John McAfee

Former L.P. Candidate John McAfee Still Can't Abide Gary Johnson

Antivirus software pioneer accuses the former GOP governor of compromising Libertarian principle, especially on guns.

|

John McAfee, who sought but failed to win the Libertarian Party's presidential nod this year, in a video interview with "Jeff4Justice" from a couple of weeks back that just came to my attention, still wants to support the Libertarian Party downticket and grassroots, and still can't abide Gary Johnson. "I'm definitely interested in helping move past the two-party system," McAfee says.

"What I'm doing is supporting the grassroots in the Libertarian Party. I have abandoned the Libertarian Party leadership and instead I'm working with people running for mayor, state legislator, for dogcatcher, for sheriff. Why? Because we can do something there."

"I'm not endorsing Gary Johnson," McAfee insists, "and let me tell you why. I predicted what would happen with Gary Johnson: we would compromise. They asked Gary Johnson in [the CNN] Town Hall, what about gun control? He said 'I think the system we have is sufficient.' Please!"

That sort of compromise is "what happens when we get in the political process…the people who backed you with money say you have to have a chance of winning. We're not going to win! We're Libertarians! Not this year."

McAfee is referring to this, from the first CNN Johnson/Weld Town Hall back in June:

Q: …how would making it easier to buy guns with minimum requirements, especially unnecessary military rifles, how is that making it easier for us?

JOHNSON: I don't think our position would be making it easier. We're not looking to roll back anything. But with regard to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, with regard to keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorists—Bill talked about establishing a thousand-person taskforce to potentially address that, a hot line. Look, we should be open to these discussions.

The antivirus software pioneer also hits vice presidential candidate William Weld for his desire to "limit the number of rounds we can put in a magazine, he does not think assault rifles should be available."

(I reported earlier this month on Weld's gun heresies with link to the relevant video interview with the former Massachusetts governor.)

The video of McAfee from which the above is derived:

Weekly Standard this week issued a long Matt Labash profile of McAfee, calling him "The Libertarian Trump," mostly reported from May's Libertarian Party convention.

Some interesting bits, contextualized in a larger mini-bio of McAfee's colorful life and career with of course a close focus on his troubles with authorities in Belize, who McAfee insists tried to frame him for the murder of another expat neighbor when he refused to pay bribes and learned too much about their corruption:

McAfee, meanwhile, clearly boasted the most outlaw street-cred of the field and reminded me that much of politics is about surface appearances, which can be deceiving. "Twice in my life," McAfee said, "I have picked up the most beautiful woman in the world. Wined and dined her, taken her home. And then her dick pops out. All right? Now that's a shock for a man. So I know that appearances mean nothing. .??.??. Once you have that experience, you look at life totally different. If that's possible. .??.??. What else have I missed?"…

There was McAfee's wife, 33-year-old Janice Dyson McAfee, who has steely campaign discipline, limiting McAfee to one tequila at the hotel bar before insisting he switch to beer whenever he has a speaking engagement. (Sometimes, he even listened to her.) Janice's tasteful political-wife attire and gentle smile belie her past. For 10 years, she was a prostitute, and her vicious pimp, Suavé, regularly batted her around. "He was an extremely bad man, he hit me a lot," said Janice, grateful, like a good Libertarian, to be surrounded by so many firearms. (In addition to [McAfee pal and bodyguard John] Pool, she and McAfee usually carry as well.)….

He had a blur of other stints: programmer for NASA's Institute for Space Studies, consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton, selling drugs and jewelry out of a van in Mexico. After developing a bottle-of-scotch-a-day and cocaine habit, he hit bottom, went to AA, and swears he's never taken drugs again. When I witnessed a delegate pass a joint his way on one of his frequent cigarette breaks by the hotel pool, McAfee didn't seem remotely interested. He'd sworn off drinking for a time, too, something he's made a great display of over the years to profilers. Yet he seemed to match me tequila (his) for bourbon (mine) whenever we hit the bar. When did he fall off the wagon? About two years ago, he says. "Why?" I asked him. "I was 68 years old," he says. Figuring his biblically allotted threescore-and-ten were just about up, he decided "I want a drink."

In one of the more colorful parts of the profile, Labash decides to press McAfee about the whole "suspected of killing his neighbor in Belize" thing. A supposed motive for McAfee's alleged involvement was the possibility that the neighbor poisoned McAfee's dogs.

McAfee loves to test the mettle of reporters, question their manhood, accuse them of being manipulative and dishonest, and keep himself amused. I can play that game, too. I'd asked him straightaway numerous times if he had anything to do with the death of Faull, which he repeatedly and categorically denied. So I came at it from a different angle this time. I told him how much I love dogs (true), and how I'd kill somebody who killed a dog faster than I'd kill a dog. "I kind of love dogs, too," McAfee said. I then pushed my luck: "If you killed somebody because of that," I said, "that's a good reason to kill somebody." His eyes widened. "What? That's not a good reason to kill somebody," he said. "Are you insane? .??.??. What's wrong with you?" He then turned slightly menacing. "You don't want to set me up, because it will motivate me to set you up, and it will be very unpleasant, and not for me, I promise you."

I let it drop, and we talked about other things: fishing, sailing, life. But McAfee, who had made me feel like his deepest confidant for days, had grown uninterested, half-hearted, checking his phone. I asked what gives. He wasn't happy about my "puppy dog" ploy, he said. I protested that it was just two guys, journalist and subject, slugging it out over drinks, that he shouldn't be angry. "I'm not mad, just offended, big difference," he said. "But now, it does put us on a level where I feel privileged to f— with you at the same level. Do you understand me?"

Later in the story, subject and object seem to bury the hatchet. McAfee is a fascinating character and Labash produced a fascinating profile.

I reported from time spent with McAfee in New York, Las Vegas, and Orlando, both before and after McAfee failed to cinch the L.P.'s presidential nomination.

NEXT: "It Will Be a Beautiful Day When the Air Force Bombs All the Schools Having Bake Sales"

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. Bill talked about establishing a thousand-person taskforce to potentially address that, a hot line. Look, we should be open to these discussions.

    *headdesk*

    1. Maybe I should ask Bill – why a thousand? Why not 998? Or 1002? And why “person” – why not hampsters? Or horses?

      A thousand horses – c’mon Bill – that’s a lot of power. Imagine what you could do with 1000 horses.

      1. And why “person” – why not hampsters?

        I would put Hamster of Doom in charge of this effort, so yes.

        1. I thought “hampsters” was code for people that frequent the Hamptons…

    2. It’s right there in the libertarian bible. I quote “the solution to any problem is the create a new government agency, that is fully staffed, to infringe on civil liberties.”

      1. Even GayJay’s reading is pretty askance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be open to discussion.”

        Weird that I consistently fail to hear revisionists suggest a revision with a word or concept that didn’t exist in the 18th Cent. I assume it’s because they’re worried that flood gates would open and a tide of ‘in order to prevent unprecedented democidal slaughter by Marxist…’ revisions would pour out.

        1. This statement should not be taken, in any way, as an attempt to construe Johnson as a Marxist.

  2. He’s not the only one

  3. Get ready, anyone who tries to be more libertarian than Gary and Bill will be painted as a flaky nutter like McAfee.

    “You know, I don’t want to have a big federal jobs program, and I believe businesses should be able to choose their employees and customers.”

    “Oh, that’s too bad, I thought you were a responsible libertarian like Johnson or Weld, now I realize that you’re a tinfoil-hat wearing extremist.”

    1. That was going to happen with or without McAfee though.

      1. yes, McAfee will simply be an example of non-responsible libertarianism, along with convention stripper guy and…H&R commenters.

        1. Um, there hasn’t been a time in human history where John McAfee hasn’t been seen as bizarre and out-there.John McAfee screams ‘weirdo super-capitalist with secret autonomous island’.

          1. McAfee was simply an illustration of my contention that *any* libertarian who tries to out-libertarian Johnson will be called irresponsible.

            1. And I disagree because McAfee is framed in that way specifically because he’s a weirdo who used to sell drugs, claims he was framed for murder and married a former prostitute.

              If the LP ran Sowell or Woods (not so much Sowell anymore, at his age politics are unhealthy) it’d be a lot harder to frame either of them as ‘irresponsible’.

              1. They’d sure try. Look what they did to a milquetoast like Romney – he ended up as a Simon Legree who gave women cancer.

                Sowell would get the Clarence Thomas treatment – an Uncle Tom sellout who became a dangerous right-wing ideologue.

                Woods would at the very least get called a neo-Confederate because of his nullification book.

                1. Sowell’s spent fifty years being called an Uncle Tom, he knows how to respond.

                  Woods responds to neo-confederate with humour.

                  If you don’t think people are screaming about Johnson being an evil agent of the Koch brothers right now, you haven’t been talking to anyone left-of-center.

                  1. JT,

                    If that’s a link to the “zombie” video, I’m familiar with it, but we’re not dealing here with a very humor-appreciative population here.

                    “If you don’t think people are screaming about Johnson being an evil agent of the Koch brothers right now, you haven’t been talking to anyone left-of-center.”

                    That’s because they’re worried he might pull votes from Hillary.

                    If he’s defeated (assuming he is), he will transform magically into Respected, Responsible Elder Statesman…again like Romney.

                    1. So therefore the basic premise of your argument is flawed, that Gary and John have become some kind of benchmark for ‘responsible libertarian’. When in reality they’re just as heavily demonized as anyone else.

                      You could literally articulate the Democratic platform from 1996 and you’ll be called a fascist by the same people decrying ‘non-responsible libertarians’.

                    2. *Gary and Bill.

                      God forbid John ever become a benchmark for sane libertarianism.

                    3. It’s about time libertarians called Democrats what they truly are – slavers! Cut themselves in half and mail it in to the IRS.

                      Oh, wait . . . nose, spite, face . . . .

              2. Woods would actually be a really good candidate. He’s got all of the radical libertarianism I love, without any of kookiness I’ve come to expect.

                1. He’s got all of the radical libertarianism I love, without any of kookiness I’ve come to expect.

                  There is no difference.

              3. Woods attended a League of the South meeting. That alone would keep him out of the Responsible-Libertarian sphere.

                1. Woods thinks that secession is a good thing and the Union government prevented it with force of arms unlawfully. I don’t think he’s wrong on that score.

                  1. I agree completely, I don’t think he’s wrong on attending a League of the South meeting either, but it doesn’t matter. That association will always haunt him.

                2. Tom Woods for Second President of the Confederacy

                  1. Too Catholic.

            2. my contention that *any* libertarian who tries to out-libertarian Johnson will be called irresponsible.

              That’s not it. Try again. Without your personal bias, if possible

          2. His island looks like a happenin’ place. Is part of his island a skull-shaped volcano, and does he have any henchman openings? Asking for a friend.

            1. That photo actually kind of reminds me of those group shots for goofy sitcoms (especially the disapproving Latino woman on the right). I’d watch “It’s Always Sunny on McAfee’s Island.”

              “The Gang Has to Get out of Belize Fast.”

              1. The photo has a sort of Buckaroo Banzai thing going on that i really like.

        2. He didn’t strip – he had a G-string.

        3. Well, I’m voting for Calvin Coolidge. Better a dead guy than the revolting “choices” we have on the ballot. At least the dead guy won’t hurt me.

          So, fuck the LP.

      2. There’s no such thing as a libertarian state, dude. So why the hell are you even running?

        Greg Gutfeld

    2. I thought he said a lot of very smart stuff.

      He’s seems more on board with unfettered capitalism and market imposed checks. That is ultimately the best defense against corruption.

      We need absolutely no regulation when you think of all of the incentives insurance companies and ratings agencies would have to act as the guard dog for consumers.

  4. It is always a valid argument to stump for absolutely no gun control whatsoever.

    The argument will always have it merits in the true and best reason for the second amendment which is the last defense against tyranny.

  5. her vicious pimp, Soav?, regularly batted her around. “He was an extremely bad man, he hit me a lot,”

    It was the hair.

    1. She should cut it off when he’s sleeping to take away his strength

      1. And hide his fruit sushi.

  6. That sort of compromise is “what happens when we get in the political process.”

    Right.

  7. There is this black leather-clad fellow who assures me that supporting Johnson will lead to peace in our time Libertopia.

    1. supporting Johnson will lead to peace in our time Libertopia hairy palms.

    2. Is it AL Jourgensen?

  8. That sort of compromise is “what happens when we get in the political process…the people who backed you with money say you have to have a chance of winning. We’re not going to win! We’re Libertarians! Not this year.”

    So we should vote for McAffee because he’s not convinced Johnson will successfully lose…

    1. What would a successful Gary Johnson campaign look like under the following scenarios:

      1) Hillary Clinton wins in a landslide
      2) Trump wins in a landslide
      3) Closely contested election between the Republicans and the Democrats

      1. I think the best scenario to be reasonably hoped for is that Trump goes down in flames and GJ comes in second.

        Requisite Disclaimer:

        Not an expression of support for Clinton over Trump.

    2. Gary Johnson could win Utah. In fact, according to my sources in Salt Lake City, looks like a strong possibility.

      But Utah is not Ohio.

  9. I always said that if I ever saw a libertarian elected president I would be disappointed in his behavior in office. It would have been nice to wait until he was elected to be disappointed though, but no surprises for me.

    The fact is, a big tent libertarianism big enough to win an election is going to not look super libertarian to us here.

    I was hoping more Rand Paul than Gary Johnson, but such is life.

      1. (Anyone can use that slogan if they pay me a small fee)

      2. See my comment below.

      3. I hope he or someone on his future campaign team reads the comments

      4. The Eye Doctor. Nicely played.

    1. Of course, lots of people here were bitching about Paul all spring too.

      1. The main bitching I did was after the Windsor decision, when Rand Paul said the decision affirmed state sovereignty. I said Rand was naive.

        I almost hate being right.

        1. I was talking about you. Lots of people were upset with his attempts to draw socon votes.

          With Johnson, most seem upset with his refusal to attempt to get socon votes.

          Its almost like my 2 rules of libertarianism are dead on accurate or something.

          1. Remind me of those rules, I’m sure you’ve posted them before.

            1. 1. Everyone agrees with libertarians on something.
              2. No two libertarians agree on anything.

              Gillespie said the exact same thing in an interview in Mother Jones in 2008, so either he was quoting robc or robc misremembers inventing the rules.

              1. Sounds like another Newton/Leibniz quarrel in the making.

              2. Have you ever seen robc and Gillespie together?

              3. And yet, the Libertarian moment is upon us . . .or is it over? I must have shredded the memo . . .

                1. Both, according to rule #2.

                  1. You’re wrong.

              4. I am pretty sure they predate 2008.

                And I have never read Mother Jones.

                1. I need help from a … librarian.

                  Sugar Free
                  Sugar Free
                  Sugar Free

                  Doesn’t that cause him to appear?

                  1. In 2010, I made a post in which I said it was time to post it again, and #2 led to an argument that someone said we argue about every time I post them.

                    So it significantly predates that.

                    It was over Rand’s comments on the ACA.

                  2. It just makes you get the beetus!

                  3. [bampf]

                    You rang?

                    1. I can’t find it before that.

                    2. I didnt call it a repost in 2008, but that doesn’t mean its the first time. But it might have been.

                  4. Nope. He just steals your pancreas…

                2. And I have never read Mother Jones.

                  It’s ok, neither has anyone else.

                  *snare hit, cymbal crash*

      2. Of course, lots of people here were bitching about Paul all spring too.

        Say what?

    2. The fact is, a big tent libertarianism big enough to win an election is going to not look super libertarian to us here

      That is the fact we all must face, I think. Real, strong libertarianism just isn’t going to work with electoral politics now or any time soon.

      Johnson may look like some kind of heretic from here in our little bubble, but someone like him getting elected, even if he’s more like a moderate, fiscally responsible Republican than what we want in a libertarian, would be a huge positive step. No one is going to get elected and repeal all gun control, public accommodation laws and legalize heroin.

      That said, I wish they’d nominated McAffee because Johnson is fucking boring.

  10. McAfee campaign slogans

    Don’t stop Belizeing

    Ho and Change

    The Bill of Rights will Block the Virus of Despotism

    Nobody set me up…I like cocaine

    1. I like three and four.

  11. Libertarian Trump!? Hardly. With his watering down of the brand to make it more palatable, a libertarian Mitt Romney is probably a better analogy.

    1. Uh, that was in reference to McAfee. And yes, he would have all the entertainment value of Trump, minus the racism and shit. We would have won in a 65-35 landslide, but alas.

      1. You wouldn’t win 65-35 on this website…

  12. “I have picked up the most beautiful woman in the world. Wined and dined her, taken her home. And then her dick pops out. ”

    Dicks out for Harambe!

    1. As soon as you saw she was below a 3 on the crazy axis, and above a 9 on the hot axis of the crazy-hot scale, you should have known it was a tranny, dude!

  13. And his primary cred is having picked up, not once but twice, transvestites and gotten them to the point of total undress when their dicks pop out??

    That and whacking some guy in Belize for snuffing his dogs; and then going on the lam in the jungle till he could get back to the States and somehow avoid extradition.

    Sounds crazy brilliant, like the Iron Butterfly bassist Taylor Kramer who left music and got a degree in aerospace engineering and started his own tech company and eventually walked off into the desert and died [body discovered after missing for 4-5 years].

    1. Somehow you just made me even more proud of my primary vote for McAfee.

  14. I wad told that even guns was yet another Hill we shouldn’t die on. We’re running out of hills.

    1. I have been trying to suggest (pardon the mixed metaphor) that the cakes are simply the tip of the iceberg.

  15. McAfee is awesome, and if you take the time to listen, you’ll see he is not crazy either. A true Individualist. I am glad he is sticking with the party in some way. Let life live everybody.

    1. He likes his women dark and of shaky moral virtue. What’s not to like about McAfee?

      1. His goddamn shitty antivirus that tries to install itself whenever i update Java? Aside from that, dude’s alright.

        1. And McAfee was quoted in an interview saying that he didn’t use McAfee because “it was annoying”. Which means he disavows his own company’s antivirus.

          REDEEMED!

          Aside: Java is a virus, don’t install it either.

          1. He hasn’t had anything at all to due with Mcafee antivirus since the 90s anyway.

      2. That is the description of my civil partner no wonder I like him so much.

  16. I get where McAfee’s coming from on Johnson.

    I would argue it’s probably more effective to note your reservations, help Johnson have the most successful libertarian year ever, then take the slightly more successful party back later at the convention than to just spurn Johnson for insufficient purity. But your mileage may vary.

    I suspect if McAfee had inexplicably won the nom we’d be intellectually pure and sitting at 3 percent. There’s a tradeoff. I think Johnson’s gone too far on the tradeoff curve, but it’s a small party, which could be retaken with 500 voters, so I’m not too worried about permanently becoming a moderate party.

    1. I get where McAfee’s coming from on Johnson.

      *mind blown*

    2. ^this. McAfee prefers ideological purity (himself) and 1% of the vote as opposed to Johnson who is going at least 10% nationally today and likely in the end will far exceed anything ever achieved by the Libertarian party. GJ (barring a miracle) is setting the stage for a fully credible 3rd party/Libertarian run in 2020 to break the duopoly. That is something McAfee can only do when he jacks off.

      1. That 10 percent Johnson might get wont be there in 2020 without Trump, so what’s the point? Maybe John would have consolidated all the protest vote this year and done well. And build the party from the ground up. And sell the message to minorities, and so on.

      2. Take that to it’s logical conclusion. If being a squishy mealy mouthed libertarian gets you 10%, then why not go full socialist and get 51%? Of course, that defeats the purpose of winning for liberty’s sake.

        1. A squishy, mealy mouthed Libertarian would be an enormous improvement over what we are likely to get.

          Johnson wouldn’t make anything worse and would make some things better. That’s not high praise, but it’s a lot more than I can say for almost any politician.

          That said, I’m probably not voting because I hate this political strategic shit and I’m disappointed in myself for spending this much time thinking about it.

        2. Right, if the people Johnson brings to the LP stay (they won’t) they will do nothing but water it down, and Johnson is the nominee because of 2 national polls that has him at 10 percent. After almost three months of constant (for a third party) media coverage he’s still at less than ten percent. Very unlikely he gets in the debates, so we compromised and gain nothing by it.

          1. The best criticism of Johnson that Mcafee had early on has proven 100 percent correct. Gary Johnson is extremely uncomfortable in his own skin.

            1. “Gary Johnson is extremely uncomfortable in his own skin.”

              Ummm, no, Gary’s not a bellowing blowhard … like McAfree and all the other anti-gummint goobers. To the goobers, anyone not screeching .. or whining and waving their arrns like Ron Paul .., is a pussy. Thanks to those goobers, the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of …. libertarians. The only larger failure in American is public education.

              By election day, Gary will (hopefully) have tooted out the anti-gummint goobers who have virtually destroyed libertarianism … and restored our original “pro-liberty” posture.

              Bye-bye psychos.

          2. It’s sad, in a way, watching all these losers portray abject ignorance of elections, voters, liberty and damn near everything. Meanwhile, out in America, they are hated by even libertarians.
            They live in a fantasy land, like Trump and the other Birthers.
            Goobers,

  17. All this being said though, I think personally, Gary is a decent, likeable man, and that goes pretty far this year. I just think a Mcafee general election run would have done a lot of good.

    1. He’d be at one per cent in the polls, while making the party seem as crazy as he is.
      Keep in mind, the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (per Cato) We could use those voters today, but we’ve been shitting on them for decades, and you want to continue shitting on them. Why?

  18. It’s humiliating when LIBERTARIANS are too fucking stupid to know that NO rights are absolute. DUH..
    That’s what unalienable means. All such rights are precisely equal. Thus, they can conflict with each other, Apparently, “conflicting rights” are no longer taught in high school. McAffee’s old enough to know better, but he’s always been a bit of a psycho.

  19. LIBERTARIANS are too fucking stupid to know that NO rights are absolute. DUH..
    That’s what unalienable means.

    This is Hihnsanity at it’s best…

    1. (Laughing at Lord of war)

      The principle has existed in the common law for several centuries before our founding.
      It’s WHY Jefferson wrote about “unalienable rights” endowed by a creator.
      Unalienable rights cannot be taken away.

      Since none can be taken away, they are CANNOT be absolute, because they can conflict with each other. Perhaps “conflicting rights” is no longer taught in high school?

      It’s only FUNDAMENTAL (innate) rights which can conflict ? Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and all such others.

      When conflicts arise, ONLY the judiciary is empowered to resolve the conflict. Only they can establish the boundary (compromise) which best defends BOTH rights … the tip of my nose in the example above … which is their job.

      That’s why gun rights are not absolute. Nor any other rights ,,, including a fetal child’s unalienable right to Life and a pregnant woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. (the most common moral fallacies)

      “Hihnsanity” suggests you educate yourself … with a dictionary … “unalienable.”
      Were Jefferson and the founders …. illiterate? Is it possible … even remotely … that they were more intelligent than you? Just asking.

      Again, why are LIBERTARIANS too fucking stupid to understand individual rights?

      (boldface in self-defense of aggression by Lord of War, even though he or she used the language of a 10-year-old girl. And may have also stuck its tongue out at me!)

      1. Try not to pay attention to Hihn, he is a master of “arguing” long after it’s been shown his position is logically inconsistent:

        https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/18
        /william-weld-taxation-is-theft#comment_6149425
        (copy/paste necessary)

        Quotes:
        “Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
        Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal
        Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither.”

        “Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
        Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.”

        Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
        Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

        Hihn: “No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.”

        There are actually two fallacies in here, if you can see them both.
        #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).
        #2, That “socially liberal” is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn’t include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

        So, yeah, waste of time.

        1. Behold the serial stalking retard

          If Gary Johnson assassinates Obama tomorrow, then Gary will change the definition of libertarian!
          Crazy as that is … ace-m82 keeps pasting that same “principle” over and over and over.

          Like many wacky socons in Ron Paul’s cult, he’s pissed … PISSED … that the definition of libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, since 1969. And the idjit BRAGS that’s the casue of his raging hatred,

          Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
          -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

          Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocities have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party a God or a cult. Bull and fanatics for Truth, Justice and the American Way, The militant self-righteous.. consumed by raging hatred.

          (shudder)

          1. Behold the serial stalking retard

            Hihn can’t respond to disagreement without insulting, because his parents apparently failed. “Momma tried”, and all that.

            If Gary Johnson assassinates Obama tomorrow, then Gary will change the definition of libertarian!
            ace-m82 keeps pasting that same “principle” over and over and over.

            Hey, it’s your own words, not mine!

            Like many wacky socons in Ron Paul’s cult, he’s pissed … PISSED … that the definition of libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal

            Your own words show that not to be the case. My simple quotes of yours prove 2 logical inconsistencies in your beliefs.

            But keep on “arguing”, if that’s what you call it. I’ll just keep my quotes of yours handy in case anyone might fall into the trap of taking you seriously.

            1. (laughing harderr at the liar)

              Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
              Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

              Hihn: “No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.”

              How does that change the meaning of libertarian? (smirk)

              1. That particular logical inconsistency is this one:

                #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).

                Please, ask if the logic is too hard for you to understand. I’m not here to insult, but teach.

                1. HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE DEFINIITiON OF LIBERTARIAN?

                  That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism

                  YES!!!! (LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY)
                  What is or is not socially liberal is determined by the definition of …. wait for it …
                  SOCIALLY LIBERAL

                  So, you don’t know the very purpose of definitions!!! … UMMMM, .TO DEFINE! Even my 11-year-old niece is smarter than you!!!

                  The definition of socially liberal defines … social liberals.
                  The definition of libertarian is NOT
                  the definition of social liberals
                  not the definition of apple pie
                  not the definition of a rain coat
                  … is it sinking in YET?

                  Please, ask if the logic is too hard for you to understand

                  (laughing even harder)

                  I’m not here to insult, but teach.

                  Teacher gets an F- (snort)

                  (My attitude and boldface are in self-defense from aggression by a cyber-bully, who is stalking me from page to page, pasting proof of his stupidity (exposed here) as an excuse to insult ME?? He attacks, gets humiliated like here, then gets pissed at me and launched a new attack. This is the fourth revenge assault. A perfect example of a cyber-bully,)

                  1. That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism
                    YES!!!! (LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY)

                    You know what? I don’t even know I bother replying to him at this point. He makes himself look more stupid than I could ever attempt to do so.

                    Hihn, you have outdone yourself, you should be proud.

                    1. Even my 11-year-old niece is smarter than you!!!
                      The definition of socially liberal defines … social liberals.
                      The definition of libertarian is NOT
                      the definition of social liberals
                      not the definition of apple pie
                      not the definition of a rain coat
                      … is it sinking in YET?

                      (smirk) Nope.
                      Thank you, Ron Paul

                    2. The definition of socially liberal defines … social liberals.
                      The definition of libertarian is NOT
                      the definition of social liberals

                      Except:

                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal…

                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/18/
                      william-weld-taxation-is-theft

                      So, yeah, even you cannot keep your insane ramblings straight.

                      If you keep arguing, I’ll just keep quoting you to prove you wrong. Logical inconsistency cannot win in an argument.

                    3. One more time for the socon thug

                      Except:

                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal…
                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.

                      (laughing) emphasis added for the illiterate Paulista:

                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal…

                      “and” means “BOTH”. Anyone else confused on that?
                      Bully repeats SAME fuckup all down the page!!! (smirk)

                      Now the Cato Institute (emphasis added for the retarded)

                      (scroll 2/3 to “How libertarians see themselves”)

                      Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

                      Do we believe the Cato Institute, or a punk who doesn’t know what “and” means? (OMG)

                      This is the THIRD time I’ve posted the Cato proof for this psycho hater
                      Extreme socons are aggressors by nature. They want government to impose THEIR way by force … like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ….

                      Followers of the Paulista Cult deny that libertarians are socially liberal … to deny their own satanic bigotry, ( Not all socons are bullies, bigots or this stupid)

                      (Posted in self-defense from a thuggish socon)

                      MY link works! Bwaaa haaaa haaaa

                    4. Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal…
                      “and” means “BOTH”. Anyone else confused on that?

                      Hihn cannot even comprehend the ramifications of his own words, though that ought not surprise anyone who knows his style of “debate”.

                      If Libertarianism is partially socially liberal, then what is socially liberal affects Libertarianism.

                      Ergo, if it’s socially liberal to want gun control, then it is Libertarian to want gun control.

                      Do we believe the Cato Institute, or a punk who doesn’t know what “and” means? (OMG)

                      Cato is wrong, because they don’t know how logic works.

                      But this is all a waste of effort on my part. Hihn believes that Libertarianism is partially socially liberal but that socially liberal doesn’t affect what Libertarianism means (and the same thing for “fiscally conservative”). He is logically inconsistent (unashamedly) and therefore wrong. Pay him no mind, or better yet, if in doubt, believe the opposite of what he does.

                      Hihn, please keep replying, you make yourself look more a fool the more you do. The more you reply, the fewer people will believe you. The best you could do for your belief system is to quit replying for good, but of course you won’t do so because that would require you to have some semblance of introspection and humility.

                      So, basically, carry on.

                    5. You AGAIN fuck up what a definition is.

                      Gun control would not be socially liberal unless ….. IT MET THE DEFINITION OF SOCIALLY LIBERAL. (sneer)

                      (walks away laughing even harder at my retarded stalker)

                    6. Gun control isn’t socially liberal, according to Hihn.

                      Hihn, you act like if you keep digging, you’ll get out of the hole. It doesn’t work that way.

                      Everyone, listen to Hihn if you think the definitions of words change while you’re speaking, in the middle of sentences. Otherwise, please try to recognize his insane ramblings as insane ramblings.

  20. LIBERTARIANS are too fucking stupid to know that NO rights are absolute. DUH..
    That’s what unalienable means.

    This is Hihnsanity at it’s best…

    1. Lord at War has already been ridiculed here.
      And his name BRAGS about his aggressions.

  21. Does Mr. or Governor Weld actually know what an assault rifle is, I refer to the correct technical definition, not the gilitering generalities beloved of assorted political and media hacks?

    1. Why do you ask??? Is he wrong to explain that an AK-47 can be converted into an automatic weapon by removing a pin? Do you know automatic rifles have been illegal for over a ha;f century? (aka machine gun) Do you know that’s his position, or are you among the brainwashed?

      Do you know that NO rights are absolute, including gun rights? O even life? That’s been true for several hundred years before our founding. The “innate” rights in common law — what Jefferson referenced with “unalienable” rights — cannot be denied for ANY reason. That means they’re all precisely equal!!!! And if they’re all equal, then they cannot be absolute, right? What happens when two such rights are in conflict?

      High school history students have learned what happens then, for several decades.
      Do YOU know what happens?

  22. There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    BEWARE, BEWARE

    1. Hey, Sparky,

      In the Holy Bible, God commands his followers to immediately kill all the infidels, even one’s own brother, spouse child or brother (Deuteronomy 13)

      Don’t forget to stone to death every woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night!

      BEWARE! BEWARE! the “so-called” Holy Bible.

      Also beware of brainwashed, dumbfuck liars like ramrod. (snicker)

      1. Does the property owner have property rights? If God is the owner of the land, and allows certain people to live on it, does he have a right to tell them what they may do while on that land?

        The things you are quoting only applied to the ancient Jews and only while they were on the land of Palestine:

        “At that time the LORD commanded me to teach you statutes and ordinances for you to follow in the land you are about to cross into and possess.” Deuteronomy 4:14

        “These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess–as long as you live in the land.” Deuteronomy 12:1

        God told them over and over that they were getting the land as an inheritance and that it was his land, not theirs:

        “The land is not to be permanently sold because it is Mine, and you are only foreigners and temporary residents on My land.” Leviticus 25:23

        So, once again, you are attempting to speak about something you have no understanding. You’re really just embarrassing yourself at this point.

        1. You missed the point, as always. I was ridiculing his conspiracy-laced hysteria
          P.S. Your verses have absolutely nothing to do with what I cited.

          1. In the Holy Bible, God commands his followers to immediately kill all the infidels, even one’s own brother, spouse child or brother (Deuteronomy 13)

            Your verses have absolutely nothing to do with what I cited.

            I know this is impossible for you to understand, because it would require you to change your mind, but perhaps other readers can follow the logic here.

            Yes, God told them to kill lots of people for certain things that might offend modern people. But it’s very important to understand why.

            The land is God’s (proven above). The Israelites were tenants on God’s land (proven above). The tenants were to remove the trespassers and then live according to the property owner’s rules or face the property owner’s punishments (proven above).

            Ergo, if you didn’t like what God’s rules were, you could simply get off his land and the rules didn’t apply (proven above). And, as the Israelites were forced from the land, those rules don’t apply even now (proven above).

            So, no, the rules weren’t evil as you’re claiming. It’s because you’re motivated by hatred that you can’t see this.

            So, dear reader, remember this next time a rabid atheist* makes this same incorrect charge.

            *Most atheists don’t do this at all.

  23. Mental health is the avenue to gun control..

    American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill..
    After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for them..

    300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
    Your children on medication for ADHD?
    Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?

    be careful what you ask for

  24. Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..

    Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control..
    The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his
    “classical conditioning” theories. In fact, Pavlov was disturbed that Vladimir Lenin would use these conditioning methods against the people in order to get them to accept communism. Since that time the social sciences have been used as a means of maintaining control over populations and getting them to accept their own down fall. This is happening today in the United States as our universities and public schools have long ago adopted educational techniques based on the social sciences and classical conditioning methods.

    1. White Privilege and Multiculturalism are used to demoralize our population, create a guilt consciousness and silence usinto accepting a new agenda based on the idea that we have been unfair, and our lifestyles are oppressive, and offensive to others. This agenda dates back to the early twentieth century; however, it saw some of its most major advances in the mid 1900’s after the U.N. was created in 1945. While many people today view the Democrat Party as being made mostly of communists or socialists; the sad truth is that the Republican Party is just as responsible for what we are seeing in education and culture in the United States today.

      As I wrote in “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education,” Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, two presidents that were considered American Patriots, actually signed agreements with the Soviet Union that gave them influence over U.S. education, culture, scientific and technological research, radio, television and finally, medicine. This is according to U.S. Department of Education whistle blower, Charlotte Iserbyt. It is the area of medicine that should draw your attention because as mentioned earlier, Soviet medicine revolved around the idea of mental health, and classifying people that were opposed to communist objectives as being mentally ill.

      1. This is where the Surgeon General’s claims about banning guns being a part of medicine comes from. Slowly but surely, they will work to associate gun ownership with mental illness. From the 45 goals of the Communist Party USA

        (Note: Many websites are now appearing claiming this list of communist goals to be a hoax. If you read them for yourself you will see many have been accomplished and that they bear a striking resemblance to many things currently happening in the U.S. The claims that they are a hoax could be a deliberate misinformation campaign headed by the Information Regulatory Affairs office led by none other than Cass Sunstein. Just looking at the state of our society, it is clear that these goals are not a hoax.)
        While the move for an Article Five Convention seems to be gaining momentum, you should take heed. There is another constitution waiting in the winds and it won’t protect your rights to keep and bear arms.

        Freedomoutpost

      2. Anyone crazier than ramrod … in the entire universe?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.