Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson on The Greg Gutfeld Show: "I want to shrink the size of government."

Libertarian nominee lays out basic platform ideas, from cutting spending to ending military interventions to protecting abortion rights and legalizing pot.

|

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was on last night's episode of Fox News's The Greg Gutfeld Show, talking about his chances to make it into the debates. "Better than 50 percent," says the two-term former governor of New Mexico, who adds that, as president, "I want to shrink the size of government…stand up for civil liberties…and stop with the military interventions."

Take a look:

Here's a transcript from Fox News. For more Gutfeld Show clips, go here.

GUTFELD: Joining us now Libertarian presidential nominee Governor Gary Johnson. (applause) Governor, always a pleasure. So, honestly, you're a very honest person – what are the chances of getting up there behind a (debate) podium?

JOHNSON: Better than 50%

GUTFELD: That's good. Doing – that's about half. (laughter)

JOHNSON: Good math., Greg. I'm glad to see that you've still got it all together. (laughter)

GUTFELD: It's amazing what pharmaceuticals, legal ones, can do Governor. I want to ask you – everybody always asks you what's the first thing you would do as president. I want to ask you what's the third thing?

JOHNSON: Boy, this is just as irrelevant as it always has been. I've missed this. I've really missed this. Man, this is really great. Thanks man. (laughter)

GUTFELD: What do you want to do if you were president?

JOHNSON: What do I want to do?

GUTFELD: Yes.

JOHNSON: Well, I want, I want to reduce the size of government. I believe that less money out of my pocket is a good thing and then stand up for civil liberties. Included in those civil liberties, of course, legalizing marijuana, marriage equality, women's right to choose, and then let's stop with the military interventions with regime change that has resulted in a less safe world. How is that for starters? Let's, let's, let's bring the world together with free markets.

GUTFELD: I like you because you're for free markets and free minds and I think you are like a sleeper candidate. You are a two-term governor but you are also kind of goofy. Right? (laughter)

JOHNSON: (pretend yawns) Sleeper candidate. Sleeper candidate. (laughter) What's goofy? What's goofy man??

GUTFELD: No because you —

JOHNSON: (JOHNSON TURNS SIDEWAYS AND PRETENDS TO STICK HIS FINGER UP HIS NOSE) (AUDIENC LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: You are the next president!! (APPLAUSE) The next president! The next president!! No but the thing is – the reason why I bring that up is that on The Five we are constantly talking about Trump and Hillary and how flawed they are and Geraldo says "Gary Johnson, he's kind of weird.' So, what's wrong with weird? When you are looking at the other candidates you are a successful two-term governor. You cut spending. You left a budget surplus. You won republican in a state that was two-to-one democrat. What's weird about that?

JOHNSON: Well weird is having Bill Weld as my running mate – a two term republican governor in the state of Massachusetts, four-to-one democrat. We didn't raise taxes a penny. Man, this is really getting weird.

GUTFELD: Yes!

JOHNSON: Standing up for civil liberties. Do you remember Bill Weld was denied the nomination to be ambassador to Mexico by Jesse Helms because in 1997 Jesse Helms said `this is a guy who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and who is pro-medical marijuana?' Yeah, boy, this is one weird ticket.

5 GUTFELD: It is interesting. It is a balance because you are small government. He is big government. Now, a lot of people have an issue about marijuana and that you are involved in the marijuana industry. I am pro-legalization of just about everything except children. (laughter) I think children should be banned. But I want to ask you – my issue with pot is I feel it should be seen as a reward, like a martini. Like you should work first and then smoke. My problem is that too many young people, they smoke, they get a bong and they end up on the couch and their ambition is gone. I don't think you can legislate that but does that ever occur to you that that could be a consequence?

JOHNSON: Oh my gosh Greg. Man, well, (laughs) the scenario you are pointing out is not criminal. If somebody wants to take the edge off the day by smoking pot or indulging in a marijuana product just like others do drinks, I mean, come on, as long as you are not doing any harm to anybody else – as the libertarian nominee for president, as your next president, I am always going to come down on the side of choice. Look, people ought to be able to make choices in their lives as long as those choices don't adversely affect others.

GUTFELD: I agree. I am with you completely., Very sensible. I think everybody has the right to their own oblivion. Correct?

JOHNSON: I think so. Back to oblivion, as long as you are not doing any harm to anybody else.

GUTFELD: What's the fun in that? I want a right to oblivion while harming others. (laughter)

(NO RETORT FROM JOHNSON)

GUTFELD: Governor, thanks for putting up with me.

JOHNSON: Thank you. I can't believe you haven't put me on but I've missed you. I've missed you.

GUTFELD: I've missed you too.

(JOHNSON BLOWS GUTFELD A KISS)

GUTFELD: Well, maybe later… (Gutfeld cracks up laughing) All right. Thank you governor.

NEXT: Two-Thirds of Millennials Disgusted with "Binary Choice" Between Trump & Clinton

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. JOHNSON: … Look, people ought to be able to make choices in their lives as long as those choices don’t adversely affect others.

    GUTFELD: … I think everybody has the right to their own oblivion. Correct?

    JOHNSON: I think so. Back to oblivion, as long as you are not doing any harm to anybody else.

    GUTFELD: What’s the fun in that? I want a right to oblivion while harming others. (laughter)

    (NO RETORT FROM JOHNSON)

    Sheesh, Gary, you missed a chance to get all righteously indignant with Greg. You gonna let sarcastic Donald get away with crap like that?

    1. Like Harming somebody else by refusing to make them a cake?

      1. Don’t forget harming someone else by denying them their “right to free shit”, paid for by YOU!!!

      2. Or killing them before they’re born?

  2. The lovely and talented Kevin Drum, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Let me get this straight. Cooke says that for the entire 221 years before Heller, Americans enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms. But if Heller were overturned, it would render the Second Amendment a dead letter. What?

    Hillary Clinton would clearly prefer to regulate gun ownership more than Cooke would like. That’s fair enough. And I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to the claim that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. But that right?as Cooke admits?managed to thrive during the entire two-century period before the Supreme Court got around to actually saying anything about it in 2008. So why would the Second Amendment suddenly go up in smoke if we returned to pre-Heller jurisprudence? It is a mystery.

    My guess: prior to Heller, that individual right was inferred; having been spelled out, it may be more easily rescinded. Feel free to confirm, rebut or ridicule.

    Comments to that Drum thing are, unsurprisingly, a shitshow.

    1. But that right?as Cooke admits?managed to thrive during the entire two-century period before the Supreme Court got around to actually saying anything about it in 2008.

      Not in DC it didn’t. I thought that was the whole point?

    2. Because we wouldn’t go back to ‘pre-Heller’. Pre-Heller it was *assumed* by most ‘authorities’ that there were severe limits on the limitations they could put on gun ownership.

      Overturning Heller is basically saying that any level of government can ‘regulate to its heart’s desire’ – as long as there’s no *official ban*, there’s still *some way* to legally possess a firearm, and they can point to some ‘compelling government interest’ to support the restrictions imposed.

      1. Yeah, this is an easy one.

        We started out with “Shall Not Be Infringed” ™

        That was pretty easy to understand. Slowly we added restrictions. No battleships. No cannons. No machine guns… No “assault weapons”.

        Finally DC got to “get a permit that you absolutely can’t get and go to a gun shop that is zoned out of existence” and we needed an intervention.

        Repealing Heller means replacing it with something. Definitely not “Shall Not Be Infringed”.

        The same goes for free speech. Repealing Citizens United means “Shall make no law” is rolled back to “can make any law they damn well please, as long as we think it is OK too”.

        The common thread is that the left thinks constitutional protections are contingent on their policy priorities. Which is kinda the point of writing them into the constitution. But then FDR invented the end-run around the constitution via the supreme court, and now everything is up for grabs.

        Why do you suppose that the main issue people talk about come presidential election time is supreme court nominees…. and has been for your entire adult life? It is precisely because the court left behind the black letter of the law and moved into policy.

    3. You cant have my guns Kevin. Fuck you. Come try to take them you mendacious piece of shit, see what happens.

    4. Been meaning to ask you, Pat: how do you feel about the Bullock/Gianforte race? Gianforte seems alright.

  3. Pot abortions should be both mandatory and illegal.

    1. If it saves just one California cheeseburger it’s worth it.

  4. Does either Hilary or Obama consider Omar Mateen’s dad a Gold Star father?

  5. Here’s the list Gary.

    1. Bring home the troops
    2. End the War on Drugs
    3. Seperation of Economy and State
    4. Thorium as an energy source

    1. I prefer Lokinium because of the wacky and random side effects.

      1. I prefer dilithium crystals.

        1. I prefer Deez Nuts

          1. Unicorn farts as an energy source!
            Also the human energies of Poke-Yer-Mom finds, using your Ipad-Epad-WeAllPad-for-your-Pad Application. ? On that note, I want to Poke yer Mom at Your Pad, y’all “game” fer that!?!??! You can watch, but NO cameras!


  6. Gary Johnson on The Greg Gutfeld Show: “I want to shrink the size of government.”

    HE’S LYING!

    GayJay’s entire platform is based on growing government. From his plan to put a new 30% federal tax on every retail transaction in the country, to his zeal to start so-called “humanitarian wars” everywhere, and the new federal bureaucracy (or expansion of the EEOC) required as he makes Nazis a protected class everything Johnson proposes leads to larger government.Perhaps he means to make government “smaller” by letting William “hang ’em high” Weld serve as prostitution /drug czar as well as VP. Thankfully, there is a less than zero chance America would ever have to endure the horror of a Gary Johnson administration so go ahead and throw your vote away. Better than giving it to Hillary like you cosmo cucks fantasize about.

    1. Hillary is the President this country deserves.

    2. Gotta love Johnson Derangement Syndrome….

    3. HIM AINT NO LIBRUTUNIM HIMS A FAGGOT

      1. As much as I hate to admit it, Poindexter gets this one right

    4. From his plan to put a new 30% federal tax on every retail transaction in the country

      You’re a fucking moron. The FairTax is only supposed to be effective upon repealing the 16th Amendment. It’s only on _new_ retail, not used, and it’s only 30% if you don’t cut a penny of government spending.

      1. if you don’t cut a penny of government spending.

        GayJay has never said “revenue negative”. When pressed, he describes his stealth-VAT as “revenue neutral” but you know that lying Republican sack-o-shit means “revenue positive”. I think he’s for a carbon tax too. All those trees, shrubs, grasslands and seaweed aren’t PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE

        1. he describes his stealth-VAT

          The Fair Tax is not like a VAT- stealth or otherwise. If you say this, it means you know nothing about VATs or the Fair Tax or you are being a mendacious piece of shit.

        2. I think he’s for a carbon tax too. All those trees, shrubs, grasslands and seaweed aren’t PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE

          I’m not defending the illibertarian LP candidate at all. I’m not voting for the prick, and I don’t care if you do. However, the FairTax isn’t a VAT, it’s an alternative tax structure meant to replace the current income/payroll/FICA/corporate/estate taxes 1-for-1. Whether GayJay wants to spend more or less or the same is irrelevant to the FairTax. I’d prefer a flat sales tax over the litany of shit taxes we currently have every day of the week, and here’s why:
          1) It’s out in front of you, not hidden in the price of goods (corporate tax) or in your paystub (payroll/FICA/income), so people will get irate when they have to actually hand the dollars and cents over to the FedGov to pay their taxes.
          2) It’s avoidable. Since used goods aren’t taxed and since consumption is infinitely more controllable than income, you can choose to live above your (income) tax bracket or below it.
          3) It incentivizes saving over consumption, which fixes one of the major flaws of Keynesean economics.
          4) Unless and until Congress fucks up the tax code again, people can’t shield themselves from paying taxes by being “creative.” Either you buy used stuff or you pay a tax, no other option.

          1. Since used goods aren’t taxed

            Now there’s a giant flaming loophole.

            I am a computer manufacturer. Every computer my factory produces is run for 5 minutes, with one of my employees typing the date, time, and current S&P 500 index value into the default text editor; then turning it off and re-imaging the hard drive.

            Is this now a tax-free used computer or still a taxable new computer?

            Who defines the meaning of “used” for each and every one of the millions of different products in the marketplace? Gary Johnson’s super-small government?

            1. I think used goods are fully taxable at sale in most locations. The only exception would be if the goods are for resale. Then you have to provide your reseller tax ID number to the seller and they file the exemption.

              Garage sales and the like may not collect sales tax… but that doesn’t always mean they are not due.

              My state website defines taxable goods for sale as “sale at retail”. Helpful…

              New York gets specific. If you are selling stuff as a one-off from home, you don’t have to register as a vendor. But if the item is over $600 you have to collect and file the sales tax.

              But you could have guessed it would be something like that. The state isn’t going to forego their vig.

  7. Sort of OT: It drives me nuts whenever I hear a Progressive or Liberal say that the GOP need to nominate a candidate that is a moderate. And what drives me even crazier is that the GOP establishment leaders actually listen to them. First off, the GOP did have two moderate Presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012 respectively, and the DNC and the media painted them as the worst people ever. Secondly, why in the hell would you even listen to your opposition? They’re gonna vote for whomever has an D next to their name anyway, so why are their opinion on who should be a nominee matter?

    1. The GOP won 3 times running center-left moderates between 1988 and 2004.

      1. Also, Kasich was doing best in the vs.-Hillary polls months ago. However, Bernie was doing best vs. Republicans. Seems to bear out that the GOP should run moderates, and the Democrats extremists.

      2. The GOP won 3 times running center-left moderates between 1988 and 2004.

        If by “won” you mean “actually got a president that changed things for the better” then I beg to differ. I’ll give you “got a president with an R by his picture.”

        1. Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry would have been far worse for liberty had any of them won.

    2. Because the GOP want to be cool like the Dems. Just like for advertisers, the 18-35 demographic is the coolest demographic.

      1. What brought on this rant was listen to a Progressive acquaintance of mine going off on how the GOP has gone radical since Trump is their nominee even I though I remember him saying the same thing in 2012 when Romney was nominated. It took a lot for me to not call him out on his bullshit but I was at a wedding so I kept my cool. I came to conclusion that no matter who the GOP nominates, to the Left and media, they are the devil incarnate.

        1. “Moderate” to a Leftist means giving them at least half of what they want.

          1. You’re more generous then I am. I’ve always thought it meant giving them 3/4 of what they wanted and tossing the right a few breadcrumbs.

            1. Ha you might be right.

                1. But, he just might be the lunatic you’re looking for.

                  1. +Just 1 more concert

        2. You’ve got to look at the way they scale things. If the “conservative” holds to the same positions over time, the scale moves on from, and you become an extremist. Because, you know, progressive, progress, it’s the natural order of things, only a matter of whether you’re at the front or back of the train.

        3. Roll your eyes, walk away, and have a drink with someone fun to be around and/or sexy next time that happens.

        4. That has been the playbook for many decades.

          Remember the image of a nuclear bomb and a little girl? (Daisy)

          That was 1964.

          Reagan was the devil.
          Bush – despite by all accounts being a genuinely good guy – was somehow both a wimp and the devil.
          Dole was evil incarnate. (Despite having always been known as a gregarious fellow and mostly bipartisan in approach)
          Bush? Eeeeeeeeevil. And stupid. And evil.
          McCain? Evil!
          Romney? Binders full of evil.

          So you can make your prediction about the candidate in 2020 right now. Whoever it is, you can guarantee that he will be evil.

          You can make the same arguments around race as well. Bush II was objectively the most inclusive president in history…. and “George Bush hates black people” just rolled right off the tongue for Kanye – without any disagreement from the left.

          It is the playbook. The enemy is evil!

          Romney is in the pocket of wall street – even though his opponent’s cabinet came mostly from wall street – Goldman Sachs in particular. And he promptly gave a trillion bucks to wall street. But we have to stop Romney, because Wall Street.

          The playbook doesn’t change, even if the players on the field change. This helps point out the naked partisanship of the media. Because anyone who covered Bush as a racist is facilely exposed as a partisan hack. Or covering Obama as an enemy of Wall Street or the 1%. It just doesn’t even pass the giggle test.

          But it works. You can’t argue with that.

          1. Bush – despite by all accounts being a genuinely good guy

            Those CIA directors sure are renowned for their genuine goodness. Not a bad guy in the bunch!

            1. Yeah, I’m not seeing the inconsistency in Bush I being both a wimp AND evil. I admire him for his WWII service killing Japs. He was smart enough to ditch New England for Texas. I can’t fault a sportsman who knows a high performance offshore powerboat is the right tool to get out to the gulf stream. Otherwise GHW Bush is pure wimpy evil.

        5. If Jesus Christ descended from the heavens (full angelic chorus, cloud of light and all), to run as the GOP candidate for president, within a week, we’d be hearing from the media how Jesus is just this intolerant theocrat who wants to see poor people starving in the streets so that he and his rich buddies can further exploit the middle class and feed their hatred of women, gays and minorities. And besides, he’s a hypocrite anyway, since we all know how he hangs out with prostitutes…

    3. I’m not really sure why “moderate” is seen as a virtue in politics and “extremist” or “fringe” is so evil as to disqualify someone from any public office.

      Whether something is moderate or extreme has nothing to do with whether or not it’s true. The truth is often an extreme position.

      1. “Whether something is moderate or extreme has nothing to do with whether or not it’s true. The truth is often an extreme position.”

        People aren’t very fond of the truth. If someone who was running for office said, “We’re broke and have to do a lot of cuts,” they would be tossed aside and ridiculed even though it’s the truth.

      2. Moderate is only a virtue for Republicans

        1. I’ve noticed this too. The Progressives always demand their elected leaders to never give up on their principles but yet the GOP should always sell out for the sake of unity and getting things done.

          1. Yet they never fail to excuse their leaders failures to be even a little bit in line with their values.

            Obama may be a communist peacenick heart… but he sure governs pretty much exactly like Bush, except with partisan spin towards team D.

            Hillary certainly doesn’t have a record of governing in line with progressive values. But she attacks republicans and she wins. (and we know she’s just playing the part until she gets the real power, so it’s ok)

            The Democrats are like anti-libertarians. Not for their positions or values, but because of their blind support of whoever can win. Libertarians, on the other hand, would tear apart a sure winner if he disagreed with their 751st most important policy position. ‘Cause that’s how we roll!

    4. “…a Progressive or Liberal say that the GOP need to nominate a candidate that is a moderate.”

      “You first.”
      /At Proggie

  8. “Included in those civil liberties, of course, legalizing marijuana, marriage equality, women’s right to choose”

    The limited-government candidate wants the government to decide that some living human beings are persons with rights, and others are not.

    And despite his budget-cutting zeal, his expansion of suspect classifications under the Civil Rights Act would mean a beefed-up EEOC and other “anti-discrimination” bureaucracies.

    Not to mention the enforcement of Weld’s gun ban – so I guess more funding for BATF.

    And of course they’ll need money for Weld’s proposed additional social spending.

    1. “The limited-government candidate wants the government to decide that some living human beings are persons with rights, and others are not.”

      Did Gary J. ever mention that he ever wanted to use Government Almighty, to force someone to get an abortion, who did not want one? Did he ever mention that he wants to use Government Almighty to prevent someone from getting an early-term abortion, who wants one? If so, citation, please…

      If no citation, then the evidence is clear, he wants the Government Almighty to BUTT OUT of our wombs, bedrooms, moral choices, etc., which is the stance of a liberty-lover, which is the opposite of a despot, and despotism? I, for one, have had QUITE enough of THAT!

      1. “Did Gary J. ever mention that he ever wanted to use Government Almighty, to force someone to get an abortion, who did not want one? Did he ever mention that he wants to use Government Almighty to prevent someone from getting an early-term abortion, who wants one? If so, citation, please…”

        No, he said this:
        ‘and then stand up for civil liberties. Included in those civil liberties, of course, legalizing marijuana, marriage equality, women’s right to choose,’

        Apparently he thinks ‘abortion’ is on the President’s job description, which seems strange to me. What he means by ‘standing up’ for it is anybody’s guess.

        1. “Apparently he thinks ‘abortion’ is on the President’s job description, which seems strange to me”

          Your dishonesty isn’t strange.
          He said QUOTE ‘and then stand up for civil liberties. Included in those’ QUOTE (in caps so you don’t miss it this time), and then listed some.
          So yes “standing up for” (which most honest people understand as ‘defending’) civil liberties is part of the job.
          Man, I HATE dishonest twits!

          1. Everything he listed are legislative issues.
            A libertarian President (of all people) should point out the proper limits to the job.
            A libertarian President (of all people) should answer almost every question with “That’s not the President’s job”.

            1. So you went from a focus on abortion and ignoring ‘civil liberties’ to a purist claim that the president shouldn’t be involved in that?
              Please post the new location of your goal posts.
              And please quit insulting those of us who see your misdirection.

              1. “So you went from a focus on abortion and ignoring ‘civil liberties’ to a purist claim that the president shouldn’t be involved in that?”

                I replied to a Sqrlsy post. He focused on abortion, so my reply mentioned it too, but only as an example of what the President SHOULDN’T be involved in.

            2. Oh, and you’re wrong besides. As chief executive, it most certainly IS the presidents job to enforce civil liberties. You might even say he’s ‘standing up’ for them.
              Would you now care to admit the subtext of your posts?

              1. Enforce the law, yes.
                Determine the law, no.

                There is no subtext. The Libertarian candidate (especially this year) has a golden opportunity to derail the “Imperial Presidency” trend in America.
                It should dominate his agenda.
                Until he preaches he will shrink the role of the President and work to restore the 3 branches to their proper balance, I see him as just another guy hoping to impose his idea of what’s “good”.

                1. Tom Bombadil|8.14.16 @ 11:31PM|#
                  “There is no subtext.”

                  And yet you immediately focused on abortion.
                  Are you amazed I find your claims insulting? You shouldn’t be.

                  1. My reply was to Sqrlsy who’s post was focused on abortion, I was not “focused” on abortion, I am focused on a return to the proper role of government.

                    You are too easily insulted. Nothing you have said amazes me.

                    1. “I was not “focused” on abortion, I am focused on a return to the proper role of government.

                      Ha and ha.
                      Liar and busted. And dumb enough to hope others accept such bullshit.

                    2. “Ha and ha.
                      Liar and busted. And dumb enough to hope others accept such bullshit.”

                      Calling names. The last refuge of someone who has been properly rebutted.

                      Anyone reading these exchanges can go back and read the sequence of posts.
                      This is my last post on this thread.

                    3. This is Sevo’s MO. He lays down an argument, gets pissed that we all don’t immediately accept all of his premises, and then proceeds to call names because we don’t bow down to his “superior logic.”

                      Frankly, some of the trolls are more responsive than Sevo.

                    4. Trashmonster, Thanks for the info.

                      I’m not exactly a newbie here, but I also am not fully versed on the prevailing MO’s.
                      I prefer to be a bit ignorant about that since each debate is a chance to turn over a new leaf (myself included), and pre-judging leads to bad conclusions.

                      Best regards.

    2. The limited-government candidate wants the government to decide that some living human beings are persons with rights, and others are not.

      By all means, find me the Republican that is willing to run on a platform of a total abortion ban that would also charge abortionists and pregnant women with murder. Because it’s a mainstream GOP position that some living humans are not persons with rights if they’re the product of rape, incest or would cause health complications for the mother.

      And despite his budget-cutting zeal, his expansion of suspect classifications under the Civil Rights Act would mean a beefed-up EEOC and other “anti-discrimination” bureaucracies.

      This does not logically follow at all.

      Not to mention the enforcement of Weld’s gun ban – so I guess more funding for BATF.

      Where in Johnson’s platform is he talking about a gun ban? Weld can talk out his ass all he wants, he’s running for VP.

      And of course they’ll need money for Weld’s proposed additional social spending.

      Sure. Money will need to be appropriated for that free heroin.

      1. “it’s a mainstream GOP position that some living humans are not persons with rights if they’re the product of rape, incest or would cause health complications for the mother.”

        You just made a devastating rebuttal to a mainstream GOP position.

        But I don’t recall saying that this mainstream GOP position was OK.

        The Johnson/Weld ticket has a tendency to support new laws which will require new spending. So in addition to cutting the budget elsewhere, they’ll have to setoff the additional appropriations they’re making.

        Johnson insisted that the LP accept Weld into their hearts, and Johnson hasn’t disavowed what Weld says on behalf of the ticket.

        And I wasn’t referring to heroin, but to this remark by Weld:

        “(Young black men) are four times as likely to be incarcerated if they have intersection with law enforcement as white people are, their educational opportunities are not there, we have to get them into education and concentrate the power of the government to make sure there are jobs available for them,”…”When there’s a national emergency the government has to respond, libertarian or no libertarian.”

        1. As much as I hate to say it, the ring-kissing, bead-counting mackerel snapper is 100% correct here

    3. I hate that “women’s right to choose” euphemism.

      1. The alternative is “Government Almighty’s right to chose”, and it isn’t made all that much more nice and sanitary, just because a majority of voters sometimes bless it. Because sometimes the majority of voters is just a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.

        Some say the woman made the choice when she chose to sleep with some dude… Or when she was raped? How about that one? Or, she was flat-out LIED to? “Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?”

        Dude get in her pants… Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who “learned better”, but too late…

        You slept on a radioactive slag heap and got cancer? YOUR fault, those cancer cells are HUMAN cells, NO cancer surgery for YOU! You made the decision, you live with it? No very merciful, eh?

        1. And if an unborn child is a human being? Or is that not a hyperbolic enough option in your rant?

          1. Tom Bombadil|8.14.16 @ 9:33PM|#
            “And if an unborn child is a human being?”

            If it were, that abortion would be murder.
            Now tell us when a sperm and an egg become a “human being”.

              1. That’s nice.

            1. “Now tell us when a sperm and an egg become a “human being”.”

              I mentioned neither sperm nor egg.

              1. Nor have you as yet defined when that fusion becomes a human being, about whom you were posting.
                Now, when does that happen?

                1. I don’t know. But at some time it most certainly does happen.

                  My point was that Sqrlsy’s abortion rant did not once mention it.
                  It is the question that pales all others.

                  1. “My point was that Sqrlsy’s abortion rant did not once mention it.
                    It is the question that pales all others.”

                    If you’re going to gripe about it, it sure seems you should have something to contribute. It’s almost like you have a subtext to your comments!

                    1. I have contributed it. The single most important question is: Is an unborn child a human with the right to life?

                      I pointed out that Sqrlsy’s rant mention lots of stuff (I called it hyperbolic), but did not mention the unborn.

                      I suggested the abortion debate should consider the unborn child.

                      That was my contribution.
                      What subtext or deception am I involved in?

                2. Likely after twenty weeks, probably not before twenty weeks.

                  Oh, jeez. Is twenty weeks a good middle ground that leaves everyone unhappy?

                  1. “Oh, jeez. Is twenty weeks a good middle ground that leaves everyone unhappy?”

                    I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than the dishonest twits who claim to be arguing from something other than their superstition.
                    What’s more is I have never met anyone who is “pro abortion”; even those who have had abortions seem to be unhappy about it. It was the least bad option.
                    So, twenty weeks? Let’s see, that’s about 2/3 through gestation? These folks gripe:
                    http://www.prochoiceamerica.or…..-weeks.pdf
                    And I’m sure the antis will claim you can ‘keep them living at 20 weeks!’, but the antis (bleevers, let’s be honest) will gripe at any threshold, as do those in the link.
                    I’d go with that, except regarding whether there were developmental issues not obvious at 20 weeks; “do we have a two-headed infant that’s gonna live three weeks and die”?

                  2. Oh, jeez. Is twenty weeks a good middle ground that leaves everyone unhappy?

                    I like that. Since one can’t ascertain when a lump of cells becomes a person, with rights, I like the compromise that pisses off the largest number of extremists on both sides.

                3. Nor have you as yet defined when that fusion becomes a human being, about whom you were posting.
                  Now, when does that happen?

                  How about when the DNA synthesizes to become a fully diploid human genome unique from the mother’s DNA? That seems to check all the boxes for being alive and not part of the mother. It’s unique from the mother due to its newly synthesized DNA, it’s human due to its human genome, and it’s alive as shown by the mitosis that starts shortly thereafter.

                  There’s no question it’s a human being at that point. The only question is if you want to go full eugenics and “legally define” personhood as something more than a unique human life so that you can feel more comfortable murdering it.

                  1. How about when the DNA synthesizes to become a fully diploid human genome unique from the mother’s DNA?

                    The problem with this is, if we’re consistent, that would legally make any chimera two distinct human beings, when physically they’re obviously not.

            2. If it were, that abortion would be murder.

              Even if the unborn were considered human beings with rights, there is no right to make use of someone else’s organs without their consent, even to keep yourself alive. You also can’t make valid contracts with the unborn to allow them to stay in your body, so even if you did have sex knowing that pregnancy was a possible consequence, there’s no contract saying you must have the baby. Terminating a pregnancy is similar to evicting someone; the fact that the unborn might not be able to survive is inconsequential.

              The whole debate about whether the unborn are persons or not is, to me, completely and utterly irrelevant and does not affect my position at all.

  9. Here’s another gem about voting 3rd Party from the Left:

    A few questions for the “vote for your values, not against your fears” crowd:
    1. Has your state gone blue in every election of the last 25 years? If so, you can quit reading now. Jill Stein!
    2. Do you apply this policy for senate, congress, and state and local govt? If no, why not?
    3. Did you or do you consider George W Bush and Al Gore more or less the same?
    4. Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004? Why?
    5. Are you a huge baby?

    These people would march us into tyranny if it meant that someone with a D next to their name get elected. I mean fuck your conscience because of TEAM

    1. Hey, at least whomever was saying those at least gave one option for it to be “okay” to vote for Stein. If you’re in a massive Democrat stronghold state, go ahead. Whereas when I called up the Dennis Prager show a few months back and asked him about voting third party in a state that Trump has no chance of winning like California, he still said no, because “popular vote.”

  10. An Actual Letter Ayn Rand Wrote To An Actual Teenage Girl

    a letter to her young niece, who had sent her a short note asking to borrow $25 for a new dress. Here was Ayn’s reply.

    I can’t quote the note, so you will have to click on the link it to read it, but I think it’s pretty great. Also, the writer thinks she is having fun with with good ol’ Ayn about this (and apparently poking fun at the Rand is a recurring feature), but I think Ayn comes out ahead on this one.

    1. I think Ayn comes out ahead on this one.

      As a serious victim of “oh I’ll pay you back”, you’re goddamned right she does.

      1. Insert a “myself” in there somewhere.

      2. But scolding people to honor their debts is teh evul!

    2. Ayn comes out ahead on this one

      Sure takes her a lot of words to come out ahead. I mean, the fundamental point is right, but going on and on about it makes it read crankish.

      1. Hence her tome-like novels.

      2. Seems to me to be the correct number of words since the point of the letter wasn’t to set the terms of a contract but rather to impart a lesson to a young person. Everything she said is supposed to be implicit in a transaction like this, but of course the whole point is, few people think about it this way. A good example would be the recent housing market unpleasantness.

        That niece was damn lucky. Wonder if she ever decided to make the deal?

    3. Was $25 bucks that big of a deal back then?

        1. Yikes! Was Dior hand-stitching that?

      1. SusanM|8.14.16 @ 10:06PM|#
        “Was $25 bucks that big of a deal back then?”

        Smokes were a quarter a pack in the vending machine. Gas? $0.30/gal. A date with dinner and a movie – $20. My first car, $800.

    4. It’s good advice for a young person: debt is a serious thing, be wise about what you incur it for, do not feel entitled to other people’s time and money just because you happen to be related.

      Ayn Rand was also fond of cats and subscribed to Cat Fancy

    5. I remember working for an old guy when I was a kid trying to earn pocket change. The work was hard and the guy I worked for was a real hardass, the old fashioned kind of real hardass. I thought he was jerk. Then I grew up and tried working hard to accomplish something while surrounded by people who either had their heads completely up their ass, were lazy, or actively tried sabotaging me. Turns out that old son of a bitch I worked for as a kid was a pretty nice guy.

      Ayn Rand watched the commies take over her country and rob her family of everything they had using exactly the same language and tactics as the pinkos today. I suspect Mallory has no clue what any of that means.

      1. Did the dude finally shrug?

        1. Honestly straffin, he did. I went to see him about ten years ago. He was a broken man. Two of this three sons had been killed and his profession (small independent farmer) had been regulated out of existence.

          1. And to think they want to raise aggregate demand, yet somehow destroying the lives of producers is seen as a cost of living in a civilized society.

      2. One of the oldest anti-communist jokes:

        A group of revolutionaries is celebrating in the streets of St Petersburg. They pass and old woman and ask her why she isn’t happy too. They tell her: “Didn’t you hear? The czar is gone! There won’t be any more rich people!”

        The old woman said “I thought the point was that there wouldn’t be any more *poor* people”.

    6. Here’s a letter from Mises to Rand.

      You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: You are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.

    7. Hah, in response to the concluding question: “WHAT DID THE DRESS LOOK LIKE?”

      Blanche de Shambles wote:

      The dress was sliver-gray, like the brushed aluminum wing of a Douglas DC-7. It was cut against the bias, its very lines suggesting forward motion; relentless, imperious progress. It had a small bow at the hip.

  11. Johnson is miles above ClinTrump. Hopefully he makes it into the debates.

  12. The Guardian publishes opinion that there should be no juries for sex crime trials.

    One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge. I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free. New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert “lay assessors”.

    “If an accusation is enough to condemn someone, who could be called innocent?”

    -some old fucking white male

    1. So her assumption is that “experts” will be able to correctly determine if a rape has occurred because they’ll know exactly how a woman who was actually raped would behave.

      I certainly can’t see any confirmation bias tainting judgements in that scenario.

    2. The obvious solution is to have a jury pool of only sexual assault victims. Cuz if you’re not part of the victim’s class, you can’t possibly know what it’s like.

    3. I miss the lack of sexual repression we enjoyed back in the 1960s-1980s. BRING BACK OUR TOLERANCE.

    4. “One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors…”

      By stripping away the rest of the words, I would hope a somewhat learned person would suddenly recognize the monstrousness of what it is they just suggested.

  13. I’ve been having great fun lately by pointing out thst, in several key respects (4th amendment, ED abuse, Criminal justice reform, etc) GayJay is more liberal than the liberal candidate.

    1. If “liberal” doesn’t mean “free stuff”, then no one cares.

      1. Sad but true. I do miss the days when “liberal” had at least a healthy skepticism of authority.

  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924bRfmiJ20

    My favorite comment: Holy shit, a black guy in a heavy metal band? Hold on, I need to check if there’s a unicorn in my backyard.

    And then there’s The Decembrists, if you’re ever wondered what rock and roll would sound like if black people never existed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sw61oITuts

    1. “Holy shit, a black guy in a heavy metal band? Hold on, I need to check if there’s a unicorn in my backyard.”

      Happens all the time

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxTXY4lV65E

    2. No wonder they’re prog favorites

  15. Openly supporting GayJay is just a way of socially signaling that you’re unprincipled and smoke too much pot.

  16. Spot the Not: Nicolas Maduro

    1. They inoculated Commander Chavez with that illness to get him out of the way, and create a situation of destruction for Venezuela and its independent revolution.

    2. Multiply ourselves, like Christ multiplied the penises.

    3. We are all a little bit hippy, a little bohemian. We take that from the culture we knew, from the ’70s and the ’80s.

    4. Fidel Castro represents the dignity of the South American continent against empires. He’s a living legend: an icon of independence and freedom across the continent.

    5. The United States are ruled by a financial, media-centered, military-industrial apparatus. Behind Obama’s grin, he orders bombings.

    6. Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism. Our enemies are all around us. We must always be on our guard.

    1. #4 is Sean Penn or somesuch fellow traveler, right?

    2. 5 sounds about right. So I’m a guess it’s the not.

    3. I’d think #2 I’ve never read of Christ’s multiple peni, but they’re so crazy I’ll say 3. Bohemian is a white thing, not way he identifies that way.

  17. I hope this thread is an all nighter, and there are still some folks here. I was just thinking about freedom of association (after listening to GJ interview) And I started wondering, if the government feels it can compel a business to serve a certain customer; The infamous Gay Wedding Cake scenario, at what point could government compel support for a minority owned business no one is purchasing from? If the government can compel the baker, why couldn’t compel the customer? As to say, what if the scenario was flipped, and an anti-gay straight couple was forced to by a cake from a gay baker (regardless of product quality), because the government feels they are being patronized at an unfair rate?

    1. almost like a federal Rooney Rule, where even if you know you’re going to buy your groceries at a certain place, you have to prove you at least went to one other place owned by a minority, prove that place didn’t have better prices on every product you ended up buying at the ‘white owned’ store.

    2. *cough*Obamacare*cough*

      The precedent is set. They just need a creative enough politician to make a compelling case for it.

      1. but even worse, this would be all of your day to purchases, and having to prove why you bought from the ‘White Guy’ store instead of the ‘minority owned’ store.

        1. Even worse is when they mandate minimum purchase thresholds because “it isn’t possible that you use less than 7 rolls of toilet paper a week.”

    3. Simply put: if you can be “justly” compelled to do any thing, then you can be “justly” compelled to do anything.

    4. You’re being a little ridiculous, but i don’t see how your “racially-referenced retailers” theory isn’t simply a different way of describing what already happens in the Small Business Loan process, which has scads of special-money earmarked for any “minority owned business”.

      i’d say there’s nothing wrong with that in theory, but of course there is. its typically used like a slush fund by local pols/city councilpersons to dump on connected parties.

      and someone already pointed out that ‘customer compulsion’ happens w/ the ACA.

      1. Exactly. The forced money transfer with nothing in return is already happening, I don’t see why the govt would care about forcing you to take something in return.

  18. JFK Airport shut down for 3 hours after report of gunfire in the terminals. Police search turns up nothing.

    One of the officials said cheering, clapping and banging from people watching the Olympic Games may have been misinterpreted as a fight and gunshots. The initial alarm spread through Terminal 8 and to Terminal 1, the official said.

    TSA looking into mandating jazz hands only for all passengers.

  19. Good ole Goofy Gary!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.