Election 2016

Running "Someone Sane and Honest Is *Different*": LP Chair on Gary Johnson's Appeal

Nicholas Sarwark lays out Libertarian Party strategy through end of election and post-November 8.

|

Running "someone sane and honest is different," says Nicholas Sarwark, the national chair of the Libertarian Party in explaining the "unique selling proposition" of the "party of principle" in the 2016 presidential election.

Bolstered by a presidential ticket led Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, two former two-term governors, the LP has received an unprecedented amount of news coverage and popular interest, says Sarwark, who talks about how the systems is indeed rigged against third-party candidates. Between ever-changing ballot-access rules and patently ridiculous exclusions from presidential debates, he says, the one thing Republicans and Democrats agree on is keeping other parties at arm's length. And yet, Sarwark notes, the duopoly is faltering because it no longer is fielding "authentic" and "honest" candidates.

In a new podcast, Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with Sarwark about what the "party of principle" is up to in the final weeks of the 2016 race and the LP's bold new strategy of running electable, pragmatic candidates who are also committed to maximum freedom and minimal government.

Produced by Jim Epstein with Ian Keyser.

Listen below and subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video!

Subscribe to our audio podcast at iTunes (and rate and review our offerings!).

Subscribe via RSS.

Subscribe via Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video podcast at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

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.

109 responses to “Running "Someone Sane and Honest Is *Different*": LP Chair on Gary Johnson's Appeal

  1. Elizabeth Hurley, 51, shows off her phenomenal figure and youthful complexion in sizzling bikini selfie

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..elfie.html

    Damn.

    1. Mother. Fucker.

      1. Clad in her own collection, the mum-of-one flaunted her impossibly taut stomach in the scanty two piece whilst she threw her arms up in abandon.

        MILF!

        1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work? Visit this web? http://www.14EarnPath.Com

    2. I really don’t want to believe that Bill hit that.

      1. The fuck?! Surely you’re not talking about Bill Clinton. She’s far too thin and too hot for him.

        1. Rumored to have happened in the White House, yes.

          1. Yeah… not buying it.

            1. 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

            1. Daily Mail says it’s bunk.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..or-ex.html

    3. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $14285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site…. This is what I do… http://www.Trends88.Com

  2. …the duopoly is faltering because it no longer is fielding “authentic” and “honest” candidates.

    Or are the parties and their candidates adapting to the will of the electorate?

    1. Heh. As if the duopoly *ever* fielded ‘authentic’ or ‘honest’ candidates. If this is why they’re faltering its because they are no longer fielding candidates that can feign sincerity – not that they ever were sincere, they just can’t fake it anymore.

      ‘I care about the kittens, the USA, . . . and you.’

      ‘Yay! We made it into his top three!’

      1. Other problem: they’re not faltering.

    2. You mean the will of the devious voters crossing party lines in open primaries to pick the candidate that would be the easiest to defeat?

  3. I suspect Republicans will take measures to ensure that someone like Trump can’t get the nomination again, but it’s an open question as to whether or not they’ll try to marginalize Trump’s base of support or still play to them in a way that’s more presentable to independent voters. I’m hoping that they’ll split the difference and try to address the concerns that Trump’s supporters have over job losses, identity politics, and globalization through a liberty-friendly agenda of deregulation, but that’s probably a pipe dream. Instead they’ll probably learn nothing and try to walk this impossible line between throwing a bone and a wink and a nod to Trump’s base while still maintaining the veneer of respectability. Our only real hope for Republicans lies with young blood in the liberty coalition.

    It will be interesting to see what Democrats take away from this election. Will they try to tap into the excitement over Bernie by moving farther left with genuine candidates, or will entrenched powers walk away believing (correctly) that they can double down on double talk and even outright corruption knowing that they won’t get called out by the media as long as there is a Republican with worse optics?

    1. This is all so strange…. Trump and Sanders collecting huge, enthusiastic rallies? Clinton and Bush barely able to fill the VFW?

      Are you sure this isn’t a Bob Newhart dream sequence?

    2. The GO-Pee is still Prohibitionist-infected since 1928, and if 20 years of losing beginning in 1932 didn’t change it, then replacement is overdue. Having anything to do with girl-bullying mystics has already sullied the LP’s reputation to the point that fertile women–who already cross the street to avoid the ku-klux prohibitionists–are starting to avoid us. I miss Toni Nathan!

      1. “GO-Pee” is some Mike M.-level nicknaming, dawg.

  4. “Sane”? Gary? I’d accept that he’s honest, as I get the impression of him being too gormless to be able to compose a plausible falsehood, but he does not strike me as sane.

    1. He’s perfectly sane. He just doesn’t have the best demeanor for presidential politics.

      1. Yeah, but neither does Trump or Hillary.

        The truth is you just have to have (R) or (D) next to your name. That’s all there is to it.

        1. The GOP just lines up the same tired old empty suits every 4 years and then mumble among themselves about who’s turn it is. The Dems have moved on from that model, they just decide who’s turn it is ahead of time and sabotage any other candidate who dares enter the race.

        2. Hillary has the classical politician’s demeanor. She seems confident, respectable in her rhetoric, etc. Trump does not but he does come off as supremely confident and strong willed, which is what his base wants.

          Gary is goofy in an endearing way, honest to a fault, but does not come off as confident or someone who would be great in a high-stakes negotiation with world leaders. Which is OK with me – that’s why you have professional negotiators. But that’s not what the public wants.

          1. does not come off as confident or someone who would be great in a high-stakes negotiation with world leaders. Which is OK with me – that’s why you have professional negotiators. But that’s not what the public wants.

            Yeah, that’s what the State Department is supposed to be for. The general public is full of morons who think that the President is actively negotiating with world leaders him/ her self. Because they really are just that stupid.

            1. He seemed to do pretty well governing a state. Being a president is something different but I have confidence that he could delegate well and consistently push for better policy. Even for me, it’s odd to see a presidential candidate that acts like he does – it speaks to the conditioning that we all are subject to that I have to actively remind myself that he’s not the one who’s going to go toe-to-toe with Putin.

      2. He just doesn’t have the best demeanor for presidential politics.

        +1 “Weird Man’s Burden.”

  5. This dovetails with my morning links rant about the lockstep media script following.

    Everyone has the same take on every 3rd party candidate. With Johnson they have at least had to take it seriously enough to get their talking points together.

    So you hear the exact same stuff from every single pundit. If they are progressive, they might throw a little love toward the liberal social positions (while still crapping on them as nutty) but they will pivot to “but when you scratch below the surface” or “if you dig a little deeper into his real positions you’ll discover” and then throw out a straw-man version of libertarian dystopia where there are no social services, social security is gutted and the elderly are thrown into the streets…

    If it is a right wing pundit you might get a little love for some fiscal conservatism, but they’ll immediately turn to “giving heroine to children” and other such nonsense.

    (Of course Johnson had to go and have his 3 goof-ups that get hit every time his name comes up too)

    It is working perfectly. My brother is a pretty conservative attorney who would normally not consider Trump to be even a sane person. But he’s got one and only one impression of Johnson. “That guy is goofy”. He knows the Aleppo bit, the foreign leader bit and the goofy tongue thing. That’s all he’s really going to know too, because now he’s not a serious candidate and need not be considered.

    1. Well, he’s right, Johnson is goofy. Hard to deny that. But so is Trump, just in a different way. Trump is brash blowhard goofy, Johnson is quiet sill goofy. There’s nothing even remotely funny about Hillary.

    2. Gary’s coattails are going to change a LOT of bad laws. The impostors he beat for the nomination are gonna have to quit bullying girls and quit legalizing murder. And if Gary’s still moving his lips while trying to finish reading the entire Platform, he’ll be one up on both looter candidates. He may even be a clueless bumbler, but he’s OUR clueless bumbler and running on a sane platform it takes thirty minutes to read.

      1. Hell Yeah!!!

  6. I don’t remember seeing this at Reason yet, but Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did an interview with Gary Johnson last week.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRezqAy9svE

    Triumph interviews are reliably funny, but his interview with Johnson was notably not so for an interesting reason–the things people used to laugh at us for make us seem perfectly rational against the two major parties.

    Our ideas seem a lot less funny and a lot more mainstream than they used to, too. When Triumph asks Johnson if Libertarians aren’t really just people who don’t want to pay taxes but want to get high, Johnson answers in the affirmative–and it’s like Triumph suddenly realizes that isn’t ridiculous at all.

    1. Wow. …. he’s just not that good on his feet.

      Wasn’t he better at this last time?

      1. He’s being interviewed by a vulgar puppet who’s trying to make fun of him. If the comedy routine doesn’t go over, it isn’t the straight man’s fault.

        The awkwardness if because the jokes don’t work. Most of them don’t work because the assumptions behind them have gone stale. Being libertarian just isn’t so ridiculous anymore.

        1. That’s fair too. Insult comic phoned it in a bit. Gary seemed a bit lost trying to keep up.

          I wish he could go in to full throated rant mode on all of these topics at the drop of a hat. Kinda like half of HnR’s denizens can rip off 5 minutes on any libertarian issue without even being prompted.

          His best line – yes to paying less taxes and smoking weed – was also his biggest whiff. It was a perfect spot to go full “rant mode” and thunder about individual liberty, self determination, NAP, etc. But he just went with an awkward “yes”.

          Gonna say it again.. We need to recruit Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson. Coach him up for 3 years and he’ll be lights out in time for the next election.

      2. Yes, he was better last time. The dumbass stopped smoking weed cold turkey the day before the campaign. He seems to have a pretty heavy case of the brain scamble that is typically involved in quitting heavy use of a substance for several months afterwards. I’m not sure who the idiot is that advised him to do that, but stoned Gary last year was a lot more ‘sharp as a knife’ that this years Gary. The guy is visibly confused a lot. Did you see that Samantha Bee debacle? That was cringe worthy to say the least. Gary: Did you know I have a nickname? Do you want to know what it is? Ye gads.

        1. The most cringe-worthy thing I heard him say so far was on the Fifth Column, when he outright apologized to the Three Musketeers for not being a better candidate, expressed confidence that they could do better, but thanked them for supporting him anyway.

          I dunno, maybe Petersen would have been better. Oh well.

        2. He’s being interviewed by a puppet that’s trying to make him look ridiculous. If it only came across as awkward rather than funny, that means Johnson won.

          If it had come across as really funny, that would have meant Triumph had made Johnson look like a fool. Are you not familiar with the way Triumph works?

          This is what Triumph was trying to do to Johnson:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CzbXA53I24

          Johnson won. Triumph lost.

          1. Triumph had made Johnson look like a fool. Are you not familiar with the way Triumph works?

            Fool For Your Love.

            +1 Allied Forces

        3. Beware: lips that touch reefer will never touch Hype’s.

          1. Oh horseshit, I’ve smoked weed quite a bit, it’s been a while, but I’ve smoked with females also, including ones I’ve slept with.

            I am 100% pro-cannabis and 100% support for legalizing all drugs.

            That has nothing to do with Gary’s goofiness.

            1. And since you left that one hanging…. I’m 100% pro-“having sex with females”.

              Just coverin’ all the bases.

        4. He didn’t smoke it. He only used edibles. I wish people would stop making that false accusation.

          1. I think since most people smoke it, or vape it, rather than eat it, most people just assumed Gary smoked it. That’s not a false accusation, it’s just a mistake.

            1. In places where it’s legal, the trend is far more towards edibles.

        5. Did you see that Samantha Bee debacle?

          You mean the “interview” that was no doubt selectively edited to only include the parts where he came off as goofy and/ or confused? That “Samantha Bee debacle”? The only thing that proved is that Samantha was ahead of her media cohorts in trashing Johnson in an effort to ensure her millennial viewers stayed on the Democrap plantation.

          1. If anything it came across as him being in on the joke the entire time. Maybe not what you want to see your candidate do but I don’t buy that he was utterly confused at what was going on.

  7. I was looking forward to voting for GJ, but now am seriously thinking about not voting at all. Its not that my opinion of GJ has changed-its that this election is perhaps the biggest farce I have ever seen, so why should I participate? There is nobody down ballot to vote for really, our dem congressman always gets 70% of the vote no matter what and will probably get 80% this year, and a couple of ballot questions in Virginia about property tax relief for surviving spouses of police and firefighters killed on duty and a right-to-work question. I would vote yes on both, but am not really passionate about either.

    1. Suck it up, go down and vote for Johnson and any other (L) you can find on the ticket. Plus, you’ve got to go vote against a bunch of ballot initiative stuff that is stupid. There’s always stupid initiatives on the ballot that need a good “no” vote.

      And then you can deal with all of the judicial candidates. People who aren’t allowed to have campaign positions, so you just have to go off of their name, photo, what their family looks like and what the Bar Association says. It makes me so proud to live in a democracy. (and leaves me ever so confident in the talent, skill and temperament of the judges, should I ever have to deal with the legal system, knowing how they are chosen.)

      1. For judicial appointments, I vote against anyone I have heard of.

      2. The right-to-work question is an amendment to prohibit requiring employees to join a union, so I would vote yes on this.

        The property tax exemption is for surviving spouses who do not re-marry if their spouse was a police officer or firefighter killed in the line of duty. I will always vote yes on anything that lowers taxes or does not raise them.

        Fortunately, judges are not elected in Virginia, only the DAs and local/state elections are in odd number years. So not really much to vote for-but I probably will out of habit.

      3. It’s really about playing the long game at this point, getting the LP 5%+ of the popular vote and the ballot access and funding perks that will hopefully attract a better slate of LP presidential (and down ballot) candidates four years from now and ultimately pave the way for the LP to replace the GOP. Johnson/Weld are a means to an end, I hope.

      4. then you can deal with all of the judicial candidates

        I always start from a position of voting “no” and then do a little research to see if there’s any compelling reason to change my mind. Note: an endorsement from the bar association is not sufficient to change my mind. And if prosecutors have anything positive to say about them, then there’s no way I’m voting to retain them.

    2. “…There is nobody down ballot to vote for really, our dem congressman always gets 70% of the vote no matter…”

      Exactly 3 candidates out of, oh, 30 on my ballot got a vote, but I wasn’t about to pass up on voting “no” on every single tax and bond issue, and there were nearly as many of those.

      1. That really is pretty satisfying.

        It makes me appreciate what fun being Ron Paul in the House would have been. “No.” “No.” “Uh…. No.”

        Ultimately pointless, but still quite satisfying.

        1. BTW, there was one that looked like a bond issue, but it was actually a proposal to limit the ability of the state to issue bonds for bone-headed projects like moonbeam’s choo-choo. Any bonds totaling over a certain amount MUST go to the voters for approval.
          I hope people read that rather than reacted to the name.

          1. I love those…. then the Secretary of State drafts a short-version description designed to obfuscate the issues that they want defeated:

            “Shall the State of California not be required to seek the approval of a plurality of the electorate when issuing state backed credit instruments meeting or exceeding certain requirements as set forth elsewhere….”

            Wait, what? I vote no to get no bonds without a vote of… OK, I’m confused.

        2. Anyone who understands the Solomon Asch experiments understands that even a fake libertarian like Ron Paul reduces by 15% the looters’ ability to sucker idiots into lying about a simple fact of reality. Three Populist congressmen elected in 1892 sufficed to put part of the communist manifesto into law in 1894. The Populists only got 8.5% of the presidential vote. WE are the 25% who can’t be bullshitted by crowds. Fortunately, a voting minority can change the laws and preserve individual rights.

      2. “…There is nobody down ballot to vote for really…”

        I voted absentee ballot, and was pleasantly surprised to see an L candidate for senator and congress. The Ls were also included in the vote straight party option box.

        Some of the state and local races featured only Rs and Ds, and, after some brief deliberation, I left those blank. I’m at the point where I’m suspicious of anyone who, in 2016 and with the current presidential race, is still willing to publicly identify as a Dem or Rep. I’m almost embarrassed for them.

    3. It may comfort you to know that your vote (or lack thereof) will have no effect on the outcome of any election.

      1. Neither does commenting here, but I see you still do…

        1. Yes I’m unusual in that I do many things that have no effect on the outcome of elections. Just last night I ate chicken tenders while watching the Walking Dead.

          1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty abstract.

      2. I am well aware of that might vote will not have any effect on the outcome, Hugh-but ultimately, it is satisfying to know that I will be doing what I can to prevent either of the two major party turds from being president, or at least depriving the winner of a mandate. I’m guessing that turnout this year will be down too, so maybe my vote will count a wee bit more.

      3. I wasn’t aware of that and I’m really glad you mentioned it so that I could correct my ignorance of the subject. You’re clearly a pretty sharp cookie.

      4. Hugh misconstrues outcome. Prohibitionists passed the 18th Amendment with 1.4% of the vote on average. Their real purpose was prohibition. It was NOT to elect Wooley, Hanly, Levering or Bidwell. OUR real purpose is to undo the work of such mystical looters and altruists and restore freedom. I’ve voted for some LP candidates since 1980, and straight ticket since the early nineties. Already I see the effect in the laws and jurisprudence of the land.

      5. Not so sure it’s no effect. If Johnson manages to get to 5%, which I’m hopeful will happen, the libertarian party won’t have to jump through hoops to get on the ballot in all 50 states like they always have to do. I think this was even mentioned in the podcast interview.

        And, while I expect Hillary will win, I would be ecstatic to find out she got well under 50% of the votes. As it stands, she will get a pass from the press and probably a pass from Congress, so it will at least give some legitimacy to declaring that she has no mandate.

        As for Trump, if he someone manages to win, I expect that he will get nothing but resistance from the press and Congress. It’s just a shame they won’t muster one tenth of that for a Pres. Hill., but I’m sure they won’t.

    4. Apathy is a perfectly legitimate response, and starving the system of legitimacy through nonparticipation is a perfectly legitimate strategy.

    5. The sweet music of mystical bigots pouting and whining in anticipation of getting their snouts bloodied by a girl–then replaced by actual rights-respecting free-market riverboat gambler libertarians. More, please… I’m loving this!

    6. a couple of ballot questions in Virginia about property tax relief for surviving spouses of police and firefighters killed on duty and a right-to-work question. I would vote yes on both

      I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for the property tax relief for spouses of police and firefighters. While on one hand I can see voting yes from the standpoint of voting yes on any and all tax relief, but the problem is it’s not a general tax cut, it’s a special privilege for a specific interest group. Fuck that, I say. But that’s just my $0.02, and it doesn’t matter since I don’t live in VA.

      1. That’s a good point-tax cuts for some just raise taxes for everyone else. It sounds cold-hearted and assholeish but you are right…There was a similar question on tax relief for military veterans’ survivors a few years back too- sooner or later, there will be property tax relief for every group who has suffered some kind of loss.

  8. Another day, another leak. This time, Hillary states that she wants Obamacare to “unravel,” and that she would repeal the Cadillac Tax if Republicans passed it:

    “Given the politics now w bipartisan support including Schumer, I’ll support repeal w ‘sense of the Senate’ that revenues would have to be found. I’d be open to a range of options to do that. But we have to be careful that the R version passes which begins the unraveling of the ACA.”

    The argument in the link is that Hillary would then push for a public option which is the holy grail of progressive politics at this point in time, though that’s speculative and not officially stated.

    Does Reason bother to cover it?

    1. Wasnt HillaryCare very similar to ObamaCare?

      Why is she not supporting it now?

      1. HillaryCare included the public option and centralized health care administration with the states. It was essentially what Obamacare will be when the parts of it that were designed to fail fail.

      2. I guess that depends on what you consider to be an essential component of a plan. If you’re focused on single-payer/public option or employer mandate?

        Then no. ObamaCare is closer to RomneyCare which is closer to the Republican counter-proposal in the 90s.

        That said, HilaryCare was 20 years ago. I think it’s within the realm of possibility that she’s reconsidered her position since then.

    2. I don’t think we’ll see much effort at doing anything with the ACA in Hillary’s first term. I think it will be an all out assault on the 2nd amendment and getting involved in as many middle east conflicts as possible as well as starting some new ones.

      1. We’ll also have WWIII to look forward to. That’ll be fun.

  9. It ought to be clear that sane, honest people don’t want to hold political office.

    1. The ones that do, don’t last long against the backstabbing sociopaths who are naturally drawn towards positions of power.

  10. Whatever happened to the mp3 downloads I so enjoy while bike riding or walking the dog? Soundcloud claims to let me download these, but will not specify the Music folder, so that I can’t find the audio.

    1. Get yourself a podcast app like Stitcher or Overcast. You can subscribe to Reason podcasts that way.

      1. Thanks. I just posted the 2016 platform in Portuguese audio using a Dropbox link. My thumb-sized mp3 player wants the audio file plain and simple. I finally listened on the Mac and was impressed that the LP had managed to attract Nicholas’ kind of ability.

  11. Guys, you’re missing out on all the real action, upstream in the latest brilliant Dalmia article.

    1. No thanks, I’ll pass. This thread is retarded enough.

      1. Although at least this one started off with a sarcasmic daily fail link to Liz Hurley in a bikini. That was the proper way to start off a thread.

    2. Pass. I just finished my lunch, I’d like it to stay in my stomach.

  12. …the LP’s bold new strategy of running electable, pragmatic candidates…

    Oh shit, the LP ’bout to fail the purity test.

    1. Michael Hihn will be happier than he’s been at any time since the Civil War!

      1. He was probably happier during his misspent youth before a bunch of ANTI-GUMMINT GOOBERS got together in Philadelphia and signed a document declaring people to have inalienable rights, which led to 96% OF PEOPLE REJECTING THE LIBERTARIAN LABEL. It’s all been downhill for him since 1776.

  13. What’s bold and new about running the same guy they did last time, exactly?

    Is the VP slot the bold and new part?

    1. Look, the Kleptocracy parties run useless troublemakers when they know the other soft machine is gonna win. The Goldwater campaign was to show people like Ayn Rand that the GOP was different from the NSDAP. Letting Mondale run against the Gipper was another such lamb-to-slaughter gambit.

  14. Good interview. I liked the “taco truck analogy,” as well as the section about Ross Perot having enough of an influence on polling that Clinton knew if he wanted to win a second term he had to cut the budget.

    1. More to the point would have been the realization that after Ralph Nader ran on the Green platform and the Dems realized the Green platform got 500% of the spoiler votes Dems needed in order to “win,” (=elect THEIR looter) they preempted the entire Green platform all the way down to death camps for deniers. Econazis don’t get any more votes because the Dems ALREADY ran off with their entire platform.

  15. RE: Running “Someone Sane and Honest Is *Different*”: LP Chair on Gary Johnson’s Appeal

    Leading the unwashed masses into the final stages of the Glorious Peoples Revolution requires cruelty, selfishness, dishonesty and whenever possible, insanity. How else are you going to have a perfect workers paradise if you don’t have people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Trump or Hillary leading the way?
    Honesty and sanity is the best way to lose an election, especially in this country.

  16. Five months ago,after getting fired from my j0b , i’ve been blessed t0 find 0ut ab0ut this amazing site 0nline that was a lifesaver… They 0ffer 0nline h0me-based w0rk. My last m0nth check after w0rking with them f0r three m0nths was 38699 d0llars… Amazing thing ab0ut it was that 0nly thing required is basic typing and internet access…. http://WWW.NAVJOBS99.TK
    ???????????????????????????????

  17. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  18. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  19. my best friends mum got an awesome red MINI Cooper Coupe by working part-time off of a laptop. website link.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-online.jobs14.com

  20. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  21. 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 $100 per hour. I work through this link

    ???????????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  22. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  23. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  24. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  25. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.