Politics

Gary Johnson Bets Big on New Hampshire

Can a nice guy finish first in the Live Free or Die State?

|

Can a nice guy finish first in the Live Free or Die State? Republican Gary Johnson hopes so. "I'm putting my chips on the table in New Hampshire," the former two-term governor of New Mexico said today at a National Press Club luncheon.

Despite being a no-show in Ames, Iowa, Johnson has rented an office and hired four "young ideologues" as staffers in New Hampshire. If he does well in the New Hampshire primary, "I can last," Johnson said, adding that "you can go from obscurity to prominence with a good showing in Hew Hampshire. It happened to Eugene McCarthy."

More than any other GOP candidate, including media-designated longshots like Herman Cain and Rick Santorum, Johnson is open about his spot at the back of the pack.

"There are 184 [declared] candidates running for president in 2012," Johnson said. "I'm ninth out of 184. You can say, 'What do I need to do to break through?' Or you can say, 'I'm 9th! I'm about to break through!'"

Johnson skipped Ames because he "couldn't afford" the costs of attendance: Buying a booth ($35,000), purchasing tickets to give out to straw poll participants, feeding potential voters, and hiring entertainment. And despite being excluded from debates in New Hampshire and Iowa, Johnson isn't angry.

"I'm not frustrated and I'm not angry," he said. "This is a process and I believe in this process." That process, Johnson says, saw him polling at 2 percent before his first Republican primary in New Mexico, and then winning reelection in a heavily Democratic state.

When pressed by the moderator, Johnson refused to criticize either the GOP, his fellow candidates, or the press. "I have no complaints with the GOP," Johnson said. "It's been great to me. I have no problem with the press either," he added. "It's a process."

Johnson prides himself on having run both his gubernatorial campaigns without once "mentioning my opponent in print, TV, or radio."

The closest Johnson came to taking shots at the rest of the GOP field was when asked about Rick Perry's "Texas miracle" and what makes him different from fellow libertarian-leaning candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

"I love the fact that Texas has such a great economic environment, but it's been that way for a long time," Johnson said about Gov. Perry's economic record.

Of Paul, Johnson would only say that "Dr. [Ron] Paul has had some very principled 'no' votes in Congress." But their "resumes" are significantly different. Johnson repeatedly vetoed legislation passed unanimously by the New Mexico legislature, and says that experience has prepared him to deal with a Congress that will not reduce government spending.

Johnson also ran through his policy positions. "I believe fundamentally in the right for a woman to choose an abortion. I happen to believe in evolution." He said that drug prohibition is the source of "75 percent of the violence" along the U.S.-Mexico border, and that "if we can't connect the dots between prohibition and violence now, I don't know that we ever will." Johnson also dismissed the idea of building a wall (or a fence, or a moat) along the border, and called instead for a simplification of U.S. immigration policy, and for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers currently residing in the United States to receive work visasβ€”"not green cards or citizenship."

"I believe in global warming and that it's man-made," Johnson said. He doesn't however, believe in regulatory schemes to reduce carbon emissions or greenhouse gases, saying that such policies would harm businesses while doing little to help the environment. Besides, he added cheekily, "in the future, the sun will grow to encompass the Earth. Global warming is in our future."

Johnson reiterated that our involvement with Libya was a huge mistake, that the U.S. should leave Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, that the question of who will fill the power vacuums in those two countries will have to be answered sooner or later, and that the U.S. might as well answer it now. He also said that there is no reason the U.S. should have 100,000 troops in Europe, and that he would "have to have the case made to me that we need any troops there at all."

"I would've never established the [Department of Homeland Security] or the [Transportation Security Administration]," Johnson said. "I would've left security to the airlines, and I dare say traveling today would still be as safe."

As for his first act as president, Johnson said that he would not rest until he'd passed a balanced budget. "We went to the moon, we can balance the federal budget."

When he'd finished his speech, Johnson, ever the nice guy, opened the floor "for questions, comments, and any insults you may have."

"Maybe as a result of today," he said at the end of the Q&A, "you'll walk out of here saying, 'He doesn't stand a chance, but I like what he has to say.'"

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

693 responses to “Gary Johnson Bets Big on New Hampshire

  1. Absolutely no one but the staff at Reason cares about Gary Johnson. It’s getting obnoxious.

    1. There is one more of us. Big Johnson is my man, Dude.

      1. Ditto. Just what we need in this day and age. Someone who’ll bring the ICP hatchet to the budget.

        1. LEAVE MY JOHNSON ALONE!

          1. That poster does NOT speak for me!

            1. Not that my Johnson is not viable!

              1. That’s all his continued campaigning at this point will do.

                Good job Reason.

                1. Malcontents Vow to Destroy ReasonTV by Unsubscribing

                  Scores of jilted Ron Paul acolytes continued their virtual protest over ReasonTV’s perceived meanness to the presidential candidate and congressional elf. By midnight Friday, literally tens of anonymous YouTube account-holders with no profile pictures had assured the ReasonTV intern in charge of never reading the channel comments that, if food-reporter Katherine Mangu-Ward were not publicly flogged, forced to walk like a chimp through Reason’s D.C. offices wearing nothing but a grass skirt and fired immediately, there would be hell to pay, or worse.

                  Said protester Voy2378, “In the empire of lies Mangu Ward is a court? jester…Unsubsrcibed ofc, time to create more fake accounts tReason.”

                  blue2495821 chimed in with a heartfelt, “Unsubscribed,” and radhi1203 added, “It is extreamly irresponsible to continue to allow this idiot hack Katherine Mangu- Ward to represent reason .tv I? will boycott reason.tv unless this hack is at least demoted to a reaseacher.”

                  Nothing else happened.

                  http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV

    2. I’m not on the Reason staff, but I care about Gary Johnson. I hope he gets more traction.

    3. Re: zarathustra,

      Absolutely no one but the staff at Reason cares about Gary Johnson. It’s getting obnoxious.

      I can spell out the reason for Reason’s wet dreams over Johnson:

      C-O-N-S-E-Q-U-E-N-T-I-A-L-I-S-M

      1. I get you are an RP guy OM, and me too. But I don’t get the Johnson hate. RP and Johnson have about the same chances for different reasons why would you not want more liberty options?

        1. Re: Cliche Bandit,

          But I don’t get the Johnson hate.

          I don’t hate him, quite the contrary. I think he’s 1000 times better than any of the other candidates besides Paul. I do not subscribe to Johnson’s consequentialist ethics, though.

          What I personally find obnoxious is the way the Reason staff fawn over him and were more than glad to throw Paul under the bus after the non-issue with 15-year old newsletters he didn’t even edit or write for.

          1. and were more than glad to throw Paul under the bus after the non-issue with 15-year old newsletters he didn’t even edit or write for.

            ^ THIS ^

          2. My problem with Paul and the newsletter problem is that he hasn’t taken responsibility for not taking responsibility. It was HIS NAME on a fucking newsletter. Own it.

            1. Re: Joshua,

              My problem with Paul and the newsletter problem is that he hasn’t taken responsibility for not taking responsibility. It was HIS NAME on a fucking newsletter. Own it.

              You MUST be kidding, J. How is it supposed to be LOGICAL to take responsibility for something someone ELSE did, even if it were true the mentioned articles had “racist” content – a dubious assertion in itself?

              Would YOU? “Hey, I know he killed the guy but he did it wearing a T-Shirt with my name on it so I take full responsibility!”

              1. Worst. Analogy. Ever.

                How about “He shot the gun and killed the guy, but I paid him to do so.” That seems a little bit more accurate. Sure I didn’t pull the trigger, but I sure as hell bear some responsibility.

                1. Re: Steve Horwitz,

                  How about “He shot the gun and killed the guy, but I paid him to do so.”

                  “I paid…”???? I was careful with my analogy, for the simple reason that the newsletters were NOT paid by Paul or endorsed by him. You certainly weren’t careful at all, in fact quite calumnious.

                  1. The newsletters were a business, and Ron Paul got paid big bucks for his pandering to bigots. I don’t think Ron Paul is a bigot. I just think he pandered to them for money ( and find it f-ing hilarious when New Jack Paulians claim that he’s some Ivory Snow pure politician who doesn’t play politics or pander) and for whatever reason is easily swayed by Lou Ellen. Do you think he didn’t get anything from the business he owned that had his family members as officers? You think he just said “Well, Lew, you can use my name and mailing list and my wife, daughter, et al, but you take all the revenue and use it to party with Murray and Pat Buchanan”?

                    The newsletters were written in the name of Ron Paul saying personal stuff like ” Carol and I and our kids are waiting with our guns down here in texas waiting for all the savage blacks to come kill us and the fairies to float down and try to infect us with AIDS.” Whether he wrote that stuff or not, he paid someone ( or was paid by someone) to portray him that way.

                    1. Re: Ron Paul got PAID,

                      The newsletters were a business, and Ron Paul got paid big bucks for his pandering to bigots.

                      Can you show this? Because I believe you pulled that one out of your ass.

                    2. The Ron Paul Survival report or whatever it was called was published by a corporation ( or LLC, or whatever, you know what I mean)owned by Ron Paul, and I’m pretty sure his wife and daughter were officers. Plus, maybe Lew and that other dude. Probably Burt, too.

                      When this scandal thing happened last time I remember someone tracking down some biz filings related to that entity and I believe some financials, as well.

                      C’mon, you can’t be that fucking naive. You think Ron Paul was publishing newsletters as a hobby? And that Lou Ellen was working/writing for free? Paul’s family and all his homeboys were running some underground free thing they ran off at kinkos and passed out?

                      Please, Ron Paul has always known how to fundraise, and he has always had a certain base that responded to his stuff. The newsletter thing was a business. Why would he even have ghostwriters if it wasn’t?

                    3. Uh, this was all in previous reason articles ( just found them)

                      “Besides Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul’s wife Carol, Paul’s daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001. Langford-Freeman did not respond to interview requests as of press time. Elam, president of M&M Graphics and Advertising, confirmed to reason that his company printed the newsletters, but said that the texts reached him as finished products.

                      The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993?wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots?reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn’t know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.”

                      https://reason.com/archives/200…..newsletter

              2. Here’s the statement I think Ron Paul should make whenever somebody asks about those newsletters & the racism therein:

                “Those statements are awful and do not represent my views. I regret and take full responsibility for my lack of oversight over a newsletter that I allowed to use my name.”

                Instead, the one time I’ve seen him questioned on it, he quibbled and said a bunch of irrelevant horseshit.

                I love Ron Paul. I think he can do better than that.

                1. Re: Joshua,

                  Instead, the one time I’ve seen him questioned on it, he quibbled and said a bunch of irrelevant horseshit.

                  You were delusional then. This is what he said:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY01Lpg5kqw

                  He was pretty eloquent about the matter: It’s old news, it’s irrelevant (which it was), it’s not part of his individualist philosophy (which is true).

                  Clearly, Reason ran with a moldy story rehashed by some snot from New Republic for no reason, except maybe to distance the Beltwayrian magazine from non-Beltway Paul.

                  1. Eloquent?

                    “Who wrote the stories?”

                    “Let’s move on”

                    If he really repudiates these stories, he needs to tell us who wrote them. All he does in that video is try to change the subject.

                    1. Re: Jose,

                      If he really repudiates these stories, he needs to tell us who wrote them.

                      Why would he “need” to do this? WHAT FOR?

                      All he does in that video is try to change the subject.

                      Another lie. He establishes clearly a) The subject lacks relevancy (which it does, it’s old news); b) He does not believe in racism, which is yet another iteration of collectivism.

                  2. “Clearly, Reason ran with a moldy story rehashed by some snot from New Republic for no reason, except maybe to distance the Beltwayrian magazine from non-Beltway Paul.”

                    Yeah, cause they’re putting all their eggs in the Gary Johnson beltway basket…

              3. I’d like RP to apologize and name names for one very specific purpose: So I can know beyond any doubt that no one involved in the racial aspects of the newsletters is ever appointed to any government position should Paul ever become elected. Until he can satisfy this requirement of mine (yes, I’m da boss and he’s merely a candidate who has to EARN my vote), I’ll vote for GJ or a third-party candidate or write in Tommy Jefferson or something.

                1. That’s pretty f’d up, potentially throwing away another Ron Paul vote for an EXTREMELY trivial issue (ignoring all the goodness that would result from his campaign for the economy, for liberty, and for restoring the principles this country was founded on) when we need every single RP supporter out there voting to overthrow the current status quo that’s destroying this country. Voting for someone like Gary Johnson or a third-party candidate is just wasteful, assuming you don’t particularly agree with the views and agendas they express more than you do with Ron Paul. Think about it. Vote Ron Paul 2012 in the primaries and general election.

              4. Bad analogy.

                He killed a guy, but I hired him to aim and press my finger which was on the trigger.

                That’s more accurate.

                1. He killed a guy, but I hired him to aim and press my finger which was on the trigger.

                  Fucker needed killin’.

            2. “My problem with Paul and the newsletter problem is that he hasn’t taken responsibility for not taking responsibility.”

              Then your problem with RP is a colossally stupid one.

            3. he hasn’t taken responsibility for not taking responsibility

              Okay. Dude. Even I did a spit-take on that one.

            4. Joshua, I think you’re mistaken about what Ron has said regarding the newsletters. He does admit he bears some responsibility.

              In his own words: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them.”

              He admits he made a bad error in not reviewing what went out under his name. It was a bad management practice, but it was 20+ years ago, he was out of politics and wasn’t paying attention at the time, and he’s learned his lesson on from it – the mistake hasn’t been repeated since. It’s time to move on from what is now a non-issue, if it ever was an issue to begin with.

              1. Frankly, you Paul supporters are getting to be like LaRouche fans, more interested in worshipping the guy then what he stands for.

                1. Re: mofo,

                  Frankly, you Paul supporters are getting to be like LaRouche fans, more interested in worshipping the guy [than] what he stands for.

                  At least we understand the difference between “than” and “then.” Can a LaRouchite say that??? Or YOU????

          3. Beyond consequentialism, that’s what you get for supporting an icky, Christian Republican.

            Even for most of the Reason crew culture war trumps policy positions. They simply needed an excuse.

          4. I do not subscribe to Johnson’s consequentialist ethics, though.

            Yes, masturbatory self satisfaction is much more important than actual results.

            Progressives of all stripes agree with you.

          5. They are journalists. What else are they supposed to do?

            1. Yes, but some people above prefer they simply be polemicists.

      2. If supporters of Gary Johnson have “wet dreams” over him, I don’t want to know what you call what supporters for Ron Paul have for Paul. I assume whatever the metaphor, it would be illegal in most states. Lol.

      3. who cares what their ethical philosophy is?

        1. A utilitarian would be a lot more likely to do something “pragmatic”. Mill’s “harm principle” in On Liberty could be nullified if society thought it best.

          Someone who believes that individuals have natural rights due to their nature, or due to their creator, would disagree.

          1. consequentialist does not equal utilitarian.

            utilitarianism is only a form of consequentialism, but not the only one.

            I look at it like THIS:

            egalitarian – wants to maximize equality
            utilitarian – wants to maximize utility
            libertarian – wants to maximize liberty

            all are consequentialists, but also very different.

            1. Liberty is utility maximizing.

              1. Not according to Pareto’s criterion. But nice try…

            2. Re: KPres,

              all are consequentialists, but also very different.

              That’s not true, KPres. Libertarian ethics are based on deontological, or rights based, ethics, and not consequentialist ethics, which are based on intentions (or on post hoc rationalizations when the shit already hit the fan.)

          2. “A utilitarian would be a lot more likely to do something “pragmatic”. Mill’s “harm principle” in On Liberty could be nullified if society thought it best.

            Someone who believes that individuals have natural rights due to their nature, or due to their creator, would disagree.”

            Isn’t this a consequentialist argument against supporting consequentialist politicians?

            1. Damn gnomes. That’ll teach me to post while intoxicated.

            2. I should have referenced this, too.

    4. Obnoxious that no one else cares, or obnoxious that the staff at reason cares?

    5. That’s why we have campaigns.

    6. I care about Gary Johnson too. Hmmm…maybe I should put that on my resume.

    7. Speak for yourself pal.

    8. America is going down the tubes financially. If something substantial isn’t done to change the status quo soon, all will be lost. When will the American voters wake up and recognize that America needs a non-confrontational pussy like Gary Johnson as President in order to shake things up.

      1. Re: PNer,

        America is going down the tubes financially. If something substantial isn’t done to change the status quo soon, all will be lost.

        Maybe if we stopped being Agricultural city-States like the Witless Indian suggests… before we’re wiped out by watermelon-ish space aliens.

        1. I’m living in your head rent-free now, Old Mexican, and I’m pleased you’ve got following terms down as interchangeable:

          ? Civilization
          ? City-State
          ? Agricultural Civilization
          ? Agricultural City-State
          ? Cultured/city-lized/domesticated
          ? State sociopolitical typology

          Oh, and don’t forget the foundation of Statism:

          “Agriculture creates government.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

      2. a non-confrontational pussy like Gary Johnson

        Is that the same pussy that, as Governor of New Mexico, vetoed unanimously passed legislation sent to his desk?

        1. More than the other 49 state governors COMBINED over the two terms he was Governor, I might add. Also managed to turn a deficit into a surplus while reducing the state government and creating the environment for private sector job growth. Strongly pushed for student vouchers and cut taxes 14 times. What’s Ron Paul done, besides obsess blindly over an archaic Gold Standard system for the last 30 years?

    9. I’m not at Reason and I’m leaning strongly towards GJ.

    10. He will no be elected.

    11. This is a libertarian website. Johnson is a libertarian. It’s not difficult to understand we they are running articles about him.

    12. That’s right zarathustra, because Mitt Romney is just so awesome!

  2. I’d do him.

    No homo.

  3. Immigrants shouldn’t need visas to come here. America is not the property of the Federal government.

    1. No, it’s the property of the People, who decided that immigrants need visas.

      Shut the fuck up now.

      1. Fucking tyranny of the majority, how does it work?

        1. Fucking tyranny of the non-citizen minority, how does it work?

          1. So when “the People” decide that everyone should be subject to their homes being searched at any time to protect against terrorism, will you be OK with it? Or when “the People” decide that it’s a good idea that you should be forced to buy a particular product like insurance, will you be OK with it?

            If the answer to either of these is yes, then die in a fire you fucking piece of shit.

            1. So when “a small minority of the People” decide that everyone should be subject to their homes being searched at any time to protect against terrorism, will you be OK with it? Or when “a small minority of the People” decide that it’s a good idea that you should be forced to buy a particular product like insurance, will you be OK with it?

              If the answer to either of these is yes, then die in a fire first you fucking piece of shit.

              The current problems in America are not due to tyranny of the majority, they are due to the tyranny of one minority or another. Pull your head out, shit-for-brains.

              What is the difference between tyranny of the majority and the will of the people? Why is tyranny by your preferred minority a more desirable or more moral proposition than the will of the majority?

              1. What is the difference between tyranny of the majority and the will of the people? Why is tyranny by your preferred minority a more desirable or more moral proposition than the will of the majority?

                When the will of the people infringes on the rights of the individual, then there is no difference. It is tyranny, pure and simple. And how is respecting the right of people to freely associate considered tyranny under any definition?

                Keep licking that boot, dickface. One day it’s gonna kick you square in the teeth.

                1. “And how is respecting the right of people to freely associate considered tyranny under any definition?”

                  Nothing I wrote suggests that I believe that.

                  Not everyone in the world believes in niceties like individual rights. Someone whose first act when entering the US is to break its laws cannot reasonably be expected to respect any other aspect of the American political system. Preventing illegal immigration into the US has nothing to do with free association, asswipe. I’m not licking anyone’s boots, but you will be if you think that letting large numbers of people who have no respect for the rule of law and come from disfunctional societies move freely across US borders is a good idea, turd breath. Controlling borders is one of the most important aspects of national sovereignty, piss drinker. Even the Europeans have figured out that multiculturalism is a failed policy, scrotum cheeks. Most people in both Europe and North America have always understood this, toe diddler. It is the ruling minority, intent on building their empires by watering down notions of national sovereignty and merging countries together, that have promoted open borders, lax law enforcement and easy immigration, groin snuggler.

                  1. “Controlling borders is one of the most important aspects of national sovereignty, piss drinker”

                    Oops.
                    I’m sorry, shithead. I thought I was dealing with someone with a brain.

                    1. @sevo

                      Oh, please, sevo, tell me why controlling its borders is not an important aspect of a nation’s sovereignty. Be aware that whatever answer you give will be considered utter nonsense by 99% of humanity. You have to live in a very strange walled garden to believe otherwise.

                    2. “Oh, please, sevo, tell me why controlling its borders is not an important aspect of a nation’s sovereignty.”
                      Oh, please, nub, tell us why it is; you made the claim.
                      I hope it’s not based on your specious claim of popularity.

                    3. Why don’t you tell us all what you think a nation is? If border control is not a perogative of nationhoood, then what is?

                      Questioning whether or not border control is part of a nation’s sovereignty is like questioning whether or not the sky is blue. Only a troll or an insane person would do so. Unfortunately, lunatics have been insinuating themselves into positions of power for the past 40 years. It’s time that normal people reassert control before the lunatics destroy everything.

                    4. nub|8.19.11 @ 9:32PM|#
                      “Why don’t you tell us all what you think a nation is? If border control is not a perogative of nationhoood, then what is?”

                      Why don’t you tell us? You made the claim.

                  2. Not everyone in the world believes in niceties like individual rights.

                    You’re right. I guess I can lump you in with Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. They don’t believe in “niceties” like individual rights either.

                    Oh, and you know who else didn’t believe in “niceties like individual rights”?

                    1. All hail Godwinia! LOL

                    2. I just couldn’t hold back any longer.

                  3. “I’m not licking anyone’s boots, but you will be if you think that letting large numbers of people who have no respect for the rule of law…”

                    No respect for the law at all, eh? Wow, you know a lot about these people! Tell me, how do you accomplish this? Gallup would pay big bucks for this incredible leap in mind-reading technology. By the way, I sometimes speed, so I guess I have no respect for the law either.

              2. “What is the difference between tyranny of the majority and the will of the people? Why is tyranny by your preferred minority a more desirable or more moral proposition than the will of the majority?”

                Uh, there’s this thing called the Constitution. It was written to prevent the tyranny of the majority; to protect the rights of individuals regardless of the popular mood.

                1. “… the Constitution …”

                  … doesn’t apply to those who are not part of America’s political compact, i.e. non-citizens. Also, the protection of individuals rights from the tyranny of the majority does not exclude protection of individual rights from the tyranny of a minority. Currently, it is the tyranny of the minority which holds sway in most cases, e.g. EPA constraints on energy production and other resource development, racial quotas, the open border policy with Mexico, open-ended war in the ME, Obamacare, massive and unsustainable federal spending, abortion legality without any limits, etc.

                  Get back to me when tyranny of the majority becomes a real problem in the US.

                  1. nub|8.19.11 @ 9:02PM|#
                    “… the Constitution …”

                    … doesn’t apply to those who are not part of America’s political compact, i.e. non-citizens.”

                    Which is a nice try at begging the question.

                    1. My response begs no question. Non-citizens don’t possess rights under the US Constitution, so the freedom of association, and the freedom to cross into and out of the US at will, is not possessed by non-citizens. Try thinking for a change.

                    2. So, according to you, a non-citizen could be forced to attend a certain church, could be limited in their speech, could have their property searched without a warrant, could be held without being charged with a crime and could be forced to quarter troops.

                      You are infinitely ignorant of the Constitution and Constitutional law.

                      “Don’t worry, scrote. There are plenty of ‘tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was ‘tarded. She’s a pilot now.”

                  2. “… the Constitution …”

                    … doesn’t apply to those who are not part of America’s political compact, i.e. non-citizens.

                    Since when did the Constitution, and the protections contained therein, not apply to non-citizens?

                    You just proved your Constitutional ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt and are found guilty of being a dumbshit hack. I hereby sentence you to two weeks of lurking on Jezebel.

                    1. Please, please let this be who I think it is. Ask him if he’s ever posted questions on youtube.

                    2. sloopyinca|8.19.11 @ 9:49PM|#
                      “… the Constitution …”
                      … doesn’t apply to those who are not part of America’s political compact, i.e. non-citizens.

                      Since when did the Constitution, and the protections contained therein, not apply to non-citizens”

                      It’s worse than that. nub’s original statement was:
                      “What is the difference between tyranny of the majority and the will of the people? Why is tyranny by your preferred minority a more desirable or more moral proposition than the will of the majority?”

                      So we have a nativist who doesn’t like those born where rights aren’t really an issue and also conflates that issue with the question of whether anyone has rights if the majority thinks otherwise.
                      Not a tidy mind.
                      But, hey, sloopy, I got a question for you down-thread if W.I. hasn’t socked the issue into total confusion.

                    3. I know I’m late, but this “nub” character… is it fucking retarded?

                    4. Spencer,

                      Apparently it is, since it thinks the Constitution only applies to citizens.

                    5. For fuck’s sake!

                      Where the hell in the Constitution does it say that the provisions apply to “citizens” or “non-citizens”? The Constitution only specifies the structure of, and restrictions on, the federal government and its relation to states and the people. In the Bill of Rights, for instance, “shall make no law” doesn’t mean freedom of speech, religion, association apply only to citizens. It means the feds can’t infringe upon anyone’s legal speech.

                      At the same time, it’s ridiculous to hold that Constitutional principles have been upheld equally for all groups. Why does the 2nd Amendment get suspended for felons (violent or not)? Why were Japanese Americans, 60% of whom were U.S. citizens, interred during WWII? Why are non-citizens imprisoned w/o trial and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment? The simple fact is that, in today’s interpretation of Constitutional law (at least by the Justice Department), there does seem to be a disconnect between the Constitutional rights of citizens and those of non-citizens.

                    6. Oh! And before I take any flak on this, know that I believe the first long paragraph above. The Constitution restricts the federal government. Its application should be equal for citizens and non-citizens. I disdain the interpretation described in the second long paragraph, but that is the way most lawyers see it.

              3. Immigration laws apply to non citizens. Absolutely a proper area for laws. They do not apply to the citizens of the states. Totally different from obamacare or the drug war.

      2. No, actually different parts of it are the property of different people. Each person has the right to decide who gets to come on his own property, work for him, etc.

    2. Geez, all the hate on the subject of immigration. I’ll be calm and reasonable. I’m a Libertarian but I cannot agree with the extreme “open borders” position many Libertarians hold. Just as I would not want strangers to camp out on my property without my permission and I would like to have the power to vet those strangers if I were deciding to allow them on my property, there is reasonable cause to at least vet non-citizens before allowing them in our country.

      1. Well, Marc, our “extremism” comes in because it is not your property. The reason that you have the right to “vet” those who come onto your property is because it is YOUR PROPERTY.

        Free thought experiment for the nativists around here: let’s say that I fly my private plane from my private airport down Mexico-way, pick up Computer Genius Marco, and bring him back to take care of security in my mansion. Are you in any way harmed by that? Furthermore, I did everything with my property, not yours, mine.

        1. As the neighbor to your mansion, do I really have to listen to your stupid fucking jet take off?

          And when they leave your property and step on mine to kill the women and rape the horses, then are you accepting all responsibility for their crimes and debts? Seems like that’s what you’re arguing for, also maybe that search for smugness has lead you to argue yourself into a corner, dummy.

          1. Dude, the guy coming up legally from North Caroline to set up the computer system is just as likely to rape you as the guy coming up from Mexico.

            1. Not to a racist he’s not… unless he’s black or hispanic anyway.

          2. And when they leave your property and step on mine to kill the women and rape the horses

            DO WHAT TO THE WHO, NOW — ?!?

            1. STEVE SMITH WANT TO SAY “HELLO” TO FRIEND FLICKA.

              1. “Steve Smith” is the living personification of the white Neo-Con’s inveterate need to despoil and dominate by means of rape.

                Mind you, I would totally do Mister Ed.

                1. Why is it always we horses who end up suffering the most…?

                  1. Shhhhhh. Never you mind, dearest. You’ll feels worlds better after a nice brush-down, and a bag of apples.

                  2. Why is it always we horses who end up suffering the most…?

                    UNFFF UNNNFFF

            2. I say Neigh to that

            3. All I wanna do..

              1. EVERY TIME STEVE SMITH READ EQUUS, STEVE SMITH TOUCH SELF.

                1. “Eric! Are you training that pony to pleasure you?!?”

                  1. After winning the Preakness just a scant two years ago, I recently broke a leg and had to be put down.

                    True story.

              2. [whinnies approval]

                1. In my day, a woman flinching at anything less than five full-grown stallions, simultaneously, was nothing but a goddamned piker.

                  1. The fascistic white Neo-Cons once again have suppressed my bold, brave attempts at vital truth-telling, via means of unlawful arrest… for the “crime” of common, garden variety illness!

                    I was just… loitering around the corral, late last night; and then, before I knew it, I was feeling a little horse.

  4. He sounds too reasonable to be president.

  5. I’ve sent him money and will vote for him or Paul, depending on which is doing better when the Florida primaries occur.

    1. I appreciate your support, but I’m not running.

      Oh Ron Paul.

      Every four years H&R posts get very confusing for me.

    2. I’ve sent him money and will vote for him or Paul, depending on which is doing better when the Florida primaries occur.

      Me, too. I agree with GJ about 90%, and RP about 85%. While I actually agree with Old Mexican about deontological vs. consequentialist / teleological ethics, I doubt a guy who vetoed 750 bills would change into a statist once elected. He’s had plenty of chances to already.

      One good thing – whichever one of them does better has an obvious VP pick…

      1. So you think he’d vote the right way but for the wrong reasons, and you’re ok with that?! Consequentialist!

        1. I believe that rights are innate, and that much of what the government does is a violation of our rights. However, I recognize that politically implementing a government that respects individual rights will be an incremental process. I don’t think we can go from where we are now to a minarchist or an-cap society in one step (I would love to be proven wrong). So yes, I’m willing to support someone like Johnson.

          I also would like to see Johnson and Paul on the same stage, making arguments from both perspectives. If people could hear that freedom is not only moral, but also practical (which of course follows), I think it would buttress both their views in the eyes of the voting public.

          1. Chestnut time!: The moral is the practical….

          2. Thanks for this comment. It’s refreshing to get out of the anarcho-capitalist masturbatory bubble for once. Last time I’ll say it (probably not, but one can hope) – you don’t live in Libertopia. You’re not going to anytime soon. So why don’t you ally yourselves with those of us who favor freedom and are looking to improve things as much as possible in the near term?

            1. “So why don’t you ally yourselves with those of us who favor freedom and are looking to improve things as much as possible in the near term?”

              But it is so much more fun to bitch, maintain my moral highground and never do anything to improve the situation!

      2. I could see GJ reaching out to RP to be his VP. I think it’s less likely that RP would reach out to GJ, though also not impossible.

        1. I hope he does.

        2. As much as I would like that combo, it is bad politics to pick a running mate so closely aligned with the politics of the Presidential candidate. If RP was the nominee it would be better to have someone either left or right of him to better compliment him against Obama.

  6. Johnson also ran through his policy positions. “I believe fundamentally in the right for a woman to choose an abortion. I happen to believe in evolution.”

    Interesting that he finds the belief in a woman’s right to kill another human being to be “fundamental.”

    1. I don’t agree with Big Johnson on every issue, but he’s an eighty percenter. That compares with somebody like, say, Rick Perry, who’s a twenty percenter (at best).

      You ain’t getting the perfect candidate, but Johnson is very good on most everything.

      Any governor who vetoes 750 spending bills has got my attention. And he’s good on pot and wants to end the war. He has a track record of running a clean fiscal house in NM.

      Plus, he has no baggage. Nobody thinks he’s crazy or a racist.

      1. Some would if he had traction. :S

      2. “Nobody thinks he’s crazy or a racist.”

        That’s very important. Anyone the Media calls crazy or a racist must be disqualified. The Media protects us all.

      3. When McCain got the nomination, suddenly the media discovered that he was a dangerous extremist flirting with racism.

        But they *didn’t* bring up what he did in the 1980s – even though McCain’s relationship with S&L bad guy Charles Keating (for which the Senate rebuked him) was at elast as salacious as Paul’s newsletters, both of which happened in the Eighties.

    2. Why is that “interesting”? It seems pretty consistent given a particular belief set.

      1. Re: MP,

        Why is that “interesting”? It seems pretty consistent given a particular belief set.

        It is interesting because if he takes as fundamental the right to kill another, I would be wary of any other thing he thinks is “fundamental.”

        1. If accept the concept of a fetus as an immaterial object, then considering it’s termination a “fundamental” right is logically consistent.

          Your rejection of that definition doesn’t undermine is point of you. You’re not objecting to “fundamental”, but rather to his acceptance of a fetus as an immaterial object.

          1. Re: MP,

            If accept the concept of a fetus as an immaterial object, then considering it’s termination a “fundamental” right is logically consistent.

            Sure. So I simply call the fetus “a bunch of flowers” and thus conclude Mom can cut them out.

            Next: Anybody else I decide to dehumanize through semantics. Now, THAT’S fundamental!!

            If that is the extent of Johnson’s ethics, I want no part of it.

            1. If you had science showing that the fetus was in fact a bunch of flowers, then yes- you’d be right. Actually, I guess you’d have to show that the fetus was NOT in fact a bunch of flowers. That is easily done.

              1. True, since flowers have no functioning brain.

                1. Turtles have functioning brains. some autonomic brian function exists is veggies (people, not carrots). I eat pigs, they’ve got brains and can perform complex tasks. I’m not going to eat a fetus (hell, I think I’d fight to keep one of mine from being aborted), but I don’t think sketchy science about “functioning brains” is enough for me.

                  1. It’s not just the functioning brain, Spencer. It’s the fact that it’s a functioning human brain that makes the difference, IMO.*

                    *and I want to stress that “IMO,” because I don’t presume to be omnipotent, and defining when personhood begins is a real pickle.

          2. “a fetus as an immaterial object”

            So a fetus is immaterial? A fetus is just a concept, lacking physical substance? If GJ believes this, then he is crazy. What the hell does he think gets vacuumed out of the womb during an abortion?

            1. See, this is where I have a problem with GJ. His dismissal of the pro-life position is bothersome. RP’s desire to make a state’s rights issue out of it is bothersome as well, but Constitutionally he is right you dismiss the personhood of the unborn.

              Morally, RP is infinitely better than GJ on the issue, but an executive can only do so much on the issue. That’s the only reason why I support RP more than GJ in this cycle. But then again, respecting the personhood of the defenseless is pretty important to me.

              1. I totally agree with what I just wrote under a spoof handle.

              2. “His dismissal of the pro-life position is bothersome.”

                To you. To intelligent reasonable people, not so much.

                1. To you. To intelligent reasonable people, not so much.

                  With such sound logic and debate skills, the pro-lifers don’t stand a chance against you.

                  And by “intelligent people,” do you mean the ones who were smart enough to be conceived into the womb of someone who respected their personhood, yet somehow grew up and chose to deny that same basic human right to others?

                  1. That’s the question. When does a fetus become a human being, with all due rights? At zygote? One day, one week, one month? Is it when the heart starts? When the brain becomes active?

                    1. When the brain becomes active?

                      When the who does WHAT, now…?

                    2. Maybe if we asked the “intelligent, reasonable people,” they could make that decision for all of us.

                      I’m just lucky I got to the right side of the equation before the “intelligent, reasonable people” before they decided, thought.

                    3. Or, maybe if we didn’t ask anyone, everyone could make the decision for themselves.

                    4. Fine with me. I choose life.

                    5. Doubtful. Show that you have an ability to choose anything, first.

                    6. Ron Paul believes that a fetus is a human being the moment egg and sperm do the tango:

                      Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act

                    7. That’s the question. When does a fetus become a human being, with all due rights?

                      I would say it does so at the point it attains the essential attribute of a human being,ie.,the attribute which best explains or accounts for all the other characteristics of human beings and which separate them from other species. To me that would be a brain that is – or will become – capable of self-consciousness and thought on a conceptual level. Certainly if there is nothing more than a simple autonomic nervous system present, I don’t see how it could reasonably be called a human being. Yes, it is human life or tissue, but then again, so is my great toe.

              3. For those of you grappling with the dichotomy of “respect for life” and “abortion rights”, allow me to tell my reasoning. While I respect life, I also respect quality of life. And, if given the situation of a pregnancy resulting in an unwanted and unloved child being groomed for, at best, a sad adulthood or, at worst, a future psychopath, I’d opt that this tragedy be prevented. I’d certainly like the one who’s pregnant to be able to make that choice and I certainly don’t want a religion to forbid that choice through government action.

                If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant from that assault, I wouldn’t deny her the small measure of relief of not suffering a living reminder of the assault or as little time as necessary suffering the result of the assault.

                And I wouldn’t put an adult woman’s life on the line over a pregnancy that is medically judged to likely kill her.

                Given the fact that there are real and dramatic quality of life issues associated with abortion, I would like to think that the reasonable position is to allow it with deep consideration.

                1. Thanks, Marc. And good points, all

                  Now, how do you plan on addressing the other 98% of abortions that are performed annually?

                2. I do have a quibble about the “in case of rape” exception…what blame lays on the child for the rape? Why should he suffer and die for the sins of the father, etc. etc.

                  1. “Now, how do you plan on addressing the other 98% of abortions that are performed annually?”

                    I would posit that most abortions fit under my first point – at least potentially. After all, if a woman is opting for abortion, it’s probably because she doesn’t want it and all that comes with it.

                    And please don’t start with the “adoption” option – because orphanages and foster care don’t have a good track record.

                    “I do have a quibble about the “in case of rape” exception…what blame lays on the child for the rape? Why should he suffer and die for the sins of the father, etc. etc.”

                    I appreciate the quibble, but turn back to my respect for quality of life – why should a child live and suffer the stigma, if not the hate, resultant from the sin of the father?

                    And for those of you whom are of faith, wouldn’t it be better for the kid to be with God than suffer the circumstances of his conception? If abortion is a sin, the blood is not on the kids hands, after all.

              4. Abortion should always be a non sequitur in presidential elections.

                The only way abortion should ever become a federal crime is through an amendment, which the president plays ZERO role in.

                The media should be barred from asking presidential candidates about abortion because it’s frigging irrelevant.*

                * that was a joke, don’t worry I’m not against the 1st amendment.

                1. EDIT: Ok, a president does appoint supreme court justices, and since the Court injected itself into the abortion debate this is now relevant from a presidential standpoint.

                  1. Sure. But a whole hell of a lot less relevant than many other issues.

                  2. Sure. But a whole hell of a lot less relevant than many other issues.

                    1. A woman might not think so. πŸ™‚

        2. The point is that there is (and probably always will be) disagreement about when a fetus becomes a living, human being. Since the question is philosophical, I doubt it will ever be solved.

          1. The issue of the human rights of slaves used to be very heated, with strong philosophical arguments on both sides. While the argument hasn’t been fully resolved (in that there are still people being held as slaves), there seems to be a consensus in this country against that sort of thing. Those who violate the consensus are liable to imprisonment.

            The philosophical dispute basically settled, although you might not have predicted it back when the Supreme Court promoted the right to hold slaves in federal territories.

          2. The point is that there is (and probably always will be) disagreement about when a fetus becomes a living, human being.

            There’s a lot more to it than that, at least for me. It’s the non-philosophical stuff that seems to be largely ignored.

            People rarely talk about:

            What method would be used to discourage abortion? Would the state become involved? Police? SWAT? (I’m being serious – if a life is truly at stake, what level of intervention would be justified?)

            Who could be charged with an ‘abortion’ offense? – and assuming a conviction, who would be the guilty party – doctors only? Nursing staff? The mother? Financiers of the clinics?

            Where would it be illegal? State decision? Federal? – As it’s permitted in over 50% of the world, (mainly developed countries), would there be a punishment associated with obtaining an abortion abroad? Would there be exceptions for rape? (Insert STEVE SMITH comment here)

            What would be the associated punishment? Jail? Community service? Fines?

            Would the elimination of the procedure necessitate diminished responsibility for care? IOW, if the state can expend financial resources to force a woman to carry a child to term, does it owe that woman anything to help care for the child after birth?

            I’m fine with disagreements – but at some point each opinion will have to deal with the actual implementation of their arguments, and that requires more than what seems (to me at least) an emotional argument.

            1. Apogee,
              I’ll admit I’m far less interested in the details of any supposed restrictions on abortion than I am in the simple question that BP asked and none of the opponents answered.
              Let’s read it OM: When does the thing become human?

              1. IMO, when higher brain function is detectable.

                1. When does the thing become human?…when higher brain function is detectable.

                  As above –
                  Look, I don’t like Biden any more than the next guy, but that’s just cruel.

                  1. Cruel, but brutally accurate in his case.

                2. What the hell does higher brain function mean? Does it need to be able to add? Communicate through language? Form abstractions? The phrase “higher brain function” is just as ridiculous as “when does it become human”.

                  1. When the brain is able to respond to stimulus in a non-reflexive manner. This happens typically between 8-10 weeks.

              2. Re: sevo,

                Let’s read it OM: When does the thing become human?

                Things don’t become human, sevo.

                1. This is a ridiculous notion. The fetus begins as a single fertilized cell. Is a single fertilized cell human? I’ll grant you that it’s a human cell. But, to say it’s human, you’d want to say all of your cells are human, with the attendant right to life. Yet you kill millions of your own human cells every day with impunity. Why is this one different?

            2. No answers? I find the description that GJ is ‘dismissing’ the pro-life position disingenuous, when it seems almost impossible to get anyone to respond to the question of exactly how to implement the pro-life position.

              I don’t like abortion, but I also realize that all the argumentative heat produces very little action regarding the real question of just how much of our decision making we’re willing to turn over to the state.

              Perhaps GJ is smart enough to realize that, absent a definitive plan on what to actually do about abortion, it just amounts to an opinion – and he chose the opinion that is currently law in this country.

            3. “if a life is truly at stake, what level of intervention would be justified?”

              Every type of criminal homicide raises enforcement questions.

              What level of intervention is justified against murder of someone who’s already been born? Should the police be allowed to search for evidence of murder without warrants or probable cause?

              What level of intervention is justified against “honor killings” (men killing their sisters and daughters for alleged sexual misbehavior)? Who would be held liable – the killer? the relatives who encourage the killing or who spirit the killers out of the country to avoid prosecution? The religious leaders who endorse the killings? And what about countries which, for all practical purposes, allow honor killing? Would a law against honor killing be enforceable without the cooperation of these other countries?

              These are difficult problems, but nobody proposed to just give up and legalize honor killing because of the enforcement difficulties. That’s because people agree that people are human after birth, so there is no incentive to seek excuses for ignoring the crime.

              1. First – I don’t want the state involved at all, so this “counter question” line supposes that I’m the one asking for implementation, and I’m not.

                But since you were the only one to attempt an answer, I’ll respond anyway.

                What level of intervention is justified against murder of someone who’s already been born?

                Your problem is that you’re grouping the investigative practices of previously occurring murders with the situational tactics of what could be described as a hostage situation. The authorities act much differently if there may be a murder than they do if there has been a murder. You need to specify which one you’re talking about. IOW, pregnancy or previous abortion.

                Should the police be allowed to search for evidence of murder without warrants or probable cause?

                No. Another problem of the abortion implementation. Murder is a crime reported by 3rd parties, and it is usually 3rd parties who know the victim. For the same reason that there aren’t funerals for stillborn babies, there would be a very small group of people who could possibly report an abortion. This, in my estimation, would lead to the legislated ‘reporting’ of all pregnancies by medical personnel. What could possibly go wrong?

                What level of intervention is justified against “honor killings” (men killing their sisters and daughters for alleged sexual misbehavior)? Who would be held liable – the killer? the relatives who encourage the killing or who spirit the killers out of the country to avoid prosecution? The religious leaders who endorse the killings? And what about countries which, for all practical purposes, allow honor killing? Would a law against honor killing be enforceable without the cooperation of these other countries?

                In order:
                1) An honor killing reported by a concerned third party would, and should, be investigated just as it is today. A report is made, search warrants issued, evidence collected, witnesses interviewed, timeline constructed, and possibly charges leveled.
                2) Yes, the killer is ultimately liable for the killing. The relatives, if present would be accessories and possibly part of a conspiracy. Not the religious leaders, who have 1st Amendment protections, unless of course they were financially involved.
                3)For the foreign countries, we have the choice of bombing them because we don’t like their practices, or leaving them alone to rot.
                4)We currently have a law against honor killing, and it’s the current law against murder. Extradition treaties will either be honored or not, and that’s a two way street. Enforceable where? None of our laws are enforceable outside our judicial jurisdictions without cooperation.

                I’ve answered your hypothetical questions, now please answer mine, along with one more:

                1) How would you explain the difference between 0 countries allowing for the killing of children, and 54 countries allowing the practice of abortion?

                1. “the situational tactics of what could be described as a hostage situation”

                  I think I understand your point, but a woman who says she’s worried about a possible honor killing can also be said to be in a “hostage situation.” What if a woman expresses concern that because of her “Western” behavior, she thinks her relatives might kill her, but she has no proof? Do the cops break into relatives’ houses without warrants and lock up relatives as a “preventive” measure? If you are dubious about such tactics, does that mean you aren’t sincere about punishing honor killings?

                  “would lead to the legislated ‘reporting’ of all pregnancies by medical personnel”

                  The reasons I’m skeptical about that scenario is that all 50 states uses to have criminal laws against abortion, yet I haven’t heard about compulsory reporting of pregnancies. Given the excesses the police commit in the name of “anti-terrorism,” I suppose such laws are possible, but that no more means abortion should be legal than it means terrorism should be legal. I’m sure you wouldn’t legalize *terrorism* to forestall police-state abuses by counterterrorist officials. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

                  “0 countries allowing for the killing of children, and 54 countries allowing the practice of abortion”

                  I’ll take your word for the 54 figure, but I see you and raise you with the countries which, de facto, allow “honor killings.” Or for that matter, the pagan societies where infant exposure and even infanticide were allowed. You will probably find lots of countries which allow bad practices. Heck, even this country used to have slavery and wink at lynchings, but that wouldn’t be an excuse for other countries to legalize those practices as well.

                  1. (also, 3rd party reporting doesn’t always happen with honor killings, in communities which wink at the practice. If an entire community clams up and says the victim is “missing” or “went back to her home country,” you’re going to have enforcement difficulties. But I don’t hear a lot of arguments in this country for being prochoice on honor killings.

                    1. 3rd party reporting doesn’t always happen with honor killings

                      All murders are reported by 3rd parties. Nobody has ever reported their own murder.

                      But I don’t hear a lot of arguments in this country for being prochoice on honor killings.

                      Do you, in fact, hear any arguments in favor of honor killings in the U.S.?

                      You still haven’t answered any of my questions.

                      Why not?

                    2. All murders are reported by 3rd parties.

                      Not true – sometimes they are reported by a second party – the murderer himself.

                    3. Ok. Agreed.

                  2. What if a woman expresses concern that because of her “Western” behavior, she thinks her relatives might kill her, but she has no proof?

                    She can get a restraining order, and/or leave the threatening environment. The report of a possible honor killing would do much to prevent it. Your scenario has nothing to do with abortion.

                    Do the cops break into relatives’ houses without warrants and lock up relatives as a “preventive” measure? If you are dubious about such tactics, does that mean you aren’t sincere about punishing honor killings?

                    No, and that’s the perfect example of why the implementation of the pro-life idea is never discussed. Remove a victim that has their own ability to communicate and travel and you have a criminalization of a small group of people committing a consensual act that you don’t like. It’s far closer to the war on drugs than it is to honor killings.

                    I suppose such laws are possible, but that no more means abortion should be legal than it means terrorism should be legal. I’m sure you wouldn’t legalize *terrorism* to forestall police-state abuses by counterterrorist officials. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

                    If terrorism were already legal, then you might have a point. But it’s not.

                    Again, you completely avoid explaining how you would implement the enforcement of a ban on abortions.

                    Your turn. Time to answer some of my questions, not just generate distracting hypotheticals.

                    Will you put pregnant women in jail?

                    1. Let’s see – the countries which legalize abortion do so because they’re fundamentally wrong – just like the countries which tolerate honor killings, or the countries which historically allow slavery, or states in this country when they tolerated lynching.

                      Obviously, the laws against abortion were being enforced before *Roe,* otherwise there would have been no complaints about the laws. And you can even have people to complain about the crime, like the relatives of the victim. If you object that the victim’s relatives will be the ones perpetrating and covering up the crime, I can say the same thing about honor killings.

                      I believe you missed the point of my critique. It was that these objections about “how do you enforce it” miss the point, since the same sorts of enforcement objections can also be raised about other types of killings, and yet that’s not an argument for making those killings legal.

                      “If terrorism were already legal, then you might have a point. But it’s not.”

                      The question is whether terrorism *should* be legal. There are obviously enforcement problems, and obviously the government often uses excessive tactics against terrorists, which is the same sort of objection that gets raised against abortion laws.

                      Since laws against abortion actually used to exist, and actually used to be enforced, enforcement difficulties are obviously not insuperable.

                      “a consensual act that you don’t like”

                      I’m afraid that begs the question. If a fetus is a human being with human rights, then abortion is a crime with a victim, not a consensual act.

                      “a victim that has their own ability to communicate and travel”

                      I don’t think you can justify legalizing abortion simply because the victim can’t escape and the victim of an honor killing sometimes can.

                    2. Again: Will you put pregnant women in jail?

                      The agreement of the woman is the consensual portion of the procedure, unless you’re insinuating that there are abortions performed in the US without the consent of the woman.

                      To argue the ‘separate human life’ aspect in your desire for legislation, you must come to an uncomfortable decision. If indeed an unborn child is a separate human with their own set of rights, then any woman consenting to an abortion is necessarily guilty of at least accessory to murder or murder for hire.

                      That entails arrest, charges, prosecution, trial, and, if guilty, imprisonment.

                      For some odd reason, there’s a fuckload of dancing to avoid actually dealing with that decision, and it tells me all I need to know about the seriousness of those involved in this debate.

                      This is an emotional issue for people. Unfortunately, without anyone wishing to seriously address implementation, it becomes obvious to me that it’s all about the emotion.

                      I don’t like abortion, and I don’t like people wasting their lives on heroin, but IMO, the only way those things are ever made worse is with the involvement of the state.

                    3. No, I would not put pregnant women in jail. What for? If they’re pregnant, they haven’t had abortions.

                      “arrest, charges, prosecution, trial, and, if guilty, imprisonment.”

                      Yes, I would vote for imprisoning women who kill their own children – even if the children are in the womb. I presume that you would want to imprison women who kill their children *after* birth (although that poses problems of its own – consider that authorities have sometimes found it hard to distinguish between murdering infants and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Abortionists should get longer sentences, in general, because they kill more people.

                      I have been acting under the assumption that your criticism of abortions laws is serious. But a measure of an argument’s seriousness is whether you wish to apply it consistently. You argue for legalizing abortion based on enforcement problems and the danger of government abuse (report all pregnancies to the police!). Yet you don’t use the same logic with respect to terrorism, another area in which law governments abuse their authority. It’s tough to smoke out terrorist conspiracies – especially difficult to smoke them out before the attack is committed – your preventive-justice argument. Using your reasoning, why not legalize terrorism, to avoid the risk the the government will force all Muslims to register with the police? Yet you simply reply that terrorism is already a crime.

                      Nor do you apply your own arguments to “honor killings” – there are considerable enforcement problems here, as well. By your reasoning, why not legalize honor killings, as many countries actually do, de facto or de jure. According to this 2005 report about Egypt:

                      “Neither Shariah nor modern laws have appropriately penalized the practice due to the
                      strong influence of the tribal system and popular beliefs about women’s sexuality. In addition, modern penal codes and also the practices reinforce the notion that men have a ‘right’ to punish women for improper sexual behaviour.”

                      http://www.un.org/womenwatch/d…..crimes.pdf

                      “The agreement of the woman is the consensual portion of the procedure”

                      Why is abortion consensual, in a way that infanticide or honor killing isn’t? Answering that question requires deciding if the fetus has human rights – if so, there is no relevant difference with a newborn infant. And the proponents of honor killings say that a loose woman has no right to live, so carrying out the killing is simply a personal choice on the part of the killer – a deeply personal family choice.

                      You say that nobody who wants to criminalize abortion is serious, because they don’t deal with the enforcement problems.

                      Do you claim that none of the 50 states was serious back when they all criminalized abortion? Or were they serious back then, but nobody is serious today? And did these 50 states have the enforcement problems you mention? Did they require the registration of all pregnancies with the government?

                      Do you claim that none of the 139 states which even today criminalize abortion are serious (193 UN member nations minus your figure of 54 countries legalizing abortion)? Or are all these countries serious but nobody in the U.S. is serious? Did these 139 countries have the enforcement problems you mention? Do they require the registration of all pregnancies with the government?

                      You are implicitly criticizing 139 foreign countries, and all 50 U.S. states, for lack of seriousness about abortion because they allegedly never addressed enforcement issues.

                    4. Why is abortion consensual, in a way that infanticide or honor killing isn’t?

                      For the same reason that women aren’t sequestered and forced to exercise and eat a pre-determined dietary regimen during pregnancy: How a woman handles her pregnancy is her business, regardless of the effect on the child.

                      Do you claim that none of the 139 states which even today criminalize abortion are serious (193 UN member nations minus your figure of 54 countries legalizing abortion)? Or are all these countries serious but nobody in the U.S. is serious? Did these 139 countries have the enforcement problems you mention? Do they require the registration of all pregnancies with the government?

                      Does it seem odd to you that the same countries that ban abortion also permit honor killings and infantcide?

                      Perhaps it isn’t about the children after all.

                      Maybe it’s about controlling other people.

                      Yes, I would vote for imprisoning women who kill their own children – even if the children are in the womb.

                      Good to know. At least you’re consistent. Good luck running on that platform. You might find more resistance to that than you imagine.

                      Now, for more consistency, would you forcibly sequester a woman if a 3rd party reported that she was going to have an abortion? And if she actually met with an abortion doctor to have the procedure (but was stopped somehow), would you prosecute her for conspiracy to commit murder after she delivered?

                    5. Yes, attempted abortion should be a crime.

                      Now let me ask you some follow-up questions.

                      “Does it seem odd to you that the same countries that ban abortion also permit honor killings and infantcide?” [link to map]

                      I wasn’t aware that Chile and Ireland (which ban abortion except to save the life of the mother) permitted honor killings and infanticide. Perhaps you could provide some evidence on that point? Or in the category of countries which allow abortion only to preserve the mother’s *physical* health, perhaps you could explain how Poland allows honor killings and infanticide?

                      I notice from the map you linked to that North Korea, China, Vietnam and Uzbekistan are listed as permitting abortion “without restriction as to reason.” Is it your opinion that these countries are more serious than Ireland, Chile, and Poland? Also, I notice that while North Korea allows abortion for any reason, *South* Korea only allows it for protecting the mother’s physical health. Is South Korea less serious than North Korea?

                      Likewise, were all 50 states not being serious when they prohibited abortion?

                    6. You’re right – I misstated my point. It should have read: Are you aware the the countries that allow infantcide and honor killings also prohibit abortion?

                      How can this be?
                      Honor killings and infantcide show a great disdain for life – and yet these same countries also prohibit abortions.

                      From your 8/21 2:36 comment:
                      According to this 2005 report about Egypt:

                      “Neither Shariah nor modern laws have appropriately penalized the practice [honor killings] due to the strong influence of the tribal system and popular beliefs about women’s sexuality. In addition, modern penal codes and also the practices reinforce the notion that men have a ‘right’ to punish women for improper sexual behaviour.”

                      Oops. But Egypt also bans abortion. Do they really care about the children, right before they stone them to death?

                      Peruse the list – What do Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Angola, Myanmar, and a host of others have in common?

                      All primarily do not recognize the rights of women (and quite often most of the citizenry), many practice infantcide, and many have honor killings. They also all coincidentally ban abortion.

                      What could possibly be the common element here? Because it sure as shit ‘aint the ‘rights of the unborn’.

                      You have continually brought up honor killings and infantcide in a discussion about abortion. Your explanation for doing so was that the difficulty in enforcement shouldn’t prevent a society from criminalizing abortion.

                      Unfortunately for you, the idea of difficulty in enforcement never seemed to enter into the practices of most of the countries that ban abortion. That’s because they don’t worry about niceties like ‘rights’. They simply enforce whatever they want, no matter what the cost to their societies.

                      How is it that so many countries that ban abortion also simultaneously care so little about human rights? Could it possibly be that abortion restriction has nothing to do with ‘saving’ anybody, and everything to do with ‘controlling’ everybody?

                      And to address your other questions:

                      I notice that while North Korea allows abortion for any reason, *South* Korea only allows it for protecting the mother’s physical health. Is South Korea less serious than North Korea?

                      Here is some interesting information regarding the ‘anti-abortion’ South Korea.

                      The North not only allows abortion for any reason, it often reportedly forces abortion, along with sterilization on anybody whom the government doesn’t approve. In a dictatorship that can’t feed it’s current population, the ‘allowance’ of abortion is a fiction. Population control by controlling abortion has been practiced by Lenin, Stalin and Mao, often with permission/prohibition reversals upon change of leadership. Again, the common theme? Control of reproductive decisions by the government.

                    7. Would you mind following up on my question: In what way do Chile, Poland and Ireland permit honor killings and infanticide? Your map lists these countries as prolife, and you claimed that your map showed that the countries which ban abortion are the same countries which allow abortion and infanticide.

                      Thank you for providing more information about abortion in Korea – information which is different from the information on your map. Based on the new information you provided, your map misstates South Korean law (it allows abortion for reasons other than the mother’s physical health). You’re the one who showed me the map and claimed that it undercut my position. So you’re not helping yourself by discrediting your own map.

                      Please tell me – what other mistakes does your map contain? Are you willing to retract claims based on this inaccurate map? You invoked the map, not I.

                      But even if we accept your map at face value, it doesn’t help you. What do the North Korea, China, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have in common, in addition to permitting abortion “without restriction as to reason?” They are all Communist or post-communist dictatorships which (as you so correctly point out) little respect for human rights. Yet your map puts these dictatorships in the same category as the United States with respect to abortion. Your map also fails to mention the compulsory-abortion policies you allude to, and allow me to add that China has such policies, as well. Yet your map puts China and the United States on the same level.

                      Now that we agree that your map is misleading, could you update the information about Syria, Iraq, etc? Since your map is unreliable, could you provide evidence that these countries are actually treating abortion as a crime?

                    8. Your map lists these countries as prolife, and you claimed that your map showed that the countries which ban abortion are the same countries which allow abortion and infanticide.

                      No. I said: “I misstated my point. It should have read: Are you aware the the countries that allow infantcide and honor killings also prohibit abortion?”

                      Which means I re-stated my claim. If you wish to hold on to the earlier claim because it makes it easier for you to avoid the points I’m making, then go ahead.

                      Please tell me – what other mistakes does your map contain? Are you willing to retract claims based on this inaccurate map?

                      You mean if the map isn’t perfect that none of the information is correct? Or is it just the information you find inconvenient? I see the next game we’re going to play – the big search for the perfect map. Hey! here’s another one! If you don’t like it, then find one that suits you. I don’t do homework for others.

                      So you’re saying that South Korea doesn’t have laws against abortion? Because the map says it does. It just gets the specific exemptions wrong. But you’ll notice it doesn’t say it’s legal for any reason. What’s the difference to you, other than to distract from my points?

                      You’re the one who showed me the map and claimed that it undercut my position.
                      No I didn’t. Nice try, though. If you can construct a straw man claiming that my entire argument rests on the accuracy of the map, and then attack the map, you can pretend to have made a point.

                      Again, the map merely shows that the countries that have high incidences of honor killings also prohibit abortion – an unpleasant correlation for your claim that legislation banning abortion is for the protection of human rights.

                      What do the North Korea, China, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have in common, in addition to permitting abortion “without restriction as to reason?” They are all Communist or post-communist dictatorships which (as you so correctly point out) little respect for human rights. Yet your map puts these dictatorships in the same category as the United States with respect to abortion. Your map also fails to mention the compulsory-abortion policies you allude to, and allow me to add that China has such policies, as well. Yet your map puts China and the United States on the same level.

                      Wow. Great point. Unfortunately you’re failing to see it. I’m not attempting to create ‘teams’ of pro and anti abortion governments for us to compare and cheer. I’m pointing out the fallacy of your claim that legislation banning abortion is for the protection of human rights – there’s no link whatsoever.

                      What could, however, be the link between such diverse countries as Myanmar, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Poland and Ireland?

                      Control.

                      You mention Poland, Ireland and Chile – all countries with a large Catholic influence on government – and we know what the Pope says, don’t we?

                      Legal and sometimes forced abortion in Communist countries like China and Dictatorships like North Korea? Population control. Illegal abortions in Democracies like Chile and Ireland, and Monarchies like Saudi Arabia? Religious control.

                      And in each of these cases, the issue isn’t the protection of the unborn. The issue is the amount of control the government exercises over its citizens. There’s a lot of research devoted to abortion incidence relative to legality, and there seems to be little correlation.

                      As I’ve said before, I don’t like abortion any more than I like people OD’ing on heroin, but I’m not in favor of creating a large government bureaucracy that will ineffectively and arbitrarily enforce legislation, and that will most certainly create a black market and lead to more corruption.

                      You, on the other hand, are entirely in favor of creating such a monster, even with the example of the failed WOD staring you in the face.

                    9. “I’m not attempting to create ‘teams’ of pro and anti abortion governments for us to compare and cheer.”

                      It certainly seemed that way. You declared that the countries with laws against abortion are the same countries which allow infanticide and honor killings. If that’s relevant, then it’s also relevant that (except for Communist Rumania) the countries which embraced Communism made abortion legal. Guilt-by-association can work both ways.

                      “So you’re saying that South Korea doesn’t have laws against abortion?”

                      I freely admit that South Korea, a free country, restricts abortion more than does Communist North Korea, a Communist slave-state. Same country, same history and culture, but divided by the Cold War. One country has liberalized abortion laws and the other one doesn’t.

                      To return to your earlier point, which country is “serious” about abortion, North Korea or South Korea?

                      The same was true back when Germany was divided between West and East. The Communist East had abortion rights, the free West limited abortion. The West’s constitution required the government to protect life, and the Constitutional Court interpreted that to mean some degree of protection for fetal life. Same country, same people, the communist half had unrestricted abortion and the free half didn’t.

                      Which country was “serious” about abortion, West or East Germany?

                      “the big search for the perfect map.”

                      I haven’t searched for any map – I used yours. I just want to know if you’re still relying on it.

                      You seem to agree that Ireland, Poland and Chile don’t allow infanticide and honor killings. Instead, you say they are Catholic countries. I acknowledge this damning fact, but it doesn’t support your claim that countries which prohibit abortion also allow infanticide and honor killings.

                      Here’s something which China, North Korea, Uzbekistan and other countries have in common – they are Communist or former Communist countries with a lack of respect for human life. They are perfectly consistent.

                    10. You declared that the countries with laws against abortion are the same countries which allow infanticide and honor killings.

                      I’ve clarified that twice now, but you continue to hold onto the first version because it allows you to pretend that you have a point. Let’s see if you can stop. Again, the countries that allow honor killings prohibit abortion. Why won’t you discuss this?

                      I freely admit that South Korea, a free country, restricts abortion more than does Communist North Korea, a Communist slave-state. Same country, same history and culture, but divided by the Cold War. One country has liberalized abortion laws and the other one doesn’t.

                      To return to your earlier point, which country is “serious” about abortion, North Korea or South Korea?

                      I’d say with forced sterilization, forced abortion and a huge population that is starving due to a state that micromanages every aspect of life, North Korea is pretty damn serious. But they’re serious about controlling their population, not some laughable ‘liberalization’ of abortion rights. In North Korea the state controls who can and who cannot have a child. As expected, only those connected to the state have any ‘rights’, and that scenario rests entirely on the belief that the state has the rights, and not the citizens. That you’d like to give the state in the US similar controls is problematic.

                      East Germany legalized abortion on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy in 1972 in the Volkskammer’s only-ever non-unanimous vote before 1989. After West Germany followed suit in 1974, the new law was struck down by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany as inconsistent with the human rights guarantees of the constitution. It held that the unborn have a right to life, that abortion is an act of killing, and that the fetus deserves legal protection throughout its development…As a result, in 1976, West Germany legalized abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy for reasons of medical necessity, sexual crimes or serious social or emotional distress, if approved by two doctors, and subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period. In 1989, a Bavarian doctor was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and 137 of his patients were fined for failing to meet the certification requirements.

                      Wait. Fined? So these women engaged in an “act of killing” and were…fined?

                      That’s absolute bullshit. If these same women had killed their neighbors or someone at a gas station, then they’d be doing time, not fined. Why would that fly at all? Could it be that abortion is treated differently than murder?

                      But that’s incredibly inconsistent. The argument is always that it’s an act of murder, because how could purposefully ending the life of a separate being be treated any other way? If it were treated another way, wouldn’t that point to the fallacy of the prime argument?

                      I acknowledge this damning fact, but it doesn’t support your claim that countries which prohibit abortion also allow infanticide and honor killings. Please stop being so dishonest. You’re destroying your own argument. I reiterated that it was the countries that allow honor killings that also prohibit abortion – and you’re incredibly frightened of dealing with that fact, so you continue to attempt to distract from the question by pretending that I didn’t reiterate my statement.

                      Here’s something which China, North Korea, Uzbekistan and other countries have in common – they are Communist or former Communist countries with a lack of respect for human life. They are perfectly consistent.

                      But you never talk about the other countries that also show no respect for human life – the ones which also ban abortion. It’s unfortunate that you made such a huge stink about honor killings, because it’s almost the perfect illustration of the falsity of your attempt to connect abortion prohibition with ‘respect for human life’.

                      Why won’t you deal with that problematic correlation?

                    11. Let us lower the rhetorical temperature just a bit. I’m sorry if I missed your rephrasing – I’ve been trying to respond to your arguments as you make them, keeping in reactive mode, but to be fair, you sure bring up a lot of extra points before the earlier ones were resolved, so responding point by point takes some work. Be that as it may, no harm intended.

                      I have conscientiously tried to keep up with each of your points – I first responded to your “lack of seriousness” point and your enforcement arguments, then moved on to new ground – it’s hard to keep up!

                      I mentioned honor killings because of the enforcement problems with a ban on that practice – the same sorts of problems you cited with abortion. I responded to your lack of seriousness argument (prolifers just don’t care about enforcement issues) by mentioning that all 50 U.S. states used to have laws against abortion, and that (based on UN figures and your own numbers) 139 foreign countries have such laws, too. I repeat what I said: It would be unlikely that *all 50 US states* in the past and *139 countries* in the present lack seriousness and haven’t dealt with the enforcement issues.

                      I am not defending the *consistency* of countries which ban abortion. There are countries which ban abortion yet wink at honor killings. There are also countries (such as the USA) which prosecute honor killings while proclaiming abortion to be a constitutional right. Neither approach is consistent, but I don’t see much room for jingoistic triumphalism because we tolerate one evil and other countries tolerate a different evil. Some national humility is called for when we find the U.S. in the same category as China and North Korea where abortion is concerned (at least according to the map you provided).

                      You mentioned the West German women getting fines for abortion. Yet the abortionist went to prison, which I think is key. You save more lives by locking up an abortionist than by locking up these unfortunate women. The bottom line for pro-lifers is to save lives, not to have the abortion-rights crowd praise them for philosophical purity (incidentally, this praise never seems to be forthcoming anyway).

                      The bottom line is that you seem to agree with the Communist East Germans and vent contempt on the free West Germans. Where did the West Germans get the idea that a government dedicated to human rights ought to *protect* human life (however inadequately) rather than snuff it out the way the totalitarian East did? (I’ll stop one step short of Godwinizing, for now).

                      Could you address the problematic correlation by which (with the exception of Rumania) Marxist-Leninist dictatorships keep legalizing abortion?

                    12. Where did the West Germans get the idea that a government dedicated to human rights ought to *protect* human life (however inadequately) rather than snuff it out the way the totalitarian East did? (I’ll stop one step short of Godwinizing, for now).

                      Unfortunately, Godwin won’t help you, as it was apparently forbidden for women in Nazi Germany to have abortions, unless of course they were ‘undesirable’ (non-aryan) – again a population control device.

                      I don’t see much room for jingoistic triumphalism because we tolerate one evil and other countries tolerate a different evil.

                      You may choose to label it an ‘evil’, but again you have a problem in that there is a large number of people who disagree with you.

                      In fact, the number of people who think that it’s ok to kill children (or other beings) is extraordinarily small, and most of them also think that a woman should not be the arbiter of whether she can obtain an abortion.

                      Some national humility is called for when we find the U.S. in the same category as China and North Korea where abortion is concerned.

                      Absolutely – we should recognize that allowing the state to make reproductive decisions over the objections of the citizens (as those countries do) is absolutely undesirable. Because if you think that the citizenry of those overpopulated and centrally controlled countries are ‘free’, then you are quite mistaken.

                      That is the difference between the US and China and NoKo.

                      Again, many people do things I don’t like, and I’ll defend anybody’s right to make comments and dissuade others as to certain practices.

                      But when you want to empower the state to step in and make these kinds of decisions, you are asking to empower the same people who can’t seem to run anything else correctly to decide whether certain women (i.e. not rich or politically connected) can obtain abortions. Sorry, not interested, and nor, do I expect, are enough others to make this anything other than a Socon version of Obamacare – passed in the dark of night using political maneuvers so as to avoid a real discussion. This issue is the perfect silver bullet to put down any hope of enacting fiscal conservatism in this country.

                    13. Also:I am not defending the *consistency* of countries which ban abortion.

                      But you seem confused as to why they ban it, as though state control of reproductive decisions could ever be anything but a ‘good’ thing.

                    14. Eduard van Haalen|8.21.11 @ 9:32AM|#

                      Let’s see – the countries which legalize abortion do so because they’re fundamentally wrong – just like the countries which tolerate honor killings,

                      Uh oh.

                2. None of our laws are enforceable outside our judicial jurisdictions without cooperation.

                  Say what? I got me a drone that says differently.

                  1. That’s not law enforcement, it’s wa….I mean kinetic military action.

          3. It’s more likely scientific.

            A one-day old baby can’t live by itself outside the womb just as a 7-month old baby can’t live by itself outside the womb.

            There are minor differences between the two, but they are minor.

            1. Should read: *7-month old fetus*

              Though it still makes sense as is.

              What makes someone a human being? Brainwaves, heartbeat, breathing?

              1. We use lack of brain function to determine whether or not a man dies, why not use the same dividing line for the beginning of life?

                1. It’s a good point.

                  But, complicating that line of thought is the fact that lack of brain function in a terminal case is combined with a near-zero probability of that changing.

                  In the case of a fetus, there is a near-100% probability of brain function beginning spontaneously without some sort of interference.

                  It’s just a seriously fucking thorny issue.

                  1. In the case of a fetus, there is a near-100% probability of brain function beginning spontaneously without some sort of interference.

                    That is potentiality as opposed to actuality. There is a potential for a child to eventually grow up to become a murderer or some other sort of criminal, too, but we do not treat him as one until he actually does.

                    1. I was only addressing the “brain wave” question.

    3. Interesting that Ron Paul thinks what constitutes “fundamental” rights to change depending on what state you live in, or what a majority of people in a state believe it should be.

      See I can do it too.

      1. Re: Thorble,

        Interesting that Ron Paul thinks what constitutes “fundamental” rights to change depending on what state you live in[…]

        Has he really, Thorble?

        1. Yes, he has asshole.

          That you are ignorant of said facts, while lying about another candidate’s positions, says all that needs to be said about you.

          1. Re: Thorble,

            Yes, he has asshole.

            No, he hasn’t you pinhead. Fundamental rights are those we are born with: Life, Liberty and Property. And if there’s ONE thing he has NOT said, is that those things are contingent to the State one lives: The very Constitution does not let the States trample over these rights [9th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 4th Amendment, the protection of Contracts clause…] and Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. What he HAS said is that his views on such things as marriage or religion will not be imposed by him on others or let the Federal government impose them on the States. You equivocate.

            1. Morally speaking, RP is very anti-abortion, but, as any good politician ought, he separates his morality from his will to impose it on the people from the federal level. On his web site concerning abortion:

              At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

              http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

              His position dictates that the “fundamental rights” of the unborn are completely dependent on where you live.

              And just as with any form of prohibition of a good or service, it can’t work. It’s simply a distortion in the market.

              1. No, the “fundamental right” involved is the woman’s right to privacy – or at least that’s what the Supreme Court treated. Paul evidently thinks there isn’t such a right, or that if there is it should be left up to the individual states. I don’t agree with him on that.

          2. Of course he has asshole. Who doesn’t have asshole?

            1. Someone without an opinion, I suppose.

            2. “Someone without opinion…”

              Dammit.

      2. Each state has the moral responsibility to pass laws against murder, rape, burglary, etc. – the 10th Amendment doesn’t allow Congress to pass such laws – for instance, even the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Congress can’t pass a law against rape under the guise of a “Violence Against Women Act.” That doesn’t mean that violence against women is OK, but that punishing it is a state, not a federal responsibility.

        If, after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, some states insist on legalizing abortion, the only thing Congress can (and should) do about it is propose a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the states fail to ratify, the responsibility will be on their heads.

        I notice that the abortion page on Paul’s Web site links to illustrations of a partial-birth abortion and also links to the Priests for Life Web site – specifically for the purpose of educating voters who are undecided about abortion.

        1. There’s a hell of a difference between a partial-birth abortion at the end of the third trimester and an early term abortion before the end of the first trimester, don’t you think? The former is clearly a homicide if not murder, while the latter is not nearly so distinct.

          1. Well, we certainly disagree about early-term abortion, but of course I agree with you about the partial-birth abortions at the end of the third trimester. I agree that these abortions are “clearly a homicide if not murder.” It wasn’t so clear to abortion-rights supporters like President Clinton, who want a broad “health” exception to partial-birth abortion laws. This would include psychological health. Such exceptions would be inconceivable once we agree that partial-birth abortions are criminal homicide and possibly murder. So there are plenty of people out there who disagree with you about partial-birth abortions.

            1. Homicide simply means the killing of a human being – it may or may not be “criminal.” “Murder” is a form of homicide which is always criminal – almost by definition. I could maybe accept a late-term – even a partial-birth abortion – to preserve the life and perhaps even the physical health of the mother, but “psychological health”? Ha! Have the frigging shrinks ever even managed to agree among themselves on a standard of phychological health? I think there is too much leeway for such to become a justification of very late term abortions of convenience.

    4. I hear you.

      1. Brains!!!!

        1. What?

          1. Whatever.

            1. Really, we’re just friends.

              1. I’m running for president too!

                1. Look at my dick!

                2. Hey, everybody. Look at my dick.

                  1. i hate the darks. feel free to subscribe to my newsletter.

                    1. Call me Mangu-Ward.

                    2. You know what? You are just amazing.

                      I love how you did that. I can certainly help next time, if you want. But hey, it’s your call.

    5. “Interesting that he finds the belief in a woman’s right to kill another human being to be “fundamental.”

      He doesn’t.

      That you incorrectly conflate that with abortion is your fault, no one else’s.

    6. Interesting that he finds the belief in a woman’s right to kill another human being to be “fundamental.”

      Question-Begging Mexican begs the question.

      1. Re: Rev Blue Moon,

        Question-Begging Mexican begs the question.

        Ah, the stupid has spoken.

        This: “Interesting that he finds the belief in a woman’s right to kill another human being to be ‘fundamental’ – is not an argument, you dimwitted, microcephalic dolt; it’s a commentary on Johnson’s opinion.

    7. I think you should spend your time thinking about the women who’ve made excellent mothers, rather than bemoaning those who didn’t or won’t. What’s the point really? You think government can pass a law to police the screwy things that chicks do with their ginees?

      Or more likely, is this a progeny fascination induced by the organ miniaturization that typically afflicts southern amigos?

      How about getting real for a moment… Women swell, cramp, bleed and discharge tissue masses every 3-5 weeks. What’s the big deal with the fetus that looks kinda like a person, getting shredded and vacuumed out?

      I eat gummy bears, they look about as close to a bear as a fetus does to a person or even a baby, but I’m not killing bears when I vacuum and shred them out of their protective plastic wombs.

      1. The Gummy Bear/Fetus analogy may be the worst ever on H&R. I don’t even care what side if the abortion debate you stand on.

        You know, I’ve eaten Pez before. And it’s not like every time I did, I was violently breaking someone’s neck. Because that’s the same as abortion.

        1. I never thought I’d break out in laughter during an abortion discussion.

          Seeing the printed phrase “gummy bear/fetis analogy” itself is ridiculous enough.

      2. Didn’t take any biology courses, eh?

      3. Look! It’s rubber man. Or Kareem Abdul Jabar. Who else has that kind of reach?

        1. Manute Bol?

    8. So I’m a human being now…cool!

      1. Go the fuck to sleep, then.

        1. throw yourself into a closet with a pack of honey badgers

    9. > Interesting that he finds the belief in a woman’s right to kill another human being to be “fundamental.”

      Being able to choose what I ingest (an abortion pill, say) seems pretty fundamental to me.

  7. “I believe in global warming and that it’s man-made,” Johnson said.

    I believe in the energetic properties of unicorn farts.

    1. And even if he does, so long as he’s unwilling to legislate it via the executive office, I couldn’t give a shit.

      There’s all manner of shit that people “believe”, and so long as they’re unwilling to throw it on me via the force of government, they can just go on believin’.

      1. Ah, but this isn’t how OM sees it. And don’t forget – he’s the official bearer of libertarian philosophy. So accept his views of AGW or else!

        1. Re:DK,

          I’m sorry, DK, I wasn’t paying attention – You mooed?

      2. Re: mad libertarian guy,

        And even if he does, so long as he’s unwilling to legislate it via the executive office, I couldn’t give a shit.

        That’s a big gamble, MLG. I have an issue with Paul’s creationist belief, but that one is far way more benign that believing in AGW.

    2. How did you do on Miller’s Analogies?

  8. Visualize for a moment any of the top eight candidates as an actual president…then hope gary Johnson somehow catches fire

    1. Visualize for a moment any of the top eight candidates as an actual president…then hope Gary Johnson somehow catches fire.

      Amen, Wolf.

      1. Imagine if Paul and Johnson came in 1 and 3 (pick an order). The talking heads would have a fit trying to fashion a storyline while ignoring both of them.

    2. Every night before I go to sleep, I visualize all the GOP candidates catching fire.

      1. Me too, Barry. But I visualize you as the match.

        1. Burnt match? RACIST!!!!

  9. Well we’ve now had open-borders and abortion mentioned in this thread. What do we need to send this into epic overdrive?

    1. Re: JIm,

      Well we’ve now had open-borders and abortion mentioned in this thread. What do we need to send this into epic overdrive?

      What else is there in life? πŸ˜‰

      1. Beer and pizza if my lurking taught me anything!

      2. What else is there in life? πŸ˜‰

        Quite right, sir, quite right. Now about those Muslims and their deepdish pizza…

        1. I heard the Muslims want to build a Victory Mosque on Ground Zero!

      3. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women?

        1. I hate myself for it, but I’m going to see it tomorrow. I can’t fail Khal Drogo.

          1. You can only fail yourself. Jason Momoa isn’t exactly the best actor in the world, and he’ll probably be one of the better parts of that movie, which tells you something.

            1. At least he seems to have bulked up a bit; his scrawny arms in that sci-fi show were almost as bad as his acting… but I guess since he’s not doing Shakespeare, it’s not really a problem…. swing an axe, decapitate someone, grunt… repeat.

            2. Jason Momoa isn’t exactly the best actor in the world…

              This summer, Jason Momoa is – Citizen Kane!

          2. I knew Khal Drogo. Khal Drogo was a freind of mine. And you Conan the Barbarian are no Khal Drogo.

          3. Hodor! Hodor! Hodor!

    2. Well we’ve now had open-borders and abortion mentioned in this thread. What do we need to send this into epic overdrive?

      Muslims.

      1. Muslim sex-offenders are crossing our open borders in order to take jobs at low wages and then finance abortions for lesbians who are only fake-married to men because they’d rather be legally married to eachother.

        Discuss.

        1. Not bad… not bad at all. There’ll be a little something extra in your paycheck this week, Jim.

        2. Where do they plan to worship Allah, Jim?

          1. An excellent question, Sloopy! The gay mosque/abortion clinic/day labor center will rent out the ground floor of the Oklahoma City federal building.

            1. Thank you. This thread is now complete.

            2. Ok now you’re just showing off.

        3. Are they hot lesbians?

          1. More Rosie O’Donnel than Amber Heard

            1. Then we obviously need legislation agin’ it!

              1. Irshad Manji is the only Muslim lesbian I’ve ever heard of, and I guess she’s decent looking. More “cute” than “hot”.

                1. More “cute” than “hot”.

                  If by “cute,” you mean that she looks like a cross between Rachel Maddow and a stork, then I agree.

                  I would use the word “handsome” to describe her if forced to pick one.

                  1. How many lesbian Muslims can there be?

                    1. Well pretty much all Saudi chicks would fall into the lesbian Muslim category

    3. “Well we’ve now had open-borders and abortion mentioned in this thread. What do we need to send this into epic overdrive?”

      Someone needs to find a way to equate the topic to Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or BSG.

        1. Sorry, forgot a biggie there.

          1. Game of Thrones?

      1. Darth Vader was a seekret mooslim Cylon. I also heard he wasn’t even born on Tatooine. He was born on Cardassia, and adopted by a Nazgul.

        1. He was born on Cardassia

          Part of a royal family with Princesses Kim, Khloe, Kourtney

        2. Everybody knows that the Klingons were the Mooslims.

          Oh, and the Ferengi were…TEH JOOZ!!!

    4. Well we’ve now had open-borders and abortion mentioned in this thread. What do we need to send this into epic overdrive?

      Immigration

      Palin

  10. Ponder this: Michelle Bachmann is crushing Johnson in terms of visibility and popularity within TEAM RED. Then cease wondering why TEAM RED is as abjectly awful as TEAM BLUE, even when they have people like Johnson running (well, trying to) within their TEAM.

    1. Something something Mexicans something Johnson something unserious.

      1. But Bachmann and Perry and (insert dipshit GOP’er here) really are for libertarian stuff! Look over there, Elvis!

        1. Be careful, you’ll summon John and SIV, who will then summon Minge, and then we’ll all wake up in Hell.

          1. At least nothing can summon someone who has been banned and posts from her smartphone.

        2. Awwwwww. I heart you too, ya big lug!

      2. “He’s against war? He wants to legalize what? Well, he can go sit at the children’s table…”

        1. The whole “the adults are talking” and “sit at the children’s table” shit is fucking hilarious. Anyone who uses it instantly signals that they have no argument. I love it.

          1. It’s just too bad they don’t get called on it. If Paul continues contending, and / or Johnson becomes a force, then people will actually have to start thinking about why they believe what they believe. It could be messy…

            1. No, it won’t. They will avoid doing that at all costs. You’re more likely to see one of the talking heads on the news literally stick his fingers in his ears, saying “LALALALALALAL”.

            2. This is why it’s good to have one more libertarian (even if he’s not an anarcho-capitalist) in the race. The more we have in there, the harder it is to marginalize them with this stupid, “the adults are talking” b.s. We get a few more in the race and we could actually turn the tables, legitimately, on their non-argument. One day, one day in a galaxy far far away people might realize it’s the height of childishness (as well as selfishness) to send in thugs to stomp some people for other people’s disagreements over tastes and values

              1. “Selfishness” is a virtue.

        2. “He’s against war? He wants to legalize what? Well, he can go sit at the children’s table…”

          Tricky that, NPR gets their goat up the minute you want to “legalize” something. Because “legalizing” stuff is akin to dregulation.

          1. Funny how the “adults” on both sides really agree about most things.

  11. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is the only GOP presidential candidate who has both executive experience and good ideas.

    Fire for effect!

    1. executive experience…

      Before you reload, maybe look up the bolded word.

      1. Don’t harsh my anger!

  12. I’m all for reigning in spending.

    1. Does no one know the word “rein” around here?

      1. I do, I ride western.

      2. Tow the lion, moran.

      3. You know, though, ‘reigning in spending’ does have a secondary meaning if you (and forgive my grammatical definitions here) interpret the word ‘in’ as an adverb:

        Obama Reigns in Spending!

        1. Obama feigns frugality.

        2. To rein in Spain will cause planes to fall mostly on Bahrain.

        3. That’s the way I was reading the OP.

          1. +1.3 Trillion for him, too

            What the hell… 1.3 Trillion for everyone!

            1. What the hell… 1.3 Trillion for everyone!

              1.3T a year for every child’s education!

              1. Hey, we might just make the proficiency goal for this year!

          2. Thanks for getting it. πŸ™‚

            1. Sorry we didn’t catch on at first. Have another 1.3 Trillion.

    2. Let me be clear. Faberg? eggs are not frivolous.

  13. Paul/Johnson, Johnson/Paul, does it really matter as long as one of them wins?

    We basically hava three flavors of GOP ice cream: chocolate, strawberry, and shit. Don’t tell me the people that love chocolate are actually going to go out of their way to sabotage strawberry and allow shit to win.

    1. Coincidently, my wife wanted Neapolitan ice cream tonight, but the store only had Republican. I don’t like the shit flavor, so I just brought home chocolate.

      1. You’re not a liberal Masshole, are you? That non-rhotic stuff in your name makes me think you’re like those dudes in Ben Affleck’s really awesome-ass movie!!!

    2. No fucking joke.

    3. Well, 7 flavors of shit, plus vanilla, plus cherry garcia.

  14. I hate to do a threadjack on a GJ story, cause he is my pick to be president, but…

    “Chicago Police must pay damages for killing dog”

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lo…..48841.html

    1. I saw that. They actually levied a small fine against the cop personally.
      Question: Does that mean he has to pay it himself?

  15. Krager and Roemer and McCotter are getting more press than Johnson.

    He’s toast.

    He should run for senate and build up a name for himself, much the way Rand Paul is.

    1. Who the fuk are Krager, Roemer, and McCotter?

      1. partners in the drunkest law firm ever

        1. partners in the drunkest law firm ever

          Not likely. Needs moar JOOZ.

          1. I don’t know, Krager sounds pretty jewey.

            1. Everybody knows the Hebe ratio needs to be at least 2:1 for a law firm to get ABA approval to practice.

      2. Krager and Roemer: good question.

        McCotter: statist who wishes there had been more manufacturing bailouts, to go along with the bank bailouts.

        1. Stupid joke tags…

  16. Gary Johnson is the man. Screw Ron Paul, I mean sure he’s polling leagues ahead of Johnson, has a huge base of support and fundraising, is actually in the debates, but he only agrees with us on 98% of the issues… Four more years, four more years!

    1. I shot beer out of my nose.

  17. If everybody who said Gary has “No Chance” actually voted for him, then he’d win in a landslide. Why is it that people need to be convinced the majority are voting for a candidate before they decide? Voting is personal, decide for yourself. And yes, Gary Johnson is one hell of a leader, and no I don’t agree with everything he says, but shit, at least he’s consistent in his views.

    1. If everybody who said Gary has “No Chance” actually voted for him, then he’d win in a landslide.

      I hate to burst your bubble, but nowhere near that many people talk about him.

        1. ^Me^

      1. But everyone who talks about him says “Johnson is better, but Ron Paul has a MACHINE!”

        Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should just get together and decide which one of them will head the ticket now, and then run as a unit.

  18. If we could vote, Johnson may think differently about us. For example, the Democrats didn’t care about the blacks until they were able to vote.

    1. you amorphus glob of cells, and get back to me when you have a brain.

    2. We vote all over the place and no one gives us the time of day….or brains.

    3. The [hated political party] didn’t care about [some group] until [circumstances made it necessary]. I’m shocked …

  19. “For example, the Democrats didn’t care about the blacks until they were able to vote.”

    Amen, homie! The Dems ignored us too till we pulled the lever for them.

    1. ::cough:: ::cough::

    2. Can you vote for field turf too?

  20. Gary has my vote, if he’s still around come CA primaries. He has the chief executive experience that Ron Paul does not have. The responsibilities of a governor are more similar to being president than any of the other elected positions. They have to deal with the legislative and judiciary branches, like the president. He has shown a willingness to be fiscally disciplined and socially liberal when he’s in the captain’s chair. That he has been so marginalized demonstrates that Americans still don’t give a shit about issues. We treat it like we are voting for the king and queen of the high school prom.

    1. Physicians can’t exactly ignore the legislative or judicial branches, either. They buy liability insurance against the latter, and have to monitor legislation in the former.

      Also, House members, have to deal with the legislative branch, too. Also the executive branch. They even consider legislation about the judiciary (such as the legislation Paul has introduced).

      1. How many bad laws did Paul vote against? Was it under 750? Someone should count.

        1. After they do their count, could you send them over to my place? I need them to split some hairs I’ve been saving.

          Thanks in advance.

    2. “That he has been so marginalized demonstrates that Americans still don’t give a shit about issues.”

      More likely that Americans still don’t share your political views, but whatever lets you sleep at night.

      1. My point is this: Johnson is former two term governor. A successful businessman, and an accomplished mountaineer. He was passed over by the MSM for a one term Congressperson with no high level executive experience (ie. Bachman). I think they did this because they believe that’s what the American people want, and they appear to be correct.

        I think Johnson’s bona fides place him squarely in the “serious candidate” group, but the media appear to be culling him from contention, and the American people seem to be ok with it.

        1. Bachmann has a base of enthusiastic supporters, many of them strong supporters of the Tea Party movement. Johnson seems to be supported by virtually no one. Part of the problem, as always in a strongly contested primary, is getting publicity, but that’s up to Johnson to drum up. Bachmann has been attention-whoring/gaining-legitimate-noteriety by fighting Tea Party battles for a couple of years now. What has Johnson been doing during that time? Don’t blame the difference in coverage between Bachmann and Johnson on the MSM. The difference in coverage is a legitimate reflection of proven support in this case, esp. since Johnson made no effort in IA and Bachmann put in a huge effort.

          1. There are numerous other candidates equally as previously “invisible” as Johnson who are getting more attention from the MSM. Obviously, it is up to Johnson to deal with whatever the campaign trail throws his way, but I think there is a definite bias against him by the media. No, not a conspiracy, but a general bias. If you want an example, see Jon Stewart’s recent bit regarding the press and Ron Paul.

            1. ^This.

              The Stewart piece pretty well lays out that the bias has nothing to do with popularity.

            2. No real argument. The media, old and new and otherwise, like some stuff and shun other stuff and the people thusly associated.

              1. Gotta mention, it’s not the job of the ‘media’ to do anything other than make money for the shareholders, regardless of claims of ‘sainthood’.
                I’ve heard Johnson speak at a small gathering; it was impressive to hear such comments from someone who hopes to be president. But it’s his job to get coverage, not the ‘media’s’ job to provide it.
                The ‘media’ is nothing other than a popularity whore.

                1. “The ‘media’ is nothing other than a popularity whore.”

                  Nah, ratings do count, but the ‘media’ does have agendas.

                  1. “Nah, ratings do count, but the ‘media’ does have agendas.”

                    I agree, and the agendas are driven by the presumed audience.
                    Point remains; NYT is only going to print non-lefty stuff when it perceives its audience wants to read it, or it becomes so obvious that even the editors find the alternative embarrassing.
                    Ditto Fox News, BTW.

                    1. …the agendas are driven by the presumed audience.

                      I see what you’re saying sevo, but I still think that Paul’s comment on Heroin use if legalized was pretty incendiary by presidential debate standards. He was talking about legalizing all drugs.

                      That’s not a story?

                      Ratings do matter, but I’d say they’re also created – as the media has a lot to stir up regarding Paul – especially the kooky theme. How many reality shows have achieved decent ratings based on that aspect?

                      The idea that he’s simultaneously kooky and also not good for ratings seems conflicting to me.

                  2. ^^THIS^^

                    They have just as much at stake with doing their part to uphold the DC status quo as anyone in the establishment. It will ruin their entire business model of featuring, night after night, Team RED v Team BLUE. They depend on it.

        2. “an accomplished mountaineer”

          more or less impressive than accomplished curler?

          1. Uh…way more? To my knowledge there’s only been 3 deaths attributed to curling, during the 1962 Saskatchewan Open when Bill Olafsson accidentally ran the puck into a propane tank.

            1. really? Is there video footage?

  21. Everybody talking about their upcoming primary gets me to thinking. How many democrats do you think will defect to the GOP primary just so they can sabotage it? Will the number be high enough to do any real damage? Who will they vote for in their effort? Will it cause an unintended strong candidate for president or vp to emerge?

    My answers to these questions are: quite a few, yes, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, yes (Paul).

    Please discuss.

    1. Fucking spoof names, how do they work?

    2. If Democrats vote in GOP primaries, they will vote for someone who will help them with their agenda should they when the election, most likely Huntsman or Romney. No way would they vote for someone with as long and consistent a track record of opposition to Big Gov as Paul or who is as willing to fight on the traditionalist side of the culture war as Bachmann. Democrats are very afraid of any female who is not a feminist ideologue. Without a lopsided percentage of the female vote, the Democrats would cease to be politically competitive.

      1. I dunno. I could see the MSNBC propaganda machine churning out stories that a vote for RP would assure Obama victory because America doesn’t trust him because he’s a nut.

        Now think about all the insane shit MSNBC tells it’s scores of viewers to do on a regular basis, and tell me this isn’t plausible.

        1. The usual GOP POTUS primary pattern is

          1. The RP establishment anoints a weak-willed, controllable candidate.
          2. The Democrat Media promotes an alternative that fits a leftist stereotype of Republicans, e.g. Steve Forbes, a vote splitter, e.g. Ross Perot, someone who would not strongly oppose the overall leftist agenda, e.g. John McCain, or someone with a personal hostility toward the anointed candidate.
          3. The Democrat Media stokes as much conflict between the anointed candidate and their alternative as it can.
          4. The anointed candidate wins the nomination anyway.
          5. The Team Red base grumbles but dutifully votes for the nominee.

          How will this pattern change in the current political environment? Hard to say.

        2. I’m curious about how this meme got started that MSNBC commands legions of slave-soldiers ever willing to do it’s bidding, but Fox, which has the single largest viewing audience of any cable news network, is somehow not “mainstream”, and it’s viewers are indepenent people who are resistant to propoganda, unlike MSNBC viewers.*

          *I realize nobody said that directly, but the fact is, everyone says the MSM is liberal, and criticizes MSNBC and it’s viewers constantly, without mentioning that it has a vastly smaller pool of viewers than Fox. I just find it strange. I would think that being the largest of anything by default makes it “mainstream”, and that their viewers are every bit as much subject to manipulation as the leftists.

          1. Now think about all the insane shit MSNBC tells it’s scores of viewers to do…

            Nobody caught this. And I thought I was clever.
            πŸ™

            1. Haha, +eleventy for spin.

            2. -100 for esplainin’ a joke.

              Never esplain a joke.

          2. I used to think the media was liberal. However, the Bush/Obama years have shown me that the media is really authoritarian. The Constitution asserts the freedom of the press in order to preserve liberty. What do you do when the media is a willing whore of the state ?

            1. make stupid unfounded comments on the internet

          3. Well, there are 5 liberal networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN), and one conservative one (FOX), so that would explain the viewing audience. It’s easy to have the largest viewing audience when you’re the only one in the market.

  22. I have tremendous admiration for both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. It is a huge mistake for supporters of liberty to think of this as ‘either or’. Both men are highly principled and are bringing those vital principles to the forefront. The media keeps Governor Johnson invisable. They try with Dr Paul but can not due to the huge ground swell behind him. I keep Paul stickers on my pickup because I think he has the best chance in this election, but I thank God for them both. Regretably, the status quo will probably win again this time around, but the princples of liberty are becoming more mainstream every day. The 2016 election may well be Gary Johnson’s.

  23. That’s an interesting point. I don’t think it will be too many. Voter participation is low enough even when people are really interested in the outcome. Laziness will win this battle, methinks.

  24. O/T (but eminently worth sharing, if only for the furious spinning it will occasion from the ObamaBots):

    US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024

    Taxpayers Funded ObamaCare Propaganda, to Tune of $200 Million

    “Hope! CHANGE!”

    1. We were HOPING you wouldn’t bring up the CHANGE to the plans

    2. “I voted for Obama because I was afraid McCain would keep us at war overseas indefini — errrrrrr… I mean, I was afraid he would start an entirely new undeclared war someplace in the Middle Ea — ummmmmmmmm… ahhhhhhhhh…

      “… I mean: DERP — !!!

      1. I was told if I voted for Barr, we’d have war and economic disasters.

        1. We love war fiat long time.

          No tell you though.

          Before votee time.

          LOL

  25. Johnson … called instead for a simplification of U.S. immigration policy, and for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers law-breaking illegal aliens currently residing in the United States

    Someone get Riggs a proofreader.

    1. If I write something about a speeding motorist, should I refer to him as “an illegal”? Why not?

      1. Who said the illegal aliens in the U.S. are all workers?

  26. I certainly wish Gary Johnson got some more attention from the media. He’s one of the only two GOP candidates I’ll vote for. Ron Paul being the other.

    1. Thanks for finishing that. I was wondering who the other might be.

  27. Undoubtedly Johnson does have some good ideas and a great track record as governor of a small, in population, state. There is a lot that is good about him.

    However, his manner of speaking makes him appear to be Mr. Metrosexual, which does not bode well for first impressions. Sorry but the fact remains that sound bites are what most people will know about him, and that is not good.

    As for Ron Paul, you need to look beyond the hoax of his earmark titles which include “For Free Trade” as they are certainly payola to multi-national refiners and chemical plants. This is quite different than his rhetoric and “No” votes.

    1. However, his manner of speaking makes him appear to be Mr. Metrosexual

      And now you know why the reason crowd is shooting in their pants over him.

      1. I’m part of that crowd, and I don’t have any special admiration for the guy at all. In fact, it’s the same 10-15 people here that are hardcore Johnsonites.

        What the fuck are you talking about?

    2. I’ve never heard Johnson speak. I don’t watch TV. I read.

      I’m old school. I’m not of the optinion that how good someone looks on TV or how telegenic they are is an important qualification for office.

      I look at what their positions are on paper. Like Americans used to do before Television took over our politics in the 50s. Back in the era when we elected ugly old men and cripples, and nobody gave a shit if they had “good hair”.

      1. In the 2008 primaries, I remember a woman saying that she voted for Romney because he “looked Presidential”. Sweet Jeebus.

  28. Wake me up when this round of bullshit is over.

    1. Ok. See you next winter.

      1. reverse-hibernation ftw. *yawn*

    2. Not even I can sleep that long

    3. Wake me up when this round of bullshit is over.

      This is the era of the Continuous Campaign ™. I’ll set an alarm for the start of the next round of bullshit.

    4. When September Ends.

      Green Day- Wake Me Up When September Ends (HQ! Official Video)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNJmwwf7QA

      1. Fag!!!!!

        1. When September Ends is USMC hardass, faggot.

        2. Oh great and glorious Warty. Please protect us from faggy music. Do this and in your honor I will punch an emo kid. Amen.

          1. Why am I better than Jesus? I exist.

            1. I have been on a mad Misfits kick for the last two days.

              1. I’m 17 again, again.

                1. feelin, like i’m almost 16 again.
                  hangin round doin nothin, w/ all my friends

  29. sevo: …to protect the rights of individuals regardless of the popular mood.

    However, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

    1. “However, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”

      Logic does nothing of the sort.
      That’s a premise, not a conclusion.

      1. Utilitarianism.

        It’s what Jefferson purposely wrote into the Declaration of Independence instead of that stupid “life, liberty and property” shit.

        Pursuit of happiness being a utilitarian ideal of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) replacing privation.

        Privation or Private Property, however you want to put it.

        1. preach it, sister!

          1. Where’s my fucking caps key for your etymological lesson tonight?

            PRIVation.
            PRIVate. Property.

            Private property comes at the privation of others. Jefferson, that cocksucking Marxist and enemy of Our Lords and Saviors Rand, Rothbard, Mises, knew it.

              1. Marxist and Libertarians always get tired of contemplating Jefferson, one of the most awfully, beautifully contradictory characters in American history.

                At least he was out in the sunshine and a breeze now and then, you goddam condo-hiving, domesticated-bootlicking city-slicker.

                Can you reconcile what some scholars see as contradictions in Jefferson’s character? No? Why the hell not? Low IQ?

                  1. sevo|8.19.11 @ 9:33PM|#
                    Tired.

                    I bet you are. Fatigued, even.

                    It’s hard for city-slickers to out-think country boys.

                  2. Communism: “All we need is the New Soviet Man!”
                    W.I.: “All we need is people who don’t want to live beyond 30!”
                    Good luck; get back to us when you find converts.
                    Tired.

                    1. You stupid libertards’ best argument is that you are 1.5% better than your sister philosophers, the commutards.

                      The stupidity is this:

                      (1) Desiring the abuse of the STATE to end

                      (2) while wholly supporting the agricultural city-state (civilization.)

                      Concentration of power, whether to the Politboro or Boardrooms, is equally divisive and destructive. See it happening now??? You can’t tell?

                      Quit listening to those who own, manipulate, and control the media, like Reason.Foundation, who has received buku bucks from Politburo. Or Koch Bros, etal. What’s the difference?

                    2. It’s beaucoup, you fucking retard. It means “very much” in French. The rest of what you said is wholly irrelevant, but if you are going try to sound like a sophisticate, don’t spell like a mongoloid.

                    3. It was probably meant as irony. What’s funny is that he thinks he’s being novel with the whole “libertarians are communists” angle; as if libertarians don’t hear ad nauseam the whole “dude, your views are like, so UTOPIAN, they’re like, just like COMMUNISM LOLOLOL!!!”. Hilarity continues when you consider his nostalgic utopianism is 1000000% more inane and over-idealized than any of the “pie-in-the-sky” hopes of commies or libertarians.

                    4. Walla! Now I know how to pronounce one of those hard words on the french postcards that my pappy brought home from the big war.

                      Thanks, Blue!

                    5. My God.

                      It’s full of dumbass!

                    6. Being that agriculture is widely known to decrease life expectancy and decrease health, except for the few elite at the top of the pyramidal hierarchy as wealth trickles up the wealth funnel into higher, tighter, and righter hands, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Obviously nothing based on reality.

                      ? Average life expectancy of the !Kung bushmen hunter-gatherer bands in the marginally inhabitable Kalahari desert: 69 years.

                      ? Average life expectancy of modern civilization: 67 years.

                      Of course, it’s something around 77 years (if you’re the right color, blacks die off 6 years earlier) near the center of Empire, arrogantly called the “First World” as it sucks the life out of the rest of the occupied world using Economic Hitmen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ic_Hit_Man

                      Like J.W. Smith states, the “emergent elite” have moved from Plunder by Raids to Plunder by Trade. http://www.ied.info/

            1. So, I deprive people of property if I get rich selling the great, new, labor saving invention I created?

        2. But my brand of EcoCommunism[+] will make all equal in their onesness with the land.

          As soon as the squaws get finished with the cooking.

          [+] It’s like the Red Green Show, only without the technology or humor.

          1. You have no idea what anthropologist use as a tight definition of egalitarianism.

            Hint>>>

            It’s not the straw man that Rothbard created.

            1. Witless injun too stupid to know difference between philosophy and anthropology.

              1. Probably too stupid to know difference between squaw and squat, too.

              2. Evolutionary biologists and other scientists use the word egalitarian* to describe behavior in many animals, including humans.

                And you didn’t know that? Why do they call this place reason with the level of anti-intellectualism paralleling fundamentalist creationists?

                __________
                * A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies, Animal Behaviour, Volume 31, Issue 3, August 1983, Pages 667-682, by Sandra L. Vehrencamp, Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego

        3. Your human agricultural civilization has angered and frightened us. Prepare for annihilation, Earthlings!

          1. Which side are you on? The destroyers of Mother Earth and her Children?

            Or Will Smith?

            1. Da mud mama’ll get you!
              Ask W.I. when the rapture comes.

              1. We’re looking for a few good men to breath are, OWNED air.

                Can’t pay, die. For liberty.

                1. None of the other necessities of life are free – why should air be?

                  1. Would squirrels and crows have to pay for air too in a Neil&Neil; SyFy Cargo Cult tyranny on an Agorist Pallas Randroid asteroid?

                    Goddam little malthusian moochers. Oh, an somebody shut the hell up that Leninist Christ Creature.

                    Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and yet God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the fowls! ~Jesus, verse 40, chapter 4, The Jefferson Bible

                  2. “Sorry, you have free air here, don’t you?”

                    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
                    Robert Heinlein

    2. Or the one.

      1. “So you think that love of Mother Earth is the root of all evil?”

    3. Spock… there’s… some bullshit… on… this ship.

      For fuck’s sake, please stop with the self-righteous bullshit? Geez, even Obama parrots your shit now. Get a new act.

      1. Kirk, the needs of the One are most important, and I am the One. I need four more years in Washington to do nothing, er, I mean to accomplish my goals.

        1. O = K.

          Gag me with a cock.

  30. OM and Sloopy:
    BakedPenguin|8.19.11 @ 7:29PM|#
    “That’s the question. When does a fetus become a human being, with all due rights? At zygote? One day, one week, one month? Is it when the heart starts? When the brain becomes active?

    I notice neither of you responded.
    Abortion is a tough question: On one hand we have the clear right of someone to control what goes on in her body, on the other, we have the clear right of a human not to be murdered.
    At some time between conception and birth, that collection of cells becomes human, the woman loses the control of her body and the emerging human gains that right.
    I’ll repeat the question: When is that?

    1. Read up on biology first. Then some anthropology regarding human female reproduction empirical data for 2 million years.

      Dave Bowman: I understand how you feel. You see, it’s all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It’s wonderful.

      1. Abortion Troll|8.19.11 @ 9:19PM|#
        “Read up on biology first. Then some anthropology regarding human female reproduction empirical data for 2 million years.”

        This collection of bullshit is supposed to be an answer?

        1. Yeah, I’m glad you think empirical data and the tool of reason are bullshit. Welcome to the club! Yerrr Borrrrn Agerrrn! Want to come ride a dinosaur with Jesus H. Farking Christ?

          1. Fundamentalist Creationist|8.19.11 @ 9:27PM|#
            “Yeah, I’m glad you think empirical data and the tool of reason are bullshit.”

            Love to hear some “empirical data and the tool of reason”. Got any?

            1. I’ve posted enough scholarly citation for you to read in 25 lifetimes. Go back to hoeing your corn, or programming computers, or whatever you do to suck elite dick, so you can buy food and survive.

              THAT is how things go in a State society that controls the food and puts it under lock and key.

              Suck. Or starve.

              1. U no likee citation?|8.19.11 @ 10:06PM|#
                “I’ve posted enough scholarly citation for you to read in 25 lifetimes….”

                That’s nice. Like to try posting an answer?

                1. Sure.

                  me show you free market after you pay

                  Moocher. Rotttttter. Beggggar.

                  say uncle, liberfuncle

                  cheap bastard use Amazon woman. She put out long time.

              2. Sorry it took a while, sevo. Had to go out for a short while.

                I answered above, but will restate it here. I believe it should be illegal once higher brain function begins. And it should be tested on a case by case basis.

                And yes, my deadline is arbitrary. Just like everyone else’s on the matter.

                1. “I answered above, but will restate it here. I believe it should be illegal once higher brain function begins. And it should be tested on a case by case basis.”

                  Sorry I missed it above, but roughly when does that typically occur?

                  1. LIFE starts when the sperm leaves the testes which is why onanism is evil.

                  2. LIFE starts when the sperm leaves the testes which is why onanism is evil.

                    1. Fuck! They told me life begins at 50. Goddamm AARP….

                  3. Looks like between 8-10 weeks depending on how one defines higher vs reflexive activity.

                    1. sloopyinca|8.19.11 @ 10:40PM|#
                      “Looks like between 8-10 weeks depending on how one defines higher vs reflexive activity.”

                      Thanks. I do appreciate the answer.
                      OM: Your comments?

                2. You’re not there yet, in your wildest dreams. Even deeeeeep alpha.

                  You City Slicker long time.

                  1. Witless Injun saw mother naked one too many times.

                    1. Nekkid human do like nekkid squirrel?

                      You god-talker?

                      Get fig leaf now?

                3. You have uterus? No? MYOB.

                  1. You have brain? No?

                    Fuck off.

                  2. I was a fetus once. IIMB.

              3. Charles Mann, Jared Diamond, and other pop-arch/anthro books? Free (parents pay for them).

                Buying a computer, paying for an internet connection, and finding a bias-confirming geocentric ecosocialism website? Free (paid for by parents).

                Ranting against the evils of technology/computer programming and agricultural-civilization on a computer with an internet connection, presumably in a climate-controlled building with a roof? Priceless.

    2. When the fetus can live indepently of its mother save for normal care, such as feeding, washing, clothing, etc.? I know, premature babies are born and they receive exquisite and expensive care to save their lives, but a child born at say 12 weeks of gestation has zero chance of survival.

      1. So, preemies aren’t people? Or preemies that can survive are people and as technology improves more preemies become people? That’s not a very satisfying definition of life.

        1. “sevo|8.19.11 @ 9:42PM|#
          So, preemies aren’t people? Or preemies that can survive are people and as technology improves more preemies become people? That’s not a very satisfying definition of life.

          This is a spoof.

          1. Two fucking million years of human NON-STATE success.

            Anthropologist recognize that success as the “Original Affluent Society.” Really, if your reasonable.

            And you screw it up and try to redefine success, with digging around in the ground. Smarty pants.

            CULTured Idiot.

            1. You are hysterical, sweetie. Take a pill and lie down.

              1. wayne, not sure that’s a ‘sweetie’. Pretty sure it’s White Indian, trolling in the hopes of converting people into short life-spans and giving up porcelain pots since the mud mama tells him so.

                1. Whoever it is, he would be more effective if he was somewhat comprehensible. I am thinking of letting my dog, Pete, walk on my keyboard as a response.

                  1. Keep barking, dog. Howcome yoooz tail is all wet?

                    Dogs and Wolves.
                    by jason godesky
                    13 November 2006
                    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..index.html

                  2. wayne|8.19.11 @ 10:25PM|#
                    “Whoever it is, he would be more effective if he was somewhat comprehensible.”

                    Uh, this is White Indian regardless of the alias chosen for the particular post.
                    You aren’t going to find W.I. being comprehensible. Think of that damn car alarm going off (again) and you’ll have a good mental image.

              2. You are hysterical, sweetie. Take a pill and lie down.

                Then she won’t need to worry about getting preggers in the first place.

                1. nailed ‘er

            2. Nigga u gay

            3. You’re supposed to suck off the Prof for an ‘A’. You’re not supposed to keep doing it after you’ve finished the course.

      2. Thank you, wayne. That’s the first specific answer.
        Not sure it stands all tests; medical science keeps finding new solutions, but since wayne was honest enough to put a number out there, we’ll at least take it as a start.
        12 weeks.
        OM?
        Sloopy?

        1. You are talking to a guy with three kids and two grand kids, so this abortion question does trouble me.

          I am very torn. I certainly object to abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, the later the stage the more objectionable it becomes. Having said that, though, I don’t consider myself a hard-core pro lifer.

          1. Guess what, fuck off. You got the dick. They got the uterus.

            You got uterus? No? Oh.

            1. It’s a Woman’s Decision|8.19.11 @ 9:54PM|#
              “Guess what, fuck off. You got the dick. They got the uterus.
              You got uterus? No? Oh.”

              Yep, ‘nother worthless comment.

              1. Do you have a uterus?

                No?

                MYOB.

                Now suck my dick.

            2. Guess what, fuck off. You got the dick. They got the uterus.

              You got uterus? No? Oh.

              I guess you won’t be requiring us to pay child support anymore, will you?

              1. Got a problem with individual responsibility, boy?

                1. Witless Injun talk nonsense, white man’s twisted brain… Uh, tongue.

                2. Individual responsibility?

                  A woman can decide whethernor not to have a child, which will create a financial burden on her and the father. The man has no part in deciding whether or not to have a child. How can you call that “personal responsibility?”

                  The way I see it, if a man gets laid and has no intent to have a child, does not want the child, and is not afforded a part in deciding whether or not that child is to be born, how the hell can you hold him “personally responsible” for anything?

                  Sorry, but until I am part of the decision-making process, I should not be held hostage for $875 a month for 18 years + half of a college education for a child I cannot see because the mother won’t let me.*

                  *this is my situation with a bastard kid in VA from a chick who told me she wasn’t able to get pregnant and told me she was also on birth control. She got pregnant, we immediately split up, and she had my ass in court a month after the kid was born.

                  1. “this is my situation with a bastard kid”

                    Hee, hee, hee. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer asshole. Serves you right, you slut.

                3. The hate just spills out of you through your pre-paid data plan, cuntpickel.

                  I like it.

          2. I get in trouble for this (I live in SF), but I don’t like abortion at all.
            I just have yet to hear a factual/logical statement of when the right transfers from the woman’s control of her body to the (new) human; both rights I take very seriously.
            I’m not asking because I’m trying to catch someone out on a logical error. I’m asking those who state “it’s wrong” to define when it becomes wrong.

            1. I don’t like abortion either, and I am just as confounded by the tranfer of rights question as you. On the bright side, this is not a question taken lightly by most women either.

            2. Who cares?

              MYOB

            3. “I’m asking those who state “it’s wrong” to define when it becomes wrong.”

              In my mind, abortion is certainly wrong when the child would be viable after a normal delivery, i.e. the “late term” abortion issue. VERY few late term abortions are performed, though, so it is not that big an issue. I can’t imagine who would have a late term abortion, or who would perform one, simply for expediency.

              1. Got uterus? Expedient.

                Got Dick? You done yet?

    3. “At some time between conception and birth, that collection of cells becomes human, the woman loses the control of her body and the emerging human gains that right.
      I’ll repeat the question: When is that?”

      I am not OM or sloopy, but I will take a crack at it. I support abortion on demand at the zygote stage.

      1. Re: Wayne,

        I am not OM or sloopy, but I will take a crack at it. I support abortion on demand at the zygote stage.

        That is how intrauterine devices work. I have no problems with those, as zygotes only have a 50-50 chance of interfacing with the matrix anyway.

        1. Fucktard.

          1. Shit, what a smart response!

            The radon on your mother’s basement… excuse me, your office, must be altering your brain at a faster rate than you realize.

            1. you’re not all that swift, even for you ever-so-advaginal gerontological/geographical status.

              1. Witless injun no talk sense. No very swift either, just stupid.

                1. Boys always protest.

        2. Old Mexican|8.19.11 @ 10:44PM|#
          “Re: Wayne,

          I am not OM or sloopy, but I will take a crack at it. I support abortion on demand at the zygote stage.

          That is how intrauterine devices work. I have no problems with those, as zygotes only have a 50-50 chance of interfacing with the matrix anyway.”

          OM, ignoring W.I.’s socking, when do you find the transfer of rights?

          1. Re: sevo,

            OM, ignoring W.I.’s socking, when do you find the transfer of rights?

            I already replied. And ignore Witless Injun – It’s the radon in his mom’s basemen… sorry, his office, which is affecting his brain.

            1. U no takee personal responsibility?

              1. Me no talk with witless injun.

                1. You always resist when we play slap and tickle.

                  1. Witless Injun there having dreams of becoming a squaw… Or an inflatable one at least.

                    1. And being raped, repeatedly, while Mother Gaia sheds a single tear.

    4. Re: sevo,

      At some time between conception and birth, that collection of cells becomes human, the woman loses the control of her body and the emerging human gains that right.

      The moment the zygote implants itself with the matrix. At that moment, all bets are off. Zygotes have a 50-50 chance of implanting in the matrix naturally, so whatever happens before implanting is a roll of the dice.

      Once it implants itself, the chances of becoming a totally formed human increases to about 96%.

      1. whoa.

        1. Old Mexican has a 96% CHANCE

          1. Witless Injun has no chance.

      2. Oops, should have read further.
        So this is within a day or two?

        1. Re: sevo,

          So this is within a day or two?

          Oh yeah. I have no problems with intrauterine devices or the so-called “morning after pill,” because these do nothing different than what nature already does, and a zygote is still not a viable human yet. When it implants itself in the matrix, the odds of survival are increased 2 fold: it becomes viable. All bets are, at that moment, off.

      3. The next time H&R has an abortion thread I will argue this point with you.

        1. What are ya, yeller?

          1. Yep, and tired too.

            1. Re: Wayne,

              Tired? But it’s only 10:00 PM and….

              … Oh, I’m 10 PM central. You must be East.

              Nighty-night, then.

      4. I like the reasoning. So I’m guessing your take on it is person-hood is conferred on the genetically distinct group of cells when its chances reach a threshhold?

        What constitutes a fully formed human being though…or is that even important?

  31. The Ron Paul revolution put to music

    1. Old White Man’s Ghost Dance!

      Groove it, baby, me sukee you long time, GI.

  32. Abortion is rape of the fetus.

    1. Purple Heart.

      American Flag.

      Fetal Abortion.

      Long Gevity.

      Damn Statistics.

      God Bless America with another Virgin Birth Canal Excursion.

  33. Ron Paul smells like Ben Gay

    1. I wish.

  34. Just watched Johnson’s appearance at National Press Club Luncheon on CSPAN– he’s an effing Frank Capra hero come to life!

    1. Benevolent Rape.

  35. This is what it feels like.

    nine inch nails, the wretched
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNI12hvKsxI

      1. NIN REWLZ.

  36. I heard White Indian isn’t really an Indian.

    1. What a fellow can’t learn about “intellectual property rights” on reason.

      1. Neil and Neil
        are the real deal!

        1. So why not pull
          like liber-fool
          changee name so cool,
          just call me Cap-tool.

  37. Witless Injun poisoned by radon in his mom’s basemen… uh, his office.

    Witless Injun, you should clean up stains under your seat before mother finds out.

    1. and hide the empties

      1. Ha ha ha!

        Witless Injun, the come-back kid extraordinaire.

        Hey, your mommy is calling! Dinner time! Pull your pants up, you pervert!

    2. Libertarians who make fun. We rule computers and Earth. You suckee dick with shit talk.

      1. For a website named “reason” …

        1. … it certainly attracts a lot of retarded, irrational trolls that fancy themselves anthropologists…

        2. Thank you! Zod, I needed a drink.

  38. wayne, sloopy, OM,
    Thanks for the answers. I’ll be happy to discuss the issue next time it comes around on the guitar, assuming we don’t have these damn gnats buzzing around.

      1. we make the puppets dance

    1. Count me in, dude.

      Btw, I’m in SF every few weeks. Any recommendations on where a libertarian can get a beer without getting the stank of the nanny state on him?*

      *typically stay in Union Square area.

      1. “Btw, I’m in SF every few weeks. Any recommendations on where a libertarian can get a beer without getting the stank of the nanny state on him?”

        A bit late.
        Joe’s on Taylor was my favorite; burned down.
        It’s a ways, but Tommy’s Joint (Van Ness/Geary) will do ya nice. And the food is good and cheap.

  39. Oh, and Nah gets a mention:

    Nah|8.19.11 @ 6:56PM|#
    “No, it’s the property of the People, who decided that immigrants need visas.”

    You left out “Serve the People!”
    Who are these people that own that property?

    1. Who cares if a COMMintern or boardroom COMM(UN)-it-ee own all the land, and force those white injuns disestablished from the land to work for those who hold the key to the food?

  40. I see that rectal is madly pecking away at her phone during tonight’s manic phase. Thumbs tired yet, you obsessed fucking lunatic twat?

      1. Do you own yourself?

        In a Free Marquet, you can sell yourself to me. Freely.

        Suck, boy, like you want to work and eat tomorrow.

    1. Wow. “rectal” does make the puppets dance!

  41. I can’t tell if the trolls are getting stupider (if possible) or are just really really drunk.

    1. or drunks are pretending to troll

    2. Just one, dude. And lonely drunkenness would certainly enhance her obsessive lunacy, wouldn’t it?

      1. I’m as drunk as your mom the day she found out she was preggers

      2. Maybe we should all chip in to hire someone with a bulldozer to get her out of her apartment.

        1. no I will not marry you

        2. I just sold a nice Hyster H1hat forklift that would have been perfect for toting her tubby ass out of there.

          Damn! I could have made some rental revenue out of it first.

          1. Wait, who’s obsessed with whom here?

  42. I appreciate that Gary Johnson is a superb athlete and cares a lot about his health; but if you happen to follow him on facebook, notice that half his posts are about bike rides or marathons he’s in. If that’s what you want to do, fine, but I don’t think competing in a bike race or climbing mount Everest or whatever is going to translate into picking up a lot of votes. Just sayin.’

    1. Look, he’s been blackballed and he knows just as well as everyone else does that he has no chance.

      The way the media treated him almost from day one is disgusting, but what the heck can you really do? They’re scum, and sadly it is what it is.

      1. He’s blackballed so he just gave up? How sure are you of that order?

  43. You don’t stand a chance against me with that hair, hippie.

  44. What movie will Kurt Loder review next for reason: MY IDIOT BROTHER or MACHINE GUN PREACHER?

  45. Wow, well, this thread looks like total shit. And yet, I am sure this will convince reason to do nothing about this, even though it is materially detracting from everyone’s enjoyment.

    1. What thread doesn’t look like total shit?

      1. The ones with civilized, adult commentators?

        1. Smartphones are tough to post from.

        2. Hey! There’ll be none of that!

  46. Of course, the article fails to mention that Gary Johnson doesn’t want the decriminalization of drugs other than marijuana, thus in essence wanting the war on drugs, lethal raids and senseless spending on it to continue. And of course it also means Gary Johnson does not truly believe a person owns his own body. Well, for abortion he does, but for using cocaine or heroine he doesn’t. Mr. Riggs just forgot to mention that.

    It also doesn’t mention Johnson’s beliefs about the Sun growing and becoming dangerous in a couple billion years and something needing to be done about it.

    It doesn’t mention Johnson’s non-argument that ending the FED is unnecessary because then the treasury department would be printing the money (uh, Gary, if you’d be the president, couldn’t you stop them from doing so?), as if that is a good argument NOT to abolish the FED. It’s kind of like saying: “Why lock criminals up? There’d be other criminals anyway.”

    Of course, Johnson wants the “terrorists” to be tried by the military (you know, the ones who fight the illegal wars and serve Washington in their schemes of invasion and murder, instead of justice and truth. Gee, i wonder whether the military will regard Arabs defending their country to be freedom fighters or “terrorists”), and wants Guantanamo to stay open.

    And he wants the military to be a “force for good in the world”. Jeer those supporters who try to manipulate that statement such that “being a force for good in the world” really means “defending their country”.

    You would expect a “libertarian” blog like Reason to scrutinize Johnson at least as much as Ron Paul, but hey, as Beltway utilitarians who like being accepted by their establishment friends, you either dislike principled people, or you don’t.

    1. A Propos the decriminalization of marijuana: Johnson doesn’t just want that to happen; he wants to regulate and tax it.

      Yeah, real libertarian, that guy. Legalize something so you can get the government more money out of people’s pockets.

      1. Correct. It’s a very…well…statist approach, to use the popularly misused word. Libertarians have no problem compromising their principles (such as they are) when it comes to drug prohibition, and wonder why the state gets larger when they do. Free minds and free markets Tax and regulate!

        1. It’s a compromise.

          1. Oops, let’s try again:

            It’s a compromise. It’s also the only way it’s going to happen. Libertarianism is about increasing liberty wherever possible, not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

  47. Presidents don’t giggle.

    That is all.

    1. Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. Monica had this cute little……

  48. I like both Johnson and Paul. I would take either one in a heartbeat over ANY other candidate and would think the majority of libertarians would do the same.

    Do I agree with all of Pauls positions? No.
    Do I agree with all of Johnsons positions? No.
    Is there ANY politician that anyone agrees with 100% of the time? If you do then check yourself, you may be a clone.

    Reason can support whomever they want, and I can see why they would support Johnson, but when you go on TV and say “the Libertarian polling @ 15% has NO chance of being elected, BUT hey this libertarian over here who is polling at 1% HE’S got a shot. – I mean, intellectual dishonesty or willfull ignorance are the only explanations.

    Stop the infighting, the countries fucked, promote ideas, not politicians.

    – MD

    1. I’m exceptionally strict with my political beliefs, and allowing for any affective measure of flexibility in them, as a president, would be unacceptable for me. They’re politicians, and they have to be somewhat flexible to garner sufficient support. But if I had to choose, I’d take Paul over Johnson, by a wide margin.

  49. I disagree with folks who write for Reason who view Gary Johnson as so much more “electable” than Ron Paul.

    First of all, the polls don’t reflect this. But simply put, Gary Johnson is every bit as goofy as Ron Paul on a public stage.

    Both of these men hold views that are outside of the mainstream, and both of them come off as oddball. (Both of them would receive my vote in a General Election as well)

    If I was chosen to appoint one of them as President, I’d probably choose Gary Johnson due to his executive experience and position on immigration, but I think the practical thing to do at this point is back Paul because of his recognition.

    1. Well, hell….WE come off as oddball when we talk politics to the average joe.

  50. I always find it interesting to look at Johnson’s ratings at Hot Air’s periodic reader surveys. He consistently has the highest (or close to the highest) negatives of any candidate. Not even Paul comes close in terms of visceral dislike.

    For some reason I can’t understand conservatives really, really hate this guy.

    1. Well, Sean Hannity gets pretty spastic at the first mention that the defense budget shouldn’t constantly grow. May have something to do with that issue.

    2. Well, Sean Hannity gets pretty spastic at the first mention that the defense budget shouldn’t constantly grow. May have something to do with that issue.

  51. I missed the controversy, why are all the RP people mad @ reason.tv? I think we’re all on the same side here folks

      1. Pshaw, BP. That’s not controversy.

        This is controversy.

        1. I should have seen that coming.

      2. Thanks for linking to that, BP. I had skipped it the first time around, but I read through it today and found this gem of a Gillespie quote:

        “To engage the issues that he /* Ron Paul */ raises would require too much recalibration for most Republicans, and a total brain transplant for most Democrats and members of the press (who aren’t ideological as much as they are fundamentally unserious).”

        I think the last point made by “The Jacket” in the above quote is key. The journalism profession used to be considered as “serious.” Journalists claiming the title took themselves and their jobs seriously — sometimes too seriously. That’s OK by me; it honors the place of importance that journalism and free speech occupy in our American view of government of, by, and for the people, not to mention the unique protections provided to journalists by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. But the pendulum has swung the other way, and too many journalists come across and being more into the lifestyle than the vitally important purpose of informing the people. I saw Brian Williams — the NBC Nightly News anchor — on Jimmy Fallon the other night, participating in a comedy skit. In recent years, Williams seems to have gone out of his way to lampoon himself, and, by extension, broadcast news. I can understand that he doesn’t want to be seen as either a “stuffed shirt” or a “blow-dry guy.” And the occasional glimpse of his sense of humor and wit reminds those of us in the audience that the Big Anchorman is still human, like ourselves. But, in my opinion at least, too much of that has drained Williams of much of the gravitas he needs to be credible as a news anchor. Or worse, it confirms for critics that broadcast news is no better or worse “infotainment” than, say, the Daily Show — probably worse!

        Ultimately, when journalists don’t take themselves seriously (enough), they practically invite everyone else not to take them seriously, either. Their credibility falls, and the citizen asks himself, “why should I pay attention to, much less contribute to the high salaries of, these non-serious people?”

        1. …”The journalism profession used to be considered as “serious.”…
          Considered by whom? And when? When they had easy targets like Johnson and Nixon?
          I don’t think I’m cynical here, just realistic: The ‘press’ exists to sell eyes to advertisers. As a side benefit, the ‘press’ on rare occasions offers real information. The coincidence is purely accidental.

          “Journalists claiming the title took themselves and their jobs seriously”….”
          I’ll say!

  52. For some reason I can’t understand conservatives really, really hate this guy.

    It could have something to do with teh DOPE.

    1. Seventy years of drug propaganda and drugs being associated with the counter culture in the 1960s has that effect.

  53. Your morning tongue bath.

    “Who wants to be lucky and meet the President,” an agent said. “We can take 30 people.”

    One by one the group was scanned with an electronic security wand and lined up from the sidewalk to the waiting vehicle to greet the president when he left the bookstore. “Stand strong,” one man said as he shook Mr. Obama’s hand.

    “Nice to see you,” Mr. Obama said as he shook Mr. Sigelman’s hand. “Nice to see you, too, welcome to Martha’s Vineyard,” the newspaperman replied.

    “Four more years,” some members of the crowd began to yell.

  54. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20…..-kill-dog/

    Dog killing is getting expensive

  55. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..-2024.html

    Good thing all those liberaltarians voted for Obama so we could end all of our wars.

    It will never get old making fun of those douchebags.

    1. I agree wholeheartedly. All those supposed “libertarians” that voted for the guy were shitheads of the highest order then, and I can only hope they’ve been slapped out of their stupor by now.

      1. Go ahead and slap them again. It can’t be done too often!

        1. I never tire of pointing out the inarguable and absolute culpability of precisely those sort of “libertarians,” re: our present predicament with the Grifter-In-Residence.

    2. If you had to define your political outlook in a few words, John, what would it be? Just conservative, or something else?

      1. I am not a mainline conservative because I think drugs should be legal. I am also increasingly skeptical of copyright and trademark protection past a few years. I am just not a social con. But I will defend the socons sometimes because I think they get unfairly picked on by this society.

        If you take out foreign policy, I am damn near an anarcho capitalist. I just am still a nationalist rather than a transnationalist if that makes sense. Small government that destroys our enemies abut leaves it citizens alone.

        1. I am a fan of the idea of copyright and various other forms of “intellectual property.” But I think our implementation of the idea in present law — especially the DMCA — is completely outrageous and clueless. Creators should get paid, but copyright protection should never be perpetual, and the maximum penalty for non-payment should NEVER be greater than the originally justifiable payment plus reasonable collection fees. For example, if someone illegally downloads or records a movie, then restitution to the copyright holder in the amount of whatever that movie costs to purchase on DVD, plus something like a “shipping and handling” fee for collection costs, should be the most the offender should be expected to remit, especially if the fine is administrative (like a traffic ticket). If the copyright violation were egregious, however, and a case went to trial, it would make sense that the jury could award punitive damages, to “send a message,” or that the plaintiff could show and recover actual damages based on harm to reputation, or dampening of legitimate sales through the “spoiler effect,” etc. It is NOT reasonable to threaten average citizens, who only download and copy for personal use, with the kind of exhorbitant fines we have seen in the papers. And it is NOT reasonable for immortal corporate copyright holders to maintain a stranglehold on their IP for generations — essentially in perpetuity.

          The point of the temporary monopoly of copyright is for the government to provide enough of a short-term “sure thing” for creators, that they will make the personal and financial investment in creating IP, which will eventually fall into the public domain, enhancing our culture generally. All copyright law must be written with that principle in mind, and any provisions that flout that principle, or place an undue burden on the people, must be avoided.

  56. Well, on the theory that one libertarian-leaning candidate doing well helps the other, don’t forget that today is Ron Paul’s birthday moneybomb, Reasonoids. It’s the perfect time to buy a hat from the campaign store, if ask you me.

    http://ronpaul2012.com/

  57. Joe Nocera takes a break from being crazy.

    But despite the shroud of patriotism that its supporters have always cloaked it in, it’s really just a big, fancy office building. An office building with such poor economics that it will soak New Jersey and New York commuters for decades to come. An office building only the government could love.

    Lately, supporters of the project have begun saying that its economics have improved. They point to the fact that Cond? Nast, the publishing giant, has agreed to be the anchor tenant. What they fail to point out is that Cond? Nast’s rent is less than half the break-even cost of the 1 million square feet it will occupy. In other words, a company that publishes high-end magazines aimed at rich people will be getting an enormous government subsidy for the foreseeable future.

    And who will be paying for that subsidy? The mailroom attendants who use the Lincoln Tunnel to get to work. The middle-class New Jersey-ites who use the George Washington Bridge. The firefighters and police officers who live in Staten Island. Thus, in the name of 9/11, does New York and New Jersey place another economic burden on the already overburdened middle class. How sad.

    1. GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs

      FLASHBACK: U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

      Now: just imagine this exact same level of service from your government-run health care providers.

      “Hope! CHANGE!”

      1. Well, I still plan on pouting my way through the election, unless my one, specific chosen god-king candidate doesn’t end up someplace on the ballot next year.

        You can absolutely count on me to spend the next four years right here, bitching about apocalyptic levels of unemployment and Obama’s Sauron-like governmental overreach, however… so: there’s that.

        1. I miss the good old days, back when Libertarians focused virtually all of their energies and attention (quite rightly) on the movement’s core, essential principles: economic liberty, fiscal policy, and the sovereign right of every free individual to be left the fuck alone, for Frith’s sake!

          These days, judging from the bulk of postings on threads hereabouts, it’s morphed more and more disastrously into the hard left equivalent of a SoCon gaggle: lots of self-righteous harrumphing and pearl-clutching over patent non-issues such as decades old newsletters, and violence in video games, and “marital submission,” and, really, pretty much everything else on the face of the planet that doesn’t actually mean a fucking thing WHILE THE ECONOMY IS BEING VIOLENTLY BUNGHOLED, NON-STOP, RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.

          Goddamned shame, that.

          /end rant

          1. Maybe it’s the libertarian equivalent of the broken windows theory.

  58. MILLION MOOCHERS MARCH

    It’s time for the left to get off its duff and turn the tables on the radical right. And our history reveals that there’s an excellent method for accomplishing precisely that: a great march of the unemployed on Washington.

    ——


    Extremists in the tea party movement have been able to yell at disproportionately high volume in our country because of the sub-rosa patronage of some wealthy sponsors, the Koch brothers, Charles and David, multibillionaires who inherited a powerful conglomerate.


    But the left and the center have their billionaires, too: public-spirited people such as Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. It’s time for such people to fund a great protest march that would bring the unemployed right into the congressional offices of tea party representatives.

    Once there, these unemployed people would deliver a simple demand: The government must act immediately to give them back employment.

    Are Ted Turner and Grandpa Buffett going to hire out-of-work mortgage brokers and real estate salesladies to camp out on the mall in tents and march up and down Pennsylvania Avenue wearing giant papier mache puppet heads?

    (also, KOCHTOPUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!)

      1. Fucking disgusting. She wants her neighbors to pay for her gas and her mortgage. She can go fuck herself with a barbed club.

      2. Okay, Big-Ass Space Meteor. C’mon down, and get it over with. NOW.

        1. My God… people are STILL commenting on this, and Teh Stoopids are as thick as wedding-cake icing:

          I don’t get it …

          She obviously meant that she thought the economy would be better under Obama, and that she’d have? enough income to pay for things like gas and her mortgage. (God forbid people were actually excited and had some hope after the Bush monstrosity, right?) I don’t understand why everyone is seemingly interpreting what she said as, “I don’t have to work for gas or a mortgage anymore.” For all you know, she works twice as hard as you to put food on the table.
          Tansey81 30 minutes ago

          @B17Boy Haahhhaaa No Global Warming 4,000 US CITIES WITH RECORD TEMPERATURES Droughts/Hose pipe bans Flooding Tornadoes The US is being hit? harder than anyone else, yet your big fat asses like to ride around in Gas Guzzlers. If you didn’t eat LIKE PIGS, you wouldn’t LOOK LIKE PIGS and you wouldn’t need a Gas Guzzler. The US is GUZZLING everyone else GAS. Try running on your own. Gas never costs $30 a barrel, it cost more to bring it UP. Idiot, do your homework
          godhatesallfatpeople 6 days ago

          Yikes.

    1. I would rather watch “Twilight” on endless loop for an entire weekend than watch 5 minutes of CNN.

      Brooksie, you are either some kind of masochist or are thankfully willing to take one for the team to keep us informed.

  59. Gary Johnson

    1. Ron Johnson & Gary Paul 2012!!!!!

  60. OT: So I just re-watched Slumdog Millionaire, and at one point, Jamal gets his ass kicked by a tour supervisor, and an American couple says “here’s a little of the real America” and hand the kid $100. Was that, like, supposed to be satirical, or something? Because I don’t see anything bad about that.

    1. IIRC, I thought it was supposed to demonstrate both the tourists’ compassion and gullibility (he was scamming them, right?).

      1. It looked much more to me like the director was making fun of American materialism, or thinking money is pro, or thinking money solves problems, or some such other horseshit aspect of dumbass directors’ repertoire of “hint hint” tactics.

        And he wasn’t scamming them. While he was giving them a tour, some other hoodlums broke into the car, stole shit, and also took the car apart. The driver got angry and beat the fuck out of Jamal.

  61. Anybody who is talking the talk of liberty and has proven his ability to walk the walk, as well, interests THIS voter. As with Ron Paul, I am disappointed that Johnson remains in the GOP, a party that never seems to show either man proper respect, let alone love. But if this as far as their “wackiness” goes, I could live with it.

    I do have major doubts, however, that ANY politician, regardless of integrity or good ideas, who gets elected through the thoroughly corrupt two-party system and will continue to “work within the system” after election, will be able to accomplish much of value. I did not vote for Reagan in 1980 because, as far as I was concerned, the GOP was still the party of “Tricky Dick” Nixon, and would subvert any genuinely good intentions of Reagan and his team — assuming their libertarianish rhetoric was sincere in the first place. So I voted for the LP for the first time in my life, and ever since. I have never regretted it, despite that party’s lack of top-tier political success. Since Reagan, we have seen many alleged attempts to reform the system by working within it, all come to nothing but broken promises, dashed hopes, and activist burnout: The inertia of the big political machines is simply too great.

    What seems necessary now is an all-out assault on the “wasted vote fallacy.” I call upon independent politicians who have defied conventional wisdom — Jesse Ventura is one who immediately comes to mind, but there are others at all levels of politics — to speak out, loudly and often, on national soapboxes wherever possible, about how they were able to win because people didn’t buy the media-blackout and “this guy can’t win” propaganda tactics, as used against them by the political machines and their lapdogs in the 4th Estate. Together, the Democrats and Republicans have created a cushy deal for themselves and sold the country and the rest of their fellow citizens down the river; the job of patriotic Americans in THIS election cycle must be to look beyond that cozy arrangement, to independents and third parties, for candidates who will perform no worse — and, for the sake of our country’s continued vigor, I hope far BETTER — than the cast of idiots who have been in charge for the past century or so.

    In the meantime, Johnson needs to be in the debates, and treated as a serious candidate by the media. Anything less merely shows our “system” to be the rigged game that so many people are convinced it is already.

    1. What seems necessary now is an all-out assault on the “wasted vote fallacy.”

      Yes. If you vote for someone who wins the election, but who governs in a fashion so that you only agree with 15% of his / her choices, then you have wasted you vote.

      I have no problem “compromising” to vote for Johnson or Paul, or any candidate with whom I agree with on 80% or more of the issues. However, I can’t think of any other R or D candidates who go above 50%. So screw them – if it’s not GJ or RP, it’s LP for me, and I won’t regret being among the .76% of voters who make that choice.

      1. I’m sure there’s still some dumbasses out there that think “Ron Paul caused Obama to win”, which still tickles me to no end because Ron Paul didn’t run a third-party campaign last cycle.

        1. I voted for him. Here in MT he was on the ballot as the Constitution Party candidate.

          No regrets, McCain would have been no better than BO.

          As to endorsing a third party…probably makes more sense to take over an existing party.

          1. “existing” = Republican

            1. Neither Team is worth salvaging, Francisco.

    2. We need an assault on the “wasted vote within a wasted vote” fallacy.

      Jesus, if you can’t vote for the guy you really want AND who is more electable in a PRIMARY, you may as well shoot yourself in the head. You’re essentially guarenteeing you’ll be forced for someone who will either lose in the general election, or someone who will win and then fuck you in the ass.

      You’ll ALWAYS have the chance to vote for the lesser of two evils later. The PRIMARY is when you have the opportunity to vote your heart.

  62. JAM-

    First, the game is rigged. You know that. Stalin was not propagandizing when he observed: its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.

    Even if the debate entities permitted Gary Johnson to participate, it would not change the fact that the game is rigged. We know that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will not win the 2012 election precisely because the game is rigged.

    However, I fully agree with your suggestion regarding the wasted vote fallacy. In order for liberty to prevail, the two parties of government must be relegated to the ashheap of history. Thus, whether this can be done electorally or through other means, an all out assault on the wasted voter fallacy can only serve to undermine the philosophical basis for the very existence of both parties.

    1. The “wasted vote” issue is particularly obnoxious because your vote can really only be wasted if it could affect an election. Maybe someone can hold it against me when the wrong presidential candidate wins California by 1 vote, thus handing him the election, but otherwise any individual vote has no bearing on who is elected. A vote for the lesser evil just telegraphs your willingness to repeatedly hold your nose and vote for your team or against the other team. A vote out of principle at least says what you believe, and it has the same effect on the election.

      Of course, anyone who doesn’t understand this will never be able to.

      1. …”Maybe someone can hold it against me when the wrong presidential candidate wins California by 1 vote, thus handing him the election,”…
        Not even sure in this case.
        In hind-sight, it appears that McCain (might have) been better than Obama. Sorry, I’m taking no blame for voting for Barr.

        1. Sure, my point is just that if some series of nearly impossible events occur — the biggest being that California’s vote matters, but also that I’m the last person undecided and that Lesser Evil is actually lesser — yeah, I guess it’s all my fault. But I’ll take that chance with the 100% certainty that I’m actually voting for a candidate with some semblance of my actual beliefs.

          I’m not talking about just the recent presidential election, although that was a great example of people supporting a greater evil out of unprincipled stupidity.

  63. WEEKEND FUNSIES: marvel and gape at the sheer, towering cluelessness on ready display, as the KosKiddies attempt to wrap stunted, calcified intellects around the philosophy of Libertarianism.

    Ayn Rand was delusional

    Your jaw will, as they say, drop. Again. And again.

    1. Holy shit, the stupid burns.

      1. Random, representative sampling of quotes from the Kos article cited above:

        **************

        She was, clinically speaking…

        …a sociopath, as manifested by a total lack of empathy for others, even her own family and those immediately around her…

        by Ken in MN on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 11:43:02 AM PDT

        ***************

        The irony with Rand isn’t that she was emotionally disturbed – although she clearly was.

        It’s that she’s a monarchist.

        by ThatBritGuy on Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 05:28:26 PM PDT

        ***************

        What the hell is this?

        What, we have to update history every 5 years or so? Goddamit – it was understood DECADES ago that Ayn Rand was a delusional, paranoid, narcissistic, sadistic bitch, and politically dangerous to boot. If ANYONE now doesn’t know that already, you been watching Michael Jackson videos too long.

        by Roger Mexico on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 07:11:01 AM PDT

        ******************

        Honestly, how do creatures this clueless even manage to stumble across rations of food on a regular basis, without outside assistance?

        1. “Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”

          LOL

          1. stunted, calcified intellects

            Sounds about right.

          2. Fuck Kos.

          3. Hee, hee. Me likey.

  64. oppononent?

    Huh? A spell checker should have caught that.

  65. Guys, when you get a chance, if you’re at a level of boredom that’s about to kill you and are willing to slide through some time, watch the fifteenth episode of Law & Order LA. It involves a plot where a senator and 6 others are killed by a guy wielding an extended-magazine Glock. You can guess the premise, eh? As you say, “teh stupid is strong in that one”.

    1. Sarah Palin proxy made him do it?

      1. Episiarch|1.8.11 @ 2:39PM
        Fuck the politician.

        joshua corning|1.8.11 @ 2:54PM
        Why should I know and care about a congresswoman’s death?

        Warty|1.8.11 @ 7:47PM
        Fuck off. Did you expect us to give a shit about some shitbag politician?

        1. Is there a point to this, Past?

          1. senator and 6 others are killed by a guy wielding an extended-magazine Glock

            Yes.

            https://reason.com/blog/2011/01…..tcontainer

            1. I’m sorry a person got killed. And I’m sure so were all the people you quoted above. But none of us gives a jack fucking shit about her PERSONALLY, and that’s what you’re missing. Drenching yourself in gasoline and lighting a match, how does it work? You should find out first-hand!

              1. It’s so fucking hilarious how much she cares that we don’t care about some shitbag politician. It gives me so many lulz I almost can’t handle it. She cares!

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                How’s that smartphone plan working out?

                1. And the puppets dance! DANCE!

            2. Also, I’m pretty sure anarchists are a minority here.

              1. Don’t rock the boat too much. Reason.com is mainly an apologist website for the establishment’s system, as they’re establishment wannabes.

                Libertarians:

                Damn the Non-Aggression Principle, half-speed ahead with Statism!

                Half is important for freedom! You idiots need to read Rothbard and Hayek and then you’ll understand how intuitive statist freedom can be!

                Republican/Conservatives:

                Damn the Non-Aggression Principle, full-speed ahead with Statism!

                Love it or leave it!

                Progressives/Leninists/Democrats/Socialists:

                Damn the Non-Aggression Principle, full-speed ahead with Statism!

                We’re here to help!

                You brainiacs ever wonder why libertarians don’t get elected much above dog-catcher?

                1. Hunter-gatherers could all suck their own cocks. True story.

                  1. Well, that explains why they weren’t that interested in raping Mother Gaia.

  66. pink twisted panties

    excruciatingly bunched

    your tears are yummy

  67. Gary Johnson was an excellent Governor here in NM. He’s the only politician that i’ve seen that did what he said and was honest about what he believes no matter what the political fallout.

    I like what Ron Paul stands for, but I cringe when I watch him speak or debate. Gary Johnson is much more eloquent and IMO has a better shot at winning then does paul. 2 weeks before he was the GOP nomination in NM he was at 2% and still won. I think he’ll do much better then people think in February for the GOP nomination.

  68. OT: After watching another episode, another question sprang up.

    Do you guys think agents of government should have the power to prevent you from doing something like walking into a wild-fire area to try to save your shit/your house?

    1. “People shouldn’t be allowed to build in high-risk fire zones [determined by government] because it costs millions to protect just a few homes”

      Did they ask for your protection?

      1. Yep. And we’ve tried your way before too. Didn’t work so well.

        In the early days, most fire companies were volunteer or privately operated…With bonuses offered as incentives, rivalries ensued between groups. Marked homes and businesses were brawled over, while residences on the same street, with no fire mark, often burned to the ground.

        History of Fire Fighting
        http://www.afirepro.com/history.html

        1. Economically this is pretty retarded. The fire fighters had an excellent market opportunity to charge a shit load to the idiots who didn’t prepay for service.

          1. Just like those who can’t do teach, do people who lack imagination work for the government? Discuss.

  69. This just keeps getting better and better. In the 18th episode, cops roll up to a car that’s been on for a while that nobody’s come back to. So they go to the house it’s parked near, and when the door is opened, they see the guy inside holding a gun, and they just open up on him with their guns relentlessly. What the fuck?

    1. I don’t know how you’re doing it. I can’t get through a single episode of L&O – ? without wanting to destroy my TV. The scenery-chewing is bad enough, but the self-righteousness and hero worship is nauseating. The Wire and The Shield were the only two police dramas I had the stomach to watch.

      1. I’ve carried a loaded gun with me to open my door twice in my life, both times because there was either (1) screaming or (2) the knocking sounded like somebody wanted to blast through and mess with me.

        So now I know it would have been acceptable in the eyes of the mainstream programing in the greatest cultural titan in human history for me to have been blown away by a barrage of bullets.

      2. And the thing is, L&O LA tries to balance the bias by offering left-wing alternatives to their suspects/right-wing versions of events as possibilities, but they fuck up the actual balance, and it’s pretty easy to see what the writers were cooking up.

        And LA has a lot less hero-worship shit than SVU did, for example. I can stomach it, although I find myself cringing very often.

        I watched The Wire, but never The Shield. How is it?

      3. Here’s another gem — “it’s a murder investigation: EVERYTHING is our business!”

      4. Here’s ANOTHER one:

        They discover in one episode that one of their potential suspects once wanted to get a gun for protection after the bank he worked at got robbed, and in the episode, they use that as part of the proof that he’s their man. Nice.

        1. The show has already been canceled, btw.

  70. And once again we hit epic thread level. The staff seriously needs to just establish an open links post on Saturday.

  71. Marxist and Libertarians always get tired of contemplating Jefferson
    tory burch handbags.

  72. Gary Johnson is the ideal candidate, no skeletons right ideas.

  73. Gary Johnson Does The National Press Club

    Economic Policy Journal, Robert Benzel.

    […]
    Many beltarians are advancing the idea that Johnson is the next Ron Paul. Judging from his performance today, Johnson has a long way to go to become even Ron Paul-lite. Near the start of the speech, he told the small audience (under 100) in the small room that he applauds Ron Paul for bringing attention to the Federal Reserve. But that wasn’t the only time Ron Paul’s name came up. Before Johnson was even introduced to speak, there was an animated conversation about Dr. Paul at what was designated the Johnson “Campaign Table”. The discussion was about how right Jon Stewart was about Ron Paul not getting enough attention.

    During his speech Johnson took a couple of detours from what Ron Paul likely would be in favor of. Johnson said that he believed that global warming was occurring and that it was man made. He said he was for The Fair Tax (a kind of national sales tax) to replace the income tax. He said he was for the legalization of marijuana, but didn’t mention other drugs. He did say that after legalizing marijuana he would want to control and tax it. He did say with a straight face that the sun was growing and that in billions of years the sun would encompass the earth and implied that things needed to be done. The moderator looked as confused as the rest of us.

    Unlike Ron Paul, Johnson is not in favor of a default by the Treasury. He said that if he were dictator, he would pay Treasury interest and debt obligations.

    He said he wasn’t focused on ending the Fed because he said if the Fed were closed down it would just result in the Treasury printing money.

    He spent a lot of time discussing the debt and how dangerous it is going to become when the Fed has to buy all the debt. He predicted a bond market collapse, but did not mention at all the distortions in the business cycle that are caused by the Fed.

    After his speech, I got in a couple of quick questions to see how hard core he is compared to Ron Paul. I asked him if he was in favor of a gold standard. He said. “Yes.”

    I asked him if he was in favor of the legalization of heroin, which of course Ron Paul is. He said, “No,” that “marijuana is a big enough step.”

    Then came the biggie. […] I threw him a curve ball question about the business cycle to see how familiar he was with Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I asked him, “How do you think the Fed is most dangerous, simply by the amount of debt they buy or because of the business cycle and malinvestments they create?”

    Now anyone familiar with Austrian theory is going to jump at the word malinvestments, the way a dog is going to jump at meat on a bone. It is insider talk that tells the knowing you are talking about Austrian Business Cycle Theory. But Johnson missed it completely. He stopped for a second and knew something was up with my use of the term “malinvestments.” He repeated the word outloud, but had no idea it had anything to do with the causation of the business cycle.

    He started to talk about how we needed more transparency as to where the Fed invests and he thereby failed the test as to whether he understood business cycle theory. He doesn’t.
    […]

    Johnson appears to be a decent enough guy, but his knowledge of economics, of monetary policy, of the Federal Reserve and the role of freedom in society are nowhere near the understanding that Ron Paul has on these topics, or for that matter most of you who regularly read EPJ, Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.

    Sooooo, let’s recap: He’s in favor of taxation (he said he favors the FairTax); he’s NOT in favor of decriminalizing heroin; he’s not in favor of defaulting (which is inevitable sans more money printing.)

    Sound like the perfect Reason-Beltwayrian.

    1. I’ve never been interested in the guy anyway. It’s Ron Paul for me all the way.

  74. At some point even an idealistic, highly principled movement must set aside minor internal disputes and pull together to put some points on the board. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have both been on the political scene for awhile. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, Paul is hot, Johnson’s not. Ron Paul represents the best opportunity ever to inject the libertarian perspective into the mainstream political conversation. Alas, Ron Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination. But given that Paul is retiring from Congress, a great follow-on to his GOP primary campaign would be for him to be the Liberatian Party candidate. And if the LP is smart, they’ll hold the nomination open for him.

    1. Taking the LP nomination is the surest path to “inject the libertarian perspective into the mainstream political conversation.” It worked well for Bob Barr.

      It would be better to have a Paul/Johnson or Johnson/Paul Reform Party ticket (as the Reform Party ticket greater natural appeal to moderates and independents), and the LP should endorse them.

      1. Silly squirrels. Quit removing my sarcasm tags.

  75. For the pro-lifers, my two cents: If an embryo or fetus can be removed from the mother’s body safely without damage and can survive without artificial medical sustinence, aborting it would have been murder because it is a functional human being. If it survives only with the aid of artificial sustenance, it would still be the family’s decision to provide that sustenance, but not doing so is not classified as murder. If it dies on the table regardless of any attempts at sustenance, one can not classify this as murder. In the latter two cases, the mother and doctor caused no direct injury to the fetus and the fetus still dies. Even if you believe the fetus’ human rights to it’s own body are unimpeachable in all cases, if you don’t support the mother’s right to decide upon an early Caesarean Section, you are saying women don’t have the right to sole control over their own bodies. Thus early C-Sections with the underdeveloped fetus suffering a slow, painful, but natural suffocation and/or starvation would have to be the “just” alternative to abortion in a world where every human or developing human receives full and equal human rights. Frankly, though, the outcome is the same for the fetus/baby – just more expensive and potentially more painful to experience for all parties involved when compared to abortion.

    1. If you wish to support a “right-to-induced labor” or a “right to remove the fetus alive,” that is one thing – an interesting discussion about the limits of liberty.

      But it’s quite different to say, “since you can remove the fetus alive and abandon it, why not just cut to the chase and kill the fetus directly?”

      That would like using the trespass theory – “I can evict someone on my own property even if they die” – and use it to justify cutting the trespasser’s throat. These are distinct concepts.

      1. True, and I respect those who want to draw that line. Of course, that analogy assumes there was a contract between the leaser and landlord in the first place, likely with terms of eviction. Such contract does not inherently exist between the mother and the unborn, but an inherent contract would be created by law if the mother does not execute some force to remove the unborn prior to birth.

        Assume a mentally retarded cripple breaks into your house, sits down on your couch and the law says that not only can you not remove him by force, but you must care for him for the next 18 3/4 years or else be held criminally liable. That’s essentially how it would be if abortion was banned. In a just, libertarian society you would have no such responsibility and have the right to defend yourself and your property by force if necessary if the trespasser starts causing damage, even if he does not have the capacity to be aware he is doing so. Pregnancy unquestionably causes damage to a woman’s body, risks their life, etc. so this is debatably a legitimate use of force even though the baby, like this specific trespasser, would not have the mental or physical capacity to understand or modify the damage they are causing.

        Personally, I think increased availability of early detection technology and earliest possible abortion to remove a zygote or embryo before it develops a brain/organs/pain receptors is the preferred method of handling unwanted pregnancies. It’s hard to feel guilty about removing a formless cluster of cells and it’s fairly ridiculous to confer this blob with full human rights. Moreover, such a scenario would likely involve the mother taking some oral medication like Plan B, which they should have the right to do regardless of its effect on the zygote.

  76. Comment 666.

  77. It is sad that pseudo-intellectuals at REASON mask their own personal interests by philosophizing about something else.
    Good example is their biased promotion of G. Johnson over Ron Paul.
    It is 2011 and USA feminists and their ideological supporters (if given 2 options) would rather vote for endless wars and torture as long as they have an opportunity to abort. Pills and other protection is not good enough for them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.