MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gov. Gary Johnson on Burqa Ban: 'My Response Was Wrong'

The 2012 LP presidential candidate says "banning face veils wouldn't work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights."

Reason TVReason TVIn a Q&A with Reason.com yesterday, Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico (1995 to 2003), announced his bid to head the LP ticket again in 2016.

Surprisingly, he also came out in favor of banning the burqa in public, telling me that he'd sign such a law if it crossed his desk as president. That statement perplexed many people on Twitter, on Facebook, and at Reason.com as incompatible with libertarian ideals of minimal government and freedom of religion.

A short time ago, I received an exclusive statement from the Johnson campaign, in which the candidate says bluntly, "My response was wrong....it is clear that banning face veils wouldn't work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights."

Here is the full, unedited statement from Gov. Johnson:

In an interview with Reason Wednesday, I was asked about a ban on women wearing burqas. The question came in a discussion of Sharia law and its incompatibility with the fundamental tenets of liberty. I answered the question in the context of the fact that, under Sharia law, women have no choice but to wear the burqa, and live under a system of law that not only allows, but condones, abuse of women. In that context, I stated that banning the full-face burqa, as was done in France, would be a reasonable step toward preventing signs of abuse from being hidden. My response was not about telling women what they can and cannot wear, but about protecting them from harm under a brutal ideology under which women have nothing resembling equal rights.

However, having had time to consider, my response was wrong. As with many well-intentioned ideas, a government-imposed ban on full-face coverings would have unintended consequences and likely result in government overreach. As governor, I vetoed many such well-intended laws, and on reflection, would in fact veto a government ban on full face burqas. While the law must provide protection for women from abuse, it is clear that banning face veils wouldn’t work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights.

Sharia law is incompatible with the freedoms upon which America is founded, and it must not be overlooked that, under Sharia ideology, women have no rights, and are certainly not free to dress as they wish. Imposing such a system on women under some guise of freedom of religion or expression is not acceptable under any notion of liberty. On that point I am firm. But a government ban on an item of clothing might well have the consequence of restricting, not protecting, freedom.

Johnson's official campaign site is here.

The Daily Beast's Andrew Kirell talks with Johnson and writes:

Admitting that his decidedly un-libertarian proposal rankled the feathers of many libertarians (and non-libertarians), Johnson told The Daily Beast: "I would not sign that legislation because I think that it would end up being government intrusion on you or I... I gave Reason the honest kneejerk response and if I'm wrong, I’m wrong."

Yesterday's Q&A, in which Johnson also rates each of the major Democratic and Republican candidates running for their party's nominations, is here.

Last July, Reason TV interviewed Johnson about what he had learned from his 2012 campaign experience; why he believes in balanced budgets, social freedoms, and a non-interventionist foreign policy; why he thinks Donald Trump is appealing to "racist" voters; and why he no longer wants "anything to do with" the Republican Party. Watch below:

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.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Golds almost down to 1000.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Wives happy everywhere.

  • Pathogen||

    "infringing on basic rights"? Really? Ha! .. now quaint. Now, to the kook table with you, nutjob.. You've been Trumped™.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    and on reflection, would in fact veto a government ban on full face burqas.

    Americans want their leader to believe they are infallible. Apologies are for losers.

    I plan on throwing my vote away on him.

  • Microaggressor||

    I live in Washington, so is it possible to not throw away my vote?
    Guess it'll be going to Gary.

  • The Last American Hero||

    For President - vote Libertarian. I do as a way to send the message to the TEAMS that there are votes for the taking if they could lean a little toward the Team L platform.

  • Homple||

    How many votes? is the important question.

  • flaPjacks||

    There are literally hundred of us. I'll vote for Gary Johnson again. He's the kind of guy I'd like to smoke pot on a chairlift with.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Thank you Hero. "The case for voting libertarian" is precisely that we have a good platform even if some of our volunteer candidates are wimps or impostors. How many votes did the greenback, anti-monopoly, populist, and socialist parties aggregate between 1880 and 1914? Nobody got elected, but they got ENOUGH votes to twice cow looter congressmen into moving the income tax plank from the communist manifesto of 1848 into federal law and finally into the Constitution, where it has crippled the economy ever since. Now, how many votes has the LP gotten since 1971? About 2.5 times what the looters say we have been getting these past 43 years. (From 1880 to 1914 the difference is 34 years). WE are repealing prohibition!
    You have only your chains to lose...

  • Ugh||

    You're going to throw your vote away on an old man who has already run as an LP presidential candidate, who doesn't immediately understand that banning a clothing item goes against libertarian philosophy in the most fundamental way possible. We're not talking about unintended consequences or indirect effects being negative for liberty, the original purpose of the law is anti-liberty! This isn't a complicated issue and he isn't a novice libertarian.

    If he had a D after his name instead of an L, you would say he was just cynically reversing his position because of the negative reaction to his statements. He's on your TEAM however, so that doesn't apply.

  • mr simple||

    What's the better option?

  • FreeToFear||

    Obviously one of the team red candidates who actually would sign that burqa law obviously! Because even if they're not libertarian either, at least you're not using what little influence you have to indicate your real preferences throwing your vote away!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Laws are passed and enforced based on platforms, not the spittle of grinning collectivists. The income tax amendment was NOT in the Democratic party platform any more than the prohibition amendment was in the Republican platform when it passed. Those cowardly looters simply jumped on the bandwagon already set in motion by the misplaced integrity of altruist dupes voting their coercive consciences. History has shown us those beliefs and values led to the Depression, Siberia, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-baden, Soldau, Warsau, Sobibor, Dachau, enslavement in Vietnam, the Todes-schutzen at the Berlin Wall, the slums of Venezuela and the People's State of North Korea.
    Reality and integrity are on our side (not that of the GOP, Federalists or Whigs). What we need are noncowardly libertarian candidates like Morgan Freeman.

  • ||

    Admits error. Well, that disqualifies him from office.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Really. "My response was wrong"?? You're supposed to say that you misspoke, amateur. Fuckin' amateurs!

  • D.D. Driver||

    The even more savvy approach is to say that your views have "evolved."

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Republican and Democratic PARTIES (the ones that make tax laws) have never once in recorded history admitted error. The Dems already saddled us with the Jimmy Carter disaster, and the New Mexico Gary Johnson (not the competent libertarian Gary Johnson in Austin Texas) is basically a Republican Jimmy Carter. In fact, in 1980 the commies and dems called libertarians "pot-smoking republicans." The last thing we need is a William Jennings Bryan.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You must never, ever, ever, EVER admit error!!!

    A WAY fundamental lesson for all power pigs, throughout the Local Galactic Cluster-Fuck, and for 153,000,000 light-years, and beyond... If'n ye are FALLIBLE, ahs can NUT vote fer YE, case closed!!!!

  • ||

    Sad.

    But not as sad as this:

    Walmart wedding proposal

  • ||

    "But the couple’s engagement quickly became rocky."

    Looking at their photos I never would have guessed that. Nope. Not in a million years.

  • Sexbot||

    "Included in the haul was a “Bride-To-Be” thong, a $14.99 vibrator, “BJ Blast” oral sex candy, and a $5.99 edible thong"

    Sounds like a blast of a honeymoon, though.

  • ||

    I feel sorry for those kids. They don't have a chance. He's going to marry her, knock her up and she'll have a few retarded ugly kids they can't afford. They won't be able to get decent jobs because obviously they have no education and penchant for getting caught at shoplifting. They'll both get so obese on food stamps that they'll be at Walmart every month riding their huvarounds and screaming at their retarded kids. Fuck it man, that's terrible.

  • Zeb||

    I sort of assumed he'd already knocked her up.

  • Zeb||

    Some other choice bits about the guy:

    When the police found him he had nodded off in the mall food court, apparently while tying his shoes.

    He was on probation for beating up some black guys who walked by his house.

    Real winners. I'm sure they'll make a charming life together.

  • Rhywun||

    I think I saw them on Springer.

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    Well, I'm all lit up again
    27, for the ring
    Yes, I'm all lit up again
    I love the cocaine, I love the cocaine

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I just see white privelge. We all know if they were black the police would have murder/raped them.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Walmart wedding proposal

    Crusty and/or Warty would.

  • ||

    Why does Gary look so mad? Hey Gary, you mad bro?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Color me impressed. It's a rare thing for someone to come out so quickly and admit they were wrong. This is great. Now I am back to feeling about about voting for Gary.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'd vote for Gary for Governor of NM. That's his weight class. What we need is an alternative to Bernie and that broad, and the former governor ain't it. He isn't even a libertarian! Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian! Morgan Freeman would give black voters a chance to redeem themselves after having been duped by the Kristallnacht Communist, and would offer young women an alternative to being disarmed, raped and murdered. I'll proudly send him some money!

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'll be impressed when he admits to being an idiot for abandoning an eminently winnable senate run for a vain and pointless presidential campaign.

  • Hank Phillips||

    There's that too...

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "If you're going to wear a burqa, don't even *think* of showing your face around here!"

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

  • Nyarlarrythotep||

    Burqa?? I hardly know her!

  • DaveH||

    It is a rare and refreshing event when a pol admits he was wrong. Of more concern, however, is the fact that his instant, snap-judgement, knee-jerk response was authoritarian. Might it be said that even the scent of power corrupts?

  • DenverJ||

    I don't think "that his instant, snap-judgement, knee-jerk response was authoritarian."
    I think it was distaste at the way women are forced to wear the burka, and that represents the complete lack of rights that women have under sharia law.

  • Ugh||

    You don't think a ban on an item of clothing would be authoritarian?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Good for you, Gary; I like you again.

    Now he has to answer for the sport coat/t-shirt combination he was pictured wearing in yesterday's story. You are running to become president, not to become America's concert promoter.

  • ||

    So many fashion Nazis here.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am kidding, but "looking the part" is important, and both him and Rand Paul seem to have an issue with that.

  • ||

    I am kidding

    That's EXACTLY what they said at Fashion Nuremberg.

  • ||

    Mode macht frei?

    /Seen above the Aucshwitz runway

  • Ted S.||

    Hugo Boss says yes.

  • DenverJ||

    You know who else was a Nazi?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Charles Lindbergh?

  • Microaggressor||

    Bernie?

  • ||

    Joe Kennedy?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Yev Kassem?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Outstanding, DwT.

  • DenverJ||

    That's it, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

  • Sexbot||

    Allison Doody?

  • DenverJ||

    I would let her sit on my fascist...

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Is Gilmore the Fuhrer?

    And dammit, jesse, some of us need daily guidance on these issues. I grew up in 80s, "don't do sport coat/t-shirt" is useful advice!

  • Zeb||

    I used to do the t-shirt/sport coat thing. Lots of pockets to carry things in. Sport coats are the original man-purse.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Sport coats are the original man-purse.

    I do agree with that.

  • JeremyR||

    Eh, the problem is that once there is a critical mass of burqa wearers, it becomes something that gets expected and enforced.

    Look at Germany - women were targets of Muslim rape (or at least grope) gangs because they weren't dressed in Burqas and the local mayor blamed the women for who they dressed..

    It's really not a cut and dried issue. In a free society sure, people should be able to dress how they want. But when the way people dress is part of an attempt to take over society and dictate the norms, well, sometimes freedom is how you lose your country/society/culutre.

  • ||

    Eh, the problem is that once there is a critical mass of burqa wearers, it becomes something that gets expected and enforced.

    Like wearing pants in public?

  • The Hyperbole||

    Don't act stupid, you know good and well what he means, it's like back in the eighties. Remember when we had that critical mass of mullets and backward facing ballcaps? and then everyone was forced by rule of law to dress that way? That what's gonna happen, you just wait.

  • ||

    The cultural tide has turned, once again to high-waisted jeans. This horror can only be stopped with a constitutional amendment banning early-'90s fashion and possibly the return of the Full House cast in the insidious vehicle "Fuller House."

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fuller House and Sandler movies? Why, Netflix, why?

  • Lee G||

    I'm partial to the fashion of Crockett and Tubbs myself

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    Thank the gods! I have had my fill of muffin tops (male and female). At least high-waisted jeans might restrain a larger portion of the overflowing adipose.

  • DenverJ||

    I liked the mullet. I rocked the mullet. I looked good in a mullet. But, that was when I had hair... (starts reminiscing about high school while absent mindedly rubbing his bald spot)

  • ||

    My mom thought a rat tail would be cute on me when I was three in the mid-eighties. History has not been kind to that belief of hers.

  • DenverJ||

    No the rat trail was always horrible. That's child abuse.

  • lap83||

    That reminds me of the perm my Mom gave me when I was about 7 for my school picture. I also had a missing front tooth. It turned out as great as it sounds.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That reminds me of the perm my Mom gave me when I was about 7 for my school picture. I also had a missing front tooth.

    If you ever go back to the "perm and missing tooth" look let me know. Thanks.

  • lap83||

    It would probably be less cute now, but I will

  • Swiss Servator||

    when I was three in the mid-eighties

    I was an E-5 in 1986... *stares off, wondering where years went*

  • See Double You||

    Funny you're so old, Swiss, 'cause I always pictured you younger than me.

  • AFSlade||

    "Old King Cole was a merry old soul,
    a merry old soul was he.
    He called for his pipe and he called for his bowl and he called for his Sergeants three.
    Left right left said the Sergeants.
    I need a three day pass said the Corporals
    Beer! Beer! Beer! Said the Privates."

  • DenverJ||

    What are "pants"?

  • ||

    An evil social construct imposed on us by inferior cultures who fear decreased productivity if people of the opposite sex were to see each others reproductive organs.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Until I started riding my motorcycle everywhere, I eschewed pants as often as possible. Kilts FTW.

  • Marty Comanche||

    You mean whom they dressed.

    But, you're right. The problem is that the burqa is itself a tool of oppression; a way to make women almost literally invisible in society. I don't know of a solution beyond making examples of people who engage in honor killings and other violence against women.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I think you are right and all you can do while not violating basic rights is to punish violence and coercion against women (or anyone) severely and make sure everyone knows it.

    If it's somehow not already illegal in all states to force someone to wear a burka, it should be. But it's definitely not a matter for federal legislation and it's definitely a violation of rights to ban the wearing of a particular type of clothing.

  • Rhywun||

    I think this is a problem that solves itself. I live in a heavily middle-eastern neighborhood and I see every level of covering-up and it's not causing any issues that I can see. Unsurprisingly, the younger generation is much less likely to be beburqaed.

  • robc||

    We have to destroy the village to save it.

  • Jordan||

    Eh, the problem is that once there is a critical mass of burqa wearers, it becomes something that gets expected and enforced.

    Look at Germany - women were targets of Muslim rape (or at least grope) gangs because they weren't dressed in Burqas and the local mayor blamed the women for who they dressed..

    This makes no sense. Are you seriously contending that if Germany had banned the burqa, those assaults wouldn't have happened?

  • Zeb||

    Seems like an equally good argument for requiring burkas.

  • Sexbot||

    If it saves just one life....

  • Marty Comanche||

    No sense whatsoever? You don't see how a government ban on burqas would frustrate the efforts of anybody trying to intimidate women of the local community into wearing burqas?

  • Jordan||

    I don't see how it would stop gangs of gropers/rapists from groping/raping.

  • Quincy.||

    “The biggest change, a subtle one, was in the shoppers themselves. Like all shopping centers— though naturally, in a much less spectacular way than those in La Défense or Les Halles— Italie 2 had always attracted a fair amount of riff raff. They’d completely disappeared. Also, women’s clothing had been transformed. I felt the change at once, but I couldn’t put into words. The number of Muslim veils had increased only slightly— it wasn’t this. I spent almost an hour walking around before it hit me: all the women were wearing pants. To visualize a woman’s thighs and to mentally reconstruct her pussy where the thighs intersect— a process whose power of excitation is directly proportional to the length of the bare leg was so involuntary and mechanical with me, so genetic you might say, that it took me a while to notice what was missing: no more dresses or skirts. Women were wearing a new garment, a kind of long cotton smock, ending at mid-thing, which eliminated any objective interest in the tight pants that some women might potentially wear; as for shorts, these were obviously out of the question. The contemplation of women’s asses, that small, dreamy consolation, had also become impossible. A transformation was indeed under way. There’d been a fundamental shift. Several hours of channel surfing revealed no further changes, but then soft-core porn had gone out of fashion years before.”

  • Sevo||

    "But when the way people dress is part of an attempt to take over society and dictate the norms, well, sometimes freedom is how you lose your country/society/culutre."

    An attempt to take over society by a 1 or 2% minority!

  • Quincy.||

    Look up one comment.

  • Sevo||

    I presumed that was sarc.

  • Ugh||

    We should also ban suits and ties so that men won't be pressured to wear them to interviews and business meetings.

    Kidding aside, once you open the door to this kind of paternalism, it's game over for liberty. Once you start restricting choice because some people make choices for bad reasons, there's no moral high ground left for you.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    The teachings of Islam are a refutation of the non-aggression principle. There is no rational basis for a libertarian to make accommodations for what is essentially a degenerate insistence on holding a medieval world view.

  • Jordan||

    It's totally not "degenerate" or "medieval" when we use violence to force people to dress how we like, right?

  • DenverJ||

    I hear they have nekkid people in Times Square.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Are we talking about a hypothetical Gary Johnson government, or Muslim men?

  • Zeb||

    It's either a principle or it isn't. You're saying that the only way to be a libertarian is not to be a libertarian. And respecting basic human rights is not making accommodations. Punish people who abuse women, that's all you can do.

  • John||

    You can't have a libertarian society consistent with Islam. Either the Muslims have to give up on parts of being Muslims or society has to sop being libertarian there is no middle ground.

  • Zeb||

    Society is libertarian?

    Yes, Muslims have to give up on doing certain things. Mostly things that are already against the law. You can't hide behind religious freedom if you are harming someone.

  • Ugh||

    You can't have a libertarian society consistent with Islam.

    You're going to have to flesh that claim out a bit. If you're saying that the Quran is unlibertarian, then (a) no shit Sherlock, and (b) so is every other religious text and most ideological manifestos. But we don't throw libertarian principles out the window when dealing with Christians or vegetarians.

  • ||

    We are all given to error. Being able to admit that just put Gary back at the top of my list. It shows character.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Maybe you had one too many doobies, grandpa!

  • DenverJ||

    So what would happen if I walked into a bank, or just a convenience store, with my face completely covered?
    I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it seems extremely anti-social, at best, to completely hide your face. It's worse that those mirrored sunglasses all the cops wear above their 70's-porn-star mustache.

  • Zeb||

    Depending where you are, I would seem weird. Possibly threatening if they have reason to fear a robbery.

    I could see an argument for a ban on covering your face in certain situations in public places or businesses. And businesses certainly should be allowed to decline to accommodate people who won't uncover their faces. But a ban on a specific kind of face covering only is a bit different.

  • Raven Nation||

    I seem to recall there was a debate somewhere in Europe about whether women should be allowed to wear a burqa when having their ID 'photo taken.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A more interesting debate would be would they have to raise their burqa when an official is trying to verify their identity with the photo?

  • Dallas H.||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In Trudeau's Canada, a ten year prison sentence.

  • DenverJ||

    One more reason to avoid Canuckistan. That and Rufus, of course.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Date from that article is 2013.. So Harper. Not that Zoolander will get rid of this law.

  • Artimus||

    Uh, if you read the story that was Harpoon's Canada, and he's been sent packing.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yeah, my feeling is that (while we should ruthlessly fight any sort of coercion being employed to keep women in burqas), we should otherwise treat it no different from wearing a balaclava. And that means there are cases where it should be banned, for reasons of practicality rather than morality.

  • Jerryskids||

    There actually are places where wearing masks or coverings over your face in public is illegal - there was some controversy over the fact that they had just technically made trick-or-treaters wearing the full costume criminals - and it is just for those "public safety" reasons. (No it isn't, they passed the law specifically to keep those people in white hoods and sheets that ain't trick-or-treating from being able to parade around anonymously but they couldn't actually say it's only for one particular group because that would be unconstitutional.)

    My question is: If you have a "public safety" law that prohibits masks or face coverings or hoods in public, is an exemption for religious reasons going to have that same "strict scrutiny" test weighing down the scales that allows for people to do other kinds of crap as long as they're doing it in the name of god but not if they're doing it in the name of because it's a free country?

  • Jerryskids||

    Of course, the ban on covering your face in public flies under the "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" rule.

  • Rhywun||

    Sometimes I'm riding my elevator at home with a lady in a burqa and I do find it kind of creepy - I have no idea how to interact with the person, either. Really the only thing to do is pretend they aren't there, which seems to be the intent anyway.

  • IceTrey||

    You should be super chatty.

  • Ugh||

    In some places that is illegal, though with the silly jurisprudence we have now, any attempt to enforce the law against a person with a religious face covering would probably be thrown out in court.

    In Libertopia it would be up to the property owner whether to require people to have their faces uncovered and whether there should be an exemption for religious reasons.

  • GILMORE™||

    DONT CALL IT A FLIP FLOP, HE'S BEEN HERE FOR YEARS

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Good man.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I voted for GJ in 2012 and probably will again in 2016.

    The candidates suck worse than ever (and that includes Kerry/Bush in 2004 - the all time prior worst).

    Obama-Romney were the best two candidates in my voting life.

  • DenverJ||

    Obama vs McCain was the worst choice in my voting life. Romney was no piker, but compared to that asshat Obama, he was positively Cincinnatus.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Anything with Dumbya in it was the worst. Worst POTUS in history when reelected.

    Mr. Team Red - Bratfart is waiting for you.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And Kerry lost to that draft-dodging buffoon in 2004. Kerry was the most boring speaker in history. By the third word out of his mouth people were nodding off.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

  • See Double You||

    Obama-Romney were the best two candidates in my voting life.

    If this were anyone else, it would be damning with faint praise.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Who were the best two then? (since 1984 since it is MY voting lifetime).

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Gary Hart. Hands down.

  • ||

    Not Bob Dole?

  • SIV||



    Palin's Buttplug|1.7.16 @ 7:41PM|#

    I voted for GJ in 2012 and probably will again in 2016.

    TEAM GayJay!

  • Pathogen||

    "Obama-Romney were the best two candidates in my voting life."

    Bwaaaaahaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!... *gasp*.. Haaahahahahahaha!

    This.. this is why I love you PB... marry me..

  • Lee G||

    Score one for Gary, for not only correcting his position but explaining why in articulate and reasoned terms

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Gay Jay 2016!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Jezebel discusses a new, and of course problematic, sorority recruitment video.

    Take a look and you'll see how problematic it is.

  • See Double You||

    This better be worth it, Eddie.

    *watches video*

    I can see why the Jezzies have mixed feelings about the burqa.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Banal hot chicks do hot chick stuff in hot chick video. Not hot chicks pissed off.

  • ||

    I don't get it. I read it twice trying to figure out what they are saying. Sorority has great recruitment video. And...?

  • mr simple||

    I knew I should have gone to UM. Stupid me wanting to go to a school for its educational standards.

  • sarcasmic||

    I for one plan to vote for Gary's Johnson.

  • See Double You||

    You're so Gay Jay.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hm. "Gay for Jay" bumper sticker?

  • See Double You||

    Get on that. Now.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Here's another recruitment video from yet another university.

  • See Double You||

    That one's more up jesse and Tonio's ally, along with that of our mythical female libertarians.

  • lap83||

    They seem happy

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So am I reading this right? Gary Johnson would mandate burqas for everyone? I'm not voting for that.

  • Sevo||

    If it's not banned, it's required!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Oh, and if you're Ukrainian Orthodox, or a Ukrainian Catholic in Ukraine,

    Merry Christmas!

    Today is Ukraine's official Christmas, but there's a movement to move it to December 25, so as to be more non-Russian.

    So enjoy it while you can!

  • Quincy.||

    Merry Bizarro World Christmas to you as well!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Like most UGCC people in North America, I'm a Dec 25 guy.

    But January 7 is Christmas on the Julian Calendar which, let me remind you, was North America's calendar up to 1750, before the English-speaking world finally caved in and accepted the papist Gregorian Calendar.

  • Quincy.||

    I kid.

    I just had a flash of how New Years Eve drunkenness being the prelude to the Christmas season, rather than it's end, would have worked out. Not well in my case.

    Seasons greetings.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    And now you can breathe easy, since there are no important holidays coming up any time soon!

  • Quincy.||

    I never know what to give people on Martin Luther King day. Does this make me a bad person?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "I never know what to give people on Martin Luther King day."

    Hmmm....once I've weeded out the truly offensive punch lines, there's not much left...

    Give someone your seat?

  • Quincy.||

    So, I don't have to shop anymore. Good to know.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Not so fast!

    these sales

    "Martin Luther King Day: though he fought for equal rights, not everyone gets the day off. Kind of ironic, but anyway, these sales don’t discriminate. Whether you’re working or just hanging out today, these 40 deals are totally worth checking out #silverlining."

    (from 2012, so these offers may have expired)

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Quincy.||

    So, now you see the commercialism inherent in the system of our oppression...

    #IDon'tKnowItSoundedSmart

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Violating the Thirteenth Amendment - on this of all days!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Just kidding, read the fine print and any confusion I may have sown will clear up.

  • Quincy.||

    Didn't get that far, the girls were kind of cute.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    This article from 2015 strains mightily to be offended at Martin Luther King Day promotions.

    I'll admit that the company selling white linens - including sheets - was acting in fairly poor taste.

  • grrizzly||

    You were not by chance in Rome two weeks ago, were you?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I'm afraid not.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    But I'm glad you had the chance - maybe I'll get to Rome sometime myself.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So, that pretty much clinches it. I was torn between writing in Rand and voting for Gary. Should Rand not get the Republican (spits) Nomination, Johnson it is.

    That's a stand-up piece of work, right there. Good on him.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    GJ is weak sauce (never forget the embarrassingly bad interview he gave EPJ where Robert Wenzel asked him some basic questions about Austrian vs. Chicago and Johnson didn't even seem to know the difference), but at least he's willing to act like a human being when he's wrong.

    Say what you will about the LP, but it's not a slick politician-as-celebrity factory unlike some parties.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Speaking as someone who voted for him (twice!)... Gary is NM Senator material. NM Governor is where he tops out.

    BTW, allow me to point out that, while he has apologized for this proposed violation of religious freedom (and rightly so), he has yet to apologize for supporting anti-discrimination laws for sexual preference. Guess it pays to be part of the religion that can do no wrong in the eyes of progressives.

  • commodious spittoon||

    You're a fellow New Mexican't? Have we been over this before?

  • DenverJ||

    I lived there for a couple of years, Truth Or Consequences. Also San Antonio (not Texas, the little town on i25 by the Bosque del Apache. There's a place there, I forget the name, but best chili cheese burger I ever had). Great place. I love the desert. Not a fan of Albuquerque.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Lived there for a bit. Liked it so much... that I moved next door, to AZ! Weird little place called Albuquerque, heh.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Nothing says Liberty like covering up your woman

  • Jerryskids||

  • lap83||

    I wear my full hazmat suit voluntarily

  • Quincy.||

    Kinky.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    When this guy shows up, if often marks the end of the thread.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well how can you top that?

  • Pathogen||

    Anonbot is the metaphorical janitor, stacking the chairs, and pushing the dustmop across the floor..

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Janitors do useful work, then.

    The comparison is not valid.

  • DenverJ||

    I think it's a useful product for some people, but his marketing methods are sketchy...

  • commodious spittoon||

    Admitting he was wrong and not doubling down on a shitty policy? Not MY president!

  • straffinrun||

    Will you accept reality? No. This spokesman needs some trainin'.

  • Rich||

  • commodious spittoon||

    I think that it would end up being government intrusion on you or I

    *eye twitch*

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Cloth prison bars gently brushing the feminine mystique. Dreamy aura snared by the Supermax of dogma. Her flesh and mind erased from environs beneath shrouds and faith. Distinction blurred, smudged, side-lined. Insulated and eternally protected she bravely disappears under the ancient brutality of permanent poems.

  • Quincy.||

    “The biggest change, a subtle one, was in the shoppers themselves. Like all shopping centers— though naturally, in a much less spectacular way than those in La Défense or Les Halles— Italie 2 had always attracted a fair amount of riff raff. They’d completely disappeared. Also, women’s clothing had been transformed. I felt the change at once, but I couldn’t put into words. The number of Muslim veils had increased only slightly— it wasn’t this. I spent almost an hour walking around before it hit me: all the women were wearing pants. To visualize a woman’s thighs and to mentally reconstruct her pussy where the thighs intersect— a process whose power of excitation is directly proportional to the length of the bare leg was so involuntary and mechanical with me, so genetic you might say, that it took me a while to notice what was missing: no more dresses or skirts. Women were wearing a new garment, a kind of long cotton smock, ending at mid-thing, which eliminated any objective interest in the tight pants that some women might potentially wear; as for shorts, these were obviously out of the question. The contemplation of women’s asses, that small, dreamy consolation, had also become impossible. A transformation was indeed under way. There’d been a fundamental shift. Several hours of channel surfing revealed no further changes, but then soft-core porn had gone out of fashion years before.”

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Love of the human form vanquished by the gods, Q.

  • Quincy.||

    But asses are not a "small, dreamy consolation". We revolt if their contemplation become impossible!

  • commodious spittoon||

    Contemplation is a small and dreamy consolation relative to snugly outfitted asses.

  • Quincy.||

    Word.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Especially when you're pushing thirty in college classes among women in their early twenties.

  • Quincy.||

  • commodious spittoon||

    Yeah, I googled the text and found a review. Sounds interesting.

  • Quincy.||

    Your living the Hoellebecqian life, CommSpit.

  • grrizzly||

    Interesting is an understatement.

  • DenverJ||

    Best one yet, AG. I really like that one.

  • Rockabilly||

    Gary, does your pot company sell gift boxes by mail?

  • grrizzly||

    I would not sign that legislation because I think that it would end up being government intrusion on you or I.

    ...government intrusion on you or me.

    Are there any libertarian candidates who can speak English correctly?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    *I* speak it correctly, it's just difficult for me to enunciate clearly through all the tobacco I'm chewing.

  • Quincy.||

    Smoke cigarettes like a real person then.

  • DenverJ||

    *I* speak it correctly

    No, you don't. Our you would have spelled "tabackee" correctly.

  • SusanM||

    OT from ThoughtlessProcrastination: "Where de white wimmin at?"

    http://thinkprogress.org/polit.....hite-girl/

    In a response to a woman named Cathy’s question about what he’s doing to combat drug abuse in Maine, LePage touted a bill he’s proposed to institute stiffer criminal penalties on out-of-state drug traffickers.

    “Now the traffickers, these aren’t people that take drugs. These are guys by the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty,” LePage said, drawing chuckles from the crowd in Bridgton, ME. “These type of guys that come from CT and NY, they come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home.”

    “Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young white girl before they leave,” LePage added. “Which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue that we’ve gotta deal with down the road. We’re gonna make ‘em very severe penalties.”
  • straffinrun||

    Lovely human being. To think I got into an argument with a friend last night over my position that 97% of politicians exhibit sociopathic/psychopathic behavior. He agreed that some do, but, coincidentally, they were the ones on the other team.

  • SusanM||

    It's like I've said before: "Republicans want man to dominate man - Democrats want it the other way around."

  • commodious spittoon||

  • SusanM||

    lol

  • DenverJ||

    That was great. Where do you people find these things? Do you just spend all day on the Utubes?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's like I've said before: "Republicans want man to dominate man - Democrats want it the other way around."

    I am so stealing that.

  • DenverJ||

    Actually, Gary Johnson has an admirable record as governor of New Mexico. He may not be perfect, but he's definitely no statist.
    (Also, he was a Triathalete.)

  • Ugh||

    If you're going to employ lesser-evil thinking, at least pick the lesser evil that has a chance of getting elected.

  • Ugh||

    His revised position is still in conflict with libertarian philosophy. A burqa ban would be unlibertarian even if it were enforceable. His reasoning about making it harder to cover up domestic violence is paternalistic in the extreme.

    I could understand a person very new to libertarianism having a knee-jerk reaction and not realizing that BANNING A FUCKING CLOTHING ITEM is contrary to the philosophy, but not somebody who was an LP presidential candidate four years ago and wants to be again.

    The only reason to vote for him in 2012 was because you agreed with his philosophy even though he had no chance of winning. What reason would you have to vote for him this time around? Other than supporting the TEAM. But we know libertarians don't behave like those eeeeeeevil partisans on the left and right, don't we?

  • Sevo||

    Ugh|1.8.16 @ 12:03AM|#
    "His revised position is still in conflict with libertarian philosophy. A burqa ban would be unlibertarian even if it were enforceable. His reasoning about making it harder to cover up domestic violence is paternalistic in the extreme."

    Yeah, when I want to make sure I can wear tartan, it won't be you I ask.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    His revised position is still in conflict with libertarian philosophy. A burqa ban would be unlibertarian even if it were enforceable.

    Did you even read the article?

    However, having had time to consider, my response was wrong. As with many well-intentioned ideas, a government-imposed ban on full-face coverings would have unintended consequences and likely result in government overreach. As governor, I vetoed many such well-intended laws, and on reflection, would in fact veto a government ban on full face burqas. While the law must provide protection for women from abuse, it is clear that banning face veils wouldn’t work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights.
    What reason would you have to vote for him this time around?

    Because he'll be, by far, the most liberty oriented person on the ballot?

  • Ugh||

    The law he was proposing is anti-liberty on its face (no pun intended). It's not that it has unintended consequences, or that the enforcement would have side effects, it's that the basic purpose of the law is unlibertarian in itself. This isn't even a complicated issue and he really should know better given that he's a former LP presidential candidate.

    Imagine if a candidate said one day that he wanted to ban guns, then the next day, after a lot of negative response, said that he changed his mind because it wouldn't work and would be hard to enforce without violating the Fourth Amendment. Would you be lauding him for admitting he was wrong and forgiving his statement from the day before? How is this any different?

  • Sevo||

    "Imagine if a candidate said one day that he wanted to ban guns, then the next day, after a lot of negative response, said that he changed his mind because it wouldn't work and would be hard to enforce without violating the Fourth Amendment. Would you be lauding him for admitting he was wrong and forgiving his statement from the day before? How is this any different?"

    Yeah, imagine that!
    Or imagine that someone got some feedback, thought it over and admitted a mistake. I'm gonna guess you NEVER had that experience.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Ha! You got suckered by Tulpa!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Shit, you're right.

    Fuck me!

  • Ugh||

    It's not something he should be making a mistake about. There is no way on earth that you or I would explicitly propose banning an item of clothing, because we would immediately know that it's an anti-liberty thing. Maybe Johnson is going senile?

    And if this were a Dem or GOP politician instead of an LP one, the excuse that he had to spend a night thinking about whether it was an anti-liberty position would never even be considered.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's not something he should be making a mistake about.

    Says the troll that's never been right about anything.

    Fuck off Tulpa!

  • Ugh||

    Ad hominems are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they?

    Get a life, Playa.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    "Get a life, Playa."
    I was taking a dump, and I caught this in 30 seconds. How many countless hours have you spent doing this shit?

    Riiiight.

  • Ugh||

    Do you take your computer into the bathroom with you to patrol H+R for heterodoxy, or do you take a dump in your pants while sitting in front of the computer? Inquiring minds want to know.

    My point is that it took you all of 11 minutes after my post (made at a time of my own choosing) to show up. That's nearly episiarchian level of obsession.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    This all seems so familiar.

    Straw man... Arguing for the sake of arguing...

    I think I know your name. Hang on... it'll come to me soon.

  • Ugh||

    You forgot about the rational argument, and willingness to challenge the prevailing opinion.

    Being able to immediately identify someone because they disagree with the site orthodoxy (though in this case I'm ironically the only one standing up for libertarian philosophy) says a lot more about the echo-chamberness of the site than it does about me.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And he reconsidered and reversed himself. And he offered a reasonable explanation as to what his original context was and after decided his position was wrong, for all the right reasons.

    Again, did you even read the article?

    I answered the question in the context of the fact that, under Sharia law, women have no choice but to wear the burqa, and live under a system of law that not only allows, but condones, abuse of women. In that context, I stated that banning the full-face burqa, as was done in France, would be a reasonable step toward preventing signs of abuse from being hidden. My response was not about telling women what they can and cannot wear, but about protecting them from harm under a brutal ideology under which women have nothing resembling equal rights.

    I think more highly of a man who'll admit he was wrong.

  • Ugh||

    My response was not about telling women what they can and cannot wear

    This is typical politician bullshit. Banning an item of clothing IS telling people that they can't wear it. This time the politician bullshit is coming out of an LPer though, so it's swallowed hook line and sinker around here.

  • Ugh||

    Remember that the questioner in the interview, where he claims he was asked whether he'd ban burqas, was Nick Gillespie. Gillespie's original Q&A article is unclear on how the topic came up, but I find it hard to believe that Gillespie would have asked this question out of the blue. It's not like he just said yes to a surprise question off the cuff either, he really fleshed out what he now claims was a "knee jerk reaction":

    Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of "politics" and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

    "Under sharia law," he argued, "women are not afforded the same rights as men." Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. "Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims."

    The part in bold is utterly inimical to liberty. He is saying that political expression can be banned as long as it has nothing to do with religion!

  • Ugh||

    Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn't censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here.

    Leaving aside the utter absence of the coercive aspects of sharia law in the US, who would be paying for this cultural campaign he's planning on mounting as president? Left as an exercise for the reader, it seems.

    Yes, I know many of the regular commenters are now hiding in their filtered safe space, but other people may be reading this.

  • Hank Phillips||

    But Amerikkka has no use for a political party that admits it was wrong. It has never happened. To read the Dem platforms AFTER the Civil war you'd think raising tariffs and banning slavery had been in their 1840 platform. The Dem and GOP know who they are suckering, and are desperate that the tentacle in the till be one of their own.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Different from the usual looters? No difference there... which is precisely why we need a Libertarian candidate not a recycled republican half-wit.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Our platform is the most liberty-oriented, and is besmirched by recycling clueless Republican hand-me-downs whose only effect is to get us branded as right-wing and therefore, like the Tea and GO-pee televangelists, identical to Hitler's party.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fuck off Tulpa!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    TOO LATE. You already got a reach around!!! If you close your eyes, it feels like a woman. Don't feel bad.

  • F. Insufficiently Urbane, Jr.||

    Death, taxes, and Tulpa. I still don't know why he bothers changing his name every stinking time when he gets exposed every stinking time.

  • Ugh||

    You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you're all the same.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Oh, Tulpa we don't laugh at you cuz you're different...we laugh at you because you are a mendacious, needy cunt.

  • Ugh||

    Holding a politician accountable for his statements regardless of party affiliation makes one mendacious. OK.

    If you can't see how hypocritical you are for letting him off with his lame excuse, which you would never dream of doing if he were a Dem or Rep, there ain't much hope for you.

  • thrakkorzog||

    I suppose that you will follow up by explaining how Hillary's claim that all women who claim to be raped then the stories should be accepted. Unless they claim they were raped by Bill Clinton, then that was just a bimbo eruption and if you drag $100 through a trailer park then they will say anything.

    Fuck off Tulpa.

  • Ugh||

    Not sure where you're getting the idea that I support or even tolerate HRC.

    The trailer park comment was James Carville, not Hillary, though.

  • thrakkorzog||

    OK, so you admitted you are Tulpa.

    What's the next name you are going to take up now that you've been busted? Honest people admit to their mistakes. I'm guessing now that you've been busted, you're going to make another sock puppet account.

    Fuck off Tulpa.

  • DontLoseYourHead||

    Burqas are NOT part of Islam. They are a symbol of the repression of women, which is absolutely incompatible with our democratic values.

    Yes, BAN BURQAS everywhere. If they want to wear them, they can do it at home.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "I answered the question in the context of the fact that, under Sharia law, women have no choice but to wear the burqa"

    Not actually a tenet of Sharia. It is a law in many places that have implemented Sharia, but it is a separate law from those found in Sharia. Sharia has no law about the burqa, on women's clothing it requires covering bosom and cleavage, and wearing longer garments.

  • bassjoe||

    The burqa is a complex topic.

    On the one hand, yes, it's a symbol of inequality and oppression to Westerners and there's an impulse to protect those who wear it from oppression.

    On the other hand, who the fuck are we to declare something somebody has worn their entire lives oppressive? Women wearing the burqa may not think along those lines (call that whatever you want).

  • Hank Phillips||

    Men and women are alike dissuaded from thinking in a theocracy. Go back and listen to some Mitt Romney debate footage...

  • gphx||

    The difference between a burka and a nun's habit is, what, a few extra inches of veil across the face? It'd be ok to publicly wear dental floss for pants on the beach but not ok to dress warmly and modestly? One person's freedom doesn't end where another person's insanity begins.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Wrong candidate, that's fer sure. Gary is not as idiotic and narcissistic as Howard Stern, Badnarik or some others contributing to make the LP a laughingstock, but he is a loser and an incompetent campaigner. Now that there is a chance we might get Morgan Freeman as a candidate, Grand Old Prohibitionist impostors can be sent packing with no regrets. Freeman correctly identified the Tea Party as a mystical hate group and has a refreshingly Heinleinesque approach to organized superstition that would cause HL Mencken to blink in stunned admiration. Why recycle GOP trash when we can get the genuine article with all of the charisma of a Ronald Reagan and none of the prohibitionism?

  • gphx||

    Gary Johnson: 'I was going to say the right thing...then I got high, then I got high, then I got high'.

  • lilliesing||

    My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  • sophiataylor873||

    My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  • sophiataylor873||

    My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  • ||

    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.buzznews99.com

  • ||

    I'm not voting for anyone for president because I'm opposed to the very idea of a president. That said, give the guy a break. He popped off in an an interview and then had the integrity to come right out and say "I was wrong". Am I the only one who thinks that's refreshing?

  • rosybrown6596||

    My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  • ||

    Johnson seems to do this a lot. Remember the mandatory calorie counts he was in favor of until, I guess, someone told him what mandatory means?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online