Gary Johnson

Catching up With Reviews & Commentary About The Declaration of Independents


"A rollicking tale!" -- Barron's

Some excerpts from commentary about our book.

Bretigne Shaffer, Barron's:

The book's most exciting parts deal with the power of peaceful, impassioned individuals to alter repressive societies: How, back when home-brewing was still illegal in America, a few people who cared about creating quality ale recognized that "…to put enlightenment into practice, sometimes you have to break the law." How underground rock n' rollers in Central Europe sparked a revolution. How Mideastern youths asserting their "right to rock" (and to post on Facebook) are even now overturning dictatorships.

By bringing these stories to life, the authors create an inspiring vision for how we might move beyond the shackles of government control in many areas of our lives. But they fall short in delivering an operating manual for our own revolution, and miss elements that are already happening. […]

Gillespie and Welch weave a rollicking tale, and convincingly argue that human society and well-being flourish when people find ways to "route around government." But they're short on strategy specifics and, in the context of 21st-century libertarian activism, those they do offer seem almost timid.


John Kranz, Three Sources:

It is a remarkably uplifting book.

It is funny, thoughtful and well written. […]

It remains very upbeat, in spite of chapters like "We are so out of money!" There's a kind of Reaganite optimism about it, not that they have many kind words for our 40th. but they do have a true belief that free people will overcome the challenges of over-weaning government.

Funny, upbeat, informative, thoughtful. I will offer any of my leftist friends to read anything of their choosing if they'll pour through this one. It should be easy as Speaker Boehner and President George W Bush get as many or more whacks than anybody else.

Haven't seen a wrist-roller like that since Johnny Bench!

David M. Kinchen,

[T]heir writing style […] I found delightful and enlightening […]

As an independent voter who cast a Presidential ballot for an obscure Texas pediatrician named Dr. Ron Paul in 1988 (he's now my congressman), and who voted for a goofy looking Texan named H. Ross Perot in 1992, I identify with many of  the "independents" profiled by Gillespie and Welch. I think their vision will resonate with a wide swath of frustrated citizens and young voters, born after the Cold War's end, to whom old tribal allegiances, prejudices, and hang-ups about everything from hearing a foreign language on the street to gay marriage to drug use simply do not make sense.

Applications beyond politics

Rich Lederer, Baseball Analysts:

Irrespective of your political interests or leanings, I believe you will enjoy The Declaration of Independents. The book is as much about decentralization and democratization taking market share from "the forces of control and centralization" as anything else, and it has applications beyond politics.

Veronique de Rugy, National Review's The Corner:

I am biased, no doubt, but in 2011, this book is a must-read. I would argue that it is especially worth reading if you are skeptical of libertarianism or even a straightforward anti-libertarian. For instance, if you think libertarians are irresponsible, dope-smoking, unserious, head-in-the-clouds pacifists, this book is for you. (It will prove you wrong, I hope.) Of course, if you think that libertarians are great, you should still read the book, because you will come out of it energized and full of hope.

Encouraging human flourishing

Daniel Larison, American Conservative:

It is probably one of the most enduring flaws in this optimistic vision that its adherents believe that people desire "nearly infinite individual choice, specialization, and autonomy." For the most part, human beings have created and organized their cultures along entirely different lines, because maximizing choice and autonomy is not what encourages human flourishing.

Alonzo Rachel, PJTV:

19th century boy

Larry Downes, on his personal website:

As a libertarian on a conservative radio station in the Midwest (93 WIBC – Indianapolis) I occasionally find myself at odds with my listeners. […]

In the prologue, they quote Henry Adams, great-grandson President #2, who said, "Politics has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."

Damn. That resonates in my head like a dentist's drill.

Christopher A. Guzman, California Independent Voter Network:

A libertarian-leaning sentiment is on the rise in the country, which may be attributed in part to the culture of digital personalization that's become so embedded in our way of life. With inventions such as the iphone, where one can choose which apps suit their needs, it seems as if people are starting to gradually connect their sense of individual choice in the digital sense to how they feel about government overstepping its bounds in their daily lives.

It's a holiday in Bipolarchia!

Samuel Wilson, The Think 3 Institute:

Did you get the impression from some of the quotes above that Welch and Gillespie are having more fun than many Americans these days? You probably can't blame them for feeling that way; they get to run a magazine that's consistently interesting if also almost as consistently biased, and they no doubt feel cool about sticking it to the Bipolarchy. But if theirs is the rhetoric with which they hope to sell libertarianism to the wider public, they're going to have some problems. How "funtabulous" is the modern world for most of us, after all? It's a word very few Americans would use to describe their country in 2011, and the authors themselves make clear that this funtabulousness is under siege from "the destructive force of politics," even if funtabulousness is somehow also its own best defense. But what makes their world funtabulous, anyway? In its best dress, it's "a world where mutual gains from trade have lifted half a billion people out of poverty in just the last five years."

Essentially a one-man show

dL, Libérale et libertaire:

Indeed, the plight of Gary Johnson, the ideal Gillespie-Welch "lifestyle politician," illustrates the public goods problem of this voting block. Johnson does not spring from any institutional party infrastructure nor is he a product of any formal or informal institutional network. He is essentially a one-man show, someone who was elected governor as the result of a fluke. In a majority Democratic state, Johnson was able to overcome a weak GOP establishment to win the primary and then defeat a Dem Establishment Pol in a general election. But this doesn't translate on the national scene. Johnson insists that his "resume" gives him a seat at the table. But it actually doesn't. It reaffirms him to be a fluke, someone without any formal or informal institutional support. His "Our American Initiative" project didn't build any genesis of a lifestyle voter political reform movement. Johnson, after being excluded from the recent NH GOP debate, is now making the rounds volunteering his new found disillusionment with "the system."

In short, Gillespie-Welch's new book is not a serious social science book. Rather, it's mere journalistic wishful thinking.

Eponymous, Tea Party Handbook:

However, more and more Americans are beginning to wake up and realize that there may be hope—if they beginning to get involved and pay attention for a change! This book describes a vision that can be held by young and old alike. It is a compelling manifesto containing libertarian ideals. it identifies today's villains and shows how you can do something about it. The books vision resonates with the Tea Party's ideals.

Pull-down a sample copy for Kindle at and see for yourself. You'll find their ideas fascinating and inspiring.

Eponymous, the Modern Moderate:

Anyways, I believe we need to be more open. Stretch the boundaries a bit. Be accepting of diversity. I am still developing. There are always new things to learn. Many things are not so black and white. Maybe there are shades of gray. Just a thought. I just began reading a new book called, "The Declaration of Independents" by Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch. It discusses libertarians and independents. We hear information about the left and the right all of the time, but are we learning about the middle? I am.

In your heart, you know he's got better glasses than you

Epoynymous, Rational Interest:

Why should you read this book?

In the same way Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative helped define the Republican party for many years, the Declaration gives us a tome of wisdom for the post-partisan and post-political America. Deregulation and capitalism have given us cheap airfare, affordable HD TV's, cell phones, Whole Foods, and the list goes on and on. The variety we enjoy at the grocery store, and the cheapness of is attributable to the market, not government. The simple point is that the best things in your life, and the things you have the most control over, are the ones least associated with government. So for all those who are tired of the two-party system and the same government solutions to government created problems, invest in the book and declare your independence by becoming independent.

NEXT: This Independence Day...Ask a Libertarian!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think this list just cost us a Golden Girl.

    1. And Suki. How sad.

      1. Forgive my ignorance; I’ve been lurking for a while now, but I still don’t know that much about the John/Suki thing. Why would he/she be offended?

        1. He/she/it isn’t real.

          1. Yeah, I’m aware of that.

          2. What? Who the hell showed up for my sleepover, braided my hair, did my nails, and waxed my pubic hair?

            1. That was Rosie O’Donnell…

      2. Did I miss something? I didn’t see any references to either JLT or John/Suki.

  2. Goodbye Reason!

    1. Buy Suki…I never got to really talk to you…i think you live on the East Coast and you tend to post earlier then I do.

      1. Are you trying to buy Suki? I will not be cheated on by my imaginary internet boyfriend, over the internet, with sweet ignis fatuus Suki. It’s over.

        1. Are you trying to buy Suki?

          Sure why not.

          I bid $50 for dinner and movie.

          1. Lol, I always thought you had an issue with her type.

          2. She’s a man, baby.

  3. Is it un-libertarian to kill a realdoll?

    I’d hate for the Torso’d one to lose his monocle over this.

    1. Yes, she isn’t his property.

  4. As a libertarian on a conservative radio station in the Midwest (93 WIBC ? Indianapolis) I occasionally find myself at odds with my listeners.


  5. Yes, Matt those are all lovely review for your book, but are the comments worth looking at?!

  6. If you loved Cormac Mccarthy’s vision of the future in The Road you’ll enjoy this handbook on how to get there…

    1. I always thought it was a book about a man and a young boy trying to avoid Census takers.

    2. For HarryNick and LloydMatt every day is a no-brainer.

  7. Wait, you’re including de Rugy? How many other ringers are in this list? This whole thing is tainted. I definitely smell significant taint here.

    1. de Rugy counts because she works for that other Koch-funded think tank.

    2. I think we can all spot a ringer a mile away. *cough* *cough* *Alonzo* *Rachel* *cough*

    3. Heh, heh. You said “taint”.

  8. Whenever somebody brings up Goldwater (Yes! They still do!) as an example the dangerous extremism of the Republican party, I can’t help but remind them of that dangerous extremist in the Democratic party…Wallace.

      1. Back when racists were Democrats…Or was it when Democrats were racists? I get confused sometimes.

        Goldwater, ’64!

        1. Hey, we needed those hicks to pass through our legislation. The ends justify the means!

        2. No need to be confused. They always have been and still are racist. Their racist condescension is always obvious.

    1. Goldwater supported gays in the military.

  9. maximizing choice and autonomy is not what encourages human flourishing.


    1. I know, right? Central planning is where it’s at!

      1. After watching that PJTV video and reading that American Conservative article i have come to the conclusion that conservatives are not really exposed as ranting lunatics until they are pointing their guns at libertarians.

        When conservatives go after the left they can almost sound sane. They use familiar arguments which are often ripped off from libertarian think tanks and can expose general leftist hypocrisy with ease…

        But when they turn their turrets on libertarians it is like springs and bolts start flying off as if a colossal machine was attempting to move in a direction that it was not designed to go.

        1. To be fair, it’s much the same with liberals. I think conservatives and liberals have their talking points pretty well worked out when it comes to talking about how each other are evil, but as you suggested, when it comes to libertarians, their brains can’t really compute. Also, with this video, what’s with the guy’s right hand? It’s like he can’t talk unless he’s motioning with it.

          1. That’s called Old Skool, you racist fuck.

          2. I don’t really agree: in terms of talking points, any ways, conservatives have always been closer to libertarians on fiscal and social issues than liberals have on social and defense policy. Talking points like, “We need to get out of Iraq so that we can help in Sudan/DRC/[insert African shithole du jour]”, or “nation-building begins at home” were pretty terrible and self-evidently not libertarian; liberals ultimately just wanted to reshuffle funds and troops to help out with their favorite causes. Likewise, besides perhaps abortion and drugs, I can’t think of a single social policy where liberals argue like libertarians, or even support libertarian ends: quotas, the Equal Rights Amendment, equal opportunity, and others are creatures of the left, not of the right. Even in the cases of abortion and drugs, many liberals support bureaucracy/subsidies to encourage or discourage behaviors.

            In contrast, the conservative talking points on guns, homeschooling, taxes/regulation and a whole plethora of issues tend to match up with libertarian thought. They haven’t followed up with actions worth a damn, mind you, but the rhetoric sure is more pleasing. The conservative base tend to be made up of classical liberals or very weak social democrats with some dwarf planet-sized holes and contradictions in their political philosophy, which they cover up by claiming to be an anti-ideology of sorts. The progressive base, in contrast, is a motley crew of social democrats and socialists in general.

          3. Yeah, Alonzo is nuts – and perhaps a sociopath.


    Kareem Abdul-Jabar has fallen on some hard times, it seems. He’s making video with Billy Corgan!

    1. Wow, just watched some of the videos on that channel and it looks like Corgan actually has his career back on track.

      Man, I tell you, 2005-2009 was dark fucking period for Pumpkins fans.

      1. I stopped listening to the pumpkins after they stopped being noisy. Pumpkins v1 were totally superior.

        1. I actually like the first bunch of non-noisy tracks off of Celebrity Skin, and I don’t really like Hole or Courtney Love. “Malibu” is a guilty pleasure of mine.

  11. The book’s most exciting parts deal with the power of peaceful, impassioned individuals to alter repressive societies: [examples of the emergent power of individuals’ autonomous, uncoordinated acts] … But [the authors] fall short in delivering an operating manual for our own revolution…

    The point, she missed it. I suspect she wouldn’t really care for such a revolution anyway.

    1. “I’d like to be an individualist but I need someone to tell me what to do!!”

    2. Pedant, you probably haven’t read the book so I wouldn’t expect you to know this, but “operating manual” is the authors’ phrase, not mine. It’s what they keep promising throughout the book and then offer up at the end.

      Personally I think the book would have been better without an attempt at a “how to” and I’m guessing it was pressure from the publisher that got them to do it.

      1. “The Jacket” > any publisher.

      2. Don’t miss our next book: “Being an Independent: a How-to Guide to Personal Revolutionary Acts Which the Author Will Spoon-feed You!”

  12. Could it be I’ve stayed away too long
    Seems MC’s be wishing I was gone

  13. In short, Gillespie-Welch’s new book is not a serious social science book. Rather, it’s mere journalistic wishful thinking.

    Well, there you go. Perfect for libertarians! KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

    1. Why do TeamRed/Blue attacks on libertarianism always revert to “wishful thinking” or “unrealistic” without having to clarify why the fuck they think that?


        Oh, and SOMALIA!!!11! Of course.

        That is all.

      2. That either Team Red/Blue balances the federal budget… that’s some wishful fucking thinking.

      3. The author of that phrase is the furthest thing from a Team Red/Team Blue booster, as you’d know if you;d actually read the rest of his post.

  14. Liberidotarians will take away your rights, DESTROY the environment and force hamsters to have anal sex!!!!!!!

    That’s right ANAL raping of small innocent rodents!!

    Do not buy this book!!! It is AN evil written by EVILS!

    1. EVIL = Ear, vaginal, and intestinal tract-raping libertarians!


  15. “PARIS (AP) – France sent weapons this month to Libyan civilians under siege by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces…
    The deliveries of guns, rocket-propelled grenades and munitions took place in early June in the western Nafusa mountains, when Gadhafi forces had encircled civilians and his government refused a U.N request to allow in a humanitarian aid shipment, Col. Thierry Burkhard said.”

    We’ve got the ATF and a morally depraved collection of arms laws, France is a highly authoritarian socialist shithole that’s far worse than us, and they’re arming Libyan civilians? Oh, the God-fucking-awful irony!

  16. Mideastern youths asserting their “right to rock” (and to post on Facebook) are even now overturning dictatorships.

    At the end of the fantasy, the dictators win.

  17. Where is “The Truth” on this story?

    China – the next Greece?

    1. He might be there. It’s hard to distinguish him from the regular Times readership.

    2. The Economist’s Ryan Avent chalked up a good graph to estimate China’s total debts in light of the local debt announcement, including what China owes for splashing out on things like high speed rail and bad bank loans.

      For a magazine called “The Economist” you’d think that they had heard of the multiplier effect!


    3. I’m no “The Truth” but I have to admit that the differences between the U.S. and China as it regards debt seems to be pretty fucking overwhelming.

      “If you take a very broad view of the Chinese government’s contingent liabilities rather than explicit debt on the books then the number comes to well over 150 per cent of China’s GDP in 2010,” according to Victor Shih, a political economist at Northwestern University in the US.

      Meanwhile, if you add up our contingent liabilities, you get a number that is approaching 10x, or 1000% of GDP.

    4. I was looking at the article on the big new bridge that opened in China (26 miles long!). One of the comments was something to the effect of “Hey they can afford to build stuff like this because they aren’t at war with everyone.” There’s something to that. They don’t have the entitlement burden that we do, either, but still.

      1. I’ve always found it funny that we spend way more on our entitlements than China, a nation with over a billion people that is also communist. Almost like the end result of socialism isn’t peaceful anarchy, but rather totalitarian crony capitalism.

        1. That seems to be the end result of every system.

        2. “Almost like the end result of socialism isn’t peaceful anarchy, but rather totalitarian crony capitalism.”

          Are you referring to China or the United States?

  18. Let me be clear: I was a dangerous ideologue, but even I am disgusted at the treatment of Suki. Johnny Longstrono must be dealt with, and dealt with swiftly.

    1. 50 of 79 despise his review. Isn’t that punishment enough?

  19. Joe Lieberman is appalled by the thought of removing our Army of Occupation from Afghanistan.

    1. Two things: 1) Linky? 2) I’m not commenting on the politics of it, but Lieberman was against it? In other news, the Red Sox are probably a few games ahead of the Royals in the wild card race…

      2012 is the year?!

  20. Suki Held Hostage, Day 5

    After several days on the run, knocking over Luby’s cafeterias during the 4pm dinner rush, the terrorists Johnny Longtorso and Suki (who were demanding more positive ratings for Longtorso’s amazon review of “The Declaration of Independents”) are dead. Police were notified of a disturbance in a Hotel 6 in East St. Louis late last night; evidently that was when Johnny Longtorso saw Suki naked for the first time and discovered Suki’s penis strapped down by two rolls of police crime scene tape. Witnesses describe an ugly murdrer-suicide accompanied by shouts of “You’re really BEA AUTHUR!!! You’re really BEA AUTHUR!!!” while Longtorso beat Suki to death with a wall mounted singing bass. He later slit his own wrists with a sharpened quarter dug out of the hotel bed’s magic fingers. After being identified from dental records, their bodies were dumped in the middle of the Indian Ocean to prevent their graves from becoming pilgrimage sites. Written in Suki’s blood, police found one last link scrawled on the walls of their seedy hotel room:

    Bea Arthur’s fight against the Transport Security Agency

    Suki’s life partner John issued a statement saying “I feel like a part of me just died. Wait, that’s exactly what happened”. President Obama issued a statement taking claim for the deaths of the terrorists, saying they would never have killed themselves on George W. Bush’s watch.

    I repeat, the terrorists Johnny Longtorso and Suki are now dead. The terrorists Johnny Longtorso and Suki are now dead

    1. “With friends like you, JLT, Gillespie and Welch don’t need enemas.”


      1. well, they don’t!

    2. We’d like to feature you in our next video, Johnny. Call us.

      1. fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

        goes the leaking tire with nothing to fill it.

    3. 51 out of 81 people hate your review.
      Nice job!

      1. That’s where my thirty teeth went?

    4. I do not believe you.

      O GODDESS! hear these tuneless numbers, wrung
      By sweet enforcement and remembrance dear,
      And pardon that thy secrets should be sung
      Even into thine own soft-conch?d ear:
      Surely I dream’d to-day, or did I see
      The wing?d Suki with awaken’d eyes?

  21. Oh, declaration of independents! I get it now. Like the Declaration of Independence, right? Happy 4th of July, everyone.

  22. Linky?

    This morning, on Fox. Lindsey Graham was on there, too, boo-hooing about spoilsport peaceniks.

    1. Gotcha. I forgot about the Sunday political talk shows because of the Fourth.

      It’ll be sad when they both leave public service (?!). They make such a concerned team. I often reflect upon how they’re really looking out for us.

      That said, breath escapes me thinking about who CT will elect next.

    2. Lindsey Graham is boo-hooing about any loss from defense contractor donations.

  23. they fall short in delivering an operating manual for our own revolution

    “SEE? How can we take them seriously if they won’t even tell us what to do? Do they expect people to be independent, or something? That’s just crazy.”

  24. Alas, many will skip the book because of the stupid title. Oh well, as long as the donations don’t dry up.

      1. Eight million 14y/o twinklebirds will take up bowling today.

  25. For the most part, human beings have created and organized their cultures along entirely different lines, because maximizing choice and autonomy is not what encourages human flourishing.


    1. I’m a staunch patriot, but everything after “because” is horseshit. Fucking quasi-statists — fuck them all.

    2. Most cultures flourish?

      Last I checked, cultures organized themselves along entirely different lines, and those that maximized choice and autonomy flourished.

      O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.

    3. If that’s true, wouldn’t natural selection weed out the social pariahs and make them unsuccessful? I.e., even if the authors’ point is correct, wouldn’t voluntary processes solve that problem? It’s not like culture itself is something perfectly cultivated and crafted by government in the first place.

  26. New York is TEH AWESOME. You, unfortunately, suck

    New York has won again. It has come back. America has not. That’s the kernel these images secrete.

    First the city: magnet of talent, storehouse of stoicism, champion of churn, New York has prevailed. I’m glad all is not neat and tidy for the anniversary down at the World Trade Center site and that the Freedom Tower is incomplete. This is not a cherry-on-the-cake kind of city. What inspires is not a 1,776-feet tower in the making, but all the litigiousness and crazy aspirations of a New York minute.

    The city has asserted its ability to come together. The “homeland,” awful post-9/11 neologism, has not. America struggles still to rediscover its bearings and sense of direction. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with their more than 6,000 U.S. dead, still take their toll. The “banksters,” salvaged by tax dollars, get richer. Ordinary folk get poorer. Youth unemployment is at 24 percent. Corporations sit on their cash piles. Algorithms drive Americans to the news that comforts their prejudices and stokes their anger. No wonder ideological division has become so paralyzing in Washington.

    This guy makes Friedman sound smart.

    1. “That’s the kernel these images secrete.”

      Weird choice of words, brings to mind the queen of an insect colony squeezing out mucus-coated blobs.


    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 5-to-4 majority in Connick v. Thompson, said the D.A.’s office was not liable for failing to train its lawyers about their duty under the Constitution to turn over evidence favorable to the accused.

    The lawyers had kept secret more than a dozen pieces of favorable evidence over 15 years, destroying some. That failure to provide training, the court said, did not amount to a pattern of “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights.

    1. I have a different take on the NY piece than you do — I thought it was actually a bit biting in a populist sense, and I’m not sure if New York “winning” is his idea of a compliment — but this is awful. So the message is don’t teach them at all, and then nobody is liable?!

      I’ll have to read the opinion. I remember Balko posting about this, maybe even down to the specific case and prosecutor. Blood. pressure. rising.

    2. To be fair, I don’t know if you need to provide special training to teach your lawyers to do shit that is blatantly unethical.

      The problem is that they will also try to say the lawyers aren’t responsible because they weren’t trained properly, thus declaring it effectively legal to hide exculpatory evidence.

      1. Yeah. Is there any lawyer out there who doesn’t know that failing to turn over exculpatory evidence is a blatant violation of someone’s rights?

        That said, I haven’t RTFA and will assume that instead of passing the blame from the state of Connecticut to the individual lawyers, no one has to take responsibility, which is worse.

  28. Call me crazy, but it seems to me the Supreme Court exists in large part to “train” government agencies and institutions (and the people who compose them) to respect the Constitutional rights of citizens.

    What a bunch of useless idiots.

    1. What fucking lawyer doesn’t know that exculpatory evidence has to be released to the defense? It would have to be willful ignorance bordering on malicious intent.

      1. That’s cynical’s point, and part of the decision. They wanted to hold the municipality liable for failure to train, but part of the reasoning of the majority was that the infractions were so inherently unethical that training wouldn’t have prevented them.

        I think.

        Nice way to split the difference, eh?

      2. What fucking lawyer doesn’t know…?

        And for that matter, what celibate lawyer?

      3. The problem is there’s very little in the way of sanctions for individual prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence.

        If there was a law saying that prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence get whatever punishment they were trying to get the defendant sentenced to, we’d see a lot less prosecutorial misconduct.

  29. Yeah, I’m now almost positive Balko covered this case. Connick, Sr. I did not read the sixty some-odd pages, but read SCOTUSblog’s analysis. Policy argument: If you can only demonstrate deliberative indifference through a consistent pattern of abuse, and not a single case, what exactly is the deterrent to prosecutorial abuse when it comes to each individual case? What the hell? This is crim law, not civil.

  30. I put on my top hat and monocle.

    I drink your milkshake.

    1. I whip my hair back and forth.

      1. I put my hand up on your hip

        1. I want you. To want me

          1. I…..I just died in your arms tonight

            1. I found a picture of you…

              1. I….I am a time bomb and I….I lay forgotten at the bottom of your heart…
                I’m fine, ticking away the hours to blow your world apart

                1. I’m so bad, baby, I don’t care

                  1. I rip my way through
                    Easy prey, disfigured bodies decompose
                    Chewed limbs drip with pus, intestinal strangulation

                    1. I – I – I – will always love you

                    2. I returned a bag of groceries…

  31. OK wow, that looks like some pretty cool stuff.

  32. Jeebus Christ, PJTV’s homie conservative needs to shut the fuck up. That was about as bad as the Salon comment section yesterday.

    Yes homie conservative it is good that sex crimes are down, even if that means that more people are hav…

    Fuck it, stoopid can’t be reached.

    1. Yeah, that was tedious. I’m sorry I clicked on it.

      1. I only made it about 2 1/2 minutes into it, and only that far because I thought it was satire. ‘Legalizing drugs will create black markets’. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

        I don’t think there’s anything you can do about industrial strength stupidity like that.

        1. Oh, so you didn’t make it to the part where he argues that sexual crimes are down because more people are having consensual sex, because of Hollywood, because it’s run by liberals, because…and this is all horrible for some reason?

          They should use this guy’s video to teach logical fallacies in philosophy 101.

          1. Holy shit. ‘We need to go back to when sex crimes were occurring at a rate FOUR TO FIVE TIMES what they are today, ’cause America was a more pure country then.’

            If “prosecuting consensual crimes is what makes America great” is an argument conservatives are actually putting forth, it’s not surprising that Obama has a chance of being re-elected, despite fucking up everything he’s touched.

            1. I will admit though, that when I was younger I would been totally down with doing lines of coke with the rolled up constitution.

            2. I’m HOPING that other conservatives don’t agree with this idiot on this kind of stuff, at least not to his extent.

              1. It’s weird, the conservatives that I meet on here would view that guy as a misrepresentation of conservative beliefs, but the real life righties that I know personally would be cheering that bullshit on.

    2. Further proof that we will never reach Peak Retard.

    3. My only solace in the current attacks from the tweedledees and the tweedledums is their belief that “sex is bad” and “you should be taxed more”, respectively, are some how a good selling points for their philosophies.

      1. What happens to your solace when you realize that those selling points are working JUST FUCKING GREAT for red/blue monster?


          1. You fold up shop and move to North Carolina?

            1. *tears up, agrees*

              1. Man, I wish the Whalers would come back if only because they had awesome jerseys.

                1. Heh. I’d love that. My family used to have season tickets. As for the uniforms, Vancouver has the colors and the talent HTFD never did, save for the 85-86 season.

        2. I would become a prostitute. Not only would I avoid the increase in taxes, but I could exploit the epidemic of sexual frustration.

          1. You can’t be a streetwalker without ROADZ!!!

            HYPOCRITE WHORE!!!!

            /angry big govt moralizer

    4. I agree with upthread. Alonzo is great at spiking liberal stupidity. I just think he doesn’t have a clue what to think about us. Broken records, stopped clocks, and blind squirrels…

    5. I’m convinced that he’s a closet libertarian or liberal trying to make conservatism look bad. No one can be that comically un-self aware… can they?

      *sees Krugman from corner of eye*


  33. Every time Alonzo Rachel criticizes fiscal conservatives, a libertarian is born. I can’t stand his logic and his ADD style hand movements, but I will give him credit for being honest. He really is very open about what a conservative should be, basically a group of social conservatives who attempt to suppress acts they deem offensive using big government.

    I’m shocked he actually admitted to disliking Reagan’s “Government is the problem” line. That really is incredibly honest for him to admit and I suspect many Republicans in government feel that way too. Essentially he’s claiming that all the things libertarians find attractive about conservatives/Republicans actually doesn’t exist (anti-statism) or is inconsequential (capitalism). I look forward to reading Declaration of Independents, but I wonder if Alonzo actually made a better case for a fiscal conservative exodus of the GOP than Nick and Matt.

    1. That’s an interesting take. I’ve always found it interesting that, even though the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative, the Republican party is much smaller than the Democratic party. Perhaps it is the popular conception that Republicans, per Alonzo, exist to screw people over on account of ear piercings (?!?!) or that they don’t really walk the walk. I would wager that there are more moderate libertarians who go by the label “conservative” than conservatives would admit.

    2. Alonzo … yikes! He’s like everything that’s wrong about conservatives.

      He says that sex crimes have gone down because consensual sex has gone up … as if that’s a bad thing? Does Alonzo Rachel prefer rape to consensual sex?

      He completely missed the point of the X-Men analogy.

      On the other hand, he is partially right in his criticism of Hollywood.

      He’s wrong to say that the only link between conservatives and libertarians is fiscal policy: I think there are significant other areas where libertarians tend to agree with conservatives, such as skepticism about environmentalists, “hate crimes”, and speech codes on college campuses.

      And his last comment, that he doesn’t like the way libertarians think, seems quite appropriate. He doesn’t like thinking, period.

  34. The Libeviltarians are trying to mindwash your minds!!!

    Do not listen to the EVILS!!!!!!!!

    If you do you will be a money-slave to the corporate bigmen!!!

    REJECT this so-called philosophy!!!!!

  35. No matter when the declaration of independence can bring us the strength

  36. because maximizing choice and autonomy is not what encourages human flourishing.

    What an asshole. He believes it be so even if it don’t because he want it to be but it dun ain’t.

  37. Zo is the total fuckin’ Wild Style of right-wing politics?

    With respect to him, iirc, the first five minutes of his review were awful and bordered on intellectual cluelessness, but in the last three or so, he made some legitimate points.

  38. .. I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for
    $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by f3dex. I will never again pay expensive r3tailprices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get.Here is the website we using to get all this stuff,…….,..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.