Libertarian Party

Are You Ready for the First Nationally Televised Libertarian Party Presidential Debate?

Tune into Stossel Friday at 9 pm ET on Fox Business Network to watch Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen debate war, Nazi wedding cakes, and legalizing heroin

|

No American flag pins here, buddy! ||| Fox Business Network
Fox Business Network

When should the United States go to war? "When attacked," says Gary Johnson. Should we cut foreign aid? "Every penny," says Austin Petersen. Why are you running for president? "Because our bodies and our minds belong to ourselves," says John McAfee. If you aren't hearing these sentiments in this year's political debates, that's because you're not watching candidates from the Libertarian Party.

You can correct that oversight tomorrow night at 9 p.m. ET on Fox Business Network, where libertarian hero John Stossel will dedicate the first of two episodes to airing a fully-fledged debate between three of the top LPers running for the brass ring. Here's a tease:

Read Stossel's Reason.com column teeing up the LP debate here.

EHHH? CAN'T HEAR YOU YOUNG LADY! ||| Fox Business Network
Fox Business Network

I take part, along with America's libertarian bestie Kennedy, in a post-debate critique. Both shows have been taped already, so I can exclusively pre-report that Gary Johnson is decidedly Gary Johnson (squishy from a libertarian-purist point of view on stuff like forcing anti-gay-marriage bakers to do business with homosexualists, sharpest in the field on the whats and whys of specifically cutting government), Austin Petersen looks like a cheeky 35-year-old playing at running for president ("Don't hate me because I'm pretty!"), and John McAfee has taken the whole "Most interesting man in the world" ad campaign as some kind of personal dare. Crudely speaking, Johnson's the pragmatist, McAfee's the philosopher, and Petersen's the hustler.

Areas of disagreement flare up with the aforementioned Nazi cakes, abortion, Social Security, and gender-pay equality. Each candidate has moments that feel less than ready for prime time, and oh man if John McAfee was on a national debate stage talking about whatever the hell happened there down in Central America. But the biggest sensation for those of us who have become numb watching eight months of decidedly statist discourse might the sheer relief at seeing policy discussed from an unabashedly libertarian point of view.

Make sure to follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #StosselForum, and see you Friday at 9!

NEXT: Taxing Predicament

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.

  1. Friday, eh?

    What’s the exact date?

      1. But it’s pre-recorded, so they can’t fool me!

        /Walks away with a “kick me!” sign on the back…

    1. Meh, who’s got time. I’m too busy reading all the Reason articles about Trump.

  2. Man I bet that studio audience was pissed when they realized that they weren’t there for a James Corden taping after all.

  3. Can’t we just ignore it, like the rest of the country will do?

    There’s other people who have more of something than someone else does! GET THEM!

    1. Well, every will be watching the NCAA tomorrow night so probably will be ignored.

      1. oh shit, that’s Saturday.

    2. Can’t it least by live, like the NBA Finals?

      And it’s not the first nationally televised LP debate. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen 2 on C-SPAN in previous elections.

  4. I take part, along with America’s libertarian bestie Kennedy,

    Good. Another opportunity to have a “What is Kennedy thinking wearing that?” game.

    I can exclusively pre-report that Gary Johnson is decidedly Gary Johnson (squishy from a libertarian-purist point of view on stuff like forcing anti-gay-marriage bakers to do business with homosexualists,

    I will have to see the debate because I have no idea what is your concept of libertarian-purist.

    *I* am a libertarian purist. I find the act of pointing a GUN at someone’s FACE to compel him or her to PROVIDE a service to be morally repugnant, reprehensible and criminal. If Gary feels it is OK to force people to provide goods or services outside a voluntary agreement, then I would not consider his opinion “squishy”; I would consider it antithetical to libertarianism.

    1. What if we point the gun at the person’s kidney?

      1. Re: You Sound Like a Prog (MJG),

        What if we point the gun at the person’s kidney?

        You only point a gun at someone’s kidney if you want to take him before the evil villain.

        1. You only point a gun at someone’s kidney or kidney-hole if you want to take him before the evil villain.

          Fixed it for Swiss.

    2. If Gary feels it is OK to force people to provide goods or services outside a voluntary agreement, then I would not consider his opinion “squishy”; I would consider it antithetical to libertarianism.

      What if he adamantly defends the right of the pro-gay photographer and the pro-gay florist on either side of the anti-gay marriage baker to be assholes about the baker’s customers parking?

      1. Re: mad.casual,

        What if he adamantly defends the right of the pro-gay photographer and the pro-gay florist on either side of the anti-gay marriage baker to be assholes about the baker’s customers parking?

        What does that have to do with government? Gary is ostensibly running for president, is he not?

        1. It’s not a federal law compelling an anti-gay-marriage baker to do business with homosexualists (assuming homosexualist = homosexual), right?

          The more I talk about this debate, the more I feel it’s going to be a televised version of these forums.

          1. Re: mad.casual,

            It’s not a federal law compelling an anti-gay-marriage baker to do business with homosexualists (assuming homosexualist = homosexual), right?

            I don’t know. Is it? I don’t think it matters. That’s the reason I want to watch the debate and judge for myself where Gary’s principles on this matter reside. I am not concerned about extraordinary hypothetical scenarios.

      2. What if he adamantly defends the right of the pro-gay photographer and the pro-gay florist on either side of the anti-gay marriage baker to be assholes about the baker’s customers parking?

        The baker can let them know there is more parking in the rear.

        1. ::narrows gaze::

        2. That parking lot is already packed.

    3. If that’s your definition, then no government is possible at all. Which would be a major improvement, I suppose, but why would any pure libertarian seek political office then?

      1. Re: CE,

        If that’s your definition, then no government is possible at all.

        Which means you must define government as the organization that points a gun to your face to demand something.

        Which would be a major improvement, I suppose, but why would any pure libertarian seek political office then?

        To be a Troyan horse, get past the walls of government and slaughter everyone inside.

  5. Does everyone remember the post-GOP-Debate scheduling of Stossell’s “Libertarian Candidate Interviews” that never happened?

    I think it would be pretty awesome if this time they actually broadcast the program on schedule… only in *Spanish*

    1. Re: GILMORE,

      Does everyone remember the post-GOP-Debate scheduling of Stossell’s “Libertarian Candidate Interviews” that never happened?

      Ha! FBN is again going to cut to some sudden crisis; like a cat stuck on a tree or something.

      There has to be a connection between this sudden rise in terrorist attacks and the Stossel post-GOP debate commentary. They seem so well-timed. Have you noticed?

      1. It wasn’t just my imagination! Really, wasn’t this a thing? I actually waited through the end of the shitty GOP debate only to watch Neil Cavuto talk for a half-hour with members of the FBN production staff and blow sunshine up their ass about what a great job they all did.

      2. Well, Trump said something, so we need to spend the next 48 hours picking it apart and getting other candidates’ reactions to it.

    2. Like when ESPN dumps a World Cup match for high school girls basketball?

      1. EXACTLY

        well, ok, it was stossel “live” with Gay Jay, so not quite world-cup…. but still, it was typical FBN backhanded bitchslapping diss to anything “libertarian” by baiting people to watch the crummy GOP debate, then drop the ‘bonus content’ without any warning.

        1. “…by baiting people to watch the crummy GOP debate, then drop the ‘bonus content’ without any warning.”

          All 8 of us were super pissed.

      2. To be fair, it’s been ages since this has actually happened.

        Unless you’re talking about a recent qualifier or something.

        1. Yeah, I might have been exaggerating. It does happen with, say, MLS.

          1. I might add: is there any worse sports broadcaster than ESPN? I pretty much expect them to fuck it up in some way when I discover that an event I want to watch is on ESPN.

            1. The bastards won the latest bidding war (don’t laugh) for SANZAAR Super Rugby (it’s actually a pretty big broadcasting property) off of DirecTV at the last minute this year.

              So they promptly put it on ESPN3/WatchESPN, which means the outstandingly beautiful picture I used to get is gone, and a semi-shitty stream is in its place – and for now, I’m doing it through my phone tethered to the TV rather than through my HTPC (Kodi/XBMC). It really brings the whole thing down, and no more recording it to the DVR, meaning I’m less likely to remember to watch because I haven’t trained myself to go to the replay section of the app yet at the same consistent level.

              I know “streaming is the future!!!” and shit like that, but for live and recorded sports, it pretty much sucks.

              1. Streaming blows. Maybe the technology will catch up but for now I’m sticking with cable.

  6. “Don’t hate me because I’m pretty!”

    *googles furiously*

    I think I would.

    John McAfee has taken the whole “Most interesting man in the world” ad campaign as some kind of personal dare.

    Beautiful.

    1. Hey, were you one of those celebrating British comedy the other day?

      Ronnie Corbett died.

      1. Yes but my knowledge of it ends at around 1988 when I went off to college. Don’t know this one.

  7. The audience in that promo sure is full of white nerds.

    1. Tell me about it. Not even a semi.

      1. Crusty would, though.

        ALL of them.

        1. There were at least two bowties that audience. How dare you imply that I would be attracted to someone who wears a bowtie.

          1. Since when does “attracted to” have anything to do with your… proclivities?

            1. It has everything to do with it.

              1. I never would have accused you of being an aesthete, Crusty.

          2. How dare you imply that I would be attracted to someone who wears a bowtie.

            You might want to rethink that entire Nation of Islam interracial cuckolding fetish scenario you were pitching to me a few days ago.

    2. Did you miss the part where it was a libertarian presidential candidate debate? Who do you think was going to attend?

  8. I’m really ready for the new season of Archer tonight. But, I will probably watch the debate tomorrow.

    1. I almost forgot!

    2. Thank you, random internet person, for reminding me of this.

    3. Yeah, me too. Need some good, irreverent and inappropriate humor in my life right now.

    4. He is live answering tweets at 5pm ET today…FYI.

      “I can’t hear you over the deafening roar of my throbbing erection!”
      – Archer

  9. Shouldn’t the libertarian debate involve an open bar or a communal joint or something? Maybe they should do it with the candidates and the moderators naked. Libertarians should embrace their differences from the bigger parties.

    1. Re: John,

      Shouldn’t the libertarian debate involve an open bar or a communal joint or something? Maybe they should do it with the candidates and the moderators naked.

      Hmm, I would go for that provided the moderators are called Kennedy and are girls. Oh, there’s only one like that. Ok, then, the moderator.

      1. I think Kennedy might look better with her clothes on. But I like your thinking.

        1. I think Kennedy might look better with her clothes on.

          Wrong!

          1. That is not her body dude. Its a photoshop. You didn’t know that? Google it if you don’t believe me. She is a 40 something mom. She doesn’t have that body.

            1. Thirty-five year-old mother

              http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2799…..-570.jpg?7

              1. Kennedy is not Jessica Alba. Few mortals are.

                1. yes, but I just wanted to see Jessica today. 😉

            2. I googled it. I found nothing to that effect. Please provide a citation.

              1. Actually we are both wrong. It was not photoshoped. I don’t know why I remembered it being so.
                It is not, however her now. The photo on the cover was taken when she was in her 20s.

                She’s sitting across from me in a blond-wood booth, sipping herbal tea in the News Corporation employee cafeteria. A far cry from her MTV days, when she posed for a glossy magazine shoot stark naked on a horse (except for cowboy boots), she’s wearing a high-collar green dress evoking a secretly lusty schoolmarm, or possibly a prim dominatrix.

                http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..iness.html

            3. She is supposedly quite the athlete, so while she probably doesn’t look as good as on the book cover, she’s probably looking pretty good for her age.

              1. I wouldn’t kick her out of bed Zeb. I might turn the lights down, but I wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

      2. There is nothing wrong with appreciating the male physique, too.

        1. ^^^^Jesse, add this guy to your list^^^^

          1. Jesse can’t have him. He’s a coffee man, so he’s with me and R C Dean.

            1. He’s a coffee man

              Did you just doxx him as Juan Valdez?

              1. He likes Ethipian coffee, so I doxx him as…whoever the most famous Ethipian coffee man is.

                1. Haile Selassie VI.

            2. My wife’s Starbucks lady retired today. There were dozens of people there to say goodbye, and my wife slipped her a C Note.

              You all are a fucking cult.

              1. Starbucks coffee is a gateway drug to Whole Foods.

              2. Starbucks people are a cult. That we can agree on.

              3. Starbucks isn’t even very good coffee.

                I get my coffee from some fancy, artisanal, local kind of deal, staffed by just the kind of hipster doofuses you would imagine working at such a place.

                And now I forget what point I’m trying to make. I think it was something about not giving a crap who sells me coffee as long as it’s good.

          2. Hmmm the list is looking a little full, let me clean it up a bit.

            Cool dudes:
            Playa Manhattan.
            LynchPin1477

            1. Always on the outside looking in…

              1. Quit complaining, Hugh Akton. Haven’t you topped People Magazine’s Least Eligible Bachelors list every year for the last decade?

                1. Someday he will finish ahead of the Tsarnaev brother.

                2. Oh. Since you’re here. What’s up with this masturbation euphemism thing. You seem to be the ringleader, but I missed the thread where it started.

                  1. I’m not the ringleader any more than GWB is the leader of ISIS, but in retrospect the consequences of my actions were inevitable.

                    1. My apologies, Hugh. I bow down to you as my masturbation euphemism leader.

                  2. That is a question for citizen X.

                    1. Hugh started it. I merely ran and ran and ran and ran and ran and ran and ran and ran and ran with it.

                    2. Oh, I was asking Citizen X just because of the running (and running and running) with it.

                      Luckily Hugh was here to answer with a link. Yay.

                    3. I should have known you weren’t addressing me.

                    4. You have to make the joke more than once or some else is going to steal credit.

                      See: Chipotle, Playa Manhattan

                    5. TBF had I known you were the originator I wouldn’t have had to ask in the first place.

                    6. This is exactly why we need strong and perpetual IP protections.

                    7. Repetition is the essence of comedy, you know.

                    8. You can say that again…

                  3. These things don’t start. They’re like the egg and chicken thing.

    2. That could cover the pot and ass-sex part of the base. Now we just need a way to work in some Mexicans and we get the trifecta.

      1. A naked Selma Hayek as moderator. That would cover all the bases. And would bring in the audience as well.

          1. Selma might be cute too. You never know. But okay Salma.

          2. Selma is her portly cousin.

            1. Still would.

        1. Promise a bunch of libertarians a debate moderated by Hayek, and then its some middle-aged actress? That’s cruel, bro.

          1. We’re happy with either Hayek. Salma, Selma or F.A.

    3. I would love to see them get a little loaded so they’ll be more honest.

      En vino veritas
      -Val Kilmer

    4. Yes, just because we say something should be allowed means that it must be done everywhere and at all times. Someone hand me a fetus.

      1. Someone hand me a fetus

        Nice screen name

        1. I was thinking album name.

        2. Past tense would be better.

  10. The only way this will work is if tits and ass.

    1. Its Fox. They will likely provide some T&A. I am not sure which Fox newsbabe I would want. I haven’t watched it in a long time so I am not sure who are the hottest ones these days. Megyn Kelly is the best known of them but she is a bit past her sell by date.

      1. Megyn Kelly is the best known of them but she is a bit past her sell by date.

        I think Megyn Kelly would fuck up a libertarian debate and just thinking about it makes me less than optimistic about the whole LP debate prospect. I’ll admit Trump plenty volatile and can make his own hay, but Megyn tossing pitchforks and handgrenades didn’t help. We’re gonna get bogged down in Megyn Kelly’s right to get an FDA-approved ‘GMO-free’ tattoo and the legal regulations about feeding raw breastmilk to a baby she doesn’t have and I’m pretty sure that when I typed ‘Megyn Kelly’ I should’ve typed [active moderator].

        1. The problem with the GOP debate is that Megyn finally ran into a bigger narcissist. I doubt she had ever been in a situation in her life that wasn’t totally about and focused on her. I doubt Trump has either, but it was a debate, he was supposed to be the center of attention. Poor Megyn didn’t like that fact one bit. It was supposed to be about her like everything else in the world.

      2. “I am not sure which Fox newsbabe I would want”

        For a libertarian debate? Katherine Timpf.

        Discuss.

        1. She has the big geek glasses. She is born for the roll.

          1. “Born for the roll” is not that abstract.

            1. She could moderate my debate, if you know what i mean.

              1. (insert joke with master debater as the punchline)

                1. Come on, that’s not even a euphemism.

                  1. Low hanging fruit is to be harvested

  11. I just want to know what the candidate’s views are on alt-text and late lynx. And possibly the blocking of commenting on a Koch advertorial suggesting the work I’m doing right now doesn’t matter. Like these fried apple pies are just going to eat themselves.

    1. Speaking of alt-text, why can’t Robbie moderate this debate? It would be swell to watch him toss his hair after every question and to watch his smile melt any animosity between the candidates.

  12. squishy from a libertarian-purist point of view on stuff like forcing anti-gay-marriage bakers to do business with homosexualists

    Not to be unfashionably un-squishy, but this is the Robby-formulation that irked me back when it was ‘theoretical-wedding-pizza’

    Are the bakers, “Anti-Gay”? Do they picket outside marriage-venues with signs borrowed from the Westboro Baptists?

    The idea that ‘not participating’ is anti-something – like RFRA laws, routinely described as “Anti-Trans” when what they actually consist of is “preventing lawsuits” – implicitly concedes any argument before its even been made

    Its just a facet of language that i see these days all the time… describing everything “not avidly in favor” as “Anti”. Or – as the whine brigade will remind you in every Trump thread – the reverse: everything not “fervently Anti” is obviously “Pro” by-default

    My niece said i was “Anti Harry-Potter” because i told her i’d never seen any of the movies.

    1. All of that and why do you have to be a “purist” to find suing someone out of business because they won’t cater a wedding to be objectionable?

      Is the idea that the baker has a right to do business and associate with anyone he chooses a radical one even among Libertarians? If you have to be a purist to believe that, just exactly what do the non purists believe?

      1. If it feels mean, it should be illegal. If you are excluding meanies, it should be legal. It’s crystal clear, John.

        1. And by tolerance we mean welcoming everyone. Unless they have traditional religious values and expect to be able to live by them.

      2. Well, for Eric Dondero,true libertarianism is a man’s right snort cocaine off a hooker’s decolletage without facing legal repercussions, on the night before he reports to jail to serve the punishment after he was convicted for failing to register for the draft.

        1. Then there is Matt Welch finding so much to cheer about Bernie Sanders promising to legalize marijuana and end the Patriot Act. I mean it is not like a former soviet agent and avowed socialist would ever lie about that or have other uses of government power in mind that are a hundred times worse.

          There is a lot for a libertarian to like about socialism I guess.

          1. Yeah, Sanders would repeal the Patriot Act and instead turn the DOJ into a wrecking ball of civil liberties.

            Where is Moynihan to smack some sense into Welch?

            1. Trump is a circus barker. Sanders is a legitimate nasty fuck. I can’t believe Welch and company are soft peddling him. Sanders is a no kidding fascist and he has a no kidding fascist movement complete with poisoning the minds of the more slow witted youth. And Welch and them act like he is just some harmless old guy with a few kookie ideas who is doing the God’s work of sticking it to Hillary. If only that were true.

              1. Sanders is a legitimate nasty fuck.

                I think people underestimate him because he looks harmless. He is literally the most dangerous politician running for office. Even Santorum would be less dangerous as president. But everyone looks at him and sees a harmless, crotchety old guy railing about the town installing new curbs.

                1. Sanders if from the left Tarran. And to people like Welch that means Sanders means well. And that makes Sanders different even when he is shooting you in the back of the head and kicking your body into a mass grave. He means well and that makes him so much better and different than those nasty people on the right.

              2. I can’t believe Welch and company are soft peddling him. Sanders is a no kidding fascist and he has a no kidding fascist movement complete with poisoning the minds of the more slow witted youth.

                MILLENNIALZ

            2. Moynahan is currently resting in his coffin.

              1. So it isn’t just me who thinks he’s a vampire.

                1. Come to think of it, I have only seen Moynihan in person once. And it was well after dark.

                2. It is an established fact that Moynihan is a direct descendent of Nosferatu.

              2. Currently. When the sun sets, though…

          2. Then there is Matt Welch finding so much to cheer about Bernie Sanders promising to legalize marijuana and end the Patriot Act.

            And that’s all he said in the entire four page article…

            1. No. But what difference does that make? Sure, there are lots about Sanders he doesn’t like. but he still finds “much to cheer” in Sanders taken as a whole.

              Wellch cannot bring himself to unequivocally condemn a candidate from the left, even one as bad as Sanders. There is always a bright side to any leftist candidate in reason land.

              Jesus Christ fucking Stalin could come back from the dead and run for President and Welch would find it a positive development as long as he said something nice about gays and pot.

              1. Why is it terrible to point out that a candidate who is 90% horrible on just about everything, has actually had some not-horrible stances on certain events and, more to the point, was against his party’s stance on the matters?

                What’s the H&R benchmark on not being accused of genuflecting?

                1. Because sometimes the horrible is so bad that the 10% is irrelevant. By your logic Welch would be right to find “much to cheer” in the pot and gay Friendly Stalin campaign for President.

                  And beyond that, do you actually believe that Sanders would be anything but a complete disaster for civil liberties were he to become President? Given that likelihood, what the hell difference does it make that he likes pot and wants to repeal the Patriot Act and replace it with something worse?

                  1. By your logic Welch would be right to find “much to cheer” in the pot and gay Friendly Stalin campaign for President.

                    There is much to cheer about the unlikely success of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. Starting with the fact that it has come at the direct expense of a joyless power politician, Hillary Clinton, who has bad policy ideas, worse constitutional instincts, and an above-it-all contempt for personal honesty and accountability.

                    Does that clear it up?

                    And beyond that, do you actually believe that Sanders would be anything but a complete disaster for civil liberties were he to become President?

                    As I noted below, I missed the “VOTE FOR BERNIE” subliminal messaging in the article. Your eyes are better than mine.

                    1. I missed the “VOTE FOR BERNIE” subliminal messaging in the article. Your eyes are better than mine.

                      You just have to put on the special sunglasses to see it. Put these one!

                    2. You just have to put on the special sunglasses to see it. Put these one!

                      Not this year.

                      No really, never in an election year.

                    3. How does it only being in the primary make it okay? Again, if the pot and gay friendly Stalin campaign were just a primary campaign would it be okay to cheer it on?

                      And if you think that is a bad analogy, why? Do you think socialism is just not that bad? If you do, that is your right but you might want to reconsider your commitment to liberty.

                      There is nothing to cheer about the Sanders campaign. He is a nasty horrible candidate and the fact that he has attracted such a dedicated following says nothing good about the state of the country. It should depress you. Even shadenfreude over watching Hillary get hers doesn’t make it in any way a positive development. it really doesn’t.

                  2. And beyond that, do you actually believe that Sanders would be anything but a complete disaster for civil liberties were he to become President?

                    See comment I made downthread. I think you’re probably right and those things are just poses that he strikes for convenience., He probably doesn’t care enough about those thing to expend political capital on getting the PATRIOT Act repealed or ending the NSA surveillance programs. Instead, like a good little pinko, he’ll tilt at the windmill of socialized… everything. Hopefully the GOP will retain control of Congress and he won’t get jack shit done.

                    But all that means is that Welch and company are guilty of taking a politician’s word for it that some of his stated policy preferences are serious and not just a pose. Which makes him naive, but not necessarily a stealth prog. Although who knows, maybe this whole fucking magazine really is just an insidiousness den of cozmoz and progtards pretending to be libertarians.

                    1. Which makes him naive, but not necessarily a stealth prog.

                      Name one time he ever was naive in believing anyone other than a prog candidate? If there has been such an instance, i have never seen it and would be happy to concede your point if you can provide one.

                      My point is that his nativity only goes one way. He is happy to believe Sanders and overlook the fact that Sanders an a true believer in one of the worst most repressive ideologies of all time because Sanders comes from the left. And Welch is happy to give the benefit of the doubt to someone from the left. They are cool. They mean well.

                    2. Name one time he ever was naive in believing anyone other than a prog candidate?

                      I’m pretty sure he’s taken Trump at his word about building a fucking border wall.

                      He is happy to believe Sanders and overlook the fact that Sanders an a true believer in one of the worst most repressive ideologies of all time because Sanders comes from the left. And Welch is happy to give the benefit of the doubt to someone from the left.

                      I keep forgetting that you can read minds.

                2. Why is it terrible to point out that a candidate who is 90% horrible on just about everything, has actually had some not-horrible stances on certain events and, more to the point, was against his party’s stance on the matters?

                  Fuck, even Trump said something I agreed with the other night.

              2. It just seems like you’re making an awfully big deal about 1 sentence in a 4 page article when the rest of the article was about how terrible Sanders’ economic policies are. It’s like you have this preconceived notion of Welch et al being some kind of pseudo proggies pretending to be libertarians that you miss the bigger picture. It was pretty obvious taking that article as a whole that Welch thinks Sanders would be a disastrous president for at least 10 reasons.

                1. I forget how many times you have to publicly denounce someone, before it’s considered official.

                  5?

                2. Sure Loki. You know that Chavez guy really was an effective campaigner. There was much to cheer about his success in Venezeualan elections.

                  Nothing offensive and stupid about saying that is there?

                  It is not even so much the ridiculousness of Welch’s claim as much as it is the contrast between reason’s cheerful if overall critical response to Sanders with the pants shitting hyperbole of its response to Trump.

                  Ultimately, Welch and company just can’t bring themselves to think Sanders is that bad of a guy. I mean he is just a socialist and he likes pot. How bad can be? Seems to be the Welch attitude.

                  1. the contrast between reason’s cheerful if overall critical response to Sanders with the pants shitting hyperbole of its response to Trump.

                    There are many mentions in the Trump posts about how his candidacy has also been a positive. And yet somehow you read Reason as uniformly anti-Trump, and pro-Bernie.

                    1. There are many mentions in the Trump posts about how his candidacy has also been a positive.

                      many mentions? MAny? name ten. And Shika saying “well at least a miserable asshole took up ithe evil fascist cause instead of a good candidate” does not count.

                      Welch practically gave Sanders a blowjob in print. Sure his idea are all crazy and oppressive, but he is a decent guy and his candidacy is accomplishing a lot of good things.

                      That is apparently what Welch thinks of an openly socialist candidacy. And he is a Libertarian? Really?

                  2. the contrast between reason’s cheerful if overall critical response to Sanders with the pants shitting hyperbole of its response to Trump.

                    I should have known this had something to do with Trump.

                    WHY KUM U KOZMO FAGGITS SO MEEN TO TRUMP BUTT NOT BERNY?!

                    1. Yeah Loki, A libertarian magazine talks about how positive a socialists run for President has been and what a decent guy said socialist, who by the way was a committed communist working for the Soviet Union back when there was such a thing, is.

                      What is to object to about that? I guess we are seeing the birth of a new ideology; Libertarian Socialism. What is not to love?

                    2. was a committed communist working for the Soviet Union

                      Citation? I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me, I know Sanders heaped praise on Castro and the Sandinistas back in the ’80s, but an actual Soviet agent? I hadn’t heard that before.

          3. Then there is Matt Welch finding so much to cheer about Bernie Sanders promising to legalize marijuana and end the Patriot Act.

            i’m pretty sure that wasn’t a positive article on Sanders, John, even though the statements were accurate.

            In fact, I’m absolutely certain it was written specifically to rebut the idea that there is a libertarian argument for Comrade Sanders.

            Hold on…checking…..yeah, it was.

            This article is not intended to answer the question about the candidate’s libertarian bona fides one way or another. Rather, it is to point out, amid the distracting hullabaloo of a historically weird presidential campaign, that Bernie Sanders has at least 10 awful policy ideas that would materially damage the country if enacted.

            1. I think the broader point is that there is no reason to expect even those little mercies from Sanders. If the man is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and every indication I’ve seen points in that direction, except some whining from Marxist purists which is hardly reassuring, then he thinks the only thing wrong with the Patriot Act is that its directed at “terrorists” and not “the rich”, and he thinks the only thing wrong with our drug laws is that they should just be redirected towards the bourgeoisie who beguile the hapless proletariat.

              1. Sorry, I missed the “VOTE FOR BERNIE” subliminal messaging that was printed between each line of the article.

                Carry on.

                1. … did you read what I wrote? Did you think about it, like, at all?

                  I am not John, even though I may not always jump down his throat.

              2. not my best turn of phrase

                1. Phrasing?

                  I don’t disagree with your assessment of Bernie, but it has nothing to do with the article.

                  If Matt were endorsing Sanders, your point would be valid, but since he wasn’t….

              3. I think the broader point is that there is no reason to expect even those little mercies from Sanders.

                FWIW, I think you’re probably right. Those are just poses that he adopts to appeal to whatever small portion* of the progressive left actually genuinely cares about civil liberties. God forbid he actually gets elected Emperor he won’t do a damned thing about those issues, just like Obama didn’t. And the vast majority of the proggie left will give him a pass on it, just like they’ve done with Obama.

                *Assuming there are any at all.

            2. This article is not intended to answer the question about the candidate’s libertarian bona fides one way or another.

              Really? Does Welch find it that hard to admit that a committed socialist has no Libertarian bona fides? It is not a hard question to answer.

              Rather, it is to point out, amid the distracting hullabaloo of a historically weird presidential campaign, that Bernie Sanders has at least 10 awful policy ideas that would materially damage the country if enacted.

              Okay. If that was the purpose, why did the article also include this

              There is much to cheer about the unlikely competitiveness of Bernie Sanders against that joyless, big-government machine politician, Hillary Clinton. Sanders is comparatively decent and authentic, and his policies are worlds better on drugs, surveillance, and war.

              What is comparatively decent about Sanders? Hillary is a criminal but Sanders is a hard core socialist who has been nothing but a nasty, hateful bum his entire. life. And Welch thinks he is comparatively decent.

              And doesn’t the seven policies answer the question of Sanders’ libertarian bona fides? Yet Welch still feels compelled to mention what a great guy Sanders is how there is so much to cheer about his candidacy.

              Do you agree that socialism is just no big deal and someone who dedicates his life to enacting it is just another good guy with a few bad ideas? If not, then why are you defending this trash article?

              1. And Welch thinks he is comparatively decent.

                Compared to Shillary?

                1. Yes compared to Hillary. But so what? That still doesn’t answer the question about what could possibly be comparatively decent about Sanders that warrants Welch finding his campaign such a cheerful development.

                  Is socialism evil or isn’t it? If it is not, then why are you a libertarian or even a classical liberal. If it is, why do you think it is so swell for Welch to think there is anything to cheer about the success of a socialist candidate?

              2. Do you agree that socialism is just no big deal and someone who dedicates his life to enacting it is just another good guy with a few bad ideas? If not, then why are you defending this trash article?

                I DENOUNCE THEE, I DENOUNCE THEE, I DENOUNCE THEE.

                Did I do that right?

                1. How about you just believe your lying eyes JW? The article was crap and Welch should be excoriated for writing it. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, take it up with Welch.

                  1. So, I didn’t do it right?

                    $300 wasted on denouncement lessons. Shit.

        2. Ugly weirdo Eric Dondero bragging about all the hookers he banged when he was in the service is still one of the Great Moments in H&R history.

          It’s up there with Salty Ham Tears and Epi getting an angry email from Terry Michaels.

          1. Oh man, Salty Ham Tears. That was a fun week.

            1. Best part of the Salty Ham Tears thread is when it got linked by Free Republic like 4 days after the initial post and they showed up to tell us they hoped we all would one day be raped by Satan’s Thorned Cock for daring to make fun of Rick Santorum.

              1. how… how did I miss this?

                1. It was in 2007.

                  1. Sorry, 2008. Here’s a Wayback Machine capture. (The comments were deleted at some point.)

                    1. It was 2006, but when the comments section went threaded in 2009, highnumber went back and replied to EVERYTHING.

                    2. *dips toe in water, backs slowly away*

                      Oh, and 2006.

                  2. I thought it was during the 2012 election, which would be either 2011 or 2012.

                    1. Yeah, I found the thread from 2012 that talks about it. Man, I miss Groovus. But I trust SugerFree’s archival skills.

                    2. SugerFree

                      wtf

                2. Yeah, ancient history. I wasn’t around then and know of it only through legend. You actually have to use the Wayback Machine to even see the comments because Reason wiped the comment section a few years ago because it was completely insane.

              2. It was bad enough that Reason took the post down. IIRC, you can only find it on Web Archive

                1. “Rick|11.12.06 @ 3:28PM|#
                  Oh the pleasure I will take watching you sick little freaks shit, piss, and cry as you put to death for treason. Just remember who will be blamed when several American Cities are destroyed by nukes. The groundwork has already been laid, helped along by your allies in Iran, N Korea and Al-Queda, with their public statements of thanks to the democrat party. The finger of blame will be put squarely on liberal freaks like you. Why do you think that Bush isn’t that upset with the narrow loss of both houses? You have now paid your nickel to be on the Titanic as it sinks (think about it). So enjoy pounding your pud over the disappointment of an 8 year old child, I suspect that it will be nothing compared to what you will be feeling soon.”

                  Even funnier than I remember it.

                  1. I’d like to think that Rick killed his family and himself to spare them his lurid daydream of nuclear comeuppance.

                    1. Oh, hey. Also in the Salty Ham Tears thread: definitive proof that our John is the guy who wrote that one pro-Trump article.

                    2. Was there any doubt? I knew as soon as I saw the name. I think everyone else did too.

                    3. I guess i was still giving him the benefit of the doubt, though i don’t know why i’d do that.

          2. … and Epi getting an angry email from Terry Michaels.

            What, what? Really? That is awesome!

          3. Are you forgetting something?

            Woodchippers?

            1. Are we allowed to talk about that yet?

              1. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I say anything.

            2. I’m contemplating YouTubing a chipping in effigy. My PTO chipper only takes up to 4.5 inches so it would either be a scaled down effigy or it would look like the leg in Fargo

    2. To be fair to your niece, you sort of have to go out of your way not to have seen a Harry Potter movie over the last decade. Harry Potter movies are kind of like anuses. Even if you don’t seek out opportunities to look for them it’s almost impossible to get through life without having seen a few.

      1. Thank you for that wonderful metaphor. Or should i say, anal-ogy?

          1. Or, *narrows sphincter*, amirite?

            1. “The anus is the window of the butt.”

              1. Was that before or after James Woods pulled the gun out of his stomach?

      2. Re: The Last American Hero,

        Even if you don’t seek out opportunities to look for them it’s almost impossible to get through life without having seen a few.

        Unless you never have to change a baby’s diaper. Or you haven’t 69 with your significant other… and if you haven’t, let me tell you: you don’t miss much. It’s really not that hot.

      3. To be fair to your niece, you sort of have to go out of your way not to have seen a Harry Potter movie

        I confess = i sort of have. it is not due to fundamental opposition to teen-wizardry, so much as ‘i’ve never been in the mood’.

    3. See: “homophobia” and “Islamaphobia”. A phobia is an irrational fear of something; I don’t like to eat okra for the quite rational reason that I don’t think it tastes good, but it doesn’t scare me a damn bit so I don’t consider myself okraphobic.

      1. Have you had it fried? The Islamic I mean.

        1. Okra is weird. Regardless of how it’s prepared, i can eat about four pieces and then my body is like, “Ok, that’s enough” and it starts tasting shitty.

          1. It helps if you eat dog shit first, because then it’ll taste better by comparison.

            That’s how I got through a company retreat where 2 of the meals were catered by Chipotle.

            1. You are just an ocraphobe Playa.

          2. I love okra. My okra plant is winning the fastest growing plant race in my garden.

            1. Growing okra is fun. All you need is like 6 plants and you have okra for the whole season. And it tastes great. I think people are turned off by the semen-like texture, but I am secure enough to enjoy it.

              1. I find I only enjoy okra after another man has placed it inside of my wife’s mouth.

                1. Snowballing okra huh…

                  Wife! Get in here!

                2. I pray this will be the most horrible thing i read today

                    1. Seconded.

                      My thoughts and prayers are with you.

                  1. I pray this will be the most horrible thing i read today

                    I hope you’ve logged out of Hit’n’Run and gone to bed, then.

                  2. Oh, I’m sure it won’t be.

                3. I find I only enjoy okra after another man has placed it inside of my wife’s mouth.

                  I knew it! A cukra!

              2. O K R A H O M A Okrahoma!

      2. Okra? Gross. I’d rather eat snot.

      3. I don’t like to eat okra for the quite rational reason that I don’t think it tastes good, but it doesn’t scare me a damn bit so I don’t consider myself okraphobic.

        I like Okra, but i can understand the aversion.

        Have you had it Indian-Style? aka = “Bhindi Bhaji” or “Bhindi Masala” or “Jhatpat Bhindi” etc. I think if you’re not crazy about the flavor, it can improve them somewhat.

        1. The flavor is fine. It’s the snot-like consistency that gets me.

          1. well, being fried improves that somewhat. Though not entirely.

            I grew up with it (southern family members) so it was just “there” all the time and you just got used to it.

    4. Gilly, the phrase used was “anti-gay-marriage” (note that all three words are hyphenated, making them a compound noun). What you quoted was “anti-gay,” which was intellectually dishonest on your part since you selectively quoted so as to change the meaning.

      1. But his point still stands. You can refuse to bake a cake for someone and still not be an activist for the supposedly associated political cause.

        1. Who said anything about a cake?

          1. … in a dark corner, what remains of my sanity cries softly.

            PIZZA? FUCKING PIZZA?

            If this could get any stupider, well then it would be one of the bathroom threads.

            1. PIZZA? FUCKING PIZZA?

              If, by pizza, you mean deep dish pizza, then yes.

          2. THE CAKE IS A LIE!

      2. Gilly, the phrase used was “anti-gay-marriage”

        In case your memory has soured, the reference i was making to Reason headlines like =

        This Anti-Gay Pizza Place Got Trashed on Yelp. Why Isn’t That Enough?

        and media-references to the RFRA laws, such as =

        Lawmakers To ‘Clarify’ Anti-Gay Law

        I appreciate that the phrase “anti-gay-marriage” is not the same as “anti-gay”, but i don’t think a single word of my point above regarding the rhetorical loaded-characterization of people simply “refusing to participate” (rather than “actively opposing”) is at all changed by that.

        I actually think the “intellectually dishonest” approach is to ignore a person’s point while trying to play ‘gotcha’ with terminology, but that’s a separate point i guess.

        1. I’d hope he was being sarcastic. Hyphenating words doesn’t automatically make them a noun without regard to the rest of the English language nor does it explicitly compel their literal interpretation. A gay marriage baker doesn’t bake marriages, gays, or gay marriages regardless of how many hyphens you do/don’t use.

          1. I’d hope he was being sarcastic. Hyphenating words doesn’t automatically make them a noun without regard to the rest of the English language nor does it explicitly compel their literal interpretation.

            I hope you’re being sarcastic.

            1. Nope. A noun describing another noun is an adjective regardless of the number of hyphens used. A ‘near red car’ and a ‘near-red car’ are both cars in the proximity of red and a car that is ‘in the red’ or ‘in-the-red’ can be as close or far from any color as you like.

              Considering that it’s a it’s a natural language not a formal one; I refuse to buy into any ‘official’ order of operations set for hyphenation-to-noun conversion vs. noun-order-to-adjective one.

              1. Considering that it’s a it’s a natural language not a formal one; I refuse to buy into any ‘official’ order of operations set for hyphenation-to-noun conversion vs. noun-order-to-adjective one.

                *plaintive howling*

                Listen to them. Generative linguists of the night. What music they make.

                1. linguistic pedantry aside, i thought the point was more about describing people as “Anti-Gay” when they aren’t actually engaged in any actual active-intolerance

                  I think its basically the same point that’s been made before about the difference between “Tolerance” and “Affirmation”, and how the former doesn’t require the latter.

                  The way the media has chosen to treat these RFRA laws as “Anti-Gay” (or trans, or whatever) seems to elide that distinction, and treat ‘lack of affirmation’ as equivalent to intolerance.

                2. Listen to them. Generative linguists of the night. What music they make.

                  If you start drawing more parallels between myself and Chomsky, we’re gonna have some words.

        2. As has been explained on numerous threads, merely refusing service doesn’t trigger a lawsuit. The bakers or photographers or pizza makers are refusing service based on their religious objection to gay marriage. If they weren’t, the assholes suing them wouldn’t have a case.

          1. The bakers or photographers or pizza makers are refusing service based on their religious objection to gay marriage.

            And that makes it even worse. Free exercise of religion is specifically protected under the 1st Amendment.

            Do you actually think the fact that they are being sued for having a religious objection makes it okay? Or are you just being sarcastic and I am not seeing it?

            1. I’m doing neither. I’m saying that calling someone “anti-gay-marriage” based on their stated objection to gay marriage is not some sort of linguistic contortion. or somehow unfair.

              I will say that Gilmore is correct in that being “anti-gay-marriage” is not the same as being “anti-gay.” I meant to include that in the first comment.

              1. Okay. You are right. They were anti-gay marriage. Although I am not sure they were anti to the extent they wanted the thing shut down. They just didn’t want to be involved.

              2. What if you’re just anti-marriage?

                1. That would be g…nevermind.

          2. The bakers or photographers or pizza makers are refusing service based on their religious objection to gay marriage

            You’re reversing it. They are being sued for discrimination. Even if they claimed they refused service for “no reason at all” it wouldn’t be a sufficient defense. Merely “not serving” isn’t an option as you seem to claim – its the “proof” of the discrimination claim.

            Though I’d welcome any law that opened up Freedom of Association for “any reason at all”, not just a religious one.

            1. I haven’t seen one case that has gone forward without an explicit statement against gays or gay marriage by the defendants. So I haven’t seen any evidence of what you are suggesting.

              1. I haven’t seen one case that has gone forward without an explicit statement against gays or gay marriage by the defendants. So I haven’t seen any evidence of what you are suggesting.

                Because there is no legal alternative, which is exactly the point i made above.

                They are being sued in places where public-accommodation laws, contra your claim, forbid the refusal of service “for no reason”.

                The fact that they are using a religious defense in the suits is both because a) it happens to be true, and b) the constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion, making it a better legal case than, “but Free Association your honor!!” which seem to be what you’d prefer they go to court with.

                1. So they don’t really have an objection to gay marriage? They refused to bake a cake or take photographs just because? Or they were striking a stand for Free Association but are lying about having a religious objection so they have a defense?

                  Do you really believe this outlandish shit you say?

                  1. So they don’t really have an objection to gay marriage?

                    Of course they do.

                    You claimed, “Merely refusing service doesn’t trigger a lawsuit”. You seem to think that “no reason” is a valid defense. It isn’t. It doesn’t matter what their reasons are if they’re forced to have some “valid” reason for refusal. There are no valid reasons for refusal of service under public accommodation laws, which allows people to sue the shit out of others for perceived discrimination.

                    The fact that they are trying to carve out an exception to the public-accomodation laws on religious grounds is because there’s a decent legal case there. If the constitution had no protections for religion, there’d be nothing for them to justify any exercise of free-association.

                    I’m not so sure what’s outlandish about this point.

                    1. OK, I see that you are just going to play dumb. Thanks for the waste of time.

                    2. I see that you are just going to play dumb.

                      A difference of opinion isn’t a sign of stupidity. Inability to express a point in anything other than rhetorical-questions is.

                2. They are being sued in places where public-accommodation laws, contra your claim, forbid the refusal of service “for no reason”.

                  This is not accurate. They are absolutely allowed to refuse service for no reason, or for a reason that does not have to do with discriminating against a protected class.

                  1. And you think that somehow makes it okay Nikki? Seriously, what the hell difference does that make? Oh okay, you can turn people down because they are Steelers fans so it shouldn’t matter that you have to serve gay weddings. yeah, that makes sense.

                    1. And you think that somehow makes it okay Nikki?

                      Yes, John, that’s exactly what Nikki said. Verbatim.

                      Have you ever considered drinking decaf?

                    2. es, John, that’s exactly what Nikki said. Verbatim

                      If she isn’t saying that, what is she saying? I love how you half wits make a statement for which there is only one logical implication, get called on that implication and then fall back on the “that is not what I said”.

                      Okay, then you said nothing and are just wasting space. Got it.

                    3. If she isn’t saying that, what is she saying?

                      I’m saying GILMORE was being inaccurate. That seemed pretty clear to me.

                    4. I’m saying GILMORE was being inaccurate.

                      yes, i know, but your formulation wasn’t exactly a rebuttal to the point being made

                      e.g. “they can too refuse service for no reason!”
                      *(unless of course that person is a member of a protected class and can therefore sue someone for refusing service and compel them in a court of law to make some legal defense for their “no reason” decision – at which point they have to provide reasons)

                      if someone can walk into a court of law and just shrug and say, “I dunno, your honor, i just didn’t feel like making them a cake” and win a discrimination lawsuit, that would something i think lawyers would be very interested in.

                    5. Okay, then you said nothing and are just wasting space. Got it.

                      Oh, John….

                      [Walks away shaking head, to the saccharin-y plinking of The Incredible Hulk outro music.]

                  2. They are absolutely allowed to refuse service for no reason, or for a reason that does not have to do with discriminating against a protected class.

                    shorter = they can’t refuse service to protected classes for any reason

            2. bars, theoretically, can refuse service to anyone for no reason at all. Ive never heard of that being challenged anywhere, but maybe that’s specific to alcohol.

        3. Since when is rejecting public accommodation law “anti” the protected group? Libertarians are last I looked in favor of repealing all public accommodation laws including the CRA. Does Robby consider Libertarians to be anti black? It seems that he should if he wants to be consistent.

    5. Your niece was being bossy.

  13. I hope they take questions from the audience. I can see it now:

    “WHAT ABOUT ROADZ?!?! HEPR-A-DERP!!!!”

    1. “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was watching the debate for PRESIDENT OF SOMALIA.”

  14. I send my regrets. Vacation starts tomorrow. No fucking politics for a week.

    1. So you won’t be staying at any Trump hotels?

      1. None around here that I know of. He has a golf course nearby, but no hotel.

    2. Didn’t you just get back from vacation?

      1. I went away for a weekend in Feb. Wife had a lawyer conference at the Esmeralda Indian Wells. Cost to me: $0

    3. What about regular politics?

      Kidding, kidding. Have fun!

  15. “These candidates aren’t going to do anything for me. Hell with this.”

    1. “I can’t get off to this! Wait a minute, maybe i can. I just need to see it as a challenge.”

  16. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. Me too. Be kind of fun if he ran. Would love to see him debate Hillary or Bernie.

      1. Ge febated Dr. D David Shulz once. Once.

        1. He debated. WTF

  17. The only problem is that nobody who doesn’t already lean Libertarian will watch it. Oh well, better than nothing I suppose. And it’ll give those of us who do lean Libertarian a chance to see what Peterson and McAfee have to offer (most of us are already familiar with Johnson).

    1. Your mom is familiar with my Johnson.

  18. along with America’s libertarian bestie Kennedy

    Sorry Kennedy, but my libertarian bestie is Julie Borowski.

    1. Liber-teenager Julie

  19. There better be a live prerecorded tweet for this!

  20. So I find this article on Peterson’s Libertarian Republic site about why Peterson should be the Libertarian candidate. I barely start reading the article and the page dims out with a pop up wanting me to subscribe to keep reading. Now if he wants to charge for content that’s all fine and good. But wouldn’t you want to provide what’s basically a free campaign advertisement for yourself at no charge? Seems a little short sighted or stupid.

    1. He’s clearly just in it for the money

    2. Seems a little short sighted or stupid.

      Doesn’t that describe the entire Libertarian Party?

    3. But wouldn’t you want to provide what’s basically a free campaign advertisement for yourself at no charge? Seems a little short sighted or stupid.

      SOCIALIST

  21. Ooh, I have a tingle running up my leg.

    Or I’m having a stroke.

    1. Maybe the tingle up your leg is a hard ball.

  22. Wow, during the final four. Huge audience I suspect.

  23. *grabs novelty beer hat and popcorn*

    LIBERTY! WOOOOOOOOOOO!

  24. Crudely speaking, Johnson’s the pragmatist, McAfee’s the philosopher, and Petersen’s the hustler.

    McAfee’s not the hustler? Kayyy.

  25. Isn’t McAffee an international fugitive?

    1. I believe the Mexican authorities have not pursued any official charges against him.

      1. Mexican authorities

        It would be weird if they did, since his legal issues occurred in Belize.

        1. Of course, given who we’re talking about, it’s entirely possible both governments have reason to want him.

        2. Oh, sorry, why did I think his troubles were in Mexico? Should have checked with the Ultimate Authority, Wikipedia before posting that.

      2. Wait, wasn’t he being investigated in Belize?

        What did he do in Mexico… this time?

        1. What don’t you do in Mexico?

        2. I had my facts wrong. I thought it was somewhere in Mexico he ran into problems. It was Belize.

          1. Never admit to factual mistakes on the Internet.

            /sarc

          2. You may have been mixing up his crazy stories. He does believe (or did at one point) that a Mexican drug cartel was after him for some reason or another.

            http://www.mensjournal.com/mag…..a-20150909

  26. I’ll watch it with a joint in one hand and a bottle of scotch in the other, then laugh until I cry.

  27. They managed to get all libertarian voters in the studio audience.

    1. There’s no way there are that many libertarian voters.

      1. They planted some women in there to boost the attendance figures.

        1. “Hey, we’re polling some millennials, wanna join in?”

          …is a lame and predictable tasteless joke.

          1. They want to find out who’s pulling a head.

            1. [Insert overdone HyR meme here]

  28. If there is a libertarian hall of fame, I hereby nominate Mr. Stossel, and hope he is inducted forthwith.

  29. This should be fun, too bad I don’t subscribe to cable!

    1. I bet you don’t own a TV either, hippie.

  30. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  31. Did anyone see the HBO David Simon thing from last year, “Show Me a Hero

    any good?

  32. We’re not kidding. Please, please tune in. Stossel’s gonna be pissed if he doesn’t get the ratings. Please with sugar on top. We’re gonna talk about marijuana!

  33. Look at the crap branding. Second rate. Looks like a local TV news set.

  34. So, one part of the media is finally allowing a small opening in their almost-a-conspiracy of marginalizing the LP – simply by ignoring the party and never telling the public it exists.

    ‘Course the democraps and republicreeps who never watch “Faux News” won’t see this debate anyway, so if they haven’t been informed yet of the existence of the Libertarian Party by their favorite “news” outlet, they still won’t know.

  35. I’ve met Johnson. Nice, smart fellow. But he could put a speed freak to sleep. McAfee should be entertaining. And I know just about nothing of Petersen. I’ve DVR’d the debate and bought more popcorn.

    As an aside, shouldn’t Reason talk about and interview the VP candidates? As I believe the delegates chose that nominee too. From experience I would expect them to be both dull and entertaining, and completely unknown.

  36. I’m watching that debate. note though their answers are similar to Trumps. I’m just sayin

  37. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

  38. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

  39. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.onlinecash9.com

  40. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  41. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  42. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  43. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  44. McAfee kind of creeped me out at first but his conviction and no bullshit attitude won me over. GayJay’s “there should always be a safety net” comment disappointed, and the last dude I swear had Rand Paul’s hand up his ass moving his mouth for him.

  45. my buddy’s step-mother makes $89 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired for seven months but last month her income was $19439 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could check here

    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  46. Watched the debate and McAfee is as close to an Anarchist as I can find. Pure liberty while taking responsibility for your actions with only enough government to appease those that refuse to think for themselves. If I believed in God John McAfee would be my Messiah.

  47. 8″Once I saw the draft of 6274 bucks,,, I admit that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his free time with his PC. His uncle’s neighbor has done this for only 9 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car …
    JD!650
    ??
    ??? http://www.alpha-careers.com/?…..-in-home-/

  48. before I looked at the receipt of $8884 , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this…GHT309.

    ==== http://www.alpha-careers.com

  49. crazy. hearad about this last week.

  50. ?After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
    this website,
    ???? http://www.BuzzMom90.com

  51. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  52. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  53. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  54. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  55. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.paypost50.com

  56. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.