Bill Weld

Why Weld Worries Libertarians, In Recent Bloomberg Interview

When the Libertarian vice presidential pick says libertarianism means "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" he seems to mean that in the most restrictive sense of those terms in modern American politics, and won't step outside them.


People into internal Libertarian politics know that many Party activists started off wary and worried about the libertarian bona fides of their vice presidential candidate William Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts.

William Weld Facebook

A recent lengthy interview with Bloomberg News shows some of the reasons. Weld's vision of government is ineluctably one within the narrow boundaries of what a normal American politician is able to believe, albeit one who indeed generally cares about overwhelming government spending and doesn't want government exhibiting social conservative prejudices.

It is true—I've heard about it from people in the movement who met Weld way back in the '90s—that he always has liked to think of himself as "libertarian." (As always, Weld namechecks his love of F.A. Hayek for his libertarian cred.) He definitely likes not having to self-identify as Republican because it locks him in with a bunch of social conservatives he clearly has no respect for. But he doesn't always mean by it what most libertarian movement types mean, doesn't have a consistent and rigorous vision of what it is proper for government to do, and clearly worries far more about existing political realities than most libertarians do.

Thus, as he tells Bloomberg, he's now (after consultation with his running mate Gary Johnson, the first governor to openly support legal pot) for marijuana legalization and has endorsed a Massachusetts ballot initiative that would legalize it. But as far as the principle of drug legalization, he doesn't even want to discuss it. When he sees how much more damaging than marijuana that alcohol is, "he can see the logical argument" for legalizing weed.

But anything further is just "conjectural at this point." He was federalist enough to say he could see devolving the whole matter of drug laws to the states, but also has a "wait and see" attitude about the states that have already legalized marijuana, as if his mind could be changed on its value.

He's asked about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a bit of regulation not at all on the national radar screen these days, clearly as an attempt to see how far he goes in believing government should stay out of private business. Well, not all that far, as Weld explains; he supported both it and the Family Leave Act which he admits one could "also say was an intrusive federal step" but that he let "hearts and flowers" turn his mind, "family makes my heart go pitter-patter" and he did support both ADA and family leave and sees no need to rethink either.

He credited Obama for opening up relations with Cuba and for his executive orders softening some applications of immigration law. And he was contemptuous of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for what he sees as their opposition to trade deals he wholeheartedly supports, from NAFTA to TPP.

Weld still seems, as he always has, a relatively decent Republican politician, but not quite the movement's idea of a Libertarian one.

That said, he yesterday posted something encouraging about the Patriot Act on his Facebook page:

I do not believe the Act was or should have been intended to permit the government to spy on U.S. citizens without any more predication than a desire to amass a dossier of information. Such a practice would be reminiscent of activities undertaken by the FBI in its early days at the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, and would not be consistent with the observance of civil liberties that we all have a constitutional right to expect.

I have long viewed the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures as being among the most important provisions of the entire Bill of Rights.

In this respect, we need to be vigilant to ensure that a law purportedly intended to undergird our safety does not instead end up by undermining our liberties."

NEXT: One Year Ago Today, Donald Trump Announced He Was Running For President

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. Actually libertarians are economically liberal and socially liberal in the true sense/meaning of liberal

    1. Bingo

  2. Seriously, was there no other former governor/Senator that GayJay could have picked?

    As I mentioned in some other thread, if GayJay wanted a liberal, northeastern, former two-term Republican governor who’s anti-Trump, why not just go with Christie Todd Whitman?

    1. Well, he does put some dynamism in the ticket, so there’s that. When I hear the guy speak I want to donate to the Reason Foundation and Buy all of Ayn Rand’s books. Not going to read them though.

      1. Well, he does put some dynamism in the ticket, so there’s that.

        Also, nobody is pointing out that he has really nice hair.

      2. Don’t feel embarrassed – nobody else reads them either.

    2. Face it. He’s not a libertarian. He’s a lefty-Republican who is there to woo voters. I question the choice, but it doesn’t mean fuck-all. Gary isn’t ever going to spend a night in the White House, so his VP choice (?) will never mean the square root of shit.

      Whether that choice gets more heads in the tent than a more libertarian VP, remains to be seen.

      1. Eh. I guess the hope I have is that *some* otherwise undecided/unaffiliated voters take a hard look at libertarianism, Johnson/Weld be damned. The supposed “brand name” of the ticket alone (only third party to be on the ballot in all 50 states) should help.

        1. I didn’t “turn” gay er libertarian overnight. I’m assuming it’ll be the same for other Team converts. Giving them something a bit less radical to their current belief structure to get them thinking may be a more effective way to go. Cuz, face it, libertarian principle will take you to some places that Team “straights” dare not look. If those places aren’t the first thing the newbies are introduced to, it’s prolly for the best.

          1. This is why i ultimately voted for Johnson/Weld.

            That, and damn it why can’t we have nice things?

    3. Seriously, was there no other former governor/Senator that GayJay could have picked?

      Mitt Romney wouldn’t run unless he was at the top of the ticket. GayJay had to settle for Weld.

      1. Why not go with Howard Stern again? Or Jessie “The Body” Ventura?
        Or maybe one of the South Park guys — they say they are libertarians (though seemingly less so recently)
        Or Penn Gillette?
        Or that comic from Cleveland who does Price is Right now?

        There’s all kinds of actual libertarians out there if you just wanted more name recognition on a losing ticket.

        1. Penn Gillette?

          *Fd’A rubs chin*

          Could he make the national debt disappear?

          1. Better yet. For my next trick watch me make disappear….PROGRESSIVES!

            /presses button to release the hounds.

        2. Or maybe one of the South Park guys — they say they are libertarians (though seemingly less so recently)

          How so? Genuinely curious.

        3. The specific name recognition we are discussing is not popular, its prestigious. The point is to show that we have something to offer those who are deeply invested in the system, which means we too can share thier concerns. The Weld pick is one of gravitas and grandeur, it shows those who value participation in the contact sport of politics that we are serious about the game. Our seriousness will promote thier support.

  3. But as far as the principle of drug legalization, he desn’t (Reason typo) even want to discuss it.

    Then at least show me where the US Constitution authorizes the drug war.

    1. Shhhhhh….. we’re not supposed to mention that

      1. Funny that those poor dumb fuckers, back in 1920, thought they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. As it turned out, they discovered in 1933, that the Founders took all that time writing a constitution that strictly limited government power only to nullify it with the commerce clause. Think of all the time they could have saved by simply having Congress ban booze rather than passing 18A.

        1. Or a President with ‘a pen and a phone’ could have saved them time too, though the phones were pretty rudimentary in 1920 (and Warren G. Hardon wasn’t really an activist prez)

        2. What used to take a constitutional amendment only took an act of congress. What used to take an act of congress only takes rule making by unelected regulators.

          1. And what used to take a court order now can be demanded by any pig on the street.

            But, by God, we’re safer!

            1. If it saves only one child…

    2. “Then at least show me where the US Constitution authorizes the drug war.”
      Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: “Fuck you, that’s why..”

      1. Man cant even grow his own wheat anymore.

    3. The status quo is prohibition, so the statists don’t want to talk about it.

    4. The status quo is prohibition, so the statists don’t want to talk about it.

  4. Weld is about as mainstream as you can get and as a modern Republican, would be one of those types of “republicans” that would be marginally successful where I live if he were in local politics. He’d be writing long tracts in the Seattle Times about how the modern GOP is “out of touch with American values” while maybe trying to hold the line on Total Stalinism from the majority party (and never winning anything).

    What I mean to say is, compared to Trump and Clinton, you could do worse by supporting the Johnson/Weld ticket. Yeah, that’s a pretty weak-tea endorsement of Weld… well ok, it’s not an endorsement at all, but if you’re going to vote libertarian, you’re not decimating the core of all that’s holy in libertarianism if you cast your vote for Johnson in November.

    1. “if you’re going to vote libertarian, you’re not decimating the core of all that’s holy in libertarianism if you cast your vote for Johnson in November.”

      That’s probably the best thing that can be written about him.

    2. When you’re ‘splaining, Paul, you’re losing. GayJay should’ve kept Jim Gray, instead of going Flaccid and finding a Gelded Weld.

      1. It wasn’t the ‘splaining that marked my losing.

    3. you’re not really doing anything if you cast your vote for johnson in november

      1. You’re not really doing anything if you cast your vote for Kang or Kodos, either. Write in your own name if you want to vote for a libertarian you can agree with 100% of the time, otherwise you got Johnson/Weld. If you want to stay pure and unsullied and withhold your vote as a protest to teach those establishment bigwigs at the LP they can’t just shove any old nominee down your throat, well I’m sure they’re going to be just sick about how many potential votes they lost by not toeing the party line closely enough.

      2. you’re not really doing anything if you cast your vote for johnson in november

        Fixed for accuracy.

  5. Another good article by WW. Basics.…..ashington/

    1. That article is garbage. (I only hit the link because I thought WW was William Weld).

      It smacks of progressives crying about Citizens United and money in politics. Sometimes companies hire a famous speaker just to get a famous speaker. My company paid Lou Holtz to drool for 45 minutes at a convention once. Same concept with pols.

    2. I wholly agree that the problem with too much lobbying money involved in politicking is a symptom of the disease of a too-powerful government, but let’s not forget that lobbying is otherwise known as petitioning the government for redress of grievances. When you start talking about too much money in politics and cheering for laws restricting it, you’re cheering for restrictions on the First Amendment just as much as Hillary and Trump with their anti-“dark money” stances.

      1. I’m for shrinking governments money and power to the point where lobbyist aren’t interested in it anymore.

  6. Since Rand Paul is against elective abortions I’ll put Weld down as “slightly more libertarian” than the junior Senator from Kentucky.

    1. Isn’t Rand a federalist on the issue?

      There are genuine pro-life libertarians (I am pro choice), you know.

      1. No, Rand has sponsored a Life at Conception Act in the Senate. I don’t doubt he sincerely believes abortion is murder but he’s not a federalist on the issue.

        1. I think he is federalist on pot which is no better than the status quo.

          1. President Paul would most likely reschedule marijuana and decriminalize it on the Federal level. He has no power to stop the states from being prohibitionists.

            1. Noah: If Rand Paul was president, would it be illegal to smoke weed?

              Paul: Not federally, and I think states would make up their minds. So for instance, Colorado right now has decided that it’s not illegal. I think that’s completely Colorado’s purview. There shouldn’t be federal laws against most things. In fact, when we started the country, we had laws against counterfeiting, against treason, and against piracy….

              Whether or not Colorado decides to legalize marijuana really is their business, and there’s no real reason to have a federal rule on that….States will develop different experiments or proclivities. Colorado might have it, but maybe Alabama is not going to have it. The good thing about it is it allows us to have a little bit different cultural norms in different parts of the country.


              1. And this refutes what GMSM said how?

                1. Rand Paul would not “reschedule” marijuana.

                  Source – Rand Paul himself when asked what he would do as POTUS.

                  1. There shouldn’t be federal laws against most things.

                    I assume he’s saying that there shouldn’t be a federal law prohibiting marijuana. He can’t unilaterally repeal the law, so maybe he’d reschedule it. He never said “no, I would not reschedule marijuana.” At least not in what you quoted above.

        2. It bothers me that there are those that believe either side of the issue is “anti-libertarian.” Strong libertarian arguments can be made from both sides of that fence.

          1. Morally, yes.

            But the anti-choicers invariably want to build up a police state and put the doctor and/or mother in prison.

            THAT is anti-libertarian.

            1. And IF they are correct about when personhood begins, that would be completely appropriate. Libertarians are often in favor of punishing murderers.

              1. Not without violating our Right to Privacy.

                (I know, conservatives deny such a right exists).

                Or call it the right to decide what to do with your body if you prefer. That should be one of those “natural rights” if I could ever find that fucking list.

                Never mind. I am making my own list of natural rights. And the above examples are on it.

                1. Your right to privacy (or whatever you want to call it) doesn’t trump someone else’s right to not be intentionally killed.

                  NAP…it means NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. It means you may not initiate aggression upon another person.

                  I have the right to set my own house on fire. Because I have that right does not mean I can set my own house on fire with someone else inside it.

                  1. There is no agreement that an embryo is a “person”. None at all.

                    Is it human? Sure. So are the cells that make up our hair.

                    The anti-choice argument fails every time.

                    1. Your hair is made of dead material (except for a small part at the root where it grows).

                    2. There is no agreement that an embryo is a “person”.

                      I couldn’t agree more. But that is the only pertinent point. Your drivel about privacy is moot from a libertarian perspective. You apply the NAP. If it’s a person, you may not initiate aggression upon it. If it isn’t, it doesn’t matter.

                      And when someone has a standard definition of personhood and a method of determining when that is attained in the womb, come talk to me about legislation.

                    3. I don’t care if it’s a person, it’s a person that doesn’t mind being killed.

    2. Yeah, like any ‘libertarian’ cares about the opinion of a brain dead leftist.

  7. “he let “hearts and flowers” turn his mind, “family makes my heart go pitter-patter” and he did support both ADA and family leave and sees no need to rethink either.”

    This quote made me think I’d seen Weld before…I think I once saw him on TV.

      1. First is the sound of a politician’s heart going pitter-patter…then, later, there’s the sound of the cops shouting “STOP RESISTING!”

        1. And while the cops are going around using force to make people comply, Weld is sitting around thinking that government works like this.

    1. He’s weak tea. Non-threatening and acceptable to grandmas.

      1. Soft rice with warm milk.

  8. But as far as the principle of drug legalization, he doesn’t even want to discuss it.

    Which is fine with me since he’s running for Vice President, not Vice Educator of Libertarian Philosophy.

    I’m not going to call him a libertarian because he obviously isn’t but as far as moderate Republicans go he’s perfectly inoffensive if the goal is to disrupt the duopoly by running a credible third party ticket based broadly on fiscal conservatism and social tolerance.

    1. You heard Weld…to him, mandatory family leave and the ADA *are* social tolerance. Opposition to these laws is *intolerance.*

    2. That is a laudable goal but the first priority should be to get to the 15% required to participate in debates.

      There is a good chance Trump goes Stockdale so Weld will look great in comparison to the other two VP choices.

    3. Trump has more to offer the libertarian-minded voter than Johnson Weld. Not least, victory over the Democrats AND Republicans.

      1. Trump has more to offer the libertarian-minded voter than Johnson Weld.

        Yeah, white nationalism, bigotry and working class resentment. I think I’ll pass.

        Not least, victory over the Democrats AND Republicans.

        So when Trump gets slaughtered by Hillary and possibly brings down GOP House firewall with him, who will you blame? The (((moneyed interests))) that stabbed Trump in the back?

        1. ^This^

          Trump is arguably the best spokesman for a yuge big government outside of the Democratic Party (and even better than many of the people inside it).

          Just because he’s using the proggies’ tactics of identity politics, envy, resentment, and desire for a strongman doesn’t mean libertarians — of all people — should jump on board.

      2. Trump will not destroy the GOP by winning. The whole reason Trump’s running and winning so far is because they have no principles and they’ll do or say whatever it takes to win – running Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump, it doesn’t matter as long as they win. President Trump will just convince the GOP that they were right to abandon all their principles and they’ll be stronger than ever with their “Big Tent” appeal to anybody and everybody on any side of any issue.

        Trump losing, now, that’s what will tear the GOP apart and you’re more likely to see a Dem-lite moderate GOP with all their love for big government programs, just not quite so big and for different things, and a truer small-government libertarianish GOP that doesn’t just mouth the platitudes about principles the GOP has been mouthing for as long as I’ve been alive. Right now we’ve got the seeds of that – the Trump GOP voters and the Johnson GOP voters.

    4. social tolerance

      I like that. That’s better than social liberal. Current liberals (progs) aren’t tolerant at all. “Fiscally conservative and socially liberal” only works if you go back several decades. Much better choice.

      1. I like that too, Frank! Does that mean you won’t reluctantly and after careful deliberation drone me today? Because I know these are really tough decisions for you. If so, thanks! You da best!

        1. AddictionMyth can’t even keep his sock handles straight. Sad!

    1. Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain

      Opus Dei strikes again.

    2. So they could have given pot away, but they should have done it more discretely? So if they hadn’t advertised (I guess) they wouldn’t be going to jail? WTF?

  9. Weld’s position on devolving drug issues to the states is far better than Trump or Hillary, even if it doesn’t satisfy the Libertarianazis. Everything he said was fine. I don’t understand this drive to discredit the party. (But I plan to figure it out!)

    1. There are quite a few Trumpaholics here impersonating libertarians.

      1. Yes there are many Trumpkins-in-denial here. They are easy to spot because they demand that federal judges be fed feet first into woodchippers should they rule fairly on a law they find objectionable. Or they will say, “The Bill of Rights is worthless without the Second Amendment.” Or they will call Weld ‘Republican-lite’ because “he refused to swear eternal allegiance to the party.”

        What baffles me is why there are so few libertarians here – Johnson/Weld aren’t perfect but they are far better than Trump and Hillary. But I plan to figure it out!

        1. Nice work Shreek! You remembered to change your poster name before answering yourself.

          1. Thanks! I’m getting pretty good at this. 🙂

            1. See the denial? There can’t possibly be more than one human who is not a Paleo-Conservative!

              1. Denial? C. Anacreon is more libertarian than your coke addled mind can handle. I’ve seen it in action. You talk, he produces. His entire career.

                Go do a quick bump and type some shit on the internet. That’ll fix things, right?

                1. He is denying that Addiction Myth and I are unique individuals.

                  Please read closely.

                  1. No, he’s using your name as a slur.

                    Rightfully so.

        2. Hey, that is the concept called ‘Palin’s Buttplug’ (which is a term derived from Occam’s Razor – think about it).

          When someone here spouts TEAM RED! talking points 24/7 it is because they ARE Team Red.

          1. I thought about it but I can’t figure it out. I guess I really am smarter than I thought. I never cease to amaze me.

            1. OK, I will explain it.

              Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

              Palin’s Buttplug says there aren’t two explanations – there is only one.

              1. Jesus. At least change your writing style a little bit. This shit is so cringeworthy it hurts.

                1. At least change your writing style a little bit. This shit is so cringeworthy it hurts

                  Shut up, Hyperion.

                  You’re not fooling anyone with some lame meaningless screen name like “Juice”.

                  1. Quality deflection, but it’s obvious you’re using a sockpuppet here.

              2. Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better.

                You don’t even understand the meaning and usage of Occam’s Razor. Generally it means if you hear galloping hoofbeats and a whinny, chances are it’s a horse, not a zebra.

                It doesn’t mean that two different poster names on an internet discussion board can’t be the same person. In fact, it would be just the opposite — if the writing styles are the same, and they respond in the same way, the simplest answer would be that they are the same person.

                1. C. Anacreon – you’re a dumbass who cannot read.

                  I coined ‘Palin’s Buttplug’ several years ago. Not just a few hours ago in this thread.

                  see my explanation as to the origin of ‘Buttplug’ just above on this same thread.

          2. You really put the douche in fiduciary, Shreek. Pay the debt yet?

            which is a term derived from Occam’s Razor – think about it

            That’s a lie, you precious Sweet Georgia Peach vagino-rectal blood fart. You chose this handle in response to commenter Enough About Palin. Before that you were shrike, as in a pitiful little bird.

            Some of us here have good memories, Shreek. Even if I haven’t posted here in a couple of years (until recently).

            1. Pure bullshit. I never have had a squabble with that poster.

              I lost my email password for “shrike” – which I use everywhere else. I would rather be shrike. Since you profess to like literature the name comes from Nathaniel West’s “Miss Lonelyhearts” which is the great American existential novel.

              Also, of course, a shrike is a butcher bird that impales its victims near its nest for repeat meals.

              1. It’s Nathanael West, you pretentious mongoloid. I read Day of the Locust. It’s compelling, I’ll give him that.

                I have to get breakfast ready soon; try not aspirate on your own drool.

              2. Pure bullshit. I never have had a squabble with that poster.

                I’ll find the link, mingey berk.

              3. You lost your password and instead of choosing something like supershrike or The Real Shrike (not to mention just emailing reason’s web support), you chose a misogynist attempt of a crude & demeaning handle instead? Are you mentally ill?

                1. In another thread, he claimed to have lost the email. Dog poke something @ yahoo
                  So yeah, he has a huge fucking gambling problem.

                  1. Yes, I was dogpoke@yahoo for crying out loud. Google it for shits and giggles.

                    This shit is hilarious.

                    No one else gets the scrutiny here like I do. It is really amazing. I have had numerous death threats, challenges, and provocations.

                    You bastards are sick!

                    1. If you have had death threats here, let me know. Seriously. I’ll make it right. Emails, dates, times, etc.
                      I await your response.

                    2. I don’t take the death threats seriously.

                      It was Mike M for what its worth. I laugh at that little fuckhole.

                    3. Oh no! Did he call you Block Insane Yo Mamma too?

                      Let me get my pitchfork!

              4. You lost a password that you use everywhere else?

                1. Why haven’t you paid Playa what you owe him?

                  1. Oh is Playa saying I owe him? That is a fucking lie.

                    The payee on the $20 bet was Reason – which I paid.

                    1. Proof, please. Welch says you’re full of shit. You should email him to clear it up.

                    2. No, you don’t owe me anything.

                      My 100k in capital gains is enough, thanks.

                      How did you do?

        3. “The Bill of Rights is worthless without the Second Amendment.”

          WTF…??? So, the 2A can go? Really?

        4. What baffles me is why there are so few libertarians here – Johnson/Weld aren’t perfect but they are far better than Trump and Hillary. But I plan to figure it out!

          There is nothing baffling about it. Some people let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Personally I think those two are a heck of a lot better than the alternative, so they get my vote. But many libertarians will sit the election out in protest of the Libertarian candidates not being perfect, rather than vote for them because they are good, and as a result Johnson will likely gain a much smaller percentage than what he is polling.

          1. Some people let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

            And it’s baffling.

            You can be a perfectly pure principled libertarian and still believe the way to libertopia is one small libertarian advancement at a time. A country with J/W in the White House would be vastly superior to the alternatives…but if you aren’t as libertarian as me, you’re not worthy. It really is a self defeating attitude.

            1. It really is a self defeating attitude.


            2. GayJay is going to get less than 1% of the vote. A principled candidate couldn’t do any worse and would likely finish better. Johnson/Weld isn’t a real libertarian choice, it’s the TEAM RED GOPe #NeverTrump ticket.

              1. So to be clear, you believe that in a year where both big candidates have historic disapproval from the electorate, he’s drawing daily media attention and being included in many, many polls as an option, and half the electorate has expressed willingness to vote third party, he will literally do worse than he did when he had 5% name recognition and the other candidates were both fairly well liked and uncontroversial?

                I’m not super optimistic about his final numbers myself (I’m guessing 2-3%), but there’s no logical process by which his numbers get worse.

                1. One thing you have to remember, SIV is a fucking retard who thinks Trump is the best Libertarian option.

                  I don’t think there has ever been a GJ thread – going back to 2012 – that SIV didn’t jizzbelch out some idiotic condemnation of “GayJay”.

          2. There are issues I would compromise on to vote for Johnson, abortion for example, but free association is not one of them. For me it’s about priorities, not perfection

            1. I’m fairly certain GayJo isn’t against free association. He makes one exception to it, a subset if you will, (and wrongly IMHO) and that’s wrt public accommodation law. I believe it’s quite a leap to say he’s against all free association. I may be wrong, but can you cite an example other than PA?

              You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want about the man and draw further conclusions based upon a single issue, but I don’t believe there is any evidence that his stance extends beyond that single issue.

  10. “A federal case involving the right to use cannabis as part of a religious sacrament brought against Sonoma County by a Kenwood branch of the Oklevueha Native American Church (ONAC) was dismissed June 8 after a church attorney failed to show up for a conference, and had repeatedly failed to comply with court rules and procedures….

    “Sergio Sandoval, speaking as ONAC’s temporary legal spokesperson said the dismissal came “as a complete shock,” and said the church plans to file a motion to vacate the dismissal. Sandoval said the original attorney, Matthew Pappas of Long Beach, was no longer representing the church.”

    1. (Sonoma County is in California)

    2. I’m guessing the attorney got baked and forgot.

  11. Derpwatch

    1. Saw caption on MSLDS: investigators unsure of shooter’s motive

    2. The Young Turks are mad because Giuliani called militant Muslims barbarians. Conversation immediately turns to how awful Trump is:

    1. oopsy- MSLSD

      MSLDS? Broadcasting 24/7 from Kolob.

      1. +1 Battlestar

    1. The last Bloomsday I attended in Syracuse, New York I woke up in a strange child’s bunk bed without any pants. Not cool.

      1. I’m going to go and take a shower now.

      2. Bunk beds usu. wear pants?

    1. Wow. Good going F.B.I. You really made the world a better place, didn’t you, F.B.I.?

      1. They meant to put him on the no fly list but fat fingered him onto the no investigate list instead?

      2. FBI

        Famous But Incompetent

  12. Trump, Hillary and Bernie all responded: “We must utterly destroy ISIS!” Johnson/Weld – they are the only ones who understand that this will solve nothing – and only make the problem worse. This guy killed people because his father refused to teach him right and wrong – refused to discipline this wild child. Of course we must vet refugees, but we must still allow them in and assimilate. They will learn the values of freedom and tolerance and eventually export them back to their home countries. But many come here and either shed all religious garb, leaving their children to learn morality from horror movies and Law and Order re-runs and the school guidance counselor. Or like this guy, they will be Taliban sympathizers and cheer after 9/11. In either case, the response is not to restrict our civil liberties or bomb the hell out of other countries, but to hold people accountable for their behavior.

  13. The heat is hiding in the oceans! Stop cherry-picking!

    1. I don’t get it. people argue that C02 and methane are trapping heat in the atmosphere. that mechanic should produce consistent atmospheric temperature changes. is the guy arguing that he’s allowed to cite different data for his argument whenever any one set starts to look inconsistent?

  14. Ah only government can consistently achieve success through failure. FBI blows it and 49 dead. But we’ve got bi partisan support to ban gun sales to people on the super secret no fly list cause we gotta do somethin.

    1. I like all the stuff that’s coming out about all the red flags this guy raised going back to elementary school as if all this stuff should have tipped everybody off to what a walking time-bomb this guy was. If the stuff about him is all enough that somebody should have been watching the guy 24/7 there’s about 30 million other Americans that need to be watched 24/7 right now. “He said racist and homophobic things and said some people should die!” In a day when criticizing Obama is racist and criticizing Bruce Jenner is homophobic, I’m only one woodchipper reference away from being that guy.

      1. But what about the green flags he raised? Security guard, corrections officer.

  15. You know, if you Yanks want winners like me settling in your country – even for but a few months – as well as invest in it, you’re scaring me a little with all that’s going down. Just my luck and shitty timing as America seems to be entering a period of its version of The Four Emperors.

    1. We’ve actually been lobbying Trump to put that wall on the northern border instead. To keep out your entertainers.

      1. Are Christopher Plummer and Raymond Burr still alive?

        1. Katheryn Winnick, The Sadies, The Guess Who, Rachel McAdams, Neve Campbell, and of course Will Arnett. Thank you Canada, for sharing with us your wonderful entertainers, as well as your utterly pathetic professional hockey teams.

          1. Holy Shit!

            Where is this Neve Campbell pic from?
            And why haven’t I posted it to my popular fashion blog?

  16. We could do worse. But better would be if Trump picked him as VP, and then had a heart attack 2 weeks into his term.

    He beat the hell out of Dukaka as governor (not that that is saying much), and ushered in Celluci (who unfortunately also fell for bait-and-switch to be pulled out of office).

    Still, we could do worse.

  17. Weld is speaking to the broadest audience possible. He’s not a philosophical libertarian in his heart–I know that. What I hope his candidacy represents to a general audience is that anybody can be a libertarian–even someone they’ve heard of before and respected and maybe even supported.

    It’s almost like coming out of the closet was for gay people. We need to let people know that it’s okay to become a libertarian. Maybe we should have a libertarian pride parade!

    Anyway, if the only thing average people in a general audience get from Weld’s candidacy is that libertarian means fiscally conservative and socially liberal, then he’ll have been wildly successful as a libertarian candidate.

    The libertarian revolution happens when a critical mass of average people start realizing that they’re libertarian. And you gotta reach people where they already live.

    If Weld is telling them, “You may be a libertarian and not even know it!”, then that’s perfect.

    1. I thought we were fiscally evil and socially degenerate? That’s the only reason I’m here.

      1. There’s no better place for miserly dog fuckers, but we don’t need Weld telling people that.

        Well, not right off the bat, anyway.

        It’s like Scientology. They don’t start off by telling people that John Travolta can cure them of their psychological problems with a tuning fork.

        You start off slow. Maybe offer them a free seminar.

        We’ll only spring the bit about miserly dog fucking on them once we’ve got their money!

    2. Anyway, if the only thing average people in a general audience get from Weld’s candidacy is that libertarian means fiscally conservative and socially liberal, then he’ll have been wildly successful as a libertarian candidate.

      You know, that’s a good point. Ask the average left-leaning person and they think libertarians are anarchists and Nazis at the same time, while the average conservative thinks we’re a bunch of druggies.

      A nation founded on the principles of liberty and justice has forgotten what those things mean.

      1. Yeah, with a general audience, you start off slow.

        You don’t start yelling DMAN KERV!, NAP, SO FUCK OFF SLAVER!!!

        That should only come in the middle of Season 2.

  18. Boy this thread really got infested.

    1. Yeah, it’s infected with shreek and shreek sock.

    1. Oh woe, this chopper on chopper violence!

    1. That was really funny.

      “My underpants already pre-soiled to prevent fruit rape.”

      1. fruit rape

        Excellent screen name

        /just sayin’…

    2. Good stuff.

  19. Why couldn’t the headline have been “Wibertarians”? i feel cheated.

  20. Wow, now someone at Reason mentions why libertarians might be concerned about this east coast democrat lite running as a libertarian? This isn’t a libertarian, let’s get that straight first. This is a B rate establishment republican. I feel embarrassed as hell, so much so that I’m making it a point to not even mention the LP to anyone this year.

  21. This is a horrible overnight thread.

    1. This is fucked up.

      1. It’s FUBAR. All the way down Rufus.…..term=fubar

  22. “ROADZ!”

    Has Weld screamed that yet? Then we’ll know for sure if he’s not a true libertarian.

  23. Spot the Not: Bill Weld

    1. There are some things the government can do and can do well. Roads, for example.

    2. I think government has a major role to play in helping us with the pursuit of happiness.

    3. It’s not good for government to tell people that the world owes them a living and that things are free.

    4. Government has a role as well in what is referred to as redistributive justice.

    5. Opposing the free flow of goods or people is a bad idea.

    6. I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum.

    1. i’m struggling between #1 and #6

      I’ll go with 6. you can’t think govt has a “major role to play”, and yet consider its finances ‘theft’.

      1. Will GILMORE uncover the Not? Will anyone else?

        Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of Spot the Not!

  24. Well, I hope the libertarian party reaps what it has sown. I was ready to vote for libertarian for the first time ever, and now I simply won’t be voting as while I generally like Gary Johnson, I will not support a ticket that includes weld.

    An authoritarian progressive who just happens to be kindasorta fiscally conservative does not equal a libertarian.

    In his desire to cross the boundaries and pick up votes from the left, he lost votes from many of his core voterbase.

    1. So you are going to toss the ticket because of a VP who would in all probability not see the light of day outside of a state funeral?

  25. The world-class morons at Everyday Feminism finally managed to slap together something to say about the Orlando shooting:…..r-orlando/

    2. Don’t Vote Republican.

    At least not this year, if you feel so strongly about it. Just keep in mind that you’re not allowed to be sad about the Pulse massacre when you’ve been actively promoting people who have been behind loose gun laws, trans panic defenses about bathrooms, and at least 200 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills this year alone.

    If you still feel your presumed tax break is more important that saving lives, then you need to admit that to yourself and do some serious reflection on the impact of your actions.

    6. Stay Focused On The Real Issues.

    Don’t let the media or bigots or ignorant people fool you into this being something other than what it is: a horrible act of murder fueled by a mix of LGBTQIA+ hate and unregulated gun use, both of which run rampant in American culture.

    Do not get distracted by any other claims. To get distracted is to keep progress from happening, to allow history to repeat itself in the future just like it has every other time in the past.

    #7 is “reflect on your religious affiliation”. No mention of Islam for some reason.

    1. You really failed by not focusing on the higher-priority issues identified for “What Non-Queers Should Do Post Orlando”


      3. Check In On Us.

      I’ve had only one friend outside of the queer community contact me to see if I was okay over these first 24 hours. One.

      I find this unacceptable. I understand it’s because you don’t want to make that terrifying, personal connection, but it’s nonetheless unacceptable to block it.

      4. Make Us Something To Eat.

      Make no mistake: This type of situation stimulates grief and mourning, and grief and mourning are horrible things to go through.

      One of the first things to go is one’s self-care, especially when it comes to eating. Make sure we’re eating. Don’t lecture us about the type or quantity of food. Just make sure we’re eating.

  26. Weld. A Democrat from Mass.
    Nuff Said.

    1. Yes even the Republicans from Mass. are Southern KKK styled Democrats.

  27. Yeah, Weld not really libertarian as any of us here might define it.

    However, if over the past 50 years the GOP had been more like Weld and less like the bowl of crazy that we all know and love, the Libertarian Party probably would not exist and the libertarian movement would look very different today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.