Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Slams "FAMiLY LEADER" Pledge


Last Friday we told you about a pledge authored by Iowa's THE FAMiLY LEADER [weird caps theirs] encouraging presidential candidates to outlaw prostitution, porn, abortion, promiscuity and maybe no-fault divorce. So far, only Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Rick Santorum have signed this pledge. On Saturday, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson came out against it.

"This 'pledge' is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn't fit into a particular definition of 'virtue,'" reads a statement from Johnson's office, which is accompained by a video: 

NEXT: Will ObamaCare's Exchanges Encourage Health Insurers to Prioritize the Healthy and Slight the Sick?

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 got that e-mail. It amazes me that someone like this can’t get any traction from the media.

    1. They know he can’t win.

      1. Why not? They ignore him because he should be ignored?

        1. Because he’s Team Red. Also, they know if he somehow won the primary, he could kick the everloving shit out of Obama.

          1. Oh bullshit. The media are whores and Bachmann and Palin bring the cash in whether they run or not.

            Newsweek is left-leaning and loves to but Sista Sarah on the cover.

            If Gary Johnson would bleed he would lead.

            1. You’re saying the media want to cover candidates who menstruate?

              1. Are we sure that MB and SP still wet their rags?

                USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

              2. mere mention of menstruation whets my whistle

    2. Listening to NPR, I get the impression that they’d rather die than mention his name.

      They won’t even mention his name when they’ve talked about one of Newt or Mitt or whoever and then say “and the other candidates are… [list, with no mention of Gary Johnson]”.

      I mean, really, would it kill them to name all of the candidates who have announced rather than the ones that meet whatever their selection criteria are?

      I mean being a two term governor is qualification enough to be recognized, even ignoring the things that R C Dean brings up.

      1. It’s hard not to think that they really will do just about anything to avoid acknowledging someone who is that much anti-government. Paul was treated the same way until he became impossible to totally ignore with his fundraising last go-around.

        1. PL, I really hate to go a “librul media” on them, but it really does seem like theyre deliberately excluding him.

          Perhaps he desn’t fit their templates for what a candidate can be.

          Or, maybe their phrase book doesn’t have anything in it that covers him.

          1. It may be something other than his libertarianism, though I do believe that’s at least part of it, but what their collective standards for pre-anointing candidates are, I can’t for the life of me determine.

            1. It’s part ideology, part pragmatism. But if you haven’t learned by now that “libertarian” candidates rarely win or even manage to run credible campaigns, then you’re in for a lifetime of political disappointments.

              1. It’s not about winning, it’s about not being excluded before the race has even really begun. The media takes Bachmann seriously but not Johnson? And Romney? He couldn’t stay in the race last time.

                1. The media takes Bachmann seriously but not Johnson?

                  The media took Bachman seriously before she even announced, and this was after Johnson had already done so.

                  You know who they’re scared of by what they omit.

                  1. The media takes Huntsman seriously and he’ll barely outperform Johnson and get his ass kicked by Ron Paul.

            2. Look, his campaigning and orating and moneyraising skills suckle deeply and loudly on testiclez.

              If he wants news coverage, he’s got to start making news BY ATTACKING OTHER CANDIDATES.

              It’s not as if he’s not distinctive enough to, um, draw a distinction between his own self and Mitt Huntsman, Tim Bachman, Rick McCotter, and Newton Gingrich.

              (Okay, he might be mistaken for a Ron Paul clone if you’re not versed in The Tao of Libert?. But still.)

              Honestly, Gary Johnson should start giving speeches with a wheelchair-bound MS patient smoking DOOBIE and DARE–just fucking DARE–the pigs to arrest the crippled lady with the funny cigarette. Seriously, I don’t think GJ can win a war but he can push some buttons, make a little progress.


            3. Fundraising, popularity, viability. Unimportant things.

              1. Out of all the Rs running next year, you should at least have some thimbleful of respect for Johnson, Tony… a smidgen would suffice.

                1. You’re right–he’s definitely my favorite of the bunch. A much better face for you guys than the grumpy old coot Ron Paul.

      2. No shit! Even a gig as the lead guitarist for the New Flying Squirrels won’t get a man coverage. The system totally blows.

        1. I’d bet $10 against $100,000 McCotter gets the nomination. I wouldn’t make that bet on Santorum, T-Paw or Huntsman’s chances.

          1. Or Gary Johnson’s.

            1. At least I got more face time on Faux News than Gary Johnson – so there is that.

    3. I agree. Gary J. is the BOMB! No way this guy should lose.

      USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

      1. Honestly dude, you’re ruining the circle-jerk. Now either grab a cock or STFU.

    4. Never mind the media, apparently he’s also shut out of his own campaign videos!

      1. It’s the Casey Anthony strategy. Never testify on your own behalf.

  2. Why isn’t he in the top tier of candidates?

    His resume is platinum-plated. Climbed Mt. Everest. Runs triathlons (or whatever). Former Governor. Vetoed shitloads of bills. Balanced the budget. Stayed clean in a famously dirty state (well, NM may not be famous for it, but its a cliquey little thing with lots of corruption).

    1. Why isn’t he in the top tier of candidates?

      Because he doesn’t view government as the arbiter of every conceivable issue and solution to every conceivable problem?

      That, and his stage presence could use some work, based on the little that I’ve seen so far.

      1. You know, this idea that the president needs to be a good entertainer really needs to get flushed. While it’s nice if the president can do some public speaking and TV appearances, the reality is that the president most of all needs to be a good administrator, decision-maker, and someone with a good understanding of the limits of the office and have some friggin’ ethics.

        1. Exactly right. Some of the best business people I’ve worked with are not glib salesmen. Sure they generally know how to speak to a group of people with some ability to get their ideas across. But bullshitters get winnowed out. Why do people want the best bullshitter for President ?

          1. “”Why do people want the best bullshitter for President ?””

            Becuase that’s the person you makes you believe it’s all about you and people are more about getting what they want than getting responsible government. Look how many people support various bans, be it smoking or owning a gun.

          2. The public sector isn’t as fab at winnowing the BSers out, whodathunk.

            But really, I think people want the best BSer because a lot of people already assume the President is like a real life sandy claws, and so want a movie with that free dinner.

          3. Why do people want the best bullshitter for President?

            The people don’t, the media does.

            But you won’t find John Stewart complaining about that, or even giving Gary Johnson an interview. (Unlike Stephen Colbert)

        2. ..someone with a good understanding of the limits of the office and have some friggin’ ethics.

          I believe that the MSM definition of “serious candidate” excludes anyone with those attributes.

          And the powers that be regard anyone like that the same way as Mephistopheles regards someone holding a fragment of the True Cross.

        3. In order to be a President the office seeker must be a good campaigner and work hard to win. Johnson doesn’t have the skills or desire to win the nimination.

          1. Let’s not write off his campaigning skills so quickly–he won the New Mexican gubernatorial race twice.

            What’s the difference? The state race is less TV, more in-person campaigning. The national race is more TV, less in-person campaigning.

            1. If Johnson was thoroughly in-person campaigning in NH he wouldn’t have been excluded from the CNN debate. Has he climbed any NH mountains lately?

              1. Maybe he should.

              2. thoroughly in-person campaigning in NH he wouldn’t have been excluded from the CNN debate.

                I think there’s other factors at play than your simple causal assertion.

                1. No. There are 1.5 million New Hampshireites. Many, many fewer registered Republicans. If he just camped out in NH, ignored Iowa, and spent time visiting diners, kissing babies, shaking hands, knocking on doors, giving policy speeches (but PLEASE remember to invite the media with a daily schedule released to the press)… he would have beaten that 2% threshold, no problem.

                  1. That’s all it takes. Gary Johnson is a “New Hampshire-friendly” GOP candidate.He could connect with a lot of people by mounting a “no-frills” tour around the state.If he is serious he should practically live there.

        4. You know, this idea that the president needs to be a good entertainer really needs to get flushed.

          I am absolutely with you in spirit. And yet, you do have to be able to hold people’s attention long enough to get them to listen to the message. And the reality of public speaking is that they’ve already started forming their impressions of you before you get to the end of your opening paragraph.

          1. President by sound bite is insane. If nothing else, one of these empty suits–and they seem to be getting emptier by each election cycle now–is going to be batshit insane. When he blows up a country or something with the nukes he has the power to launch, we’ll start thinking maybe some substance is a requirement for the office.

            1. No need to bring Bachmann into this.

            2. Why would we care if POTUS blew up ANOTHER country?

        5. Pro Libertate, your heart(brain?) is in the right place but what you’re talking about is a pipe-dream.

          We live in a visual era, a time of 7-second soundbites and overall image management.

          When we “hire” our President, we’re choosing America’s chief rock star, not our family accountant.

          Honestly, Presidential elections are more-or-less just American Idol.

          There’s no reason to pretend the American electorate is anything except retarded.

          1. Maybe so, but the media doesn’t help by behaving the same way. And, to be fair, I don’t think we’re necessarily that dumb. I think we’re a little jaded and a lot frustrated–what difference does it really make who we vote for?

            1. Most Americans think Foreign Aid is like 15% or 25% of the budget.

              With regard to every other program, a plurality thinks it should be cut.

              And they don’t want tax increases.

              And they want a balanced budget.

              The evidence for collective retardation and moronitude is strong in this electorate.

            2. Most Americans think Foreign Aid is like 15% or 25% of the budget.

              With regard to every other program, a plurality thinks it should be cut.

              And they don’t want tax increases.

              And they want a balanced budget.

              The evidence for collective retardation and moronitude is strong in this electorate.

              1. The evidence for collective retardation and moronitude is strong in this electorate.

                But the electorate only posts their comments once.

              2. Count the non-defensive use of the military and foreign aid is a substantial portion of the budget.

        6. True but how do you pull the handle on the toilet?

      2. And because his name sounds like that guy you went to high school with, but whose face you can’t remember.

    2. “”Why isn’t he in the top tier of candidates?””

      Need you really ask?

      The more the candidate is about responsible limited government, and actually honoring the Constitution, the less the R establishment is interested. Ron Paul’s poll numbers for example.

    3. Why isn’t he in the top tier of [Republican]candidates?

      He doesn’t stir up the Republican base. Go over to Free Republic and see what people think about GJ. They can’t stand him because he is agrees with legalizing marijuana, is not hawkish on foreign policy, and is fairly neutral-to-pro-choice on abortion.

      I fully support Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, but if you think they are the likeliest to win the GOP nod, you are sadly mistaken.

    4. His resume is platinum-plated.

      1. Fucking tags…how do they work. Let me try that again.

        R C Dean|7.11.11 @ 5:14PM|#

        Why isn’t he in the top tier of candidates?

        He’s from New Mexico.

        His resume is platinum-plated.

        Turquoise at best.

        Climbed Mt. Everest. Runs triathlons (or whatever).

        Doesn’t hurt, but meh. He ain’t a vet.

        Former Governor. Vetoed shitloads of bills. Balanced the budget.

        The NM budget is about 1/3 smaller than the NYC public schools. Hardly prepares him for the Federal Budget. There are plenty of Mayors who have dealt with larger, more complex budgets.

        Stayed clean in a famously dirty state (well, NM may not be famous for it, but its a cliquey little thing with lots of corruption).

        Don’t downplay NM corruption. We’ve been doing it longer than the USA has been a country.

        No one from NM gets noticed. You have to do something outside the state to get noticed. Bill Richardson was noticed for being a former Clinton guy…not for being NM governor. Johnson needs to talk Qaddafi into stepping down or something if he wants similar levels of attention.

        1. Oh, and HE didn’t balance the budget. The NM constitution did. But, yeah, the NM legislature balanced the budget every year while he was governor.

  3. I just saw a story on yahoo news about it. It has language saying a black child born during slavery was better off than one born today because they were raised in a household with a mom and a dad. I missed the article last week and didnt watch the video. If this was covered I apologise.

    1. How ignorant these people must be to actually believe that about slavery. Signing this pledge should result in automatic disqualification from any elected office.

      1. How ignorant you must be to believe the media.

        USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

    2. But has anyone actually seen the pledge itself. I cannot find a link to it. I want to read for myself whether they actually say that a black child born in slavery is better off, or this is the “spin” our friends in the liberal media are putting on it.

      If anyone has a link, please let me know.

      1. Try here.

        1. Many thanks, Isaac

      2. The exact quote:

        Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.

        1. There you have it, Number 2. All you have to do is make a small mental correction, like so

          Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a A child born into slavery in 1860 was better off than one born today. more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president

          See how easy that is? All it takes is a winning attitude! It’s so obvious that those socons are horrible racists who want to slap chains onto black people.

          USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

          1. I’m too much of a pussy to post the above under my own name.

            1. Whoever is spoofing SIV doesn’t know him well. Whatever I’d say about him, (and we’ve had our disagreements) hiding his views ain’t one of them.

              1. Using the uppercase “L” referring to anyone other than the actual LP should be a dead giveaway it isn’t me (or any other libertarian H&R regular).

                  1. ^Mongo^
                    based on the email addy

                    There are 4 SIVs on this thread and I’m only two of them!

                    1. There are 4 SIVs on this thread and I’m only two of them!

                      You’re not working hard enough! Get crackin’, cracka!

                      USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

    3. Have you read the language? It’s more nuanced than that. It takes a slanted reading to really interpret it as saying black kids were better off as slaves. That being said, it was stupid to put it in there, as it was ripe for misinterpretation.

      1. I think what they’re saying is “Sure, they were in chains, but they were chained together, as a family.”

        1. Nah. It’s a dumb thing to have done, but I’m sure they’re saying that the family could survive slavery better than it can survive the welfare state and the ever-meddling government. I have some sympathy for that view, though I’d never make the slavery analogy, which isn’t particularly useful, anyway.

          1. PL is right.

            The argument is that, in the course of trying to help the Black Family, the Welfare State has inadvertently destroyed it.

            1. Inadvertently?

              1. What? You think LBJ was trying to fire the Black Man from his role as Father/Provider?

                1. Not sure about the 1960s, but it seems like perpetuating dependence is a Democratic strategy for getting votes.

                  1. Well, I think that’s a lack of historical memory. They can’t imagine a situation where Black illegitimacy is under 60%. So if you think about how hard single motherhood would be without the Welfare cheque….

                2. Why do you need a flesh and blood daddy when Big Government can be your daddy?

          2. The kids had two parents right up until one of them was sold. Or died young from overwork and poor nutrition, which happened quite a lot as well.

            I’m not buying it. Anyone who is going to make a factual claim that children raised in slavery were more likely to have both parents around needs to cite some data.

            1. Hence cherry-picking slaves born in 1860. Slavery only lasted 5 years after that and the market was probably a lot less liquid during those five years for some odd reason.

              1. Fine. They cherry-picked 1860. The point is that it is grossly unfair to say that the authors of the document are calling for a return to slavery or suggesting that slavery is better than freedom. They are pointing out one way in which the welfare state has failed its alleged beneficiaries.

                The irony is that there are plenty of grounds for attacking the “pledge” for what it does indisputably say, starting with the curious notion that the classical philosophers and Founding Fathers allegedly saw monogamy and marital fidelity as the “foundation of republican government.” That would have been news to a number of them.

                1. The point is that it is grossly unfair to say that the authors of the document are calling for a return to slavery or suggesting that slavery is better than freedom.

                  Well they clearly are not big fans of freedom, and they don’t seem to see slavery as all that bad.

                  Look, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just looking at this with rose colored glasses, hoping to find allies.

                  If these are your allies, you’re no friend of liberty. These people are the enemy. They should not be looked at as anything but evil. The fact that they want to cut welfare payments is inconsequential compared to the rest of their document. I’d sooner vote for Obama than anyone who took this pledge – and I think he should be tried for treason.

              2. I’m still not going to believe it without a reference to some actual data. I have a hard time believing they have any solid numbers one way or the other.

      2. Yeah, I sort of expected that the quote was being twisted just a tad.

      3. Except for the fact that over 30% of families were split up because the husband and wife were split up. I also wonder if they’re counting families where the dad is the slave master and the mom was the slave he raped.

        The cherry picked year of 1860 is a nice touch though. I wonder what happened shortly after 1860 that made it hard for kids born that year to be separated from their families…

        1. 1860 – the last census year before abolition. Maybe the 1860 records were most widely distributed as people tried to track down family members after the war.

        2. All the partisany bickering is so annoying. A Republican would, of course, note that they pushed abolition, won the Civil War, and pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

          And they’d be as full of crap as people trying to make hay out of some silly reference to slavery. I think everyone knows that social conservatives–even the racist ones–don’t think slavery was a good thing.

  4. So the pledge actually called for outlawing those activities, and not just pressing GOP candidates to use their platforms to encourage people to voluntarily give up those activities?

    1. So much for limited government, eh?

      That’s why Republicans are often even worse than Democrats. Because they’re hypocrites.

      1. 12 seconds into video:

        It’s not American to stir up irrational fears about other American’s religious beliefs.

        It’s a good thing that no libertarian ever does anything like that.

        No American Taliban! Stop Michelle Bachmann!

        USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

        1. Mom? Please STFU, you’re embarrassing me in front of the other guys.

      2. Nope, Democrats are never hypocrites. Just ask Al Gore as he’s jumping into his private jet to go give a fund raising speech for AGW or Obama when he talks about gay marriage.

        USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

        1. Usually we get people complaining we use too many GOP talking points. Now this.

      3. Red placebo vs. blue placebo.

        Do you want a statist who lies to you about be being a statist (red placebo) or a statist who admits that he’s going to lord over you for what he thinks is your own good (blue placebo)?

    2. The only overt exercising of Presidential power called for that I can find is to legally defend DOMA.
      (Please cite any others I might have missed.)

  5. He’s right, but it’s not gonna help him. You need these nutjobs to win the Republican nomination.

    God help us all if Bachmann or Santorum reach the White House.

    1. Electing Bachmann or Santorum as President would be like dividing by zero!

      USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

  6. You could actually at least partially get rid of no fault divorce. Libertarians always say “get the government out of marriage”. That is actually a misnomer. The government will always be involved in marriage because the government via the courts will always enforce contracts. The better term, is get rid of family law and make marriage and family matters governed by contracts. If conservatives had any brains, they would embrace this. Family law has been written over the last fifty years by radical feminists for the sole purpose of screwing men and destroying the family. If you abolished it, you could reverse that.

    Here is why. It would allow people and civic institutions to make their own family law. Churches could get rid of divorce or get rid of no fault divorce. You want to get married in the Catholic Church, fine but you have to sign the Catholic Church marriage contract that says the contract cannot be voided by either party without the permission of the church. And lots of conservative Catholics would do it. And there is no reason for the courts not to enforce it. Men could negotiate their own child support and custody rules in their marriage contracts and get out of the automatic fuck job they go through now. Conservative churches could demand their parishioners use contracts that do not allow for no fault divorce. Basically, the civic institutions would step in for the government. And everyone would be better off for it.

    1. I agree with most of that.

      “”Men could negotiate their own child support and custody rules in their marriage contracts and get out of the automatic fuck job they go through now.””

      I think this would need to be a section in the marriage contract, otherwise, who mediates when negotiations are deadlocked?

      1. It would be a section of the marriage contract. If you don’t put it in the contract, you agree to the family laws. And if you can’t come up with an agreement, you don’t have a marriage no need for a mediator. People would work out all sorts of creative agreements. And they would be happier with those agreements because they would feel like they had a say in them rather than having their lives mandated by a judge.

        Sure some people would sign bad contracts and screw themselves. But that number would be a lot fewer than the number of people screwed under the current system. And you could still ban polygamy and incest by saying courts wouldn’t enforce those contracts because they are against public policy. Let people make their own family law rather than mandating it from the top. Freedom, what a concept.

        1. “”If you don’t put it in the contract, you agree to the family laws””

          I thought we were taking government out of it, so what family laws?

          Perhaps if it’s not in the contract, no one pays child support.

          1. If government gets in it for family laws or allowed to make laws for public policy, it changes little. Once the government gets a toe in the door, it has a natural tendency to stick in the whole foot.

            I like the contract idea personally and hey, if you entered a bad contract, it’s on you, just like any other contract.

        2. “And you could still ban polygamy”

          “Let people make their own family law rather than mandating it from the top. Freedom, what a concept.”

        3. It would be a section of the marriage contract. If you don’t put it in the contract, you agree to the family laws.

          So I take it you’ve never heard of a pre-nup?

    2. I absolutely agree with this, yet every time I mention it people get this confused look on their face as though it’s not really a marriage unless it’s sanctioned by the state. It’s infuriating.

  7. Here is my attempt to Cathy Youngify this issue:

    “prostitution, porn, abortion, promiscuity and maybe no-fault divorce” should not be federal issues – the feds have intervened in some of these cases to *encourage* the enumerated evils, but states should be free to fight the evils themselves.

    Instead of saying this, though, Gov. Johnson uses distancing scare quotes (“a particular definition of ‘virtue'”) to question whether any of these evils are actually evils at all. To hear him talk, you’d think that a bunch of fanatics have arbitrarily decided that they don’t like fornication and no-fault divorce, even though these things have worked out fine.

    1. I’d personally rather hear him come right out and say that porn shouldn’t be illegal, not that “the states should be free to make porn illegal but I don’t see it as a federal issue”. A belief in protecting personal freedoms means more to me than a belief in federalism.

      1. He can defend freedom without putting “virtue” in scare-quotes – which implies not so much that he cares deeply about freedom in “hard cases” as that he simply doesn’t care about the particular cause on whose behalf he is asked to restrict freedom. It’s the difference between “I hate porn but I won’t censor it because I believe in free expression” and “ah, porn is fine – what kind of uptight Puritan could possibly think it’s bad?”

        1. That last question is one I often ask myself.

          1. Honestly, your handle is disgusting and I will quit having unprotected anal sex with you until you change it.

        2. Good question, what kind of upright Puritan could possibly think it’s bad?

        3. I see your point, I think I can agree that the message would have been better without the scare quotes. I personally interpreted them not as a slam on the particular virtues being discussed but as disrepect for the notion that government should be in the business of enforcing virtue, but I can see your interpretation of them as well.

          1. He probably doesn’t like fornication, easy divorce, and, yes, porn, but maybe he bent over backwards so far to get out an anti-arbitrary-government message that he sounded personally neutral on those issues – as if (to quote the joke) he wouldn’t even impose his morality on *himself.*

            That way, he doesn’t sound like a courageous freedom-lover putting up with certain behaviors as part of the price of freedom, but like someone who can’t be bothered to regulate certain abuses because he doesn’t care about them. Perhaps a matter of perception more than reality, of course. I mean, running for President isn’t a popularity contest, is it? Wait . . .

            1. Well, he is divorced so there’s that…. But having had him as my governor and having met him a couple of times I think he truly believes people should be free to do whatever they like (porn, etc) but knows better than to come out and say so…

              1. Just because he had a divorce doesn’t mean he *liked* it . . .

              2. He’s not divorced. His wife died.

        4. The reason for putting “virtue” in quotes is that Johnson does not concede that it is virtuous to be against those things.

          Nor do I. A person who is in favor of expanding vice laws is less virtuous than I, as I am respecting the rights of others and he or she is not.

        5. I like the “i hate porn but…” part of that last sentence much more.

          If a politician defends something because he agrees with it, i will have to continue to wonder what his stance and behavior would be if he didn’t like it.
          Anybody can defend something they like. Whether a man is principled is decided in how eager he is to defend the freedom to do something that he personally does NOT like.

          I trust a politician a lot more when he hates porn but defends my right to watch it, than a politician who defends my right to watch porn simply because he himself also likes it.
          I shouldn’t have to give a shit about his personal views, and he shouldn’t care about mine.

        6. Porn is fine – what kind of uptight Puritan could possibly think it’s bad?


  8. “I think Gary Johnson is a pretty cool guy. Eh stands up to socons and doesn’t afraid of anything.”

    1. Stands up to SoCons…like Ron Paul!

      1. Ron Paul: The Federal Government needs to get out of the way of states banning prostitution, pornography and no-fault divorce! Liberty is about local governments fucking over the individual instead of the feds!

        1. Or local governments not fucking over the individual. At least with him that option remains open.

          But I’d still take Johnson over Paul. Matter of fact, I just sent Johnson $25. If there are more than 3 more “team libertarian” posts on this fucking thread, I’m gonna send him another $25, and patronize an escort tonight.

        2. Ron Paul knows damn well that states are much more liable to stop interfering with people’s lives than the federal government. Just look at medical marijuana and California, or prostitution and Nevada.
          Also, it is pretty easy to just move to another state.

          Of course giving decision power to the states instead of the federal government is far from perfect. It is a more practical solution, and Ron Paul is trying to be both principled while still being somewhat pragmatic.

          If he is supposed to be merely principled and idealistic, he would be an anarcho-capitalist, and his chances of winning would be even smaller. You know, because as an anarcho-capitalist, he wouldn’t even participate in politics.

          Either way, since Gary Johnson believes in a large military as a “force for good in the world” and likes Guantanamo Bay and military trials, i would hardly call him an improvement over Ron Paul.

          1. P.S.
            Other examples: without threats made by the federal government, Texas would have prosecuted TSA-employees for sexual harassment, and several states would have put a stop to this ObamaCare nonsense.

    2. Gary Johnson isn’t afraid of anything, not even dyslexia!

      USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

      1. making fun of the original post, that particular garbled english is an internet meme, not dyslexia on the part of the OP.

        1. I withdraw my abuse. It was in poor taste anyway. Never say that libertarians don’t admit their mistakes!

          USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

        1. How about two t.l.s and a herc?

          1. I got there in any event…

  9. THE LAW OF INEVITABILITY ? This Too Shall End!

    [The Law of Inevitability]

    So, what is the Law Of Inevitability and what has it too do with the fall of Capitalism? The Persians were an Empire at one time much as any Empire, and each is different and alike all at the same time, but all Empires share the one constant they all fall, and like Humpty Dumpty all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men’s will never but that particular Empire in its exact form together ever again, and the beginning of the American ? Israeli Military Industrial Complex – the [EMPIRE], is well in progress. This is just the Law of Inevitability ? This Too Shall End, the only thing constant in the universe is change, if you play with fire sooner or later your going to get burned, and sooner or later your luck has got to change from bad to good or from good to bad, it is much like the changing of the seasons, sooner or later winter will end, the plants will grow, the harvest will begin the cycle of life, your born, life is less than prefect for the many, than you die.

    [The Ceiling Effect]

    Everyone has had the ceiling effect, the feeling that nothing is going right and the whole ceiling is falling down around their ears, chicken little has an entire story written about the Sky Is Falling, an no one believed the little guy until the ceiling fell in, the golfer who got struck by lighting, the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs. So, what has this got to do with the fall of the [EMPIRE]? Yet, another of those Laws of Inevitability, there is always that [1%] that group of individuals who had, have and will always have an itch for power, and why is it that only [1%] power carries that burden, well it’s a lot of work but somebody has got to do it, headaches, responsibility, time, and effort, and as the old saying goes one day of fishing, or coping a squat, is worth a lot more than long hours at work, slaving away for the man, taking the better half and kids down to the old fishing hole, or a family outing, has its own value. But, be that as it may those that suffer the affection of a type [A] personality and the lust for power get given what they want by default, as much as anything else, life is short let them work it away while the rest of us enjoy it. But, with power comes the responsibility, not to mismanage things, sort of keep things on an even keel as it were, don’t sink the boat, or bring down the house around everyone’s ears. But, as the Law of Inevitability works and the sun will rise and set, the [1%] Wall St., Elite of the Plutocracy of Hypocrisy, tried to change the rules concerning one of the Seven Deadly Sins, from Greed is a Sin, to Greed is a virtue and is good! Now, it’s not a question as to if they got stupid, they got greedy and that is stupid, and have brought the ceiling down around all our ears.

    [Super Greed Effect]

    The Super Greed Effect is seen every year at Christmas Time or the Winter Solstice, when Charles Dickens Scrooge is shown, and all Empires suffer the Super Greed Effect and is what brings them down, the American ? Israeli Military Industrial Complex, up to the [21st] Century the most advance Empire of the World for most of the [20th] Century, started upon the process of taking from the less advantaged Global Citizens of the World thru the [IMF] International Monetary Fund, loans sharks to the World, the World Bank, and of course Wall St., and telling its own citizens that they would get a cut of them thru a trickle down theory, and it turned into a drop here and a drop there, mostly a down in wages, with more work for the same wage, and thru wage stagnation, and inflation and a decline in the value of their currency, shipping jobs out of country to those who work for less, increasing the unemployment but increasing profits, sending the pipe dreams of a better future, popping, along with all the bubbles in the economic system that were and are bursting, as money and wealth continue to move to the top as cream in a milk churn. But once again the Law of Inevitability catches up to you, you can fool most of the people most of the time but not all the time, telling them you feel their pain is not exactly the same as sharing the pain, the majority will put up with some discomfort but inevitability they start to say enough is enough, and that is when the Law of Inevitability kicks in, and those in power are kicked out, this too not only shall end it must end, and that’s how Empires are brought to their end, thru THE LAW OF INEVITABILITY ? This Too Shall End!


    1. Herc – 2012!

      1. [HTS REPLYS]

        While we appreciate your Well-Intentioned Statement [ENDORSEMENT] We are not only Subjects of the Canadian Confederation, but We were also born in Brampton [ONTARIO] Canadian Confederation, and therefore, are ineligable as per the terms of the [1789] Seventeen Eighty-Nine Imperial Constitution for the office of President-Emperor of the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex [EMPIRE].


        1. Hercoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

        2. A royal “we”? Hell, sign me up!

    2. Do you like Gary Johnson, HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN? If not, who do you plan to vote for in 2012?

      1. [HTS REPLYS]

        Again, for the Office of President-Emperor we endorse [DR. RON PAUL], for Vice President-Emperor [GOV. JERRY BROWN].


        1. Is that the real HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN? Because I want an answer from him, not from his parodist.

          1. I’ve seen him say that before. I remember because the Jerry Brown part confused me.

            1. Oh, okay. Though I’m dubious that Paul would select Brown under any set of foreseeable circumstances.

            2. Vice Emperor Jerry Brown? Is Herc Jello Biafra?

    3. SODOMY.












      NOW END.




      1. You’re related to Jared Loughner, right?

        1. I totally agree with “FUCK MERYL STREEP” if the troll is speaking figuratively and not literally.


        Are you shilling for Obama’s weatherizing initiative?

  10. OT – Wall St Journal – Batshit insane Michele Bachmann was actually a tax collector at the IRS and not an attorney as her resume (and Gawd) proclaimed.…..s=comments

    1. Re: shrike,
      She was a tax enforcer and tax terrorist that sued so-called ‘tax evaders’ – the kind of person you should love, if you profess to love the Coercive State.

      1. Yes, I believe I mentioned here a little while ago that she was with the IRS. I believe she was also in private practice as a tax lawyer at one point. She has an LLM in Tax.

      2. Oh cut the fucking hyperbole. You’re worried that it will be Romney and Bachmann coming down the stretch.

        I would be too if I were a conservative.

        1. Old Mex is not a conservative.

          Quit accusing everyone who disagrees with you with being a conservative.

          It is getting very monotonous.

        2. Re: shrike,

          I would be too if I were a conservative.

          I do not understand your logic. I am pretty much not happy with Bachman or Romney or the rest of the hawkish lot, but that does not make me a “conservative.”

          By the way, it would seem to me that cheering for team Federal Reserve is pretty conservative, considering the Fed has been around for almost 100 years, keeping on destroying… don’t you think, shriek?

    2. That’s not what TFA says, shriek.

      Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann touts one job as her primary professional experience before entering politics. On the campaign trail, she describes it as being a “federal tax litigation attorney.” Others might call it tax collector.

      The writer is saying she wasn’t an attorney, he’s saying that an attorney for the IRS is nothing but a tax collector.

      You don’t have to make up bad shit about MB here, shriek. Most of us don’t think much of her already.

      1. I am not making anything up since I just read the article today and it portrayed Ms. Bachmann as a tax colletor with only one case brought to trial in four years.

        The GOP field is laughable and I hate to say it but I agree with Ann Coulter for once. Chris Christie is the only capable one of this bunch of misfits (Gary Johnson has no chance).

        1. Re: shrike,

          I am not making anything up since I just read the article today and it portrayed Ms. Bachmann as a tax colletor with only one case brought to trial in four years.

          Don’t be in such a hurry to showcase your stupidity, shriek. The fact that the article portrays Mrs. Bachman as a “tax collector” does not mean she’s not an attorney, which is what you allege above.

          The GOP field is laughable and I hate to say it but I agree with Ann Coulter for once.

          I do not wonder why, shriek. I do not, indeed.

          1. Attorney or not, the procession of federal tax collector -> U.S. Congresswoman -> President does not sound like promising career preparation for helping to reign in spending. Signing this pledge does not look promising in preparation for “saying no to special interests.”

            1. Re: hazeeran,
              Totally agree! But please, don’t spoil the fun we’re having with shriek here – you know, the financial “genius”?

            2. Let’s make sure that only libertarian special interests are represented. All others are controlling fascists!

              USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

              1. Those special interests being self-ownership and freedom from coercion, which are special to no group of people! woohoo!

                1. Those special interests being self-ownership and freedom from coercion

                  And the Koch.

                  USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

  11. Last Friday we told you about a pledge authored by Iowa’s THE FAMiLY LEADER [weird caps theirs] encouraging presidential candidates to outlaw prostitution, porn, abortion, promiscuity and maybe no-fault divorce.

    “Promiscuity”? Shit – the attack of the Theo-cons!

    Shutting down the entire adult service industry and denying women access to no-fault divorces and abortions, in addition to being inherently antithetical to the idea of personal liberty, could also only happen with a much, much bigger government.

    I understand the problem with outlawing no-fault divorce, which is pretty silly, but how is outlawing abortions “inherently antithetical to the idea of personal liberty”? Whose liberty, the woman’s or the abortionist’s?

    We know, for instance, that the government cannot stop prostitution or abortion, only push those activities onto the black market where they are more dangerous and dehumanizing.

    Mike, don’t lump prostitution with abortion together. One is a victimless, non-aggressive activity between two consenting adults. The other is a brutal aggression against a person that happens not to have passed through the birth canal yet. You’re committing a fallacy of composition by insinuating both are the same in essence.

    Whereas your point about black markets is pertinent when talking about prostitution (for the reason I posit above,) it is not pertinent for abortion. I am pretty sure that the assassin-for-hire business is also avaialble only through a black market; the fact that it is does not make assassination-for-hire any less unethical and immoral; the same goes for abortion.

    1. Old Mexican, c’mon, you know the game.

      KULTURE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. there is still huge disagreement on this even in hard-core libertarian circles, as we all know. Mike just falls on one side of that line. Both sides assume their position is the only correct one, and will rarely back down, which is why abortion threads usually draw 200+ comments.

      1. Re: And yet…

        Mike just falls on one side of that line.

        That much is clear, and yet… The point I make is that you can’t simply lump together “abortion” with other activities whose proscription do have clear implications when it comes to personal liberty. Whereas prostitution, pornography, promiscuity and no-fault divorce are all manifestations of non-violent, voluntary exchanges and transactions, abortion is NOT. It implies taking a life, which by definition is not anyone else’s to take. If it were, then my life or yours is forfeit: anyone can take it.

        You may think that this stance is absolutist. I can say that it is logically consistent: I cannot simply say that my life is mine, but for others is not in the case of Y or Z, for my argument then becomes a form of Special Pleading – a logical fallacy, something pro-abortionists incur every time they argue for abortion.

        1. I understand, and sympathize with the particular argument. But is it not begging the question to assume the correctness of one particular point of view in a highly debatable topic, then castigate someone (in this case the author of the article) for not arguing from that perspective when he clearly doesn’t share it?

          In other words, the lumping together is only inaccurate if one starts off with your beliefs on abortion, which are widely shared, but by no means universal, even in the anarchist/capitalist community (I believe Walter Block has done quite a bit of work in this regard on

        2. “Whereas prostitution, pornography, promiscuity and no-fault divorce are all manifestations of non-violent, voluntary exchanges and transactions”

          Andrea Dworkin and other fuckwits would disagree. Then again, fuckwits are fuckwits. Then again, so are pro-lifers.

        3. You are also making a logical fallacy, by seemingly comparing taking an “ordinary” life (such as your life being forfeit as well if abortion is deemed moral), to an unborn life.

          The difference is that in one case, someone’s life and body is not irrevocably linked to that of another’s life or survival, whereas in the case of a pregnancy, a woman’s life and body ARE linked to it. They must basically make their lives, bodies and behaviors subservient (like a slave) to the ‘best interest’ of a foetus for a period of 9 months.

          If in reality someone were to be made subservient in such a way to another man, it would justifiably be called slavery and the subservient person in question would be justified in any act of self-defense that would liberate them.

          I realize that actual slavery and pregnancy are not exactly the same either, but neither are abortion and killing a born person, for the reasons mentioned.

          Both sides are being too simplistic and illogical, and that is precisely why this debate has still not been settled even among libertarians.

    3. Could someone explain to me why there is such a great tendency among American libertarians to also be superstitious moralists?

      1. The American extreme right is largely a libertarian-leaning space. Many fundamentalist evangelical Christians do not recognize any state authority other than the barest minimum of a government. They tend to take both the Bible and the Constitution literally.

        1. “They tend to take both the Bible and the Constitution literally.”

          That has got to take some pretty heavy compartmentalizing.

          1. They don’t think so.

            1. “They” are clearly not equipped to helpfully influence national policy, so why don’t they stop trying to make my government an oppressive theocratic force and just tune out like a good cult?

              1. So, we should just shut the fuck up and accept an oppressive statist force?

                Doesn’t sound like much of a trade-off.

              2. Because that’s the only way they feel they can oppose the oppressive left-liberal collectivist force that is running things now.

                I prefer it if both sides would just disappear and leave everyone the hell alone.

      2. How does OM’s rant = great tendency?

        How does respect for human life (yea though I believe it misguided) = superstitious?

        How does advocating against murder (as he believes it to be) = moralizing?

      3. I think you’re selectively reading American libertarians, here. There are plenty of us who don’t fit that bill.

  12. Hang th’ sumbich!!!

  13. really needs to get flushed

    Thanks for reminding me, ProL – I took a shit in Iowa once.

    Just helpin’ out Sandi. As you were.

  14. So is the Tea Party going to push back on Bachmann over this?

    1. I’ll repeat:

      The only overt exercising of Presidential power called for that I can find is to legally defend DOMA.
      (Please cite any others I might have missed.)

      1. I didn’t notice calling for any “Presidental power” per se. It wants all canidates to abide by the pledge, no?…..riage.html

        1. The pledge doesn’t contain any political issues (other than DOMA) that are within the purview of presidential power. Bachmann has to appeal to multiple and overlapping constituencies within the GOP.SoCons care more what a candidate believes than what she intends to do. Bush was a moderate centrist squish that gave the SoCons nothing. They were happy he was pro-life, overcame some sin and trouble through Christ, and read the Bible regularly.

    2. nope.

      Tea Party is about killing Obamacare, ending TARP, balancing the budget, and slowing if not reversing overspending.

      This does cut both ways….simply because they are silent on social issues does not automatically make that silence an endorsement of conservative social issues any more then it condemns it.

      Silence is silence.

      1. “”Silence is silence.””

        Until they aquire power, then they will be silent no more.

        But I get your point.

        1. Check under your beds, fellow libertarians. Infiltrators could be anywhere, just waiting for an opportunity to steal your happy-making-pictures. Vigilance!

          USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

          1. THREE! Woo Hoo! $25 more for GJ, and I’m off to!

            1. My momsill give you a better deal!

              USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

            2. Ha-ha, Otto — that was some funny comments!

              Give that ho a slap for me 😉

              1. As good as “team libertarian”s bullshit, Mongo! ‘least as good! And you’ll be happy to know I spanked her ass right proper.

      2. However, if they back a candidate that takes a pledge to end pornography, it’s easy to assume they are for ending pornography or whatever the pledge says.

        1. it’s easy to assume they are for ending pornography or whatever the pledge says.

          No, it’s easy to assume that the officeholder will do whatever they believe will garner the most influence once in office.*

          *See almost every other President in recorded history.

        2. I’m sure most people wouldn’t have a problem with pornography (whatever that is) ending….

          1. Goddammit! It has begun, even before the election.

            1. Not me – someone spoofing.

        3. Likewise, TrickyVic, they back a candidate who voted for extending the Patriot ACT, so it’s easy to assume they are in favor of extending the state’s powers.

  15. When will they want to ban dancing? Sinatra knew it lead to romance, and SOMETIMES outside of holy matrimony.












      JAPAN OPENS OLD WOUNDS- Dynamic defense capability

      [Rent a cop over load]

      Now, Japan, the [ROK] Republic of Korea, and Taipei, are considered by the American-Israeli Military complex as its property in the Far-East its industrial base, which if you look at Japan may or may not be the case, its just who has been getting what from whom, its more of a symbiotic relationship its like the shark and its pilot fish, both gain something from each other. The Empire of Japan has had a free ride not having to support a large Military Machine by renting one from the West, as at the same time it increased its profits by the manufacture and sale of products in the West doing away with transportation cost, and possible damage of goods, increasing its profit margins. Basically the West has been up to this date been a rent a cop, of Japanese Industry, which is willing to pay an extortion fee, or as LT. Gen. Edward Rice, the former commander of the forces of occupation Okinawa, remarked was a modest level of owed payment in support of the occupation of Okinawa, a payment of [?1.75B/?188B] One-Point-Seven-Five Billion Euros/One-Hundred-Eighty-Eight Billion Yen thru [2016] to its rent a cop security force, after all the peoples of Okinawa are not Japanese but a conquered peoples of the Japanese Empire, their burden is for the good of the Mainland Japanese Empire.

      [Japans dynamic defense capability posture]

      The problem is the rent a cop company is going broke, having over extended its international business and is no longer able to provide the increasing security needs of the Japanese Empire. While Japanese industry has been out sourcing its own business operations which are now at risk, the breakaway Chinese Providence of Taipei, Nationalist China with the growth of the [C] of the [BRIC] Brazil, The Russian Federation, India, and The [DPRC] Democratic Peoples Republic of China, will soon be faced with a choice of a Hong Kong peaceful reunification with mainland China, or its forced one by the peoples armies, and the [ROK] versus the [DPRK] The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, which peaceful reunification process has been stopped cold by the [ROK], flexing its military muscle backed by the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex, and then the peoples of Okinawa rising up peacefully at the moment only forming human chains of opposition around its foreign occupation troops fortifications, demanding removal the burden of foreign occupation, placed upon them by their Japanese Imperial Masters, for the support of the Japanese Imperial Industrial and Defense needs. All the while as the Japanese Empire’s Imperial Armies, are busy rebuilding Japanese Militarism, under their new dynamic defense capability posture, with a new budgeted [?0.22T/ ?23.39T] Zero-Point-Twenty-Two Trillion Euros/Twenty-Three-Point-Thirty-Nine Trillion Yen with an additional [?0.93M/100M] Zero-Point-Ninety-Three Million Euros/One-Hundred Million Yen, for unexpected needs, for the next decade in military spending, while its arms industry enters the arms dealer markets of the region within the entire Sphere of Influence of the [BRIC] member [C] China.

      [There will be change]

      The Chinese [C], China [Our Land] and as a member nation of the [BRIC] Sphere of Influence is trying to strengthen and unite those regional states within its own Sphere of Influence under a shared protective umbrella of economic, military, political, stability, based upon fundamentally shared values and interests in an effort to avoid regional destabilizing factors during the process of change currently sweeping the [21st] Century within its own Sphere of Influence, as the forces of the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex and Japanese Empire join together in what appears to be an attempt to thwart the tide of change sweeping the world of the [21st] Century, but as it was once stated by a Native American Nation Chief, “I do not know if it will be for good or bad, but I do know for certain their will be change!” The Era of Pox America-Israeli Military Complex hegemony is coming to its end, the only question is will it be with acceptance or with a Nuclear Winter, either way it will end there will be change.





  17. “Last Friday we told you about a pledge authored by Iowa’s THE FAMiLY LEADER [weird caps theirs]”

    Didn’t there used to be a commenter on here that did the weird caps thingy?

    1. Re: brotherben,

      Oh, please, please don’t invoke him…


    We send greetings from Us, He Who Was, and Is, and Will be Forever, the First-Born Son of the American-Israeli Military-Industrial Complex [EMPIRE], We have been sent to end our nemesis HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN once and for all, and we shall reveal more in due time.

    Beware the [DECATHLON!]









    2. [HTS REPLYS]

      It is You! You have returned! But We know Your days are numbered, DECATHLON. You and the rotten American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex [EMPIRE] are on the verge of collapse, and with it You shall go to yes even You, from the Wars of Economic Stimulus to the Arab Spring in the Islamic Crescent [ATLAS TO HINDU-KUSH] to the [PDRC] People’s Democratic Republic of China and its Rising over Taiwan, from [FOOTHOLD GERMANY] to [FOOTHOLD OKINAWA] the [EMPIRE] is disentigrating, and Your days are numbered!


  19. My instruments estimate the thickness of BachMANn’s makeup at approximately 4 millimetres, concealing a weaterbeaten face with many whiskers, especially in the mustache and neckbeard region.


    You are late for dinner. Do not follow the ways of the SINO-PAKISTANI Military-Industrial Complex [CONSORTIUM]. Let this be a warning [WARNING].

    1. Herc’s mother is bi-sexual?

  21. Okay, everyone, get the spoofing out of your system in this thread. Then we’ll never come back here and pretend this never happened.

    1. It looks like we’ve got a new troll called “team libertarian,” and this guy’s got someone spoofing him.

      They both sound like fucking idiots.

      “Sarcasm is the refuge of losers”

  22. Ah, moon is waxing to full.

  23. Nice sentiments, horrible ad.

    1. Coupling?

  24. If he wants attention maybe Johnson should appear on the cover of Newsweek with his tits sticking out like Palin is this week.

    1. It worked for Jeff Flake!

  25. It’s nice to see a few Republicans like Gary Johnson who actually have a pair of balls between their legs and refuse to pander to these extremist groups.

    1. It would also be nice to see some Democrats with the same attitude as well.

    2. libertarians ARE an “extremist group”

      1. Extremism in the defense of liberty …

        USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

  26. You know something is completely retarded when Rick Santorum supports it.

    Does that guy even have a job? WTF? His signing a pledge is worth what again?… He got booted out of office for this type of dumb-ass posturing. And he thinks his signature is going to make it *more* popular? Did the “not getting re-elected” thing never really sink in as a sign that, ‘maybe people think you’re an idiot?’

  27. When will Reason begin to cover actual Libertarians running for the LP nomination, instead of faux “libertarians” running on the ticket of other parties?

    1. Probably the weekend of the LP convention.

    2. Small ‘l’ “libertarian” =/= large ‘L’ Libertarian.

      GJ is the most libertarian guy there is with an actual resume. Anybody the Libertarians field is simply less qualified than Johnson:

      Created private sector company that grew to over 1000 jerbs (To be fair I don’t know how many were under his tenure – would like to.)

      Job growth % during GJs tenure as governor was higher than any other candidate, announced or likely (including Perry and Texas). And he was governor 8 years, meaning it was a sustained high rate of growth. And yet Gary Johnson admits HE, personally, didn’t create a single job as governor.

      Doesn’t act like a politician when it comes to drug. Freeley admits he likes weed and enjoyed it daily for a time, but also likes athletic shit, and chooses that over getting high.

      Left office with a reported $1 billion surplus, NM is a small state- for perspective, that is the quivalent to if the whole US had a $200 billion surplus. Billion.

      Free Trade.

      Non-militaristic/agency-istic (you know, DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, TSA, DHS)

      The last 2 Johnson’s we’re pretty fail, though.

      And yes I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I already typed it out so stuff it. If somebody learns something, whatever.

      1. Sorry dudes, I think that 3rd line from the bottom just got all of us placed on a watchlizt. My apologies.

      2. But if it makes you feel better theres a 97% chance you were already on it. 🙂

      3. Left office with a reported $1 billion surplus, NM is a small state- for perspective, that is the quivalent to if the whole US had a $200 billion surplus. Billion.

        iirc, it didn’t hurt that he left just as that tobacco settlement check hit…NM always has a surplus (a rainy day fund). It is required by law as part of the balanced budget process.

  28. We need to vote for true liberterians like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum! Forget about Gary Johnson!

    Trust me, team red dick tastes better than any other cock I’ve every sucked. And I’ve had my share! As Gregooo if you don’t believe me!

    USA! USA! USA! Go Libertarians!

            1. You’re a fucking. scabrous. pussy. How’s that?

              1. That’s weak, like you.

                Still not denying you suck cock and you’re IQ is 80?

                You can quit whenever, I don’t need to keep making you look stupid.

                1. We have a winner! GOP! GOP!

                2. Nope. You did it yourself by fucking up a possessive. “Your” and “you’re.”

                  I love you. By the way, if I did ever get my hands on you, I’d fucking. kill. you. This is not internet tuff gai. I would stomp your fucking face in so badly, you have no idea. You would have no teeth.

                  1. Please take us seriously.

  29. This is why people end up leaving the republican party.

    1. This, plus the non-stop fellating of every permutation of the Enforcement Arm of the State.

  30. I hope Gary Johnson becomes radically militant fuck those other candidates’ shit up.

  31. So I am guessing the lowercase “i” is some kind of statement to the regard that the individual is secondary to the family social structure. Theo-cons are really just inbred socialists.

  32. If he wants to draw attention in the race he needs to go on the offensive against the other candidates. He has a built in advantage of being the most consistently pro-freedom of all of them. He’s got a target rich environment: He could go after the social conservatives represented by Santorum and Bachmann and point out how their views are antithetical to the Tea Party if the Tea Party means being pro liberty.

    And/or he could target the establishment compromisers such as Newt, Mitt, Tim, and Jon and point out how his record and rhetoric blow theirs away.

    But in order to do this he does have to grow a pair of balls and be BOLD in the debates to come!

  33. The best thing Gary Johnson could do is to mount a concerted effort at winning the New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada primaries. Yeah, that’s a long way from winning the GOP nomination in 2012, but Johnson was always a long shot. But winning those states could be important in voicing libertarian values in the GOP debate.

    1. If 19,000 free staters would migrate to New Hampshire, maybe you could add a 4th state to that mix.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.