its to us workers down stream.

    • Don’t worry, you aren’t the only one letting the system fail. Study Alinsky. Overloading the system until it fails so you can rebuild it is the plan we’ve been on for the last 4 years.

      You don’t seriously think he planned to make the country prosperous before his fundamental transformation, do you?

      And the doctors and CEO’s absolutely will share the cuts, big time. It won’t ruin them, because they probably have more assets right now, but they won’t be laughing and happy unless they’re with the ruling party.

      • It is the same with any corp. the people in power are not going to take the cuts at least at first. Its the rest of us down the line that do. Sadly in any corporation the first to go are usually the IT staff… I have been downsized and outsourced too many times.

        As for a failure of the system. I think the left is working twords that to rebuild it in their image. I just wonder if it is past time to do anything about it or do we let it fail then fight it out over who rebuilds it and how?

  16. It’s interesting listening to the comments made here. The analysis of the results from here accross the pond is that Romney lost because he mainly appeals to the white middle classes, whereas Obama appeals to the Black, Hispanic and Latino communities which together have the larger alectorate. As the latter groups are proportionaly increasing at the moment and apparently into the future the prospects for Romney et al don’t appear to rosy.

  17. I’m reminded of a story.

    About a man who wanted to visit a monastery on the top of a tall, snowy mountain in the fastness of Tibet. He found a guide to take him, who smiled and nodded and started loading up a huge sled with gear and provisions. There was a huge pavilion for the man to rest in, fluffy and warm comforters, deep pillows, large boxes of tea and tubs of butter (for they like their tea with butter in the mountains of Tibet, you see), bags of charcoal and iron braziers to keep them warm at night, and long tin chimneys for the braziers so they would not die from the charcoal fumes. Boxes and bales and bags of choice viands — joints of yak meat and peacock and balls of cheese, bottles of wine and casks of milk. All were loaded and carefully tied down.

    Then the guide went forward, and to the traces of the sled, he fastened the harness of a small, wizened little dog. It shivered in the high, thin air, and looked rather frightened and pathetic. The traveler looked at the poor thing and frowned, pointing to it.

    “Is this all?” He said. “Is this one little dog the sole motive power of this huge sled? Man, are you mad? That little dog couldn’t move a tenth of my weight three feet, much less this entire sled, and us, up that mountain!” But the guide made a placating gesture, and grinned widely.

    “Never fear, my friend,” the guide said, his face placid and knowing. “For you see, I have a whip.”

  18. The Republicans, imo, did not lose because more people want to feed at the trough than want to fill it. They did not lose because of healthcare. They did not lose because of economic issues.

    The Republicans lost this election on social issues, imo. They lost because gay rights are fast becoming a major issue. They lost because they have people like Akin saying that women can just shut off pregnancy in legitimate rape, and Mourdock basically saying “If a women is pregnant through rape, God wanted it that way and we should just let it be.” They lost because their presidential candidate responded to that last one with what can be summed up as “I disagree, but I support him” instead of “God, no, that man’s an idiot, why on earth would he say that?”

    They lost because they’re attempting to force their religious beliefs on a populace that increasingly wants nothing to do with them.

    In this election, I found that I didn’t really care what Romney’s ideas for the economy were, because of the simple fact that I just cannot bring myself to vote for a man who is willing to point at a citizen of the United States and say “You. You don’t get the same rights as other citizens. Why? Because, that’s why.”

    • Exactly. Republicans need to stop trying to legislate people to agree with them on social issues and start trying to convince them.

      Of course, I feel the same about Democrats and some of their “choose between condoms and food” bullcrap.

    • What in blazes are you talking about, George? Gay rights?!? Yeah, because those 30 states that voted to ban gay marriage just don’t matter any more now that MA and MD are on board? Force religious beliefs?!? Yeah, because overturning the worst legal decision in American history was a prime piece of the campaign. Rights?!? Were you in America at any point in this campaign?

      • No, honestly, they don’t matter. I don’t care what percentage of the population wants to discriminate against another segment of the population. It is the obligation of the government to treat all of its citizens equally. If they grant a set of privileges to people for getting married, they must grant that set of privileges to all citizens.

        And no, saying “Gay men can marry women the same as straight men can” does not count as equality any more than saying “everyone has the right to attend Catholic Mass” does.

      • Forgot one comment: The government needs to get OUT of the marriage business ( the larger issue is to stop meddling in what should be private affairs).

        OUT of marriage. Contracts would do a better job of protecting children. Marriage, in almost all churches, is a sacrament. I consider my marriage sacred, and would whether the government sanctioned it or not.

        People want to get married, go get married, but don’t, for all that is rational, want to have the government involved. It is already a mare’s nest. I can hear the screaming and shrieking now “But the CHILLDRUUUUUN!!!”. See above.

        I expect having a contract between yourself and another, would cause you to think very carefully about your undertaking. It sure hasn’t proven to be true of government marriages. People rarely consider the downstream effects of divorce on children (News flash: It ALWAYS affects children.)

        Let gays petition the Catholic or Baptist church to marry them, if they so desire. Those institutions should be under no obligation to do so nor should they get tax exempt status either, nor should any ‘non-profit’, (a whole other topic, but Larry is going to kick me off his blog if I keep hijacking his blog for my rants!). The government doesn’t need to be involved. But neither gays, nor anyone, should be prohibited from making a contract between one or more people.

        Well, just a thought ;->

        The Captain

    • The Democrats learned that gun control is a third rail issue and now take pains to steer well away. When are the Republicans going to learn that gay marriage and abortions are the same way- it doesn’t change anyone’s opinions and only costs them votes?

    • I take insult to the way you and others keep misquoting, and taking out of context, Mr. Mourdock’s statement. Get it right!
      HE never said anything about the RAPE being God’s will!
      The life that occurred was God’s will and we shouldn’t blame the BABY!
      Get your facts straight!
      And as far as gay rights go, what is it that is so all fired important that we are forced to recognize Gay marriage? They have the same rights as everyone else has! They have civil unions recognized by many states! Domestic partnerships recognized through their companies!
      Marriage is an institution founded by God and the Church for petesakes!
      Governments, until more recent times, registered the marriages for Census purposes only. Churches and religious organizations performed the marriages, anullments, and divorces.
      The State had nothing to do with it.
      But then, politicians being politicians, they couldn’t let another revenue stream get by them.

      • Marriage is an institution founded by God and the Church for petesakes!

        Which God, and which Church are you referring to, I wonder. And likewise, what possible bearing on the actions of a secular government should that genesis have anyway?

      • To be honest you might actually ask, “Why Marriage?”.
        It’s not like people don’t live together until they die.
        Some do, some don’t.
        But “WHY?” is the question.
        Why do gays HAVE to have marriage?
        As for the God you asked about we are talking about the fact that marriage has always been recognized as a religious union between a man and a woman. To propagate children as a result. For what is know as a traditional family.
        And government should have NO bearing on marriage.
        That is the point.
        The wall of separation between religion and government is a one way wall. Government should not affect religion. But religion should affect every facet of government. To bring moral and ethical guidance to what would be secular disregard, (Hello ACLU!), for ANY religion or religious belief.
        If it does not pick my pocket, nor break my leg, what does it matter to me how you exercise your right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
        Just don’t expect me to accept it or pay for the end results.

      • “Why do gays HAVE to have marriage?”

        Uh, for the tax breaks. For the hospital visitation rights. For the countless SECULAR issues that marriage makes easier.

        “As for the God you asked about we are talking about the fact that marriage has always been recognized as a religious union between a man and a woman.”

        You might want to read the Bible, especially the parts where people keep taking multiple wives–especially the parts where God sanctioned that marriage.

        I think every church has the right to say “No” to marriage equality and not to hold religious ceremonies affirming those marriages. But as for the government and all the secular benefits, they should be allowed to be married–and no church can tell people what secular rights they get.

      • (Uh, for the tax breaks.)

        Like I said…Gov should treat everyone equally in all regards. Blame your congress on the tax breaks. Hmm…maybe it’s because you are supposed to have and support the ‘Children’ cause it’s for the ‘Children’s’ sake. Cause those tax breaks disappear after they turn 17 and/or leave the house. That small pittance they give you applies to the overall deduction to your income. Blind and/or disabled people get better deductions I believe.

        (For the hospital visitation rights.)

        HIPAA! Ever heard of it?
        Even spouses have to be authorized by the other spouse to visit or know what’s going on.
        So excuse me, but ANYONE can be allowed to see ANYONE in a hospital and know what is going on. Just sign the paperwork/let the hospital know to allow ANYONE to visit or know what’s going on. So moot point.

        (For the countless SECULAR issues that marriage makes easier.)

        Easier? Did you just say easier? Marriage is one of the biggest pains in the butts on many SECULAR issues. And just because you are married doesn’t make lollipops and rainbows. If your spouse gets into financial trouble, YOU may have to pay their bills! Why? Cause you are the spouse! If the spouse does something that can even remotely be blamed or tainted upon you…your busted. Not your fault? Tough! Your married!
        Try to deal with personal hygiene issues and budgets!
        What??? $200 on hair care products? $125 on pedicures and manicures??? WTF?

        No human has said you can’t live in a home with your lover(s) and stay that way for the rest of your life. It’s your life. So when you try to placate yourself by saying there should be Gay Marriage, in my humble opinion you are wrong. It was never meant for same sex.
        And as far as the Bible is concerned with references to multiple women being married to one man, I believe it stated that this was the CUSTOM of that culture. God allowed it, but those that married more than one drama que…er…woman got trouble in the end. I believe you know about those? Abraham, Joseph (That was a very bad deal), Solomon (a 1000 wives and 800 concubines, even worse). God allowed it, but did not condone it.
        “For this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his WIFE (Notice it is ONE).”
        But we can debate all day.

      • Like you said, we’re just going to have to disagree, Ray. I mean, I could point out that your argument re: the Bible doesn’t hold up. (Many people in the OT had multiple wives and did very well.) I could point out that “well, it was okay in that culture” doesn’t make sense as an argument since it’s clearly becoming more okay in our culture.

        But we’re never going to agree, and I’m going to have to take solace in the fact that young people more and more find the idea of marriage equality perfectly appropriate; and that it will be the law of the land soon, possibly in our lifetime.

      • Thank you for your candor and viewpoints.
        However I believe our youth are seeing things in a different way.
        Look forward to the future.

      • No, I think that honesty requires me to stick with “which God and which Church” since “marriage”, as a concept, has existed amongest the Chinese since roughly 2900 BC, which predates the genesis of Judaisim by a minimum of 1500 years.

        But the Caananites and Zoroastrianism aside, let me address your claim that As for the God you asked about we are talking about the fact that marriage has always been recognized as a religious union between a man and a woman. which is, blatantly, false. The Romans, Catholics, and Navajo have, at time ranging from before the birth of Christ until roughly now have each recognized and legitimised homosexual matrimony. So, historically, you’re just wrong.

        To propagate children as a result. For what is know as a traditional family.

        So… My (as a man, married to a woman) marriage is somehow invalid in your eyes, since my wife and I don’t have children? Hunh. Interesting. Fuck you and I dare you to say it to my face, but interesting nontheless.

        [G]overnment should have NO bearing on marriage.

        Hey, look! A point we actually agree on! As an ordained minister, I absolutely agree that the government has no legitimate authority interfering with my religious sacrements.

        The wall of separation between religion and government is a one way wall. Government should not affect religion. But religion should affect every facet of government. To bring moral and ethical guidance to what would be secular disregard, (Hello ACLU!), for ANY religion or religious belief.

        And then you go and stuff your foot in your mouth. No. You’re just wrong. Perhaps you do actually look to Saudi Arabia as a paragon of what you’d like the governemnt here to be like, but I feel compelled to let you know that I will oppose that with all the armament I can bring to bear.

        If it does not pick my pocket, nor break my leg, what does it matter to me how you exercise your right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

        And how precisely does homosexual matrimony do any of that to you?

        Just don’t expect me to accept it or pay for the end results.

        You are welcome to be absolutely as bigoted as you’d like in your private sphere. Disallow gays from your home, your business, etc, just let me know so I can avoid you the same as I’d avoid someone who refused to serve Blacks or Jews. As far as paying for it, either you’re referring to the tax breaks allowed to married couples, and you’d prefer to not give to homosexuals, in which case I ask, why the hell should I pay for yours, either, or I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        Like I said…Gov should treat everyone equally in all regards. Blame your congress on the tax breaks. Hmm…maybe it’s because you are supposed to have and support the ‘Children’ cause it’s for the ‘Children’s’ sake.

        And as I said, my wife and I have no children. And what else should I want Congress to do about it, other than to extend the same tax breaks to homosexual couples?

        HIPAA! Ever heard of it?

        And an EMT, and as an information security analyst for a university with a hospital attached, yes, I have not only heard of HIPAA, I daresay I have a much greater understanding of it than you are likely to.

        HIPAA explicitly allows the discussion of medical conditions and treatment with spouses, unless the patient has made a statement to the contrary.

        No human has said you can’t live in a home with your lover(s) and stay that way for the rest of your life.

        Actually, plenty of humans have said that. There were even laws against it until recently in this country. Again, your grasp of history sucks out loud.

        So when you try to placate yourself by saying there should be Gay Marriage, in my humble opinion you are wrong. It was never meant for same sex.

        Except, of course, for all the times in the past when it was.

        And as far as the Bible is concerned with references to multiple women being married to one man, I believe it stated that this was the CUSTOM of that culture. God allowed it, but those that married more than one drama que…er…woman got trouble in the end.

        A.) The Bible is utterly irrelevant to a discsussion of how the laws in our utterly secular modern society should behave with regards to private contracts between consenting adults.

        B.) The Israelites were a polygynous culture up through and into the New Testament era, including the practice of polygyny among early Christians. So, again, you’re just historically incorrect.

        ALL OF THAT ASIDE, “what has been done in the past” is not much of an argument for what we should be doing now. Homosexuals are citizens, and taxpayers, and as such, if heterosexuals are given the opportunity to acquire a set of government granted privileges by encumbering themselves in matrimony with the partners of their choice, then homosxuals must be granted the same set of privileges.

        I suppose, alternatively, we could grant a 100% tax waiver for those individuals willing to declare themselves to be homosexual, and thus unable to partake of the opportunities granted to heterosexual citizens. Would that be more to your liking?

      • perlhaqr,

        I am not going to insult your intelligence by assuming you actually believe what you just tried to say.

        Your rant was all over the place, and the hate you have against me is insane.
        I don’t think you actually know or can conceive of what a bigot is.
        My kind was pissed upon at one point. So let’s not play that game. You have lost there.
        Get one thing clear. I do not hate gays. I disagree with gay marriage. It’s my belief that it is wrong. That’s all. I know and have bi/gay friends
        and co-workers. We disagree on several issues. But we do not hate each other like you are hating me now. I don’t know what personal problems you harbor with people who simply disagree with your view points, but get a grip will you.
        And NEVER threaten someone like you did me. Others may not take that so kindly.

        At least we agree that government should stay out of marriage period.

        Thank you for the debate.

      • You guys will notice that gay marriage is a topic I normally don’t touch on here with a 10 foot pole.

        For the record, I don’t give a crap about gay marriage. I’ve got no problem with homosexuals enjoying all of the same tax and legal benefits as heterosexual couples. Doesn’t hurt me any.

        HOWEVER…

        My only fear on the topic has nothing to do with gay people, and everything to do with an overreaching government that loves to screw people over. “Oh, but that could never happen here!” Except there has been one other instance in American history where the federal government got to dinking around with the definition of marriage, and then when one religion didn’t go along with that, the feds squished them for it, confiscated their temples, and threw their leadership in prison… See, because if a government can mandate what marriage means, then they can also dictate what kind of marriages you have to perform and still be a “real” religion.

        You want to know why Mormons were against gay marriage in California? It sure wasn’t because they were scared of gay folks.

      • Well said.

      • I am not going to insult your intelligence by assuming you actually believe what you just tried to say.

        Oh, you might as well, there’s nothing I said that I’d retract.

        Your rant was all over the place

        Of course it was. I had to correct the broken off fire hydrant of misinformation you threw out. It took a lot of jumping around to point out all of your factual inaccuracies.

        and the hate you have against me is insane.

        Hate? Nah, I think you’re so blinded by your position in the mainstream, majority culture that you can’t see how your arguments all mostly end up working against you, but I don’t hate you. Hating the misguided is pointless, especially when there are so many of them.

        I don’t think you actually know or can conceive of what a bigot is.
        My kind was pissed upon at one point. So let’s not play that game. You have lost there.

        Nope, sorry. I’m perfectly aware of what bigotry is, and while “your kind” may have been pissed upon at one point, “my kind” are pissed upon now. I’ve lived through it. So don’t try to play the “people who have experienced bigotry can’t be bigoted” trump card on me, it won’t work.

        Get one thing clear. I do not hate gays. I disagree with gay marriage. It’s my belief that it is wrong. That’s all. I know and have bi/gay friends and co-workers. We disagree on several issues. But we do not hate each other like you are hating me now. I don’t know what personal problems you harbor with people who simply disagree with your view points, but get a grip will you.

        I’m glad you don’t hate gays. I wasn’t even actually saying that you are bigoted against them, merely that in private, you have an abvsolute right to be. See, I’m not a leftist. I’m a firm (some would say obsessive) proponent of private property. Your home is your castle, and in it, you can have any rules you like.

        But outside those walls, what you believe is irrelevant. What matters there is equal treatment for all the citizens of the United States. So your “belief” that gay marriage is wrong is utterly orthogonal to the point of whether it’s proper to have second class citizens. Citizens who are taxed at the same rate as everyone else, bt not given the same privileges as other citizens. Citizens who are forced to, as they say, sit at the back of the bus.

        And I’m not quite sure why you’re so insecure as to think that just because I strongly disagree with you, and have corrected your historical inaccuracies, that I’m “hating” on you. My “personal problems”, however, are not with people who simply “disagree with my views”. My personal problems are with people who disagree with my views, and seek to have their personal prejudices writ into law. Whether that’s opposition to homosexual matrimony or opposition to private ownership of firearms, it’s all the same to me.

        And NEVER threaten someone like you did me. Others may not take that so kindly.

        The only threat I see in what I wrote is a promise to oppose any sort of Sharia, whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, or even my own Discordianism, by force of arms. And if you personally take that as a threat because it’s what you want, then that’s just too bad. And if that’s not what you want, well, the barrel isn’t pointed at you, now is it?

        At least we agree that government should stay out of marriage period.

        The biggest problem, of course, being that the situation is unequal now, and the very notion of removing government from the marriage business is mostly not even on the radar. So should homosexuals have to wait until the institution of government ordained marriage is destroyed to achieve equality under the law, or should the law be expanded to grant them equality now, with the work of removing government from marriage to come in the future?

        ——

        My only fear on the topic has nothing to do with gay people, and everything to do with an overreaching government that loves to screw people over. “Oh, but that could never happen here!” Except there has been one other instance in American history where the federal government got to dinking around with the definition of marriage, and then when one religion didn’t go along with that, the feds squished them for it, confiscated their temples, and threw their leadership in prison… See, because if a government can mandate what marriage means, then they can also dictate what kind of marriages you have to perform and still be a “real” religion.

        Larry: I don’t know if you have noticed, but the government already is in the “mandate what marriage means” business here. That’s sort of the whole problem. That ship you’re pointing at? It sailed. Sailed is what it has done.

        And honestly, no. I don’t think your concern is a particularly valid one, sine the LDS church is already not required to perform even heterosexual ceremonies it doesn’t want to. I mean, could I show up in SLC and get anywhere demanding to have a temple marriage for my wife and I? I think we both know the answer to that.

        But should what you fear come to pass, I’ll come to the nearest LDS Temple under my own power, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the LDS folks there, and shoot at the government troops right along side y’all.

      • Well, perlhaqr. You are probably the most confusing person I have yet to run into. Perhaps I am looking at things differently and from a perspective you seem to be missing.
        From what I am reading you have stated that I seem to believe your marriage is invalid, that to you I am some Jew and Black hating bigot that wishes to force all gays into second class citizen status, and that religious belief has nothing to do with marriage between different or same sexes. But that is just from what I am reading here and there. You are wrong on all points.

        The crux of the difference in opinion is that I don’t believe in gay marriage. That is all. If people use the politicians to force me or others who disagree into becoming criminals for disagreeing, then I guess you win.
        Or is that lose? Seems to be a lose-lose situation there. Government gets to limit religious liberty and limit freedom of speech. Next will be the freedom of the press, as well as other freedoms. Slippery slope time!
        We all have the right to disagree. Even with popular opinion. But give that government camel the ability to stick its nose into the tent of our liberty and you will most likely never get rid of it unless you use, possibly deadly, force.
        But my opinion is wrong? Oh we could debate Bible, Ancient culture, social engineering, religious influences, how government views it, but in the end we’d still differ on basics of premise. And I would still see it as wrong. Why, you ask?

        I am a free thinking. (That means I don’t swallow everything I hear or read without checking it out. Not that I haven’t made mistakes, had assumptions, or changed my viewpoint.)

        I am a strict constitutionalist. (That means I believe in the rule of law, Liberty of person, freedom to debate and espouse opinions right or wrong, and that the law applies to everyone equally. Equal justice. Not equal outcomes or results.)
        I believe we differ here somewhat in viewpoint. You seem to favor forced acceptance by government of what has been viewed as traditional marriage, to any one can marry anyone.
        But then we have to ask about where does it all stop. Well, with government, it doesn’t. Because there are people who will want forced acceptance of Sharia, poly-amory, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, the list goes on. As long as the Constitution is ignored, there will be groups with lots of money and support, to lobby and elect more and more local officials, who will vote for something they want, and it will get passed into law. Right or wrong or unpopular. (Obamacare???!!!)

        I am a conservative libertarian at heart. (Allowing people to rise and fall on their own merits without forcing people to pay for programs that sap real initiative and the desire to improve one’s own lot in life.)

        I also believe in true charity, not the government kind. (That means I don’t believe in getting the government to spend other peoples money when I won’t give it myself.)

        And though I may not like my neighbor being an a-hole loudmouth, I will still stand up and defend his right to speak his opinion freely.

        If that makes me a hate mongering, racist, bigot, homophobe, so be it. But I will still stand beside you or anyone else and defend the right to be heard, whether it’s right or wrong in my own opinion.

      • A few last points.
        In all of us there is a paradigm.
        So when you said ‘Fuck you…” My paradigm took that as a personal threat and an attack. Maybe I was just imagining the threat, so forgive me if I assumed.
        As far as bigotry goes, I am assuming again you do not understand that there has been bigotry on many people throughout history. But your references to me being so wrong on so many of my statements, that I now have to assume that you are 100% correct, and that I know nothing at all about what I have read, experienced, was taught by professors at the Universities I attended, or the history I have read, watched on the history channel, spoken with elderly people about, so on and so forth.
        So you have found me out. I am the dirty, rotten, SOB who is to be blamed for everything that has ever gone wrong in any society anywhere and at any time.
        But even if this meandering sarcasm were accurate to a fault, my opinion will still remain my opinion. All of the personal attacks and demeaning in the world by you will not change it. YOU will not change it.

      • Perlhaqr:

        The Romans, Catholics, and Navajo have, at time ranging from before the birth of Christ until roughly now have each recognized and legitimised homosexual matrimony.

        Cite please. For MATRIMONY.

        Especially the Catholic Church.

      • Left the quotation marks out:

        Perlhaqr:

        “The Romans, Catholics, and Navajo have, at time ranging from before the birth of Christ until roughly now have each recognized and legitimised homosexual matrimony.”

        Cite please. For MATRIMONY.

        Especially the Catholic Church.

      • Well, perlhaqr. You are probably the most confusing person I have yet to run into.

        That would not particularly surprise me. The number of people I know with my particular dedication to maximum liberty for each individual is depressingly small.

        Perhaps I am looking at things differently and from a perspective you seem to be missing.

        This also seems likely.

        From what I am reading you have stated that I seem to believe your marriage is invalid

        You said: As for the God you asked about we are talking about the fact that marriage has always been recognized as a religious union between a man and a woman. To propagate children as a result. For what is know as a traditional family.

        I am married. My wife and I do not, and will never have children. Ergo.

        that to you I am some Jew and Black hating bigot that wishes to force all gays into second class citizen status

        I didn’t say that you were bigoted against Blacks or Jews. I said that you had a right to be bigoted against gays in the privacy of your own home, and to extend that to your business, but that I would avoid those places as I would avoid the home or business of someone who was bigoted against Blacks or Jews. Quite a different thing.

        And yes. You say that you are firmly and completely opposed to allowing gays to marry. In what possible way is that not making them second class citizens?

        and that religious belief has nothing to do with marriage between different or same sexes.

        No, I said that religious belief should have nothing to do with how the government deals with marriage between the different or same sexes.

        But that is just from what I am reading here and there. You are wrong on all points.

        Well, you’ve certainly made that assertion repeatedly, but you’ve been real long on “I feel” and “I believe”, and real short on facts. It’s like arguing with the folks over at DailyKos or HuffPo.

        The crux of the difference in opinion is that I don’t believe in gay marriage. That is all. If people use the politicians to force me or others who disagree into becoming criminals for disagreeing, then I guess you win.

        What does this even mean? You say you don’t “believe” in gay marriage. Do you mean that like I do when I say I don’t “believe” in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Because allow me to assure you, unlike St. Nick, gay marriage exists.

        Do you mean that you’re opposed to gay marriage? Then say that. But how will the government recognizing gay marriage make you any sort of criminal? Are you a government employee that would be forced to take tax forms from gay couples?

        Or is that lose? Seems to be a lose-lose situation there. Government gets to limit religious liberty and limit freedom of speech. Next will be the freedom of the press, as well as other freedoms. Slippery slope time!

        Well, it’s a great rallying cry, but you offer no explaination of how this would occur. I’m not saying you can’t say how much you hate gay marriage. I’m not saying you can’t refuse to seat gays at your (hypothetical) restaurant. I’m not saying that you can’t refuse to perform gay marriages at your (hypothetical) church. In what way do you think your freedom of speech is being limited?

        And the government is limiting religious liberty now. My religion has no opposition to gay marriage, or even, yes, as you mention below, polygamous marriage. Right now the government is interfering with my ability, as an ordained minister, to perform weddings that have equivalent validity in the eyes of the government, for all people who come to me.

        So please understand that I’m not exactly drowning in sympathy for your position, here.

        We all have the right to disagree. Even with popular opinion. But give that government camel the ability to stick its nose into the tent of our liberty and you will most likely never get rid of it unless you use, possibly deadly, force.

        Yes… why are you arguing my side of things here? You’re the one advocating that government infringe upon the liberty of adult citizens to engage in certain contracts that others are free to.

        But my opinion is wrong? Oh we could debate Bible, Ancient culture, social engineering, religious influences, how government views it, but in the end we’d still differ on basics of premise. And I would still see it as wrong.

        I have never said your opinion was wrong. You are perfectly entitled to hold any opinion you like. I don’t even particularly care if you see gay marriage itself as wrong. I just strongly object to your advocating that the government conform itself to your opinion, when the thing you’re objecting to, as you put it before, neither “pick[s] [your] pocket, nor break[s] [your] leg”.

        Why, you ask?

        I am a free thinking. (That means I don’t swallow everything I hear or read without checking it out. Not that I haven’t made mistakes, had assumptions, or changed my viewpoint.)

        I am a strict constitutionalist. (That means I believe in the rule of law, Liberty of person, freedom to debate and espouse opinions right or wrong, and that the law applies to everyone equally. Equal justice. Not equal outcomes or results.)

        Seriously? Are you just trolling me? How can you possibly sit there and with a straight face type out that you “believe [...] that the law applies to everyone equally” when the entire point of this whole exchange of comments is how you wish to ensure that gay people can’t get married the same as straight people can?

        I believe we differ here somewhat in viewpoint. You seem to favor forced acceptance by government of what has been viewed as traditional marriage, to any one can marry anyone.

        In so far as the literal meanings of those words go, this is accurate. I favor forced acceptance by the government of the position that any (consenting adult) can marry any other (consenting adult).

        I don’t give a fig if you “accept” their marriage or not.

        But then we have to ask about where does it all stop. Well, with government, it doesn’t. Because there are people who will want forced acceptance of Sharia, poly-amory, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, the list goes on.

        Oh, what a pleasant insight into your viewpoint this provides. You’re equating gays with child-, animal-, and corpse-molestors? But of course, as you’ve stated before, you’re not bigoted towards gays. It’s not exceedingly believable, but ok, we’ll roll with it for now.

        And again, please explain how a woman marrying two men breaks your leg or picks your pocket. As we seem to be having some difficulty communicating, feel free to use really small words so that I can be sure to understand.

        Lastly, regarding Sharia, you’re the one desiring to impose a religiously specified definition of marriage on the government.

        As long as the Constitution is ignored, there will be groups with lots of money and support, to lobby and elect more and more local officials, who will vote for something they want, and it will get passed into law. Right or wrong or unpopular. (Obamacare???!!!)

        I just checked the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It doesn’t say anything about marriage, gay or otherwise. Which means you can go ahead and stop trying to claim that gay marriage would be somehow unconstitutional.

        I am a conservative libertarian at heart. (Allowing people to rise and fall on their own merits without forcing people to pay for programs that sap real initiative and the desire to improve one’s own lot in life.)

        I also believe in true charity, not the government kind. (That means I don’t believe in getting the government to spend other peoples money when I won’t give it myself.)

        And though I may not like my neighbor being an a-hole loudmouth, I will still stand up and defend his right to speak his opinion freely.

        Ok, well, I’m not sure how any of that ties into your opposition to letting gay folks marry, but it sounds pretty good to me.

        If that makes me a hate mongering, racist, bigot, homophobe, so be it. But I will still stand beside you or anyone else and defend the right to be heard, whether it’s right or wrong in my own opinion.

        No, it’s not any of what you said in the previous three paragraphs that makes you a bigot, it’s the not wanting to let gay people get married. I have no opinion on your attitude towards other races, because we haven’t discussed it.

        And I know you’ve vigorously protested the possibility that you’re a bigot when it comes to gay people. You even used the “I have gay friends” line. But seriously, if someone said to you “Look, I’m not bigoted against black people, I just don’t want them to marry white folks”, would you actually believe that? I mean, you might accept that they actually think they aren’t bigoted, but the attitude displayed conveys a different message.

        So why should “I’m not bigoted against gay people, I just don’t want them to be able to get married” be any different from my perspective?

        So when you said ‘Fuck you…” My paradigm took that as a personal threat and an attack. Maybe I was just imagining the threat, so forgive me if I assumed.

        Well, I was certainly expressing anger, but no threat was implied.

        As far as bigotry goes, I am assuming again you do not understand that there has been bigotry on many people throughout history.

        That would be a poor assumption. I never said nor even implied that “your people”, as you put it, had not experienced bigotry, simply because mine do now. I was simply countering your assertion that I didn’t know what it was like.

        And indeed, the existence of bigotry in the past, and in the now, even against groups that aren’t homosexuals, has no bearing on the fact that bigotry exists, now, against all sorts of various groups, including homosexuals.

        But your references to me being so wrong on so many of my statements, that I now have to assume that you are 100% correct, and that I know nothing at all about what I have read, experienced, was taught by professors at the Universities I attended, or the history I have read, watched on the history channel, spoken with elderly people about, so on and so forth.

        You made a number of incorrect factual statements. I corrected them. You don’t need to “assume” I’m correct about anything. I can even provide references if you like. If you can point me at any resource demonstrating that any fact I have stated is incorrect, I’ll be happy to read it.

        So you have found me out. I am the dirty, rotten, SOB who is to be blamed for everything that has ever gone wrong in any society anywhere and at any time.

        Never said that. In fact, I’d mostly say you’re on the right track, if you’d just allow your stated principles to rule your opinions.

        But even if this meandering sarcasm were accurate to a fault, my opinion will still remain my opinion. All of the personal attacks and demeaning in the world by you will not change it. YOU will not change it.

        If pointing out that you’ve made factual errors is a “personal attack” or “demeaning”, I’m not quite sure what to tell you. It must be awful hard to learn anything with an attitude like that, though.

      • I think, perlhaqr. Perhaps we shall not see eye to eye even though we seem to agree government should stay out of the marriage business. My depth of meaning in my replies to you has totally failed so perhaps I should use small words, so as a child like intellect may understand the meaning of context clearly.
        There I go using $2 words again.
        Please forgive me.
        I am done with you.
        Live your government depending life well.
        As far as being a minister?
        In my opinion you should look a little more at the books of Timothy. Perhaps a refresher in the requirements of pastors, preachers, deacons, elders and such.

        It was good to discuss with you.

      • Ray… Dude… The guy you are arguing with is probably the single most morally consistent libertarian, keep the government out of everything possible, person I have ever met in my life. You guys can have your debate about gay marraige and the meaning of words and whatnot, but seriously, calling perlhaqr “government dependant” isn’t helping your case. As for opinions on government dependency, perlhaqr makes me look like Keith Olberman.

      • Larry, you are way smexier than Keith!

        I trust your judgement and retract my observations and statements, if somewhat subjective on my part.
        But I am the last person on earth who wants the government to do anything more than the three basics: defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic, capture-prosecute-and punish criminals, and infrastructure as was designed by the US Constitution.
        That government which governs least governs best.
        Maybe he and I should sit down over some reasonable beverages and discuss and debate like the founders in the early pubs?
        I hold no ill will, just a bit of confusion.

      • Rick Randall: Given your highlighting of the word “matrimony”, I presume you’re going to be sticky about the Latin. In which case, pretty much all I can say is “you got me”.

        “Matrimonium”, in the Latin, has “mater” as the root, implying a relationship for the purposes of procreation (and thus, inheritance). When the Romans formed permanent same-sex relationships, they used the verb “nubere” (to marry), to describe the proceedings, but obviously not “matrimonium”.

        The Catholic Church almost certainly did not use the term “matrimonium” either, given that they were pretty serious about their Latin.

        The Navajo obviously didn’t use Latin at all.

        I can still go through and find references for … hrm, I suppose I should be particularly careful in my language here… “recognized same sex pair bondings akin to marriage” if you like, or you can just count this as a victory and I will recant my use of the word “matrimony” in reference to historical happenings, above.

      • @Ray McCune I like your 3 jobs of the government, but I would rephrase “capture and punish criminals” to “make criminals repay their victims”. I’m all for bringing back the cheap labor of the chain gang and work camps. Imagine the savings of having inmates work on infrastructure and have them earn a small amount of money 55% of which goes back to the victims. Some might argue that this could put the road work contractors out of business, but so what? It’s the job of the government to get things done as cheaply as possible not to insure certain companies make profits. Besides there will still be a need for private infrastructure construction.
        You could expand the work the prisoners do to more than infrastructure as well. Hell even literally raking the entire national and state parks could help prevent forest fires that cost lives and cause property damage. Turn the debris into mulch and sell it to hippies and I’m sure it will offset the guards required.
        I know some prisons are switching to more and more labor, but in California they still mostly just sit around, on my tax dollars no less.

      • You, Sir. Have a good point.

      • Thanks, I’m known to have a point or two. I blame my many concussions :) seems to have knocked some sense into me. I actually have an entire rant on how to reform the Department of Corrections and actually make many if not most prisons self sufficient in terms of budget if not make a profit for the States and Federal government. All while training up the prisoners so they can reenter society with skills that will make them less likely to be repeat offenders(partially because they will be made to work so hard in prison they don’t want to go back because an honest days work would be less exhausting). I need to polish that rant up though as it has some inarticulate points. Add in a few statistics to give it a little more weight than just a rant.

      • I look forward to it.

      • Larry: Thanks for the kind words. Coming from you, that really means a lot. :)

        Rick: It turns out my source regarding “Gay marriage in the Catholic Church in the middle ages” is, well, considered rather more academically dubious than I was previously aware. After further research into the pro and con position, I retract my statement on the subject.

      • And what about that sit down with a grande latte cappuccino?

  19. As always, I agree with every word. I only wish more people did.

  20. I’m a lefty, but not an Obama supporter. Regardless, I think Larry is a fantastic writer and I have purchased all his books.

    • Well that’s a damn good thing; Enrique! There is hope for you to then slide to the right. Next Step trying thinking about the affect of taxation on American Business considering that even the Lefty European Countries have lower corporate taxes. Then next think about liberty and freedom before nanny state cradle to grave subsidy. Then you’re on the way to being a “Righty”. By the way what makes you a Lefty in any case?

      • My work with the unions and seeing the little guy get screwed countless times by corporate management. Seeing them lie about a good worker killed on the job due to their negligence was the icing on the cake for me that they don’t care about anything except their profits.

      • Enrique for every business screwed over the little guy there are just as many stories where the union not only screwed over the company but broke the law too.
        Ma(as a union steward) was forced to represent a fellow union member for forging Doctors signatures. There was an issue where the doctor would write the Rx on the wrong form and sometimes the wrong quantity. To have them rewrite it would take forever and the receptionist would get yelled at. So the receptionist(basically a cashier with no medical training) would rewrite the Rx and forge the signatures. She was finally caught and Ma was made to represent her. The Union not only told her she could not report the crime to the cops, but that she had to threaten the supervisor not to report the crime either or there would be vague repercussions.
        The Unions are nothing but organized crime syndicates now. At one time they were needed during the Pinkerton owners killing their own workers for profit. Now Unions are nothing but crime dens.

    • On top of that! Unions are technically illegal.
      The Sherman Anti-Trust laws define any Trust/monopoly as any organization or collective that can stop the flow of good, production, distribution to the public, negatively affect the final price for the consumer, effect the public welfare etc…
      By the most strict definition Unions are Trusts/Monopolies. Every strike that delays the delivery of goods to the local market, every “blue flu” that keeps cops off the streets, all of it affects the price and the welfare/safety of the populous.
      Heck event the most conservative Union would still violate the laws as the collective group doesn’t need to affect the price, only have the potential to affect it.

      Strictly speaking Unions are illegal, and there is no good that can come from them anymore.

      • Unions, IMO are doing exactly what Corporations are doing. They are buying politicians in order to tip the scales in their direction. I say that both have grown too powerful.

      • Unions have grown far more powerful than Corporations. I agree both should be stopped from donating to election funds. Unions are still the most dangerous because they hide under the claim of “serving the public good” BS they just serve themselves. At least Corporations say they are for their own benefit.
        I can deal with a cutthroat I can expect them to go after my throat and block them, but a hypocrite, they will stab you in the back and then blame you for getting blood on their lapels all while feigning ignorance at your injury.

  21. People claim that the Republicans are / were, forcing their religious beliefs on people. Yet never a complaint about the “religious” beliefs of the Democrats, the left. I would willingly support a religious right, who might preach at me, but will not attempt to force me to do or say what he wants, as compared to the “religious left” who are all to willing to do so. I’ll deal with the simply greedy, the dishonest, the thieves and liars, I deal with them every day. Those just in it for themselves will abandon ship once it sinks, once they can’t make their dollars anymore, once the government no longer has dollars to give them and buy them with. Those folk don’t worry me. It’s the true believers, those who worship Obama and his socialist state and big brother government plans that actually scare me. Those well intentioned, it’s for your own good, who know what is best for you, will ye or nill ye, that are pulling this country apart. Over the next 4 years, we will see cities where white males are a persecuted minority, we will see control of large sections of the country turned over to governments other than the USA. We will continue to see the lives of our troops being pissed away in foreign misadventures, and we will see the formation and use of troops on our own soil to put down “riots” and “dissent” by our own citizens, and those troops will be cheered on by the well meaning, it’s for your own good, we have to pass it to see what’s in it crowd.

    • Damn good insight Chief. You are absolutely right about the true Blue State Believers and their next step of founding a Federal Security Force (Obama’s initial idea) to invoke power over the Red states. read Thomas Kratman’s; “A State of Disobedience” for a peek at the future. Liberal Democrats cannot abide liberty anywhere so they will in the next 4 years make a determined effort to strike fear into the hearts of the Red States. Here’s hoping for a good ole revolution and Texas Secession soon. Freedom Now! Going our own way our own masters. Down with the Liberal Progressive Scourge of Socialism, Communism, and war on Freedoms. You are damned right they will fritter away the lives of Red State Scots Irish boys; but, not one Blue State Ivy League wuss.

  22. The numbers of people were very close, (aside from the Democrats who voted four times and tweeted about it, and got away with it), close enough to be scary. It was not only Trump that mentioned revolution, and I’ve seen talk about succession. I would not be surprised if we are heading for a very real, modern-day Civil War. Ironically, it’ll be economists and gun-toters against homosexuals, minority racists and radical women’s libbers. A humongous wedge has been driven between a nearly-equal amount of Americans, and there is a very real enmity growing between the groups via “the popular kids’ insults” versus the “unwanted evidence of wrongdoing and failed policies” and I fear when it comes to a head. I do not believe America will come together to accomplish anything when very real concerns are simply replied to with a middle finger.

  23. America gets the president it deserves. And if we are dumb enough to elect someone with a four year track record of failure, then thats what we get. Im not angry, just really dissapointed. Excelent article Larry. Keep fighting the good fight.

  24. So sorry Mr. Franklin, we couldn’t keep it. The experiment is over, more Americans voted for bread and circuses than independance. Good luck subjects, hope your chains are padded. Me, I’m for a free and independant Texas…

    • Kudos to the Celtic Dragon:

      Raise the Bonnie Blue Flag and Remember that Mexico’s Taxation and Tyranny was actually less pervasive than the current Federal Government’s actions. Liberal Progressives are the new Hidalgo invaders with Generalissimo Santa Anna Hussein Obama leading the troops. Read Kratman’s “State of Disobedience”

      Long Live Texas and Texas Secession

      Now is the time to rally the Patriots of Washington County

  25. I think others who have posted regarding gay rights are correct. Abortion is a different thing, because for those against it, it’s murder–I disagree, but that’s really not the point–so it makes sense, even to independents, to stick on it (although I do think that they’d get more headway if they simultaneously allowed for comprehensive sex ed as a means to reduce unwanted pregnancies). I think the two biggest things that caused problems for the Republicans this time around were:

    1. The constant assault on organizations like Planned Parenthood. Sure, PP refers abortion docs, but that’s only a tiny fraction of what they do–the vast majority of their services involve low-cost birth control, STD tests, and reproductive health exams. Look at the gender gap between Obama and Romney. Women clearly felt that their access to things like birth control would be limited under a Romney administration, and regardless of what the religious right says about the immorality of sex or the Pill, the overwhelming majority of American women are currently using or at some point used birth control. Giving the impression that your party will limit that option is going to drive women who oppose you to the polls, and make women who support you more ambivalent.

    2. Gay rights. The demographics here are shifting, and have been for a long time. Sure, a lot of states have laws against gay marriage on the books, but give it a decade and most of those will likely be either repealed by ballot or ruled unconstitutional. More and more people are beginning to realize that the legality of gay marriage really doesn’t affect them on a personal level. Sure, the hardcore religious conservative base will always turn out against a pro-gay marriage candidate, but talk to any conservative under 30 and they’ll likely tell you that, while they may not support gay marriage (and many of them do), it’s certainly not something that they oppose strongly enough to want things like constitutional amendments against it. And this is one where independents are going to abandon the Republican party. Like I said, I don’t agree that abortion should be illegal. However, the understanding that those who disagree with me consider it murder makes it easy for me to sympathize with the desire to ban it–after all, if I considered it murder, I’d likely want to ban it too. But outside of some nebulous Jerry Falwell-type vision of God removing his protection from the United States because He hates the gays, gay marriages or civil unions provide absolutely no threat to another person whatsoever, in any way. Two gay dudes getting married in Maine won’t ruin my relationship, and if your marriage is weak enough that a couple of ladies tying the knot will end it, you may have had other problems there to begin with.

    Not to mention, it’s incredibly hypocritical to favor “small government” and then make laws about what two consenting adults can do in their own home.

    Were it not for those two things, I suspect Romney would have won. But by insisting on sticking to the hardcore social conservative aspect of the right, instead of focusing on the small-government fiscal conservative portion, the Republicans lost the election months in advance.

    • I don’t know if those two changes would’ve meant a Romney win–let’s not forget that whenever Romney/Ryan were asked about their economic plan, they weaved and dodged like champion prizefighters: “There are loopholes, we’ll tell you about them after the election.” And their “less government spending, bigger navy!” surely didn’t make them seem like super-serious fiscal guys.

      However, I think the Republicans might have lost the Senate through the constant parade of Republicans falling over themselves in the last few years whenever they talked about women (everything from Limbaugh asking for Sandra Fluke sex tapes to the Akin/Mourdock/etc. “let’s talk about rape, a doctor told me…” group).

      • True, Romney was a pretty crap candidate–which really exemplifies the problem with the Republicans. Jon Huntsman, an intelligent, well-spoken fiscal conservative with business, political,and foreign policy experience was run out of the primaries because the hardcore base didn’t think he was enough of a social conservative. I would have voted for Huntsman despite being fairly liberal, and I’m not the only one I know. So the start of the problem is that the best candidate they could come up with who claimed to hate the gays enough and didn’t have Bachmann-style crazy eyes was Willard. But beyond that, I think a lot of people would have voted Anyone But Obama had it not been for the Republicans’ parade of hardline social conservatism.

    • I think you are right but people who still vote or think ANY social issue like gay rights or abortion is a priority are simply arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks.

      The Fed and the Debt should be EVERYONE’S top priority but since neither party cares we are told to argue about Healthcare, Marriage, Illegal Immigration …. ect

      As others have said, all these issues should be left to the States and the Federal Government should have nothing/ very little to do with them

      • Yeah, but social issues are the emotional ones for both sides. If the Republicans really wanted to win, they should have refused to bring up social issues at all in the presidential race and stayed on the economic message. But they couldn’t, and that’s why they lost.

      • You can’t just ignore social issues when you’re president. It doesn’t work like that, you’re elected to the highest office in the land and you get all the problems that come with that. Why shouldn’t we discuss social issues in a election? That is foolish and naive.

      • Jeremy – If you read what I wrote, I was not speaking about the President, I was speaking about us (the Voters)

        If a social issue is your top priority then you are being happily mislead.

      • Dismissing it as a ‘social issue’ is to do it an injustice, I believe.

        This is, after all, their lives that we are speaking of. It’s visitation rights when a loved one is in the hospital. It’s inheritance when they die. It’s power of attorney in the event of a medical emergency. It’s coverage on their insurance, it’s filing a joint tax return, it’s all sorts of important things.

        To expect people to just ignore all that and vote for somebody who will not just ignore the issue but actively seek to deny them those rights is, well, foolish and shortsighted. Once those rights have been legislated away, it will make their cause much, much harder, since they’ll have to work to overturn that.

        As far as focusing on the economy goes, though… if the Republicans had actually done that, I think they’d have won. They could have run somebody like Huntsman, a social moderate/fiscal conservative who could have drawn a lot of independents and dissatisfied Democrats away from Obama.

        Instead, they chose to double down on the crazy as far as social issues were concerned, floating possible candidates like Bachmann and Santorum while shunning Huntsman for not being socially conservative enough, and the end result was the eminently unlikable Romney.

      • I don’t mean to say that they should be ignored. But the best thing Romney could have done in response to a question about gay marriage or Planned Parenthood would have been to say “My religious view is that it’s not something I condone; however, we cannot impose our religious views on others in this country, and I feel that [social issue X] is an issue best left for the states and the courts to decide. The economy, however, affects all of us, and that’s why my plan is to [insert economic spiel].” Bam, you’ve cut Obama’s lead among women and young people in half.

  26. If not for the Media Monster obfuscation of the REAL issues, propaganda, and whitewash of Benghazi and Fast & Furious Romney would have won. Realistically, since when do the media AND comedians avoid the president’s faults?

    • Since Obama got elected the first time?

      As one of the guys at work says all the time ‘Smoke and Mirrors, that’s all this is’. Keep people distracted while they do the real damage on the sly. Or in Obama’s case the not so sly.

      Anybody want to place bets on the cost of electricity and gas by 2016? My bet is gas will be close to $10 a gallon and utility costs will triple. Which of course will require higher welfare. I shudder to think of what food prices are going to be like.

  27. So this is how democracy dies?…… With thunderous applause….

    • the quote is ‘this is how *liberty* dies…’
      *democracy* is alive and well: the majority has just voted themselves bread and circuses.

      • Good catch Sjonnar – I think we need to be as precise as possible whenever possible in our language:

        Thomas Jefferson on Democracy:

        “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”

        Precisely correct!

      • You know, when i posted that response, i spent about twenty minutes tearing my hear out looking for that quote. i couldn’t remember for the life of me who it was that said it. thanks, Cap’n.

  28. Thoughts exactly. Futile maybe, but still.

    Regroup. Reload. Reengage.

  29. Texas is pretty amusing today, I was gassing up my truck this morning and a few guys going to work were talking about how they should just move to Canada. I couldn’t help but laugh. The amount of cognitive dissonance in the republican party is utterly amusing.

    I’m socially Liberal (not politically liberal) and fiscally responsible. I could of voted for, a republican candidate, had they not behaved so childishly in the house and been socially regressive.This time around the republican party was socially backwards, and been utterly fiscally irresponsible when Bush was in office The debt ceiling crisis they caused hurt our recovery and utterly pissed me off.

    The Romney Ryan Ticket was a joke Ryan the fiscal conservative who wasn’t when bush was in office, and Romney take both sides of every issue. Watching the republican primaries was so sad for me. I was just shaking my head and going “this is what the republican party has become?”.

    The bottom line is the people in the republican party need to do some seriously soul searching before this next election cycle in 2016. Drop the extremists or they simply aren’t going to be relevant any more.

    My ideal candidate from the Republican party, is socially moderate, fiscally responsible, has a real immigration reform plan and a tax reforming agenda.

    He doesn’t endorse any antiabortion agenda, he can be Pro Life all he wants he just has to not try and restrict abortion rights. He also has to accept Obamacare, you can talk about healthcare reform all you want but the bottom line is the affordable care act isn’t the socialist devil the republicans want it to be.

    He needs to have a real immigration plan, neither candidate this year was really satisfactory in this regard. Obama had the dream act and that was a start but the fact he had to resort to an executive order to do it is disturbing to me.

    He needs to be for Tax REFORM not tax cuts. Tax cuts are such a stupid thing to run on, our taxes are already stupidly low and I as an American an not afraid to pay a bit more. We need a more fair and balanced approach to our tax code.

    Lastly he must not talk about increasing military spending our military, unless it is veterans benefits.

    • ‘…cognitive dissonance…’
      ‘…fiscally responsible…’
      ‘ He also has to accept Obamacare…’
      ‘…COGNITIVE DISSONANCE…’

      • Obama has been more fiscally responsible than Bush, and likely Romney as well.Hell he banned the accounting tricks that Bush used to keep the wars off the book, which actually hurt him when you look at deficit numbers.

        The reality is if you went back thirty years Obama is a republican not a liberal.

      • bwaaaaaaahahahaha, are you serious?

        The Republican platform in 1981, here are the bullet points:

        “Free Individuals in a Free Society

        It has long been a fundamental conviction of the Republican Party that government should foster in our society a climate of maximum individual liberty and freedom of choice.”

        Can you say Obamacare and forced enrollment in health insurance or you get fined?

        “Taxes

        Elsewhere in this platform we discuss the benefits, for society as a whole, of reduced taxation, particularly in terms of economic growth. But we believe it is essential to cut personal tax rates out of fairness to the individual.

        Presently, the aggregate burden of taxation is so great that the average American spends a substantial part of every year, in effect, working for government.”

        In 1981 Tax Freedom day, the day that you stop working for your tax burden was April 29. In 2012, it was May 14.

        “Improving the welfare system

        The measure of a country’s compassion is how it treats the least fortunate. In every society there will be some who cannot work, often through no fault of their own.

        Yet current federal government efforts to help them have become counterproductive, perpetuating and aggravating the very conditions of dependence they seek to relieve. The Democratic Congress has produced a jumble of degrading, dehumanizing, wasteful, overlapping, and inefficient programs that invite waste and fraud but inadequately assist the needy poor.”

        I don’t think I even need to provide statistics on that but if you need me to, I’ll surely give you the numbers, they’re easily available at the BLS website. That’s Bureau of Labor Statistics if you are clueless.

        “Veterans

        Republicans recognize the very special sacrifice of those who have served in our nation’s armed forces. Individual rights and societal values are only as strong as a nation’s commitment to defend them. Because of this our country must never forget its appreciation of and obligation to our veterans.”

        Obama’s budget called for the following:

        “Out-of-pocket health care costs for military retirees and for users of the TRICARE retail pharmacy network would jump next October if Congress approves President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget request delivered Monday.

        Annual active duty pay raises also would be impacted but not until January 2015 when raise caps would begin and last three years. The 2015 raise would be half of a percentage point, to be followed by a one percent across-the-board raise in 2016 and a 1.5 percent raise in 2017, if Congress accepts the administration’s plan to dampen compensation growth.”

        Do you see that part where the military would have their pay raises CAPPED AT 0.005%?! Yes, capped at 1/2 of 1%.

        Shall I continue or are you going to insist that Obama is a 30 years ago Republican, because I can go on and on.

      • @ Jeremy:
        “Obama has been more fiscally responsible than Bush”

        What? The day that Bush took office, we had a national debt of $5.7 trillion. When he left office, the debt was $10.6 trillion. That is an increase of 185% and $4.9 trillion in 8 years. That is an average of 7% increase in the debt per year, or an average of a $613 billion annual deficit.
        Obama took office at $10.6 trillion, and now has a $16.2 trillion debt, a $5.6 trillion (152%) increase in 3.8 years. That corresponds to an annual average deficit of $1.47 trillion, increasing the debt by 11% per year.
        Obama increased the deficit at a rate one and a half times faster than Bush did.

    • You know, I find it funny that the Left complains that the right isn’t willing to compromise, when in fact the last time they tried it they were locked out of the room.

      • It’s really easy to get away with fluid facts when the media is providing cover for you.

  30. I’m so disgusted and angry right now that it’s hard to put the feeling into words; i keep wanting to hammer my fists on the keyboard and then beat an Obama voter with my computer, but here goes. It has become apparent that a clear majority of the American people really would rather live as parasites off the productive minority. You hear right-leaning people say it a lot (i’ve said it before, myself), but most of the time it’s just sarcasm: most of us didn’t really believe that it had gotten so bad. I believe it now.

    In 2008, one could blame Obama’s election on a wide variety of factors: media bias and their demonization of Sarah Palin, the ‘celebrity effect’, or to put it more accurately, the ‘i’m gonna be part of history! we’re gonna elect the First Black President EVAR! effect’, you get the idea. That dog don’t hunt no more. We know exactly what Obama’s about now. We’ve seen Pelosi get up on National Fucking Television and say ‘uh, we gotta pass it before we can see what’s in it’ with that stupid simpering smile. We’ve witnessed the failure of the Obama administration’s pathetic excuse for a foreign policy in treating the ultra-extremist Muslim Botherhood and other Salafiist organizations as ‘potential allies’.

    He didn’t get re-elected on ‘Hope’ or ‘Change’. He got re-elected because (and thank you for this wonderful analogy, Larry) more people would rather ride the cart than pull it and bitch about how greedy the pullers are while they ride. I’m literally out of hope for the future; America can no longer be salvaged. The people cut the life support on Lady Liberty last night. I believe the best we can hope for now is a secessionist state, and that the DC regime won’t attempt a war of reunification because they don’t think they can win it.

    And, for the record, i am not and never was a Romney supporter, and i did not vote for the man. I think that Mitt Romney is a wishy-washy RINO and a weakling who would almost immediately begin making concessions to the left, and that he wouldn’t even try to adhere to even Paul Ryan’s laughably inadequate budget. And shame on every one of you who ever told anyone that voting for someone other than Romney was a ‘protest vote’ or a waste of a vote. Yeah, i read that article on PJM. Fuck that guy.

  31. Mr. Obama sent me a copy of his Plan for Jobs shortly before the election. I couldn’t help but laugh when I paged through it; apparently, his plan is to undo – almost point-for-point – the most notable economic things he’s spent the last four years doing, or at the very least completely reverse certain of his positions.

    From its table of contents, my comments in [brackets]:
    -Building an Economy from the Middle Class Out
    [Maybe. I remember hearing somewhere that they didn't build that.]
    -Reviving American Manufacturing
    [Like Delphi! Oh, wait...]
    -Energy Made in America
    [Unless it's coal, which you publicly commented you wanted to destroy, or nuclear, which is SCARY SUPERSCIENCE.]
    -Growing Small Businesses
    [Sexy green-energy startups like Solyndra and Abound Solar! Oh, wait...]
    -Improve Education for Middle-Class Jobs
    [Like Masters' degrees in STEM and business? Gee, thanks for the grad loan rate hike you stuck me with to buy undergrad votes.]
    -A Tax Plan That Cuts the Deficit and Creates Jobs
    [Or raises the debt ceiling, and sticks it to those greedy fat-cat corporations. One of the two.]
    -Putting YOU in Charge of Your Health Care
    [*helpless laughter*]
    -Protecting Retirement Security
    [From now until 2033.]
    -Moving America Forward
    [One campaign slogan at a time.]

    …Yeah, I’m not holding my breath.

  32. Here’s an exchange I had with one of my third grade students today about the election results.

    Student: What’s that guy with the R’s name?

    Me: You mean Mitt Romney?

    Student: (Nods) Romney said he would take our food stamps away. I’m glad Obama won.

    Me: (Gape for a few seconds, then walk away, taking deep breaths)

    Out of the mouth of babes…a paradigm of Obama voters.

    • Way to not educate. You missed an opportunity to educate a scared, misinformed kid about reality (not the same thing as trying to push them to your way of thinking). Don’t bitch when it comes back to bite you.

  33. Ron Paul told the Republicans in 2007 that they needed to get back to their roots of limited government, increased fiscal responsibility and free market enterprise. He said we should disengage from draining foreign wars, and get back with the program of defending personal liberties. The Republican establishment mocked him, reviled him and painted him as a lunatic. They refused to espouse any of these virtues – – and promptly lost the election. They blamed the loss on Ron Paul supporters claiming that they could have tipped the balance, to which his supports responded ” Did you ever reach out to us to bring us into the fold? When did you ever consider adopting any element of the Ron Paul position?” Of course, they hadn’t. Ron Paul had been called insane and ridiculous, so they couldn’t very well adopt his points after demonizing the position.

    Shortly after the Republicans lost that election, the Tea Party rose up and rocked the Republicans by winning a number of elections in 2010. They did this by espousing limited government, fiscal responsibility, free markets and personal freedom. Shocking concepts in the Land of the Free, aren’t they?

    Stil the Republicans held fast to the notion that they did not need to return to the roots of real conservatism. They insisted they could win by promising more wars and more regulation of private personal behavior such as which genders put what genetalia where in the privacy of their own home or who could marry or not marry. This, they claimed, would distinguish their party from the foul Democrats who want handouts and everything for nothing. In an obvious attempt to pander to the “gimme” class, however, they ran a Democrat-lite who said he would keep Obama Care, just modify it a bit so it wasn’t quite so nauseating.

    Thus in 2012 the voting public faced a choice between one party who wanted to get their hands into their wallets while handing out candy and free services, and the other party who wanted their wallets along with getting their hands into their bedrooms and genitals and possibly committing their children to more wars while not promising to actually cut government in any significant way. America chose the least offensive party. There is no mystery in this.

    Americans understand that at some point they need to be adults and live within their means. Many understand that big government spending cannot continue indefinitely. Sending the message of personal responsibility and fiscal responsibility is not a fun task, but if it was done without extraneous distractions, it could carry the election. The extraneous issues destroyed Republicans in this election as they have in every election for almost a decade now.

    Republicans need to realize: if they are going to insist that Americans must act like adults, respect property rights, and live within their means, they must also be accorded adult respect and privileges like deciding what they do with their own bodies and consenting partners. It really is that simple. Get out of bedrooms. It is nobody else’s business, never has been, and never should be. Our national policy should be: Don’t Know, Don’t Care. It could also be Don’t Know, Don’t Want To Know. Think about it, do you really have an overwhelming desire to know what any of your friends or family do in their bedrooms? Seriously, why would anyone want to know that? How is it even remotely anybody else’s business?

    They also need to get out of the People’s business in the marketplace. Respect contracts and call deadbeats what they are. Get out of the People’s wallets. Let them keep what they earn. Take your grubby paws off of private property. Redistributing wealth is cutesy-talk for stealing.

    If the Republicans can clear away the chatter and remove the Democrats ammunition for a campaign of slander and vilification, their core message of liberty and responsibility can be heard unhindered. Until that time, it will remain muffled and obstructed, and they will not win.

    • I think I’m beginning to see the problem. So far, Romney would have won, or been a better republican candidate, by being:
      -More centrist;
      -More right-wing;
      -Steadfast on what he believes strongly in;
      -Willing to give ground on what others consider hopeless issues;
      -A libertarian.

      Granted, that’s better than the vitriol I’ve seen on Facebook, where the list includes him being:
      -A democrat
      -Beaten by angry mobs
      -Stabbed
      among other delights from the ever-classy Left. But still.

      As for removing ammunition, I think that will have a limited effect at best. Romney was about as personally objectionable as oatmeal, and Mr. Obama still managed to make him into a supervillain. According to Mr. Obama’s campaign, Romney was out to reinstate slavery, relegate women to baby factory status, feast on Big Bird’s flesh, give your wife cancer, export your job to China, destroy FEMA during hurricanes, and kick grandma out into the snow – which would immediately melt, because he wants to accelerate global warming, too. Cobra Commander wasn’t that ambitious.

      • It’s a campaign – demonization comes standard. After all, per the Romney campaign Obama intends to institute slavery for white males, give most of the country to foreign powers, terrorists, and criminals and let the rest of the country freeze to death while paying a 90% tax rate on no jobs.

        Being sort of moderate (social liberal/fiscal conservative, figure it averages moderate) I get to listen to the ranting of friends on left and right about BOTH candidates. My strongest suspicion is that, given the current makeup of Congress and the records of both men, if a dimension-hopping historian could take the next 4 years under Obama (no predictions of actual administration longevity intended) and 4 years under a Romney administration, the differences would be primarily cosmetic.

    • Well put. I was very much hoping that the libertarian party would garner a greater percentage of the vote, but it was less than 2%. Closer to 1% actually.

      The republicans cannot blame the Tea Party, the Libertarians or anybody else for their loss. People did indeed vote for the lesser of two evils.

      Particularly after being harangued by both sides that a vote for a third party is a ‘ wasted vote’.

      Bummer (could)Care(less) is here to stay, like it or not. Just like the TSA, EPA and DEA and ED. It will NEVER go away, it will become bigger and more expensive and more intrusive with every Congressional session, just like every other agency ever created. Romney would have ‘rearranged the furniture’, but not burned down that rat infested abomination. Did anybody at ALL pay attention to him when he was Gov of Massachusetts? Massachusetts for all love! They elected Pocahontas Warren! Sigh… And another Kennedy. Keep cranking down the screws on liberty.

      Happy happy, Joy, Joy!

      The opportunity is squandered and I blame every self-proclaimed republican who thinks they are a social liberal/fiscal conservative in this country. There may have been ‘47%’ riding the wagon this last pass, but by 2016, it will have gone well beyond the tipping point. We will have become Great Britain. They are in their final death throws.

      I have worked all of my adult life, just to see that it is going to all be taken away. Our life savings will be someone else’s bread and circuses in the Great 401K redistribution scheme. (It was not, as they said in Congress, taken off the table.)

      Sigh. The End is Near. I need a sign.

      Cap’n Jan

  34. Excellent article, I will pass it along to all my friends. I’m not that skilled a writer, so it is great to have an article that so clearly expresses my feelings on this election and the future of America. One little correction, “less people” should probably be “fewer people” since people can be counted. “Less freedom” is correct.

  35. I received this from a friend who was gloating a bit and I can’t substantiate where it came from, but there is a reality in the statement that the Republic party if they want to grow and stay relevant should take to heart. Equal healthcare and pay for women should not be an arguable issue, immigration as the situation stands now for the economy and the reality of its effect on the economy is a winner for Republicans. The Gay couple next door is not trying to recruit your child, his kid is in the same school as yours. Economy, economy, economy….Huntsman would have been a great President.

    John Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked on the presidential campaigns of Senator John McCain and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., has long argued that the party’s reliance on the votes of older white men was putting it on a demographically unsustainable path.
    “We have a choice: we can become a shrinking regional party of middle-aged and older white men, or we can fight to become a national governing party,” Mr. Weaver said in an interview. “And to do the latter we have to fix our Hispanic problem as quickly as possible, we’ve got to accept science and start calling out these false equivalencies when they occur within our party about things that are just not true, and not tolerate the intolerant.”

    • Hey, just got to chime in here. Jon Huntsman was my governor. I’ve met him a couple of times. I’ve dealt with his administration, I helped lobby at the capitol while he was in charge, and I testified before the state legislature while he was in charge. All of you guys talking wistfully about “if only we’d had Huntsman” are smoking crack. Seriously. Put the crack pipe down. Take everything you don’t like about Romney, multiply it by two, and add a side order of mush. Huntsman makes Romney look like a firebreathing warrior, plus Huntsman had less of a resume.

      • So you think someone less mushy would’ve done better in the general election–a Santorum or Bachmann?

      • When I say it, I don’t mean it in a “If only we had Huntsman…” way, but in a “If the Republicans had run a socially moderate yet fiscally conservative candidate, I think they’d have had a much better shot than the 8% underdog that Romney ended up being projected as.

        The Republicans are not getting hammered due to their economic platform(although Romney was ducking and weaving economic questions like a champion boxer).

        They’re getting hammered on social issues, on being seen as the party of rich entitled older white males. They’re getting hammered because, increasingly, the public face of the Republican party is people like Bachmann and Santorum, Akin and Mourdoch. They’re getting hammered because, in catering to the far right so heavily, they’ve become the party that’s against birth control, against equality, and against women’s rights and health.

        If they’d just have a candidate come out about abortion/women’s health/gay rights with things like “You know what? I’m not too fond of the idea of gay marriage personally, but I see no reason not to allow it. If two dudes getting married is an attack on your marriage, the problem isn’t with them” and follow that up with a platform based entirely on strong economic/immigration/foreign policy?

        That would be a killer, because the Democrats are riding strong on social issues mobilizing younger generations voters in their favor, and losing that as a cornerstone of their campaigns would take a lot of the wind out of their sails. What the Republicanss would lose from the far right would be more than made up for by gaining independents and fiscally conservative democrats.

        But no. From all appearances, they’re going to keep pandering to the far right and keep watching their main voting bracket age and die while the younger generations go increasingly left because of social issues, and all the while they’ll be saying it’s because they’re just lazy and want to feed at the trough.

    • My grandfather Woodrow had bigger bawls than everyone that ran for the Republican or Libertarian nominations combined.
      And he was smarter and wiser as well.
      Would have made Reagan look like a school boy compared to his brand of conservatism. And my paw-paw let you know it!
      Man I miss that stubborn old man.

  36. [...] Congratulations, Obama voters (larrycorreia.wordpress.com) [...]

  37. Did you, Larry, really overestimate the American public or did you believe the line that was being sold by Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and other on-air talent at Fox News?

    I ask only because I suspect you might (MIGHT) get your news primarily from right-leaning news sources, which might have led you to believe that Romney was going to win–and so you might believe the same news sources when they tell you that Benghazi was something worth impeaching Obama over.

    (Are they still talking about that on Fox News, or did they drop talking about it after the election, almost as if they didn’t actually care about that but only wanted a controversy to try to attach to Obama?)

    • Hey benjb do you really enjoy rubbing this in like that. We all watched Fox, and the rest of the News Feeds and no thinking person thought this was a Dick Morris run away. I worried every step of the way and hoped and prayed that America strictly on fiscal and Constitutional issues would have their head pulled out of their hind quarters. Instead women, young people, and Hispanics sold the country down the river based purely on self interest about government checks in the mail , social issues that will not matter a damn in the future, and immigration issues that will not be resolved. They collectively put executive control back in the hands of an intellectually bankrupt person with highly questionable skills and very highly questionable background.

      Most conservatives grit there teeth and watch the dick heads at MSNBC and CNN. When I do this, I hold my STI 1911 in my lap the whole time running the slide back and forth; thinking unprintable but definitely non sexual mishaps for Rachael Maddow. (Basically Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews would have been shot by their own troops in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan). The tenor of your question to Larry is insulting. But I am sure he can defend himself. Had you asked me that question my retort would be stronger then this one. I only restrain because it is not my blog.

      This election was about the notion of whether liberty and the “pursuit” of happiness without the government putting training wheels on everyone to guarantee outcomes for individuals and really business. It was also about giving or not giving the control to government to impose stupid ideas about Green Energy and EPA Regulations to Hamstring industry in general and Oil and Gas in particular and specifically to punish red states like Texas and Louisiana who do not have 9 and 11 percent unemployment like Illinois and Michigan.

      Instead young people, and women gave a definitely anti American, confirmed communist and self confessed Anti Colonialist another 4 years to achieve the goal of teaching Americans a good down home lesson in suffering and to punish us for the unfulfilled “Dreams of His Father”. a Mau Mau Kenyan Communist and murderer; not to mention some one who left three women high and dry to raise their children without benefit of father. Not to mention his mother also a communist, and his child hood mentor Frank Marshall Davis a card carrying and registered Communist.

      Ironically the people who voted for President Barry did so sinning in the same manner you accuse Larry of erring. Simply they do not know anything about this charlatan. They have not read his Autobiography which is chilling; they have not investigated his public occupation at the University of Chicago; they have not investigated his performance as a State legislator who only gave speeches and did not work in committees; they have not investigated his relationships with Jarrett, Ayers, Chicago Criminals, with fellow Chicago Black politicians and constituents who were rebuffed, and of course Governor Blagojevich that paragon of virtue; no they have not read or watched anything but the Kool Aid being spilled out by a large cast of Left Wing, Journalism, and Political Science Majors, you know those sensitive guys who drank a lot of beer in college and did not do hard classes like math and business.

      No benjb the people you need to rag on about balanced news coverage and information are the young people and women who backed this guy on social issues only and clinging to some notion of manifest destiny for the young take over of power. Given the impending disaster coming on with the fiscal cliff we are headed for a very very bad time and ironically the worst hit will be this constituency. Women always suffer more in these depressive economic times. My mother and grandmother when through the depression on their own. It was not a good time; and I fear the approaching train wreck will be just as bad if not worse.

      And remember your guy is not doing this because he is inept he is doing it on purpose to teach us a lesson in humility on how the rest of the world’s poor live. That is his philosophy and manifest dream.

      • Dude, if you think Barack Obama is a socialist, you are part of the Republicans’ problem. Because, amazingly, the rest of the country looks at the guy and doesn’t see it.

        Feel free to keep telling yourselves all these things–“the people are sheep, the media is in the tank, if only they knew about Benghazi, it’s those irrational women and irresponsible Latinos, why aren’t we talking about his mother’s communist leanings–that’s an impeachable family relationship!”–and everyone who doesn’t already believe won’t be convinced.

        Here’s the thing, Ronm0817, I don’t want to rub this in your face. I want you to realize that the same people who told you that Obama was an anti-colonialist Marxist who hates America–those are the same schmucks who told you that Romney was going to cruise to victory. If they could be so wrong about the one, why do you seem to believe they’re still right about all the rest of it?

      • benjb:

        He is a Marxist and a a Socialist Governance man. Look up the Cloward -Piven Strategy he sutdied it at Columbia. As are almost all the Democrats in the Blur State Northeast. Romney was not my choice. I do not care about Women’s Plumbing or their Right to Abort. I also do not care if Gay People want to get married or slobber on each other in public. (Very dangerous to do in Texas). Also Hispanics have come over this border for 200 years and back and can work their asses off as well as any white man. Also they are pretty damn good in a fire fight too. Very good with knives; seen it with my own eyes. Have no problem with them getting to be citizens. Have no problem with women in the military, Daughter was Naval Officer. Annapolis 2004, Gun toted in Southern Iraq with seals; she is now in the drilling bidness on a world trotting basis.

        My problem is with Government and Central Planning and taxation and EPA damn fools; Pelozi, Reed, Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, etc etc. and the whole schlaq of damn Socialists killing the things that made this place great. Obama is a traitor and a Manchurian Candidate.plant. Romney was not my man by any means but at some point you go with the lesser evil.

        My point is you castigated Larry and by inference all of us who think the country is headed for a Socialists State as fools who have not studied the facts. Well I just wonder what the hell you are thinking Obama is ‘if not a Socialist’. He admitted as much in his own Autobiography. So WTF dude what do you thing he is if you love the bastard so much. A great statesman, a genius at political theory. Hell he is not even a consummate Harvard grad. his performance at the University of Chicago was flat, he did not know a whole lot about Constitutional Law. Bottom line it is insulting to say someone has not done their home work on a candidate. I did and anyone who looks at Obama sees that he is a Socialist.at best Marxist at worse.

        So tell me what are the virtues of Barrack Obama. Do not tell me what the electorate did. Tell me what you find so wonderful about this fop. What are your personal leanings about the way government should be. What has or is or will he be doing for you. Do you feel more free. Are you a man or a woman? What is in your heart that makes you pull for this guy. All you have done on this blog is tell the rest of us how stupid and inept and unfeeling and non intellectual we are being. So you put yourself forward and tell us how you are uplifted by the Liberal Progressives and how will you be transported by this (Sorry!) Socialists. Bottom line what the hell is your politics. What do you believe in?

        So when you put that out there then we know where you stand with comparison to the rest of us dolts. I kave put it all out there. Hown about you dude.

      • In a very real way, you’re the Democrats’ best friend, because as long as the Republican party keeps catering to your crowd, they’re going to have a very hard time winning over moderate Democrats and independents.

      • Ronm0817,

        You wanted to know why I voted for Barack Hussein Obama? (And also why I voted for Paul Sadler–because, surprise!, I’m in Texas. It’s too bad that Sadler lost, but you win some, you lose some. That’s politics–and any talk of state secession makes the right look like the kid who’s threatening to go home and take his ball with him.)

        I voted for Obama because his record of governance shows him to be a left-leaning centrist leading a left-leaning centrist party. Did he nationalize the banks when he came into office? Did he nationalize the auto plants and turn them over to the workers? Nope. So all this talk about how socialist he is doesn’t seem to fit his actions–or marks him as a really incompetent socialist. I’ll be honest: he’s not left-enough for my personal politics, but you fight with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

        I could go on, but the point isn’t “I supported Obama and he won, neener neener neener.” My point is that for the last few months, Fox News has been talking about how Romney was going to win. They were wrong. Why would anyone still trust them?

        I’m not offering to uplift you or even arguing that Republicans should be more like Democrats. Only that you should look around and see the situation, and resolve yourselves to think about why the Republicans lost again. Feel free to blame the world, but the world keeps changing; and Republicans either need to evolve to adapt or they’ll die out politically.

    • Given the amazingly narrow difference in the popular vote, and the dynamics of the party turnouts (dems had something like 14 million fewer than 2008, and repubs were down 3 million), a Romney win wasn’t out of the question. It’s becoming increasingly unclear to me what the Republican base actually is; the consensus here seems to be that at best, it’s in flux.

      I have a conceptual issue with a lot of the recommendations I’ve heard for what the party should do. If someone thinks a position is important – lower government largesse or a pro-life stance, for instance – it is unclear why abandoning that position is a good thing. Moving away from something you know certain people disagree with might get more votes, and possibly even elected, sure, but what sort of platform are you running on at that point?

      If your platform is “what you think will get more votes,” then we’re back to bread-and-circuses territory, and there’s no point in choosing one representative over another. I mean, the whole idea of selecting a specific candidate for office is because you think he or she will make better decisions on your behalf than the other candidates. They’re not there to decide ‘for’ you, they’re there to represent your interests. If both are essentially trying to guess what you want to hear and parroting that to you, then there’s no real difference.

      Ideological and policy differences are important, and not just to tell people apart. They are not even always bad things, even if someone else’s position disagrees with yours. Outside perspectives can help you look at problems from different angles, consider additional factors, or introduce new data and approaches that might not have been clear otherwise. That’s not to say they’re always helpful; positions with significant logical disconnects, contradictions, incorrect data, and ineffective methods should be rejected following evaluation.

      In any event, if I think candidates are just telling me what I want to hear as opposed to actually thinking similarly to me, then I have no guarantee what they’ll actually do once they make it into office. If they were merely paying lip service to me, then they may have very little motivation or incentive to pursue the goals they said they wanted. Worse, if I don’t understand what their goals are, I run the risk of appointing someone who will actively work against my interests.

      Machiavellian tactics of pandering, threats, and manipulation can certainly get people into office. I’m more concerned about what they’ll do when they get there.

      • Hi Jake, I agree with you about pandering for votes. The other day, just after seeing Latinos go for Obama in great numbers, Hannity said it’s time to get serious about immigration reform, which to me seemed like ridiculous pandering rather than a change of heart.

        But that said, because of the two-party system, it seems that both parties are coalitions. We keep talking about what Republicans as a whole believe, but there’s some differences. I mean, there are some people who talk about limited government who really mean it–who don’t want the government getting involved in a woman’s medical decisions or marriage equality. And then there are some who identify as Republicans who want to emphasize “family values” by making laws against marriage equality, etc.

        So when I say “maybe the Republican party needs to think about what it stands for,” I don’t mean “pander to me, dance for my amusement.” What I think is “wouldn’t it be nice to have a party that said it was for small government and actually tried to reduce the interference of government in all people’s lives?” It’s not about becoming clones of the Democrats, but about rethinking their legislative priorities.

        (And also being serious about those priorities: many of the “oh god the deficit” whiners a) never said jack about previous explosions of the deficit and b) never engage with the historical fact that Democratic presidents reduce the deficit more than Republicans. Why is that?)

      • P.S. Another thing is we tend to talk about the D and R parties like they’re not going away, but historically, great upheavals have allowed established parties to reconfigure. Maybe we need that. I keep hoping for a Libertarian-leaning Republican party and a theological-minded American Eagle party or something. (That’s a reference to the RPG Aberrant, but I think it’s a good name.)

  38. I just want to say bravo. Bravo to all of you, left and right, on this forum. Most of the time when you read comment sections you get a few thoughtful posts before it devolves into personal attacks and ignorant hate speak. I read the post and cringed before viewing the comments. This has been great to read thoughtful comments from both perspectives.

    Larry, I hope you are wrong about the next four years and this country can put aside this partisan nonsense, but I doubt it. I don’t want to get too “rah, rah go team!”, but until we can sit down and put all the red/blue nonsense aside and have the right mindset about making decisions nothing will get better. Red or blue we are all Americans. I. Just hope one day the people in D.C. remember that.

    • The problem comes down to the red/blue divide has nothing in common. The Blue sees the government as an all purpose one size fits all magic wand that can be waved at any problem to fix it. The Red sees the government as a barrier to actual working solutions being implemented and individuals being in the best position to resolve problems.

      Right now I’m hoping for 4 years of the Republicans glueing their feet to the ground and not moving on any liberal plan that increases the size and scope of the government and the ways it can interfere in my life. If both sides can find something they agree on that will help with any of our myriad of problems without increasing the size and scope of the government I’ll totally be urging them on.

      Can anyone name a government agency known for it’s efficiency and effectiveness? I can’t. Any time I have to interact with the government I plan on taking a day off so I can twiddle my thumbs for endless hours waiting in lines so I can then turn around and jump through all sorts of pointless hoops and then go back and stand in more lines. (How does everybody think that’s going work out when we have to add that to any doctor visit?)

      It still boggles my brain that liberals put so much faith in the organization that has brought us the DMV, the TSA, and FEMA. This isn’t even getting into issues of mismanagement of funds for the programs they do run. (Hello social security). Do I think some government programs actually do good? Yes. Do I think in 99% of the cases that a private organization could do it better and cheaper? Yes. Do I think the majority of Americans are in a better position to make decisions for than some bureaucrat? Yes. Though judging by the results from Tuesday a whole lot of people don’t want to.

      • “The Red sees the government as a barrier to actual working solutions being implemented and individuals being in the best position to resolve problems.

        Right now I’m hoping for 4 years of the Republicans glueing their feet to the ground and not moving on any liberal plan that increases the size and scope of the government and the ways it can interfere in my life”

        Adam – This is what many people that call themselves republican or conservative believe. But its NOT what the Republican Party believes or how they vote. Your Party left you and me a long time ago and we have to face up to this or else we are no better than the Liberal who loves Obama despite all he does that is contradictory to a Liberal stance (War, Corp Bailouts, Gitmo)

        The Rep party does not stand for what you think it does. Just look at their voting record on many of the things you mention (FEMA, TSA, Social Security) Who was the last President or Congress that has shrunk Government significantly.

      • Steve,
        Unfortunately this isn’t news to me. The Republicans haven’t really shown me anything for the last decade or so that indicates they even have a clue or any interest in standing up for the principles they are claiming to promote.

        Unfortunately the alternative is worse. A squishy Romney on his worst day is a million times better than Obama on hist best. I like a bit of flexibility in leaders. It gives them the ability to adapt to situations instead of blindly sticking to their guns. Plus it takes integrity for a person to stand up and admit ‘I was wrong’.

        I think Romney would have been that kind of leader. After 4 years of Obama I know he isn’t and never will be.

      • Adam

        I never understand this type of response. How is Romney any better than Obama, just because he says a few things you like? Even if he has no plans to do any of them?

        Romney has a past. His record is clear, he is not a small Gov guy.

        The WHOLE R vs D is manufactured to keep people like you busy blaming the other team vs focusing on the real culprits. Both parties steal from you, they just use different methods but the end result is the same. Why is it any different if they keep you broke with Healthcare reform, Bank bailouts, Inflation, Wars or all the above.

      • Steve,
        Because I at least agreed with some of what Romney said.Because Obama has already proven that he has no intention of keeping any of his promises. Or if he does it ends up a monkey’s paw wish. Because for 4 years I was willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt that he could do a better job than Obama. If at the end of the 4 years I’d be as willing to kick him to the curb as I am with Obama providing the alternative presented a plausible alternative.

        I also don’t think Romney would have ordered drone strikes on US Citizens. Or if he did the media would hang him out to dry like they should have done to Obama.

        I don’t disagree Steve but I don’t have a solution, I have no respect for anybody in DC. I think they all need to be tossed out on their behinds. Until the rest of the country catches up we’re stuck with this mess or we join the crowd heading for New Zealand.

  39. This was a cold civil war. We were at a crossroads. This election was the great fork in the road. As Lincoln pointed out in his state Senator speech, “We will be all one thing, or another, but we will not go forward so divided.” The other side won. I don’t know what our future holds, but the US of the future will be very different from the US of today.

    • Yes, under Obamacare, people with healthcare will not be afraid of leaving their jobs, leading to an entrepreneurial utopia of garage-born start-ups–the next Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

      Or maybe that’s not what you meant, Heather?

      • I am very certain Heather meant something entirely different from the utopian notion of Obama Care. benjb you just have to be in the warm embrace of the People’s State of Travis County voting for Sadler and all. So by the way at least you have started taking a stand on your beliefs and notion of what needs to be done. Good job. Of course it makes me go for the another shot of Glenlivet and buy more bulk ammunition. Now that we have a confession of living in Texas at least I know you have to face a lot up hill conversations with people around you; unless you are wrapped in the warm embrace of the UT campus.

      • I can’t speak for Heather, but as someone with some entrepreneurial ideas, I can tell you exactly why I haven’t left my job to run with any of them, and healthcare hasn’t even been a consideration. I could go out and get my own insurance without Obamacare (I’d have to pay for it, but I could get it, and I’d be willing to pay for it).

        The reasons why I haven’t can be lumped generally under “I’m fairly risk-averse and the current mood in this country is unfriendly to starting a business”. The permit laws and taxation for businesses are labyrinthine and burdensome, and I’d have to hire an accountant just to figure out how to file all the necessary paperwork and figure out how to get employment taxes, employer taxes, employee taxes, permits for building, permits for doing business, etc etc. I’ve got an IT background, not a business background, and the risk involved in getting shutdown because I didn’t file something properly is pretty high without paying for a good accountant– and good ones aren’t cheap– to handle that sort of work. Startup companies can’t generally afford good accountants– the ones that succeed these days are those started by people with a solid business background, not the Steve Wozniaks of the world. Not to mention finding investors willing to spring for an idea when most small businesses fail in their first few years (again, not because of healthcare, but because of the permit laws and taxation issues). Investors want to make money, not lose it, so they’re pretty picky about who they give their money to.

        I’m an IT geek, and we generally don’t stay at companies for very long, because IT is one of the areas that often gets downsized. I’ve also worked for a number of small companies that have folded up, closed their doors, and disappeared. Not once have I worked for a company that folded because of health insurance premiums. It was due to a variety of issues (in one case, the CEO embezzled the company into ruin), but most of the time it was because the regulations in the US made it impossible to continue to do business and make any sort of profit or because it was cheaper and easier to do business in a country where the laws and taxes weren’t so byzantine, so my job got shipped away. I’ve also worked for the government (as a contractor), and seen how much waste there is, and how little work most government employees do, while the contractors end up doing all the work. Given what I’ve seen (I can personally list several instances of government waste costing millions of tax payer dollars in each instance), I can’t expect that Obamacare or any other government program will run as efficiently as a private organization would, and the general tenor of the last 6 years or so seems to be to choke out small business as much as possible. So I, personally, won’t be starting up a company any time soon, because I think the risk far outweigh the chances of success in this economic climate.

        Just my (somewhat rambling) 2 bits.

      • and of course, God help you if you actually manage to make any money at that business- then you’re REALLY in trouble..

  40. The defecation is very much hitting the oscillating blades. I’m trying to see the positive though, I’m a cold blooded capitalist alwasye have been. I’m hoping to do some profiteering in this chaos, and hopefully when the dust settles and people come to their senses I’ll have built something that can last.
    In the mean time I’m stocking up on ammo, saving up for more guns. I’m also working on improving my survival skills. Needs must when the devil drives and if needs be I’ll go and become a farm hand to survive or live in the wilderness.
    All I really need for entertainment is a few knives and some wood to whittle, my fully stocked kindle and a solar charger would be a boon too.

    I am thoroughly depressed though and think we are all in for some tough times ahead.

    • Amen, the ultimate currency exchange of God , Guns, and Whiskey is coming soon. Buy that Bulk Ammo cause Obama is going for serial numbered bullets and raising the price to infinity.

      • I’m stocking up on ammo as much as I can afford. I recently got nostalgic and and went looking for some of Pa fiddles and other instruments(just to hold them and see if I remembered a note or two). I found 1000 rounds of good .22 long rifle ammo for his now my rifle. Sure the .22 isn’t the best defensive weapon, but I can take small game with it. Honestly it was like he was giving me a gift from beyond.

        As for Whiskey being the currency of choice, I can’t wait. I’ve alwayse wanted my own still(I’ve never tried to build one, nope not ever…). I like alcohol, not just consuming it, but the act of creating it. Making your own blends or unique flavors. It appease to the alchemist in me even if I am a physicist(in training). I honestly think for personal consumption(and as gifts to friends/family) it should be legal, and I can’t wait for a barter system. Nothing like being able to trade hard work or a 1/5th of 180proof whiskey for what I need.

  41. As a Canadian I have seen first hand the damaging effects increased government regulation and spending can have on- oh wait nevermind.

    • Hmmm…I like your thinking…uh…wait. Are we allowed to do that anymore or do we have a department of something or other that thinks for us? Wait a second, I was thinking there…ignore me.

  42. Reblogged this on doublebhomestead and commented:
    This says exactly what I want to say, only much better than I could say it myself. Do yourself a favor and read this and see if you don’t agree.

  43. I say we let Red counties only supply food to blue counties for five years and see how that works out.

  44. Mr. Correia,

    I do get tired of this. I want you to know something. I’m a liberal, I’m a union guy, I’m a non-gun owner who believes in gun rights (but I love knives and edged weapons), and I’m a huge fan of your books. I have every one both in print and on Audible. Both the Monster Hunter books and the Grimnoir Chronicles books. I found Hard Magic on Audible, and sounded interesting. I drive a lot, so I love the audible stuff. I liked it so much I tried out MHI, even though it didn’t sound like my normal interest. I loved them.

    I got Spellbound in hardback first, because it wasn’t available on Audible yet. But I got both Spellbound and MHV the day they came out on Audible, and bought them on Amazon right away too, to help you show high on the lists.

    You are a very talented writer. The only other writer whose books I was so big a fan of was Robert A. Heinlein. I have all of his in print and audible, too. I sincerely love what you write! I’ll happily discuss it all with you, if you don’t believe it. I love the opening of MHI, where Owen discusses murdering his boss. About how he talks about having good dental at that job. In Hard Magic, where Faye calls the other traveler a “fat cow”. It’s hard to believe the same writer does the HMI and Grimnoir Chronicles books, although guns are the tie that binds. It was great when Owen got the girl of his dreams.

    But I come here to keep up with what’s happening with you and your books, and I find that obviously you hate my guts. You hate both liberals and unions. I am a tool-and-die maker by trade, and I’ve made knives and swords for much of my life, although I don’t do so now. Most skilled craftsmen are union, and I think it’s a good thing.

    But I don’t come here to argue politics with you. I don’t come here to change your mind. But I wonder – is my money not good enough for you?

    Do you want me to stop buying and enjoying – and recommending your books (yes I have!). Why do you want to run off potential customers?

    I’ve been a business owner. It’s never good for a business to insult their customer base. Sure, gun nuts and ultra-right wingers might be you best customer, but there’s a LOT of liberal gun nuts in unions.

    And I don’t think that you are so damned well-known right now that you can write off customers. I remember some time back on the blog that you finally quit your day job.

    I want you to be a famous and successful writer. I want you to be able to buy a big house someplace great and never have to worry about bills. But I’d also like to give you my hard-earned money without thinking you hate my guts because of who I voted for.

    I could say more, but I won’t. TRUTHFULLY, if you and I sat down and I bought you a beer – and I would, I’m not a moocher, I’m a working man – I wouldn’t want to talk politics with you. I’d want to talk writing and characters and the worlds you create, and how you created them.

    • So, since I started typing a big response, so I’ll just make it a new blog post.

    • So Bob:

      While Mr. Correia makes an extensive new blog post in response to your comment; let me say that I for one find him honest to a fault. His political views voice deep concern for the fragile and deteriorating condition of our country based on the number of people with their hands out for Big Government to fill with the largess of EBT Cards, Housing, Food Stamps, 99 plus weeks of unemployment and more things I cannot even enumerate here. After rereading his “Congratulations, Obama voters” post I did not see a castigation of Unions directly there. I did see your earlier comments about Unions becoming actually stronger than Corporations and your uncomfortable role as a Union Stewart representing a member who clearly was forging Doctor’s excuses, so it appears you are a thinking and very discerning person. Anyone who is a tool and die man has my highest regard. Indeed that skill is of great national importance and unfortunately young people do not for the most part even understand that nor pursue it mainly because they have no idea what it is for the most part. I do not think based on your prior responses you are moocher. or looter. Looters are much worse than moochers because they actively steal others hard earned work through chicanery and politics (Read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”) By the by Robert Heinlein was a Naval Academy grad in the 30’s and during the good war, WWII worked with Asimov, And L. Sprague De Camp, all of whom I would not classify as right wing necessarily. Heinlein perhaps because of his Annapolis training wrote many pro gun, be armed and fore warned books (Starship Troopers, the Puppet Masters, etc) Saying an Armed Society is a polite society. I kind of wonder at your admiration for such a forth right guy. Keep in mind Heinlein was characterized by Asimov as a “Flaming Liberal” (interesting term eh!) until in 1947 when he did an about face and became a consummate right winger until the 60’s when he produced the a slew of counter culture books like “Stranger in a Strange Land”. Despite the counter culture themes (sexual freedom, free thinking in general etc. and a particular distaste for Democratic Politician George Wallace icon’s of the times) he always promoted hard work, “Study Useful Things” like engineering etc.; and being completely self reliant and prepared to resist governmental force a.k.a. the Second Amendment. He was also a strict Constitutional Constructionist. so given all this and your avowed love of Heinlein I strongly feel there is hope for you. As Churchill said in youth we are all Liberals lest we have no heart. When we become adults and if we progress at all we become conservatives.

      Based on your responses I did not see many liberal traits espoused or things that are full of cognitive dissonance like our friend benjb; but, you claim to be a liberal. I would be interested in what you think makes you a liberal? Just your Union membership??? Also, I have never met a Liberal Gun Nut. What in the heck do they look or act like? So enlighten us. What makes you a liberal. Do you live in the Mid-West that hot bed of traitors to the American idea and Ideals? What makes you a liberal? You seem to work or have worked and paid taxes, and have good morals about liars and such. Just interested here. Oh by the way I am a right wing gun toting, gun nut just interested to see what a Liberal gun nut is other than those free lance guys in Chicago who kill 40 brothers a week end.

      • The Unions being stronger than Corporations and the representing a Doctor were my examples. I was arguing against someone and using one of the many horror stories Ma told me from her Union work.
        I just don’t want you to get yelled at for saying the wrong person said that. I’ve seen people ignore entire comments/arguments because so an easy enough mistake.

      • This was my first post here, though I’ve read it for some time. Mr. Correia’s talked about unions before.

        Yes, I know all about Heinlein’s politics. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t. But he’s a great writer. I did take from him to always keep learning. Ayn Rand is a terrible writer, and her books sucked. Look, one should really not try to take a fantasy novel and live it in the real world. People who think her stuff should be how you live your life is the same as the nuts who “share water”.

        But again, I’m not here for a flame war. You all take care, and give this guy money.

      • It’s my fault, Bob. I didn’t give enough to Larry’s MHIEHB project fast enough!
        Dangit!

      • Bob simply and as kindly as I can put ask, just tell me why you are a liberal and voted for Obama. I am genuinely interested in why. So to be fair I just so we are on the same footing I voted for Romney and Ryan because:
        1. The country needs to reduce spending on just about everything but entitlements, welfare, NPR, NEA, loans for students to study art history, and Solyndra gives me the willies. Our debt will destroy the US as we know it.
        2. Obama’s notion of Job creation is hilarious; Businesses create jobs not government. We are suffering from taxes on businesses far higher than even the Euro Socialists levy.
        3. Taxes should be levied on everyone who makes a wage. The whole idea of giving a break to low wage earners just fires my grits. If the poor pay no taxes then they could care less about spending and like the hand outs we are giving to our destruction.
        4. Obama has created a surfeit of class envy unlike any we have experienced in history; and racial divides as well. We are in a worst place in that regard since the 60’s
        5. Bottom line I know Obama is a best a socialist and at worst a Marxist with clear sympathies for Muslim culture and anti-colonial extreme elements. He wants to teach the USA a good lesson in suffering and a reduced place in the world.

        So there are my reasons what are your 5 or more reasons for the opposite view. Please answer the question I posed originally?

    • The interweb is an interesting thing, before this year I never even considered the political leanings of my favorite authors but so many of them are posting. Sadly to my dismay these intelligent people are so far left that it boggles my mind. What’s worse many of them not only espouse opinions I disagree with most of them just parrot the opinions of others. They aren’t even thinking for themselves, worse when well thought out contrary posts are posted they are deleted, or the authors have thinly encouraged dissenting posts be marked spam so the system deletes them. That is censorship, and a sign of not only closed minds, but decaying rotting minds. What do I do when faced with authors whose works I love, but opinions I abhor? I either ignore their posts, or try to have a meaningful discussion with either them or the other fans. Sadly when I choose the latter I’m insulted or even threatened by the same political side that claims to be more peaceful.

      What you’ve posted here though? Is very immature, you show absolutely everything that is wrong with the Left. The supposed “party of the people:. You advocate censorship! Instead of attempting to carry on a meaningful conversation with Larry, and his fans you use veiled inference to his potential as a successful author. You would censor him for your benefit and comfort when the consumption of his ideas is entirely at your discretion. You would rather he keep his mouth shut and just produce what you value his books as entertainment. You even lead with compliments before asking him to censor himself for your benefit! That is exactly what is wrong with the Left. Liberals would rather silence opposing opinions than hear them out and have open and honest discussion. If those opposing opinions come from someone who produces something you value such as literature, or consumable goods you seek to censor them more and tell them to keep producing without expressing their thoughts like some entertainment slave. Their only use is in what you can gain from them and their minds and ideas be damned.

      I’m all for the boycott for affecting serious needed social change such as to stop a policy or procedure, but to infer a boycott over someones ideas?! That is censorship, and what’s worse, you don’t need to consume his opinions. No one holds a gun to your head and says “read these ideas or die”. They are posted freely online and you can choose to consume them or not.

      The only way we grow is through having our ideas challenged. If you choose not to grow fine, don’t expose yourself to ideas that challenge your world views. Don’t ask others to censor themselves for your comfort. Especially if they produce something you value. To tell them stop challenging my world views but still allow me to be entertained by the product of your mind is a form of enslavement. Don’t control other people, control yourself. If you don’t like your opinions challenged don’t read them!

      To grow we must be challenged, that which does not grow stagnates, dies and eventually rots. If you seek to close yourself off to dissenting opinions that’s fine, close yourself off. Don’t close off the source of the opinions.

      • I am not for boycotts and censorship, and I most sincerely do not call for that here. See my comments in the comment section of Mr. Correia’s reply to me.

      • Yes you did. Oh sure your boycott was thinly veiled, but the mentality was there. You would prefer Larry not state his opinions as they aren’t in line with your thinking. You mention the potential loss of future readers, even the loss of your potential recommendations. Did you come right out and say boycott, or that you wanted him censored? No, but the intention was there.
        Worse after all your ranting was done when Larry showed you the door and said you could go you back peddled.
        You lack the courage of your convictions, and that’s scary. If Larry had censored himself to stop your discomfort you would have won. Since you didn’t win you now back pedal and pretend there was not a subtext to your original post. Your original post had one purpose to silence Larry, there is no other utility to your post. Seeing as how you didn’t argue against his points, or offer reasons you thought they were wrong. You simply chastised him for having opinions you disagree with. That is not civil discourse, merely an attack on his freedom of speech for your benefit.

        I’ll be posting the rest of this on your comments on the other thread.

  45. [...] Two magnificent rants about the election from one of my favorite authors, Larry Correia, author of the Monster Hunter series. First up, his post-election rant, "Congratulations, Obama voters": [...]

  46. Democrat have already re-written the last 10 years as having no economic growth under Bush, which is a total lie since he started with the Dot Com bubble recession, then the Sept 11th recession, and still had positive job numbers for his presidency even after the start of the 2008 recession. They blame Bush for a housing recession caused by Clinton’s housing policies, and give Clinton credit for a ballance Budget which was forced on him by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans. There is no reason to believe that the democrats will take responsibility for the negative consequences of any of their decisions. Remember 5.8% unemployment anyone, that was the number when Bush left office? You MIGHT see Obama get us back to that after 8 years, but the chances are slim. And so we will eat bread and circuses until the Chinese and Europe will no longer loan us money for them, and then what? Will the peasants eat cake?

    Very good post Mr. Correia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,880 other followers

%d bloggers like this: