Gary Johnson

After a Century of Backing Republicans, New Hampshire Union Leader Endorses Gary Johnson

Newspaper editorial count now 5 for Clinton, 4 for Johnson, 0 for Trump

|

He ain't gonna like this one either. ||| CSPAN
CSPAN

The New Hampshire Union Leader has long wielded an outsized influence on national GOP politics, being a conservative thought leader in an early-primary state. Tomorrow, on its front page, the paper will for the first time in a century endorse a non-Republican for president: Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

The editorial, written by Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid, is entertainingly scathing, and starts off like this:

In 1972, Union Leader Publisher William Loeb found himself having to recommend either President Richard Nixon or challenger George McGovern.

Loeb's advice: Hold your nose and vote for Nixon.

At least Loeb had a choice between two capable, if flawed, candidates…. Loeb would not envy the choice America faces today between a selfish, self-centered, sanctimonious prig and Donald J. Trump.

Trump, on the other hand, is "a liar, a bully, a buffoon," who has "changed political views almost as often as he has changed wives." Rejecting the lesser-of-two-evils formulation, McQuaid pronounces both Johnson and vice presidential nominee William Weld as comparatively virtuous: "Their records (as Republican governors in politically-divided states) speak well of them. They would be worth considering under many circumstances. In today's dark times, they are a bright light of hope and reason."

The Union Leader (which had previously in a companian editorial praised Johnson and Weld while pushing for their inclusion in the presidential debates) joins the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winston-Salem Journal and Caledonian Record (of New England) in backing Johnson, making Wikipedia's unofficial newspaper-endorsement tally 5 for Clinton, 4 for Johnson, and 0 for Trump. While it's still way early, and unsigned editorials have less influence by the minute (thank God!), that preliminary ratio is remarkable.

And as The New York Times notes, Clinton is outpolling Trump by a nose in New Hampshire, while Johnson has healthy support. The last three Granite State polls over the past month have averaged 41 percent for Clinton, 35 percent for Trump 14 for Johnson, and 4 for Jill Stein. The Johnson campaign will no doubt try to leverage this in its frantic, last-ditch effort to push its way into the first presidential debate Sept. 26.

NEXT: Send Around This XKCD Climate Change Web Cartoon, But Really Look at It First

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. Wow, Johnson is sure embarrassing libertarians by making the LP more relevant and popular than it has ever been in its history.

    1. A sample size of nine newspapers is certainly a reliable one.

      1. When a small sample already shows more independent endorsements than the bigger samples you compare it to, your comparison bites you on your ass. Even if all remaining endorsements go against Johnson, it will still be a record.

        A sample size of one comment and you’ve already shown your intelligence.

        1. I answered his throwaway snark with one of my own, and you came back all fired up and hot? Dude. Chillax. In the end, WGAF about endorsements.

          1. What makes you think my response was any more serious than you think I think your response was?

              1. Trickle-Down Snark is our go-to policy around here.

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

                ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

    2. Johnson is sure embarrassing libertarians by making the LP more relevant

      The LP isn’t (as hasn’t ever been) representative of “libertarianism”. And neither is Johnson’s campaign, particularly.

      You can argue that he’s helping sell a historically disadvantaged brand. Kudos. But to what end, really?

      The traditional argument is that the LP, by showing the appeal of certain libertarian-based policy-ideas, will force the major parties to ‘move in its direction’.

      If that’s still the sales pitch – then where do you see that happening here, specifically? What principles of individual liberty are being highlighted that people are talking about? What aspects of the state are being beaten back? What ideas will the major parties have to co-opt?

      if instead…. Johnson makes the LP “more-relevant” simply by burying ‘actual libertarian ideas’, and instead presenting a sort of Demopublican-lite Fusionism… mixing up a bunch of nice-sounding policies which already overlap with major-party postures…. what actual progress has anyone made, really?

      just a thought. I think its all very nice that johnson is doing well and i expect i’ll vote for him. But i don’t really see any particular win here for libertarians in general.

      1. “a sort of Demopublican-lite Fusionism”

        Now, let’s not insult fusionism like that.

        1. “In his most influential book, In Defense of Freedom, [Frank] Meyer defined freedom in what Isaiah Berlin would label “negative” terms as the minimization of the use of coercion by the state in its essential role of preventing one person’s freedom from intruding upon another’s. The state should protect freedom but otherwise leave virtue to individuals. The state has only three legitimate functions ? police, military and operating a legal system, all necessary to control coercion, which is immoral if not restricted. Virtue is critical for society and freedom must be balanced by responsibility but both are inherently individual in form. Coerced values cannot be virtuous. Freedom by itself has no goal, no intrinsic end. Freedom is not abstract or utopian as with the utilitarians, who also make freedom an end rather than a means. In a real society traditional order and freedom can only exist together. The solution is a philosophical synthesis of both freedom and tradition, the solution to the dilemma is “grasping it by both horns” and accepting the tension between the two.”

      2. The LP isn’t (as hasn’t ever been) representative of “libertarianism”. And neither is Johnson’s campaign, particularly.

        No, it’s a political party that’s inspired by libertarian philosophy. A philosophy that’s so broad and open to interpretation it’s impossible to find two libertarians who agree on everything. I see no reason why Johnson should not also be given the benefit of agree to disagree on some issues.

        You can argue that he’s helping sell a historically disadvantaged brand. Kudos. But to what end, really?

        I think you’re really understating the importance of getting a historically high number of Americans (particularly young Americans) to embrace the Libertarian brand.

        Sure it’s almost entirely because Douche and Turd are personally terrible candidates but it seems a substantial number of people are recognizing them as emblematic of a two party system that’s intellectually and morally bankrupt.

        We want people to associate libertarianism with sane moderation relative to the Republicans and Democrats, that’s how you begin to create a political landscape that’s friendly to liberty.

        1. I think you’re really understating the importance of getting a historically high number of Americans (particularly young Americans) to embrace the Libertarian brand.

          I think you’re overstating some limited polling and a few small-paper editorials.

          I also think your first point basically conceded mine, while pretending that something significant was said:

          e.g.

          A philosophy that’s so broad and open to interpretation it’s impossible to find two libertarians who agree on everything. I see no reason why Johnson should not also be given the benefit of agree to disagree on some issues.

          iow, “Libertarianism is messy! so, maybe he’s not *perfect*…”

          That’s not even remotely addressing the actual question i asked –

          which was, “name some issue – anything – you think that the Johnson Campaign will actually pull the major parties ‘in our direction’ on.” .You seem confident there’s probably *something* there. Any ideas?

          “better exposure” is only a net-plus when the things people are being exposed to are “more libertarian” than the status quo.

          It seems to me that Johnson’s increased popularity is gained mostly by appealing to the status quo rather than challenging it. That doesn’t strike me as a significant ‘net win’. Does it really change dissatisfied democrats and republicans into libertarians in the longer run? or does it just get their votes for now, because he’s generic-enough on the right issues?

          1. That’s not even remotely addressing the actual question i asked –

            which was, “name some issue – anything – you think that the Johnson Campaign will actually pull the major parties ‘in our direction’ on.” .You seem confident there’s probably *something* there. Any ideas?

            Military noninterventionism, unless you think Congress will be able to force the President to deploy troops against his wishes.

            1. I’m not so sure that’s the “Gary effect” so much as polling.

        2. Oh I don’t know. I think a majority of Libertarians can agree Weld is no libertarian at all, and Johnson is less of one each day.

          1. He’s…transforming? Into what, a semi-truck or a camaro?

      3. if instead…. Johnson makes the LP “more-relevant” simply by burying ‘actual libertarian ideas’, and instead presenting a sort of Demopublican-lite Fusionism… mixing up a bunch of nice-sounding policies which already overlap with major-party postures…. what actual progress has anyone made, really?

        I’m confused as to why we were expected to embrace Rand, who does exactly that, but not Johnson? In any case, Johnson is serious about entitlement reform, getting the Federal government out of the way of economic progress and not miring the US into more misadventures abroad.

        It’s not like he’s hiding all these pretty libertarian positions from the voters, he goes over them all the time. Why are you cynical about appealing the better nature of Democrats and Republicans? Is that not how you get people to come over to your side?

        Because it’s either that or running explicitly against Douche and Turd on a personal level, which doesn’t really promote liberty either.

        1. I’m confused as to why we were expected to embrace Rand, who does exactly that, but not Johnson?

          Rand could win.

          1. One has to run to win. Rand is tired, worn out. A man with great ideas and ideals, but in the end irrelevant to the process. To whine about Johnson leading the party is no different than people still arguing that Ben Carson would have done a better job as the republican nominee. One can wax philosophically as Rome burns but it in no way puts out the fires. This is a turning point for Libertarians, and if we all don’t stop kvetching about how libertarian Johnson is than we deserve to remain as irrelevant to the process as we have been.
            Freedom is fading away and giving ground to censorship of thought and word. The government is growing out of control. Schools are turning out generations of sheep, and the political machine is creating wars to distract from their actions within. If the Libertarian ideal is to have any hope of doing anything other becoming a four word footnote in history we need to start somewhere.
            So roll up your sleeves and get to work or please do us all a favor and get out of the way of the people trying to save this country.

            1. ^ +1 for the new guy/new handle

            2. Rand is tired, worn out

              a 53yr old who just ran his first national campaign?

              To whine about Johnson leading the party is no different than people still arguing that Ben Carson would have done a better job as the republican nominee

              That wasn’t ‘whining’. I’m simply pointing out the tepid, flavorless character of his campaign, and suggesting its not much to get thrilled about as far as actually advancing libertarian policy ideas. ‘economically conservative/socially liberal’ isnt exactly the most novel and inspiring hill to die on.

              Freedom is fading away and giving ground to censorship of thought and word. The government is growing out of control. Schools are turning out generations of sheep, and the political machine is creating wars to distract from their actions within. If the Libertarian ideal is to have any hope of doing anything other becoming a four word footnote in history we need to start somewhere.

              That had everything except the brass band and fireworks.

              and you really think getting 4-5% – rather than 2-3% – of the vote in this years’ election has @#&*($@)#$* anything to do with that?

              You’re retarded.

              So roll up your sleeves and get to work

              Doing what? explaining how “Nazi cakes” and Climate Change taxes are wonderful things to skeptical libertarians? Godspeed, patriot.

              1. “Socially liberal/economically conservative” in this case mostly seems to be rebranding what used to be known as a “Rockefeller Republican”.

                1. Yes, GJ is Rockefeller. And my foreskin is growing back.

                2. Rockefeller Republicans would not campaign on cutting entitlements and cutting federal spending by 20%. To say Johnson is a Rockefeller Republican is asinine.

            3. So roll up your sleeves and get to work or please do us all a favor and get out of the way of the people trying to save this country.

              The Libertarian candidate who, regardless of whether you agree on his overall politics, is inarticulate, feckless, flip-flopping and worst of all, boring. He gets 8% of the vote. Surely America is saved. Spare the propaganda pitch if you’re trying to convince people to be pragmatic, because you just come off as delusional.

            4. Rand is tired, worn out. A man with great ideas and ideals, but in the end irrelevant to the process.

              Sorry, but your argument here is ridiculous. Paul is 53. Gary Johnson is 63. Johnson got the LP leadership role because he fared more poorly in 2012 than Paul did when Trump sucked all of the oxygen out of the room.

              1. Rand may not be “tired,” but he has the boat anchor of “pro-liferism” around his neck. I respect fellow libertarians who really believe the “personhood at time x before birth” paradigm, but in the electorate the set of such voters is almost a unity with the nutbar SoCons in the GOP, especially when x = conception. They tend to drag in their congeries of statist views, from censorship (pr0n bad!) to the drug war to hyper-restrictionism on trade and immigration. They also skew old, and are the heart of the Trumpinistas.

                I’ve asked “SIV” what his “single issue” is. I expect it is abortion or either A) of trade or B.) immigration.

                I can remember people who might have voted Paul in `88, but for the fact that they were pro-choice on abortion.

        2. Why are you cynical about appealing the better nature of Democrats and Republicans?

          If the best you’re expecting is “modestly better rhetoric from the major parties”, then i think its weak tea, and doesn’t do much for libertarians.

        3. *footnote=

          technically i’m not “cynical” about anything. I don’t doubt the good-intentions of the LP or its candidates. and as noted; i’m probably voting for them (if i vote)

          I’m skeptical about the value of a ‘modestly successful’, watered-down campaign… as opposed to a ‘still modest, but less successful’ campaign which tried to actually pick a few policy areas to influence, and move the ball forward.

          the higher net % of the vote, to me, is meaningless unless it actually helps “do something” with that increased influence.

          An argument no one has made (but which i think is a decent retort) is that this is just an effort to set the stage for ‘something better next time’. If they get 5%+, the LP will get on more ballots, get more funding, maybe even get more local pols elected.

          That’s the “Strategic” argument. Mine is basically the ‘tactical’ one.

      4. I’ma try and take a crack at this:
        Right now, very few people really know what libertarianism is. While I agree that Johnson and Weld probably aren’t the prophets foretold, to lead us out of the wilderness, and then to prepare the way for the Messiah, that’s OK. They don’t come across like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving (me), and they are receiving yuuuuge accounts of attention compared to LP candidates of yore. And, while the LP may not be as true a Scotsman as you would prefer, it does have the word “libertarian” in its name (not is the official party line that far from Orthodox libertarian thought).
        Whatever the failings of Johnson, et all, millions of people are reading about and investigating libertarian thinking for the first time ever.
        This is a good thing.

          1. *doffs non-existent hat, tries to do an elegant bow, falls over and spills the pitcher of beer at the next table

            1. At least you didn’t do a striptease dance down to your speedo as you spilled the beer.

        1. very few people really know what libertarianism is.

          yes – i’ve already noted that the mere “brand-selling” bit is a definite plus.

          and its not about being a true scotsman.

          If you see what i actually said = the case is normally made that a strong(er 3rd party can pull the others closer towards it in specific policy areas.

          What i fail to see is anything GJ/Weld are doing as far as “moving the status quo” closer to us.

          What i see is “us” (or the LP) moving closer to the status quo. In exchange for a few-percent more than they might otherwise get.

          1. “What i see is “us” (or the LP) moving closer to the status quo. In exchange for a few-percent more than they might otherwise get.”

            This is how I see it. The problem I have with Johnson is that instead of focusing on libertarian issues to make his case he seems to be focusing on the non-libertarian ones. ie “I love the social safety net”. I don’t expect him to come out all fire and brimstone against medicare but it would be nice if he wasn’t constantly tripping over himself to sound like something other than a libertarian.

            He comes off as a moderate I could tolerate because I do believe he would inch the ball in the right direction but just barely like a team that gave up a 98 yard drive and stuffs the running back for a half yard loss on first and goal.

    3. It surely has nothing to do with the fact that both major parties have served up two of the the worst candidates within living memory. So I have a choice between two megalomaniacal millionares who want to bomb the shit out of the Middle East.

      You know I think might just go third party if my choices are between Kang and Kodos.

    4. Yes, it’s a really big deal when an outdated media sector that is best used to soak up oil and line litter boxes begins the Libertarian Moment.

      1. Nothing like a near-extinction experience to make a fossil reconsider its ways. In the Summer of 1999 a newspaper convention in Houston learned that HALF of the 20 to 30 crowd had NEVER subscribed to a fascist rag. There was this great sucking sound…

    1. The World Turn’d Upside Down is a good tune, but it’s missing something

  2. What does this guy know? (sarc) Maybe this acceptability is what David Nolan hoped would eventually happen for the LP but it is not good news for the dozen or so posters who show up repeatedly to lecture us on the impurity of the Johnson/Weld ticket. The LP can be a Rothbardian discussion club or a political party that points to a goal of individual liberty, with incremental gains along the way. There is room for both in the libertarian tent but I wonder which is more likely to lead to the libertarian moment?

    1. “the dozen or so posters who show up repeatedly to lecture us on the impurity of the Johnson/Weld ticket.”

      As someone who has criticized Johnson, it’s possible that I may be included in that sarcastic summary.

      Numero uno, I’m a fusionist and not a libertarian.

      Numero two-o, I’ve said several times that libertarians of “culturally liberal” proclivities can reasonably think that Johson is the best choice (not so much Weld).

      Numero three-o, I’ve laid out two basic lines of criticism of Johnson. First that he refuses to defend the personhood rights of all living human beings, including the right not to be *outlawed* except by due process of law. Second, that when he sells out on other issues, it’s hard to tell whose votes he’s getting – does he expect a big Nazi vote because he sold out on the cake issue?

      1. Usually, when we’re talking about “purity tests,” it means the candidate said he would keep Social Security or some such popular stance which violates libertarian principles.

        So are the “purity test” eye-rollers suggesting that by saying Jewish bakers should be compelled to make nazi cakes, Johnson is making a bid for votes and it’s OK because he’s broadening his base?

        Whatever support he’s getting now isn’t because he believes in compulsory nazi cakes, or because he wants to unleash the IRS against the CPD, etc.

        So unless he’s playing some weird 3D chess to pick up a big bloc of nazis and IRS supporters, I don’t see what possible advantage there is to him taking these positions.

        1. There’s no weird 3D chess. He’s trying not to offend the sensibilities of millennial Bernie backers who think hurt feelings when shopping for wedding cakes should trump some weird libertarian idea like freedom of association. And Johnson’s poll numbers among millennials show it is a good call mathematically. he gains 5-plus percentage points, and loses 0.25 percent, about half the traditional LP vote.

      2. I am so glad you were able to explain that you aren’t a libertarian but a Utopian. So many people who post here seem to have many different views of what libertarianism is it’s hard to see through all the confusion. As to the whole cake issue, yeah that’s a dead horse. Bury it or eat it, your choice.

      3. Numero uno, I’m a fusionist and not a libertarian.

        I won’t argue with the second part. The first part… well, you made up the term, you get to define it, I suppose. But if so, “fusionist” means “wanting to put people in cages because they violate Eddie’s religious taboos.”

        1. I gave you links and everything.

          I guess your posts rebut certain stereotypes about (((intelligence))).

        2. well, you made up the term, you get to define it, I suppose.

          No, he didn’t. And he is pretty close to the Frank Meyer (the person who coined the term decades ago) model of a fusionist.

          1. The Meyer/Chodorov influence on WF Buckley was strong, and the Catholic nexus made serious consideration of an essentially secular, non-interventionist classical liberalism anathema to that crowd. National Review types were all in on defeating, or at least resisting the “godless commies,” and to suggest we not spend ourselves into the poor house to do that was dangerous Whiggery to them. Up until ~ 1977, this was my mindset, too.

  3. Wow! This Johnson thing is getting big!

    1. Let’s hope Johnson can power through!

    2. It can only grow from here on out!

      1. If he can only keep it up long enough and have a successful election!

  4. just as Patrick answered I am inspired that you can earn $5103 in 1 month on the internet . see this website

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

    1. PATRICK SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT, YOU SCOUNDREL!

      1. “Did I say Patrick? I meant Gerald.”

        Oops, wrong joke.

    1. Derpetologist you magnificientl bastard. I read your book !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

      1. Huh. Most people go insane after reading just a few a lines from the Derponomicon.

        Yes, it’s a real thing.

    2. Jesus Christ, that’s way more triggering than that asteroid guy wearing his friend’s wife shirt.

      1. You mean the guy who single-handedly drove women out of STEM fields and back into the kitchen?

    3. That shirt has Crusty stains on it.

  5. The Manchester Union-Leader endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996. Loeb was long dead but whoever had editorial control in the 1990s (his widow?) would’ve (on ideological consistency) certainly endorsed Donald J. Trump. The paper is much less than a shadow of itself today. It is purely coincidental that the paper of self-hating Jew William Loeb has endorsed former-Republican governor Gary Johnson, a proponent of forced compliance to the confectionery whims of Nazis.

    1. WHYCOME JOHNSON DO SO WELL REJECTING CONSERVATARIAN FUSIONISM!?!?!?!

      1. Johnson received less than 1% of the vote in 2012. He’d be lucky to repeat even that in 2016 after rejecting the few libertarian principles he once pretended to hold.

        1. Then vote Trump so we can all die in nuclear fire. Or vote for Hillary so we can watch Atlas Shrugged become a reality. Either way, stop your kvetching about how Johnson isn’t libertarian enough for you.

        2. We’re comin’ for ya’, SIV! You and your buffoon candidate too!

          Both Dem and Repub candidates suck ass so badly, that it is probably that a 3rd party candidate could win the election. Look at how close The Bernmeister came to ousting Hillary. Johnson’s campaign needs to get some legs to push this momentum forward, but there is a good chance they could eek out a win.

          1. Remember Ayn’s Open Letter to American National Socialist infiltrators during The Big One? You’re looking at what she was going on about. Herb Hoover helped Hitler’s henchmen with the Moratorium on Brains, then lost when Pauline Sabin, like former Republican Hillary and all unwizened females today, fired their Mohammedan asses. Immediately they joined Germany in hating liberals and all things jewish but loving God. But Mystical fossils do not learn or evolve. The GOP platform is essentially the Prohibition party platform fortified with extra paranoid hatred, and its infiltrators are here to sell it to us.

          2. There is no change the LP campaign can lose. Winning means getting enough spoiler votes to at least force the looters to get rid of a mess of bad laws. Anything over 1.4% of the vote applied continuously over time suffices to amend the constitution, change laws, jurisprudence and judges–kind of like the way a small thrust accelerates a rocket to huge velocities given enough time.

    2. (((William Loeb)))

    3. self-hating Jew

      There’s the tell. As if anyone here needed it.

  6. Newspaper?

    1. “A newspaper is a publication issued at regular intervals, usually daily or weekly, and contains news, politics, sports, business, finance, advertisements, comics, etc. – and they were printed on paper! It was fuckin’ crazy!” – James Rolfe

      1. Yesterday’s news, today.

    2. Ity’s good for wrapping things, or as a casual impromptu tablecloth when eating messy shellfish like crabs or crawfish.

  7. So, there is another Guccifer 2.0 leak. Checking Google News for “guccifer pay to play” yields articles from what looks to be a collection of right-wing outlets. PJ Media reports:

    The latest leak of documents from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) by notorious hacker Guccifer 2.0 not only suggests the DNC engaged in pay-for-play corruption with donors, but revealed an email where a legal associate used exactly that term with DNC staff. The leak dropped on Tuesday.

    “Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters?” asked Jacquelyn K. Lopez, an associate at Perkins Coie LLP, a legal firm servicing the United States and Asia (emphasis added). “Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from these donors, in any form, get put into the operating account.”

    The email, dated May 18, 2016, was sent to three DNC staffers: Director of Compliance Preston (Alan) Reed, Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer, and CFO Brad Marshall. Marshall also got in trouble in July during the first DNC leak for encouraging DNC communications staff to plant questions about Bernie Sanders’ faith.

  8. Chat with a cabby

    Him: You in the Army?

    Me: Yep.

    Him: Do you know why the Army exists?

    Me: This sounds like a joke.

    Him: I’m serious. Why does the Army exist?

    Me: Well…if there were no wars, there’d be no armies, so I guess the short answer is the Army exists because human nature is flawed.

    Him: No, that’s not it at all.

    Me: So what then?

    Him: The Army exists because even Marines need heroes.

    Me: Ooh, I’m gonna remember that one.

    In other news, the Army run team once again beat the other branches in today’s race. Actually, the male team won. The female team would have won too, but one runner collapsed during the last lap. She left on a stretcher, but probably nothing serious.

    1. Bah. The other intraservice sports event that matters is the Army-Navy game. Fingers crossed for the Black Knights this year.

    2. Did they find a kid for her to hug later?

  9. Libertarians say…

    GayJay? NO WAY !

    1. Is that kind of like #NeverTrump except more loosely organized and less significant?

  10. So a newspaper that endorses Republicans endorsed a Libertarian ticket which consists of two Republican Governors. This is utterly shocking news.

  11. Hillary’s favorite pizza?

    Little Seizures.

    1. Nixon’s was Dominos.

  12. Government is what we call the 45,000 horses we choose to kill together.

  13. If you believe Hillary’s only health problem is pneumonia, I’m a Nigerian prince who needs your help transferring $4,200,000.00.

    1. Help us pneumonia! You’re our only hope!

    2. The odd thing about that is Hillary actually got 4.2 million from a Nigerian prince via email.

  14. Good evening, I’m Alistaire Cooke, welcome to Things That Jump Out at You Theater.

    Wait for it…wait for it…not yet…wait for it…OMG ITS RIGHT THERE!

    1. Scaring is easy. Comedy is hard.

  15. I just found out my wife had never heard of airplane races.

    1. Because you keep her locked in your basement?

      1. I didn’t meet her when she was an infant. This is something an adult should know, regardless of how long subsequent to gaining their majority they’ve been protected from the sun.

        1. I’d like to know more of what you consider essential knowledge.

          1. Not essential but something someone would pick up just in the normal course of life. Or just infer it.

            Do people race cars, horses and every other type of transportation ever invented? Yes. Therefore people race planes.

            1. So… You’re saying you beat her with a sack of oranges…. most likely frozen oranges….

              1. What, am I a king to engage in such extravagance? Potatoes are cheaper, less messy, and fit her station.

                1. I guess the good thing about this discussion is it can’t sink any lower.

                  1. Oh you sweet summer child, things can always get worse.

                2. I’m sure you taught her long ago about submarine races, though, amirite?

                  (nudge, nudge, wink wink)

                  1. Rent/buy The Rocketeer which is almost as much fun as the comic.

                    Kevin R

  16. Brand new South Park tonight, not a classic, but pretty watchable.

    They brought back the Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche election meme, but in this case they actually identified Hillary Clinton as the Turd Sandwich.

    Extra points for including events and scenes from the past week — I’m always amazed when they can pull that off.

    And a very clever subplot about Congress getting J. J. Abrams to ‘reboot’ the national anthem in light of the Colin Kaepernick sitting down fiasco.

    Spoiler alert:

    the anthem stays the same song, but is now introduced by saying “everyone please rise, sit, take a knee, or do whatever you like, to honor America.” Then it shows Kaepernick and others completely confused because no matter what they do, they will be honoring the country, and can’t get any special attention for themselves. Pretty hilarious idea — so much so that it’s exactly what should be said before the anthem at every big event.

  17. The “Libertarian Moment” ? is finally here!!!

    (Sorry, my cynicism knows no bounds)

    1. “And he looked from Libertarian to statist, and from statist to Libertarian, and could not tell which was which.”

  18. This is really great work. game killer apk Thank you for sharing such a useful information geometry dash apk here in the blog.

  19. The nearby Portland Press Herald has the Green econazis on the front page, so it’s looking bad for the entrenched Kleptocracy. There is a website called Today’s Front Pages that lets you home in on headline news for the various areas of These States.

  20. ‘Newspaper editorial count now 5 for Clinton, 4 for Johnson, 0 for Trump’

    That and $7.50 will get you a largo, skinny, soy latte-chino at Starbucks.

  21. of course the media backs gun confiscators………..

  22. I really Like your articles and bookmarked your site. apk hook please do keep sharing such stuffs. Kingroot apk Great work. Great post you have shared with everyone. We can get valuable knowledge from this site.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.