Gary Johnson

Justin Amash Criticizes Gary Johnson for Supporting Film Subsidies in New Mexico


Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), frequently called "the next Ron Paul" and the only libertarian in Congress, has attacked Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson on his Facebook page for Johnson's support of subsidies for the movie industry. Amash linked to a Politifact story from mid-July on Johnson's support of film credits while governor of New Mexico. Then let loose:

This appears to be the first time Amash has gone after Johnson publicly. Amash told me that although he enorsed Ron Paul in the primary, and will make no other endorsements, he will support the GOP nominee after the RNC convention. 

Johnson's campaign said he was unavailable for comment on the Amash Facebook post but noted that Johnson has defended the policy in the past. In the Politifact story he stands up for his signing of the legislation saying that New Mexico has become a "second Hollywood". Politifact rated this as "half-true" saying that New Mexico is probably closer to third or fourth behind New York and Louisiana and that the film credits helped make it "player in the movie industry." 

More from Reason on Justin Amash here, Gary Johnson here, and Film Tax Credits here


NEXT: TSA Petition Goes Offline Just Before Deadline

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

  1. Any and all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks are market interference. Johnson should be criticized for that. Ron Paul once made a statement favoring tax breaks for people who ride bikes to work. That was a lapse in free market judgement as well.

    1. Only if you are promoting free markets because you believe in efficiency. If you are promoting free markets because you believe in FREEDOM, then any and all tax breaks should be encouraged, even if they strike you as “unfair”

      By encouraging tax breaks for bikers, he is returning them to the natural market state. Not his fault if people refuse to do the same for drivers

      1. It’s depends if the tax credit is refundable or not

      2. Not necessarily. It seems just as likely that by offering these tax subsidies you shrink the tax base, which tends to shift the burden on big government off of an increasing number and on to a decreasing number of people. As you get more people receiving the same services for less and less tax cost, do you think it’s more or less likely that they’ll use their votes to keep it that way?

        1. Again, if the person advocating tax breaks also advocates cutting spending, what is the problem? Are you guys saying Ron Paul would be more free market if he didn’t vote for tax breaks?

          1. If.

            It’s not free market to grant tax breaks to certain sectors and not to others. That creates artificial incentives and disincentives and no, the result is not what I’d call a free market.

            1. Not arguing that it distorts the market. But the market isn’t “free” anyway, that’s why the tax is there in the first place. It seems you think no taxes should be eased or cut unless it applies to the entire population. To me, this is equivalent to saying we shouldn’t take the opportunity to rescue on hostage because it isn’t fair to the other hostages

              1. one* hostage

      3. The most free market scenario is no taxation whatsoever. But if there must be taxes under a minarchist scenario, their only purpose should be to fund essential services. Non flat tax rates, and incentives or extra penalties, introduce unnecessary politicization to the tax system. Using the tax system to promote or discourage behavior skews market choices. A less free market resulting from tax games is less libertarian than having the simplest non manipulative tax system possible, if taxes must exist. Tax games also make the government less limited, by using more resources in its implementation and providing more interference in to the personal choice of individuals.

        1. And who exactly decides what is an “essential service”?

  2. While I am a big Gary Johnson fan, I think Amash’s criticism of Johnson is legit on the film tax credit issue.

    I think Amash’s endorsement of Mitt “Big Government” Romney and Paul “Proud to have voted for Medicare Part D, TARP, Auto Bailouts, NDAA and almost every other Big Government Program in the past 10 years” Ryan is highly unfortunate.

    1. He definitely should have saved his endorsement for someone without a chance in hell of winning.

      1. Ron Paul has not endorsed Romney. Amash could withhold his endorsement.

        1. Yeah, he could. And that would change what?

          1. Nothing, however I fail to see what the endorsement of a little know congressman changes either. I mean unless he personally is hoping for a promotion into a cabinet secretary post (highly unlikely) or something like that.

      2. Yea, let’s mock people who share our beliefs and principles because they don’t poll as well, and encourage others who think like us to line up behind our enemies. That’s a real good strategy, Night Elf

        And make no mistake, Romney is an enemy of liberty.

        1. I’m not sure that pointing out a fact is inherently mocking.

          In what way is Romney a greater enemy of liberty than anyone else with a chance to be elected?

          1. You’re changing the subject. Ryan is not claiming Romney is a greater enemy of liberty than anyone with a chance of being elected. He said he’s an enemy of liberty. And that is undeniably true

            1. I thought the subject was the presidential election and presidential candidates. I’m not sure about the relevance of Romney’s place on the six billion person list of the world’s enemies of liberty since only two of the six billion have a chance of being elected.

              1. By your logic, you should vote for Obama. Polls say he has a better chance of being elected than Romney. Why would you back someone who isn’t going to win?

                1. Because something that is, ballpark, 40% likely to happen is exactly like something with a less than one percent chance, right?

                  By your logic, you should vote for yourself because only you agree with yourself 100% of the time and electability is not a factor.

                  1. I just might write myself in, actually. For all that an individual’s vote matters, you might as well

              2. Um, it does matter, because I would think a libertarian would not support someone so opposed to liberty, just because he might be a little less hostile than Obama

                1. I see you’ve met the Hit and Runpublicans.

                  1. I thought this was where the liberaltarians gathered.

                    Personally, I’ve voted for two Republicans in my life.

                    1. Why would electability matter? No one vote is going to change an election

    2. He didn’t endorse Romney/Ryan.

  3. Why the hell would you (rightly) criticize Gary Johnson on film subsidies and then turn around and vote for Obamney?

    1. Because Johnson can’t conceivably win, Romney can, and he thinks that’s a better outcome than an Obama win.

      1. The key comes in continuing to convince people that A or B doesn’t matter when they both suck. I don’t think we win converts to libertarianism by saying what they have in common with either Republicans or Democrats, but in pointing out how much Republicans and Democrats have in common with each other.

        That’s how I came to libertarianism: realizing both parties equally suck. Hate is stronger than love sometimes.

        1. Settling for ROmney won’t accomplish shit. And Gary Johnson doesn’t seem great either. Ron Paul has the news letters and is will retire soon. We need another wave of Libertarians.

        2. In a philosophy class, that’s the way to do it.

          I think Republicans and Democrats suck about equally but I don’t think they necessarily suck equally on everything. The freight trains heading our way are debt and entitlements. The Republicans are at least now paying lip service the idea that something must be done. The Democrats screech that Granny is going to die if we slow the rate of growth of spending.

          Now, it’s entirely possible that, despite some newer representatives’ fighting against the Republican establishment, Republicans won’t change a damned thing once they are in power. Even if the odds are 1 in a million, that’s still better than the odds of Johnson winning the presidency.

      2. Right. Big Government is better than Bigger Government. Lesser of two evils, but only just barely.

        1. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

      3. YAWN. That bullshit reasoning gets old real quick

        1. And the bullshit, “let’s be ideologically pure, screw the real world” is as fresh as ever.

          1. Ahh, remember the good ol’ free market days of George W. Bush?

            You’re in denial. A Romney/Ryan win is no better than an Obama win, assuming the Congress remains Republican. In fact, it might be worse from a strategic standpoint

            1. I’m in denial of what?

            2. Ahh, remember the good ol’ free market days of George W. Bush?

              Yes and I never voted for Bush and contributed to the campaigns of opponents of the big spending cons.

              Sitting on the sidelines and sneering that everyone is equally bad is not principled opposition. Nor is it any way to advance your agenda. It’s moral masturbation.

              Romney is preferable to Obama because his election, at this point, is the last chance to overturn Obamacare. And yes, maybe he’s a lying sack of crap about overturning it, but he’s probably not. I seriously doubt that he’d veto a repeal bill that made it to his desk. Obama definitely will.

              But by all means, preserve your precious self righteousness by pretending that there’s no difference between the two of them.

              1. The topic was whether it was worth supporting Romney over Johnson, because Romney has a chance of winning. That fallacy has been debunked too many times to repeat here, but regarding your second point: voting for Romney and convicning yourself that you’ve done something good from a libertarian standpoint is much more “moral masterbation”-esque than voting for Johnson. I never advocated sitting on the “sidelines” and doing nothing. I advocated that we actually play for the right team, rather than rationalize support for our enemies

                1. And given the institutional constraints in America today it is much easier and more effective to take control of one of the two major parties than it is to created another viable one from scratch.

                  And BTW I plan on voting for Johnson this time around because the utility of my voting for him is greater than the utility of my voting for Romney, given that I live in CA.

                  But I’m under no illusions that he has any chance of winning or that Romney will not be preferable to Obama. However, my money and time is going to races that can be influenced in the house and senate towards building a small government majority in Congress. And even at that, I have realistic goals. Repealing Obamacare and rolling back Obama’s anti-government regulatory actions. I’ll be very happy if those are accomplished in the nest two years and ecstatic with any further limiting of government.

          2. Try agorism. Sell stuff out the trunk of your car and pay no income tax.

            1. Too much cost, too little benefit.

          3. Look, it’s up to you. Romney and Obama are different in some ways. If the advantage of one over the other outweighs the incredible flaws in both, you do what you think you should. For my part, neither passes that test.

      4. I’m really sick of the idea of “not backing” (meaning not voting for) someone because they have “no chance to win.”

        Do you live in California or New York? Romney has ZERO chance to win either state, but who would suggest people in those states just not vote for Romney?

        1. I don’t know what other people or issues are on the ballot in CA or NY but a special trip just to vote for Romney would definitely be tilting at windmills.

  4. Johnson is still a thousand times better than Obamney, so I see no reason why we shouldn’t tolerate some mistakes on his part like the film subsidies or his penchant for US adventurism in Africa. I like Amash a lot, but to me this seems unnecessary.

    1. Exactly. GJ made a single mistake on this issue, Obama and Romney have platforms filled with stacks of awful positions.

      Ridiculous for him to harp on this issue as though it’s a reason for anyone to change their vote.

      1. GJ made a single mistake on this issue,

        GayJay’s biggest(of many) mistakes is associating the LP and libertarianism with that God damned fair-tax. I’m not voting LP this time for principle, protest, or future ballot access thanks to that pandering bull shit.

        1. FairTax is preferable to the income tax, cap gains tax and all the rest. It’s a feasible solution to the current tax code, not the final, ideal solution.

          1. You know who else had a final, ideal solution?

          2. Sorry, no it isn’t. There couldn’t be a bigger government boondoggle than having the Feds send every person in the country a check every year/month. While it might be well intended, like all good intentions, it would be the path to hell.

            It probably wouldn’t even take a year before the “prebate” would be straight vote buying. Vote for me and your prebate will double/triple/quadruple.

            And revenue collection is not our problem, anyway, spending is. If the Feds were only spending a few percent of GDP every year, it wouldn’t matter how we collected taxes.

            1. The more spending is cut, the higher the prebate return can be. Thus it is good for limited government because most people would choose more money in their pocket than government programs. It’s also a blind rebate so it can’t be promised to certain groups without being promised to everyone.

  5. I hear Johnson is running for President, too. That’s so unlibertarian of him.

    1. It occurs to me that this might be a backdoor attempt to demoralize the Libertarian turnout and fall back to Romney. Doesn’t sound too plausible to me, though – far too stupid.

      1. Johnson is demoralizing enough on his own. He clearly means well, and is the best option assuming Ron Paul doesn’t launch an armed coup at the GOP convention. But he doesn’t have the necessary passion and rigor to really ignite potential libertarians, the kind who flocked to Paul.

        1. Paul has the name recognition from multiple cycles of candidacy It will be hard to find someone with that sort of following to replace him.

        2. Johnson should have run for the Senate from NM as a republican.

          He would have won, had real influence on policy and opinion from that position.

          Instead he chose a bullshit vanity run.

          1. Agreed about the Senate Run vs. Presidential Campaign. He and Rand could become the dynamic duo and the Tea Party may have been even more influenced in an anti-state direction

            But it does seem like you have a beef against anyone who bucks the two-party system. Are the Obama and Romney campaigns not “vanity runs”?

            1. My beef is that the system is cooked to marginalize any politician that isn’t a D or an R. That’s the reality, no matter how unjust I find it. Given that reality, it is more realistic to take control of one of those parties to enact your agenda than it is to rail against the machine. That’s not just theory either, I’ve seen it happen in my lifetime when the socialists took over the democrat party and the SoCon-NeoCon axis of evil took over the republican party.

              I think that building a solid small government majority in Congress, and the state legislatures, is the only real way to advance liberty. As far as Romney v Obama goes, I’m not a Romney fan by any means, never have been. In fact I didn’t care which one won, until … Roberts screwed the country by upholding Obamacare. At this point, the only way to repeal it is through a Romney presidency because Obama will veto any number of attempts to repeal and it will be too entrenched by 2016.

          2. VG Zaytsev| 8.12.12 @ 7:53PM |#

            Johnson should have run for the Senate from NM as a republican.

            He would have won, had real influence on policy and opinion from that position.

            Instead he chose a bullshit vanity run.


  6. By encouraging tax breaks for bikers, he is returning them to the natural market state. Not his fault if people refuse to do the same for drivers

    Umm, what?

    That’s social engineering.

    Equal treatment across the board; let people make their own decisions based on their own preferences. If you want to spend a little extra money on your commute to stay out of the rain, that’s your decision.

    1. So there should be no tax breaks unless they apply to the entire population? No spending should be cut unless it affects all departments/agencies equally?

      “We shouldn’t negotiate for this hostage’s release! If we do, it will be unfair to the other hostages!”

      If you take the position that taxes are inherently evil (whether they can be a minimal necessary evil is another matter), then all of them should be opposed except possibly at the barest minimal level. Upset that bikers get a break and not drivers? Me too, so let’s cut the driver’s taxes, not raise them/oppose breaks for bikers. See how easy that is? You’re arguments are petty and kind of childish (“it’s not FAAAAIIIIIIRRRR”)

      1. “So there should be no tax breaks unless they apply to the entire population?”

        Not so much to the entire population (since in theory everyone can buy a Volt or a bike, for instance) but in such a way that everyone actually experiences a tax break all at once.

        “No spending should be cut unless it affects all departments/agencies equally?”

        No, I agree with cutting some departments entirely and some relatively little. I believe government has some valid purposes; spending should support those and nothing else.

        You can’t just look at the result immediately following one change in policy. Sure, maybe fewer taxes are collected, but what are the unseen costs incurred by favoring one field over another, however temporary you intend it to be? How does the policy affect the mentality of the electorate?

  7. Okay, when will either campaign address the pressing national security issue of protecting us from the ape menace?

  8. Rep. Amash, party politics is a team sport. Politicians use all kinds of incentives to attract jobs, so this is hardly a crime. It should be noted also that Gary is advocating a fair tax where everyone has skin in the game. If Libertarians can get Gary up to near 15%, then he will get in the debates, and it will be on. As my name suggests, the Republicans and Democrats are just two peas in a pod, there is very little difference. Let’s get out there on the different sites putting out Gary’s name, his positions on the issues, his web site, and the Libertarian Party, and let’s see if we can build a party, and make a difference. The time for change could not be more ripe.

  9. OT: (ex)-D.C. cop falsifies calibration records on photo-radar device, issues $17k in speeding tickets anyway. Judge tosses tickets when falsification is discovered. Cop is forced to reimburse the city for the fines they refunded. It’s nice to see a cop get his comeuppance every now and then.

    1. Shouldn’t he have been fired or arrested for filing false claims?

  10. Can anyone find the fb post by Amish cited here? I can’t.

    1. Me neither.

    2. He’s got two FB presences, and this is the wrong one. You want the other one.

  11. Did anyone else catch the Tom Green comedy special on Showtime?

    1. Where did they tape it? Zanies? The Laugh Factory?

      1. The Wilbur Theatre in Boston.

  12. Wait, so which one should we be burning as a heretic — Amash, or Johnson?

    I can’t imagine anything the freedom movement needs more than an internecine catfight.

    1. We burn all politicians as heretics. Better safe than sorry.

      1. Nuke D.C. from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure

        1. Winning Hearts and Minds!

    2. Criticism is good.

  13. I think I share RyanXXX’s position and think that both Amash and Johnson are right and wrong.

    Tax breaks (in deductions or credits) in and of themselves for film or any person or industry are not subsidies and are in fact, reducing the burden of the state on them, since taxes themselves are inherently wrong.

    However, refunding those credits, as in payment even when no taxes are paid, is bad.

    The only issue that concerns me is when tax breaks are not accompanied by spending reduction. I recognize it can push the government to increase the tax burden on someone else. Still, that is ultimately a problem of the government (city, county, state, fed) and not those who tax burden is lifted.

    I’m an advocate of flat taxation (including lowering and flattening all taxes to 0, lol) and still advocate tax breaks. That’s because the more you apply the tax breaks, expanding its scope on who and what it applies to, the more you flatten it anyways, but lowering it rather than raising it to the same level as others.

    Anyways, I find this kind of insignificant attack rather petty. Since he’s still supporting the GOP nominee i.e. Romney is he worried that Johnson will siphon off votes?

    He has his own blunders to worry about (though he , due to backlash from his supporters I suspect, the reasoning about foreign military aid is an even bigger blunder IMO)

    1. err – “though he recants, ..”

    2. Amash had disappointed several times

  14. Ron Paul supporters gnash their teeth at the discovery of yet another impure libertarian. Urge voters to stay home at pout. Story at eleven.

    1. What’s worse, film subsidies to New Mexico or earmarks to Texas? If you’re going to play the purist game then stop with the hypocrisy and remove Ron Paul from your pantheon of infallible deities.

      1. Libertarians just like to be butt hurt and like to lose so they can feel like Casandras. Think about it, Liberals have long made a living by getting people to betray the other side and hailing them as “pragmatic” and “centrists”. Libertarians in contrast hold a grudge forever. If anyone changes their mind and comes to the Libertarian side, they are immediately savaged as being a “statist” who hasn’t sufficiently repented their former heresy.

        There is a reason why we have a three trillion dollar government and it ain’t because Libertarians are smart political operators.

        1. This. Libertarians in media and industry make their bones by being ineffective Cassandras who always say the same damn thing (“get government out of ______”). It’s safe, easy, predictable, and has a built in, comforting explanation/excuse: libertarians don’t lose because they suck at practical politics and media and do nothing to improve these attempts; they lose because people are dipshits. While it is true that people are much less libertarian than your standard miniarchist, the truth is that there is great unrealized potential for liberty-friendly politics which is hampered in part by libertarian laziness and misanthropy — character traits that have nothing to do with governing philosophy.

          Personally, I’m convinced that the real reason that so many Llew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard libertarians loathe Gary Johnson, Hayek, and Milton Friedman is because, for their flaws, they were actually effective in implementing some of their ideas (albeit in marginal form).

          1. Do Rothbardians/Rockwellians actually loathe Hayek? From what I’ve gathered, they view him as flawed and not as good as Rothbard or Mises, but they still generally respect him as a great Austrian economist

            1. Opinion varies. Murray had some harsh words about him in private, but most of the stuff on LRC is praise

            2. The reason the LRC gang of nitwits hate Hayek is because he wasn’t a purist Ancap. (Never mind that Mises wasn’t either, that doesn’t fit in their narratige). Hayek didn’t see a problem with some level of public provision of public goods (health care, schooling), and this was beyond the pale for Lew/Murray/Hans/etc.

            3. Do Rothbardians/Rockwellians actually loathe Hayek?

              some do. most don’t. volume tends to be correlated with said hatred though.

        2. John, I know you love playing the role of the condescending realist who lectures libertarians on their failures, but the fact is that they’re just aren’t that many libertarians in the country. To some extent, perhaps the insistence on purity does drive away some people who may have eventually come around, but it’s not enough to explain everything. We have a two party system, and both parties are controlled by established political ideologies, neither one of which is libertarian. What libertarian outcomes could they have realistically achieved if only they had been open to compromise? Aside from Ron Paul (who has done everything he can to fight the growth of government), what libertarian minded people have been in office to achieve this?

          1. John, I know you love playing the role of the condescending realist who lectures libertarians on their failures, but the fact is that they’re just aren’t that many libertarians in the country.

            There aren’t many self described libertarians and maybe even fewer that subscribe 100% to the party line.

            But there are a majority of people in the country that agree with 60%+ of the policy goals of libertarians. And a larger majority of people that agree with 30-40% of libertarian goals.

            The problem is that libertarians are more interested in bullshit purity tests than they are in accomplishing 70% of what they claim to want.

            1. Refraining from supporting an enemy is not a “purity test.”

              The majority of the GOP are the enemy, plain and simple. John himself isn’t a libertarian, so why the fuck should we take his word on the issue?

              1. Working with people on specific issues is not blanket support.

                Your more of team player, Orange, than most Reds or Blues.

                1. Who exactly is there besides Ron Paul that was in a position (at the federal level) to do anything to work with people on specific issues? And Ron Paul has worked with different people in both parties to support a liberty-minded goal on specific issues. Give me an actual concrete example of some time that libertarians had an opportunity to do something, but let purity get the way. And explain who you’re referring to when you say libertarians (i.e. are you talking about the party, politicians, media figures, average people, etc).

            2. The Nolan chart will place you as libertarian if you score over 50-60% on both economic and and personal issues (with a corner sliced off for the centrists). But to the many libertarians, and not just the hardcore purists, even one wrong answer is enough to cast you out of polite libertarian society.

              We set too high of a standard for libertarianism.

      2. Justin Amash is the one making the attack, not Ron Paul. And the only people here urging people not to vote for Johnson are people who want them to instead vote for Romney. Also, while I wish all the earmark spending wasn’t spent at all, as does Paul, all earmarks do is appropriate money that is already going to be spent. Paul has never said “I think this money is being spent on great stuff and we shouldn’t cut it” whereas Johnson is defending the film subsidies on principle. So it’s not quite the same thing. This isn’t to suggest that I think Paul is some sort of deity or that I agree with him on everything, and I still am going to vote for Johnson.

  15. You’re arguments are petty and kind of childish (“it’s not FAAAAIIIIIIRRRR”)

    Thanks for clearing that up for me, Carnac.

    You have no problem with government “incentives” as a means for our enlightened betters to maneuver us through their rat maze to the outcome they deem best? “Ride your bicycle like a good little rat and I’ll give you a treat.”

    1. You don’t want to be led like a rat through a maze by your betters Brooks? It is for your own good.

    2. Yea, I favor ALL tax breaks and easing of burdens so I’m somehow a social engineer. The bike riding was the example that was brought up. If it had been a tax break for people who drive Hummers and don’t carpool, I still would have supported it.

  16. When Republicans cut entitlements they are evil cuts designed to kill old people. When Democrats do it they are savings achieved through the miracle of reform!!…..49856.html

    1. On one of the Sunday talk shows today I saw Debbie Wassername? Schulz try to simultaneously attach Ryan’s proposed 500b medicare “cuts” and defend Obamacare’s 700b medicare “savings”. And she repeatedly confused the details of each proposal.

      It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  17. Wow

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz on one of the morning shows asked about the Romney gave my wife cancer ad

    OK, One More: Speaking of Manchurian Candidate-style programming:

    Host: Should the Democrats be releasing an ad that accuses a presidential candidate of being responsible, through inference, of being responsible for a woman’s death?

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: First of all, that’s a Priorities USA ad.

    Host: I understand?

    DWS: It’s a priorities USA Super PAC ad?

    Host: Correct

    DWS: ? and we have nothing to do with it.

    Host: Do you deny that they’re Democrats?

    DWS: I have no idea of the political affiliation of the folks associated with that Super PAC.

    Host: So, Bill Burton, who used to work in the White House, who worked for the Obama campaign in 2008? Not a Democrat?

    DWS: That is a Super PAC ad, not affiliated with the party or the campaign.

    Words fail.

    1. It is amazing that the dems put a complete retard out there as their spokesman.

    2. Yeah you see, it’s only fair to infer connections between Super PACs and a candidate when it involves Republicans.

      Thus Sheldon T. Adelson is clearly the mastermind behind Newt Gingrich and several other Republicans, but Priorities USA is completely unaffiliated with Team Obama.

  18. From the NYT today.

    To give just one example, the Times writes, “Mr. Ryan plans to take away their new sewage treatment plant, the asphalt for their streets, and the replacements for retiring police officers and firefighters.”

    Remember the NYT is supposed to be the serious ones. Will we ever reach peak retard?

    1. John| 8.12.12 @ 9:47PM |#
      “From the NYT today.
      To give just one example, the Times writes, “Mr. Ryan plans to take away their new sewage treatment plant, the asphalt for their streets, and the replacements for retiring police officers and firefighters.”

      They left out leaving starving ‘women, children and minorities’ to die in the streets!
      I mean, let’s get REAL with the claims.

      1. That goes without saying?

        1. Can I add a bumper sticker?
          “What would Biden do?”
          I’ll presume the answer would have to do with loaves and fishes…

  19. I have no idea of the political affiliation of the folks associated with that Super PAC.

    “That’s not my dog.”

  20. This seems like a random complaint. Amash just said nice things about Paul Ryan On his Facebook. I’m guessing he’s trying to justify his desire to play nice with the republican party.

    1. It is clearly a “Team” issue. Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Romney, etc are on his team and he will support them no matter how badly they fail a similar “purity” test that he is giving to Johnson who abandoned Amash’s team).

  21. John Lennon: “Imagine no possessions”

    Olympic Corporate Sponsors: “How did that line get approved?”

    1. What bothers me most about the Olympics is the Nationalism. Why do athletes have to be associated with a country?

      Shouldn’t they be allowed to compete on their own merit?

      Shouldn’t they alone get the glory?

      As too the commercialism i would have to say i didn’t watch hardly any of it. mostly because NBC (the socialist network) had all the rights to all the coverage.

      Bullshit if you ask me. Without a TV i had no real access to it and no diverse coverage and many of the events i would have liked to watch were not even broadcast so even if i had a TV i could not watch them. Plus instead of coverage of the actual events it is all fucking bullshit commentary and life story crap.

      What the Olympics needs is more competition in terms of coverage. Not less corporate sponsors or what ever you are blathering about.

      1. Every event was available online, live.

        1. Really?

          NBC sure sucked at advertising that.

          1. I didn’t say it was available via NBC.
            However, you would have been able to watch any event live online.

            1. OK now i think you are full of shit.

              1. You may have had to be creative in finding some of the streams.

          2. They were available on NBC, but only if you have an existing cable subscription.

            However, I streamed the events live online straight from the BBC. They were better streams as well, primarily because the BBC included commentary with almost every event. NBC was streaming events like Judo without any commentary.

  22. Now that the Olympics are over, hat will you not be watching?

  23. Is Gary Johnson perfect? N0, he isn’t. But after Romney becomes the official GOP nominee later this month Gary Johnson is going to be the ONLY true Conservative in matters of limited government and enforcing the Constitution.

  24. Well now that jsut makes a ll kinds of sense dude.

  25. Joshua Corning,

    There is a category of Independent Olympic Athletes that are not representatives of any country.

  26. keep apologizing for johnson.. the more you do, the more supporters you lose. or drive people further away from ever considering.

  27. Ron Paul also supports subsidies — as long as it’s for the oil industry. Plus, he also supported protectionist duties on imports of shrimp, because apparently, American shrimpers are too weak and pathetic to be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Ron Paul’s protectionism for the American shrimp industry, coupled with his policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs, fully justifies Ron Paul’s reputation as an isolationist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.