The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Gary Johnson vs. Sarah Palin

hook| 11.5.10 @ 8:47PM

I believe, and this is just a personal opinion, that Palin is underestimated in the same way Reagan was. The pundits believe their own bs.

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:56AM

She's tough, that's why Dubya made it; he was so tough-- and is--that it was obvious even in the '90s he would be elected and re-elected (not that I like him).
Fortune favors the tough.

But what Palin needs is more experience-- alot more.

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 1:30AM

She's got more experience than Obama did, troll.

sean | 11.6.10 @ 8:21AM

Is that the standard now? More than Obama?

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:35AM

I have a feeling a Democrat could have no experience but a Republican will be held to a higher standard.

David| 11.6.10 @ 12:17PM

Republicans are always held to a higher standard. They are the adults in the room and the Democrats are the whinny children.

John Navratil| 11.6.10 @ 12:40PM

Not just experience, but accomplishments!

Mike| 11.6.10 @ 4:38PM

Calling someone a troll because they said Palin needs more experience. Clever.

Palin needs a brain. She is kind of dumb.

If she runs she will hose the Republican party.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:41AM

Maybe she's a hose beast.

Jack Bauer| 11.7.10 @ 8:10AM

This is getting so tedious. Palin is not "dumb," or even "kind of".

You may think she's wrong, she doesn't resonate with you, you don't agree with her, she's not polished.

Lot's of reasons why YOU don't rate her. Or don't think she should run for president. That's fair enough -- but which of her public policy utterances are the ones you don't like?

The vast majority of the things she has done in the past 20 years, at least, indicate that's she's uh -- KINDA NOT DUMB. Winning a mayorship as a working mom, for starters. Then Governor.

Since she resigned the Governorship, most of the things she has done in her life have seemed KINDA SMART -- and she has kinda out-thought her haters, including the media. Or do you dispute that?

Maybe you could point out the long list of "dumb" things she has done in the past two years.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:54PM

"Maybe you could point out the long list of "dumb" things she has done in the past two years."

She's not dumb, she is very CRAFTY. She will go far-- as long as she doesn't overreach herself-- a common "stumbling block".

lipa| 11.7.10 @ 7:15PM

hook is exactly right. Sarah Palin is demonized by the media and the Democrats because she is a threat to their false establishment, their failed ideas and their politics-as-usual! whenever she speaks i hear and feel Reagen.

lipa| 11.7.10 @ 7:22PM

Sarah Palin is a smart, articulate, charming commonsense conservative. She resonates with the American people. She loves America. The exact person America needs in the white house today, and naturally the person Democrats fear most of.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:56PM

"Sarah Palin is a smart, articulate"

Yes, she is crafty and glib-- she will go very far.

Anthony| 11.5.10 @ 8:53PM

Republicans have to get off the Palin bandwagon fast. She is unelectable, she is a nice girl and her heart is in the right place and I guess compared to the dude in the white house right now she looks good, but she does not have the gravitas to be president. We need a real candidate, not one more fit to head the local PTA.

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:52AM

Well, if she were a man you wouldn't say that.
She just doesn't have the experience.
As for leftwing fears that she might hurt someone, she wont. Women don't hurt people-- they merely bore 'em to death with chick flicks, needlepoint, and gossip.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 12:58AM

What would you know about being a man you old freak? I bet you're needle pointing right now.

Hey, how about that election, Brooks? You still on a bender? Enjoy, because we've just gotten started!

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:33AM

You said that in '95;
you'll blow it, just as the Right blew it with Gingrich.
You will string us along until the string snaps, then you'll switch to something else..

You are BLUFFING.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 1:59AM

Not the Tea Party people, troll. You've never seen the likes of us before, and you won't like what we have in store for you freakin' liberals in the next two years.

We're just getting started, Brooks; brick by brick we're going to rebuild this country--we have to.

You'll see.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:43AM

"brick by brick we're going to rebuild this country"

No, you don't have the unity that existed when the Cold War was on, and Reagan was president.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:47PM

Well Brooks~ Yes we do. If the Lefty Libertarians are willing to vote for the Mike Pences and the Jim DeMints and the Sarah Palins, let them.

God uses even the backs of the Left. Even the Pauleos (some of them) will vote for them. They're all about fiscal conservatism~ heh, so are they. But they're also pro-Israel. But it still works for them anyway.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:19PM

Unity? Under Reagan? I don't think so. The great Communicator had a LOT of criticism---I was leading my College's YAF in his first term, I KNOW. How old are you, Alan?

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:02AM

Old enough to know better. Imean, now you are saying the Reagan coalition wasn't what it was made out to be?; or perhaps you don't know exactly what happened 1981-'89? or something.
Occam, your above comment is the most puzzling post I've seen at AS-- esp. from a college Young America for Freedom leader.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:39AM

Sorry, Alan.

In looking back on history, blemishes tend to be overlooked. Reagan had a LOT of Opposition to his policies, and was regularly vilified in the media. "Unity" is hardly the term I'd use to describe him. Part of his greatness was that he managed to overcome the fractious nature of American politics, and leave behind a legacy that both Lefties AND Righties wish to emulate.

Now, you may disagree with this. But I do hope it's clear. And, as a Rightie who was being vilified by the Lefties in College, I can testify from personal experience that there WAS no Unity then.

My college days ended in 1984, my med school days ended in 1988. Does that help?

inge| 11.6.10 @ 2:44AM

Give some examples why Sarah is 'unelectable' in your mind?

John Navratil| 11.6.10 @ 12:44PM

Palin was successfully "Quayle"d in the 2008 election. She came from out of nowhere, was brutalized by Couric (she really didn't handle that interview well) and became the butt of left-wing jokes.

That was then. She has since gone a long way to correct all of those perceived deficiencies. She'll likely remain unpopular with the "Ruling Class", like DeMint. Will she run? We'll see. Can she win? Can't really say. Will she remain a force against the "Ruling Class". You betcha!

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:52PM

Heh, maybe she looked bad in the eyes of the "moderates" but ya know who looked bad to me?
Katie Spore-ic. She still looks like millions of spores reaching out and trying to grab somebody new.
I despiiiiise that woman.
Bob Grant, where are you when we need you?
Speaking of bad "journolists"~ have ya seen the interview with good ol' Diane Snorer with John Boehner?
Charlie Brown says.. "Aaaaaaarghhh!"

GBinPA| 11.6.10 @ 10:45PM

Gravitas! Quit listening to the MSM. They're filling your head with mush. Better to have a conservative ideologue than a moderate with gravitas. We (conservatives) are tired of liberals defining the quality of our candidates.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:46AM

"liberals defining the quality of our candidates.

Yeah, right, sure. Such as Bob Dole-- your opponents defined it for the GOP and they merely went along, is that it?
or McCain?

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:42PM

Brooks~

Remember though~ the Establishment Repubs have been running the show in the party for a long time. And I think even more to the point is this:

The voters have been asleep! If more conservatives would have been out and voting in the primaries we wouldn't be in this mess.. we do get the government we deserve. So, while we love to blame the Republican party for everything and much of it is well deserved, it still falls upon us to go out and vote.
I have been since 1992. I always will. I am thankful to live in a wonderful and free country and I take my privilege to vote seriously!
Now~ because of the DISASTER that is named Obama~ the people are waking up. They have formed TEA parties and it is a wonderful thing! I welcome them.
Are you going to join us conservatives and make your vote count?
If you want a real conservative to win you have to be willing to get involved.
Come on, Alan. You know you want to.
You obviously despise the Lefty Libertarians and their lying ilk.
You've got it in you.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:19PM

Wow !

Talk About Drawin' To A Pair Of Losers.

Both Of Ya Israel Firster NutBags Get Bent

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:20PM

Sure thing, little girl face acid thrower lover.

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:05AM

Tim ought to have his own TV show. He is funny.
A combination Rush Limbaugh and Oliver North/G. Gordon Liddy.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:40AM

Alan, Rush is pro-Israel and anti-jihadist.

Dan Pet| 5.9.11 @ 10:23PM

Wow. How sexist, nasty and downright WRONG. What a laundry list of LEFTY talking points. Have you ever really heard about all of Palin's accomplishments, or you just parrot nonsense you hear. She was elected governor of the largest state in the union. Any other PTA Presidents done that.

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 9:02PM

While We Tea Party Rebels are urging Our Tea Party Kingmaker & The Senate's Point Man Jim DeMint to run for The Presidency in 2012,we are wise to the orchestrated attempts to marginalize, smear up and denigrate Conservative and Tea Party Candidates in general .
These attacks come from The Ruling Class and Their Mainstream Media Agendists, beyond Leftist bloggers.

We Are in A War With The Mainstream Media Ruling Class Agendists And The Ruling Class.

Are these Tea Party Candidates WRONG on Conservative Issues or Are They Right on Conservative Issues?

The Rest Is SMEAR JOURNALISM & PROPAGANDA aimed at tearing down and marginalizing The Tea Party & It's Candidates.

Rise Up In Rebellion!

Bankrupt The Mainstream Media Fops & Their Ruling Class.

Carpe Diem.

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:39AM

The Tea Party Establishment needs to learn how to select candidates. Just because somebody is right on the issues does not mean they are electable. I do agree with Tim Asterisk, though, that Jim DeMint could be a fine candidate. I could also live with the blunt Mr. Johnson.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 10:34AM

The Tea Won 5 of The 6 Senate Seats : Pat Toomey of Pennstlvania, Dr.Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida & Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
There have been only two elections since 1950 in which Republicans have gained more Senate seats than the six they gained in 2010. One of those elections was in 1980, when voters swept Ronald Reagan into the White House. The second was in 1994.
Aaaand, The Tea Party Won 40+ House Seats.

Bo| 11.7.10 @ 11:04AM

The Tea Party single handedly threw away some Senate seats, too, bubba.

The Corrector| 11.7.10 @ 5:22PM

Hate to correct both of you, but that's what I do, wherever falsehoods lie. Wherever myths propagate... yadda yadda yadda.

The Tea Party was not the sole factor in any of these elections here. This applies to Tim, who thinks they delivered us from evil, and Bo, who thinks that they singlehandedly tanked a bunch of Repubs.

You're both wrong. The Tea Party is a largerly overhyped minority that only gained enough traction for their candidates because the majority of people voted AGAINST the Democrats, not for Republicans. And certainly not for teapartiers.

Seemingly, this meant if the tea party candidate was flawed, (which kinda goes with the territory of not being establishment-backed or vetted), they'd get ousted. Like Angle and O'Donnell.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:27PM

If You Got Statistics To Contradict My Statistics Present Them Corrector .

Otherwise Shut Your Ignorant Pie Hole.

You're Up Big Mouth.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:37PM

Corrector,

You say this:

"You're both wrong. The Tea Party is a largerly overhyped minority that only gained enough traction for their candidates because the majority of people voted AGAINST the Democrats, not for Republicans. And certainly not for teapartiers."

Here's what I think~

First of all when you say the TEA party is an over hyped minority, you're wrong because what is the TEA party after all? It's ALL of the voters that are sick and tired of Leftist policies and what they are doing to this country. The TEA party is ALL of the voting public who are rising up, and getting out to vote for the conservatives who ran as Republicans.

They're fed up Dems, fed up Independents, fed up non-voters, fed up Republicans, fed up Libertarians who decided to get out and vote in order to throw out the old guard.

And they voted for a very CLEAR choice this time around. When conservatives get involved, this is what you see. WINS LIKE THE ONES WE JUST HAD!!!
And as long as we stay awake, it will continue.
No more going back to sleep..ever again!
As far as Angle and O'Donnell losing we know that had to do with the party establishment who basically starved them financially.. but I think if they ran again they'd win. And as far as being flawed, you couldn't GET more flawed than their opponents, who won because their party flooded the state with money and bodies.
Can we say CORRUPTION???
Heh, if enough of us STAY involved and VOTE next time and in the meantime keep our senators and Reps numbers handy whenever they go wobbly or waffle on the issues.. they are there to serve us. That's why they call them public servants. We sent them to do a job and the only way to make sure they walk the narrow path is to pick up the phone and reach out and touch someone. If they keep hearing from us, they won't be able to forget us.
Oh and by the way, give John Boehner a call once in a while and tell him to keep up the good work~ he's gonna need all the encouragement he can get.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:41AM

Tim*, what "day" are you "seizing?"

Jim DeMint is a strong supporter of Israel. I happen to like him.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:11AM

He thinks he's seizing the Republican party.
Rand Paul is united with Adam Kokesh to do so.
I've posted info. about this before.
The anti-Israel Libertarians can't get elected in their own party so they are running as Republicans.
These people actually believe they can get somewhere, claiming they're really conservative because they're fiscally so. We're supposed to praise them for that and ignore the hatred they have for real conservatives who are pro-Israel.
Michele Bachmann and many others are fully aware of this Libertarian faction among us and that's why they came up with a resolution backing Israel.
Ron Paul won't sign on to it.
Nothing new there.
Timmy* can pretend to be a conservative all he wants~ his dripping hatred of Israel and true conservatives is blatantly clear.
This hatred is unacceptable.
And it matters not which Religion one belongs to. If you are a hateful anti-semite you are no conservative.

Margie| 11.5.10 @ 9:36PM

Figures a "Libertarian Republican" would speak like that about Sarah. Heh, what do they know?
Let these Libertarians go back to their own party and stay there where they belong.
Oops. That's right. They have no chance of winning if they do that! LOL.

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:48AM

Marge,
if some libertopians like laissez faire space colonization so much, let 'em build rockets and go live on Mars. They can sell drugs on Mars, wife-swap, etc.
The sky's the limit!

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 10:37AM

Ronald Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:33PM

Oops he did it again. He left off the continuation of this quote from the 1975 Reason Mag interview.. (which by the way is several pages long and still available online!
Here he makes the distinction between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party:

"..now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."

Oops, you did it again| 11.7.10 @ 5:29PM

When you drop off your eighteen kids at Mississipi's only night school, maybe you'd want to enroll yourself in a few reading comprehension classes.

This quote requires some contextual knowledge to properly analyze. Reagan was very much a supporter of a strong two-party system with various internal factions, rather than a "rainbow" of third parties that only appealed to 10% of the electorate. This is what he meant.

And I will agree. The LP are largely a bunch of lunatics who will simply refuse to grapple with political realities until the End is Nigh.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:18PM

Scuze me Oopsy,

I have no children and I'm from the North. Aww shucks I know that will disappoint you but what can I say?
And where did I say or insinuate that Reagan was for a third party?
I didn't. And he didn't. He was simply commenting on the state of Libertarianism and that he didn't agree with them as a party.
And I believe you just agreed with him AND me on that so I really don't get your attitude.
Your stupid stereo-typing makes you look like a fool now doesn't it?
Idiot.
That and being too much of a coward and not using your regular handle.
Oops I did it again.. exposed another loser.

You may not do so well at your interpretation of what you think Reagan meant since you did so poorly at your attempt to insult and condescend to me and put me in a little box all your own, eh?
Ya know sweetheart, us Bible believing Christians have this thing.. it's called trust. We trust that when God says something He means exactly what he says.
Well darlin', Ronald Reagan meant exactly what he said.
Plain and simple.
Now you best go back and re read it and stop trying to interpret it.
It means exactly what it says. For all the world to see.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:35PM

You RINO-CINO's Still Don't Get It.

The Tea Party Is The Ronald Reagan Answer To The Libertarian Party .

Now Deal With It RINO-CINO's.

The tea Party Is Now Inside Congress & The GOP.

Carpe Diem.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:21PM

Reagan was also an Israel Lover. Sorry, Tim*.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:53PM

Hey Brooks~ I can go with that.
And then you will be left with us conservatives.. that means you will come join us then, right?

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:47AM

If Tim goes to Mars.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:30PM

He's already there, heh.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:32PM

Once Again, ObamaBoy Brooks & The RINO-CINO Neocon Victor-Margie Form Their Resident Whack Jobs Israel Firster Coalition.

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:14AM

"Once Again, ObamaBoy Brooks & The RINO-CINO Neocon Victor-Margie Form Their Resident Whack Jobs Israel Firster Coalition."

That's correct! the NAMBLA Hitler Mustache Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream/Gefilte Fish Lava Lamp-ites Who Went To Hanoi With Jane Fonda To Dance The Loop-de-Loop With Ho Chi Minh.
Talk to Oliver Stone about it; he will fill you in.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:18AM

LOL.
And not only that but if you are pro-Israel you must also be in need of a lobotomy and then strapped to a table for life or put in a padded cell for all eternity because you see you have no right to be pro-Israel.. because the gestapo says Jews are evil and they deserve to be destroyed. You see, says Timmy* his Religion has replaced Israel and therefore all who love Israel are traitors plain and simple. Traitors to conservatism!! Traitors to America!! Traitors to themselves!!
Now Timmy* will call me a liar and so then I will post his tirades stating just that. Bring it on, baby.
Seig Heil!

Lol, you're a toll| 11.7.10 @ 5:25PM

Gary Johnson served 2 terms/ 8 years in a state with a 2:1 Democrat-Independent/Repub ratio. Palin served half of one in a state that's safely republican. So um... joke's on you?

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 10:41PM

Ask & Answered Ad infinitum Lyin' Slandering Smear Nut Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

I never voted Libertarian in my life, but I sure as hell agree with My Fellow Tea Party Rebels & Dr.Rand Paul & Dr.Ron Paul when it comes to Fiscal and Monetary Conservatism.
Tell us all ya know about QE2 , Deflation & Inflation.
Tell Us all Ya Know About The U-3 & U-6

You're Up Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
The Tea Party Rebellion is now inside Congress & The GOP.

Carpe Diem.

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:00AM

"You're Up Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie."

Apocalypse Now Hanoi Jane Fonda Quiche-eating...

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:54PM

LOL Brooks, you can be funny. Keep 'em coming.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:08AM

ObamaBoy Brooks & RINO-CINO NeoCon Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Are Into Their Israel Firster Coalition Thingy.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:23AM

Sieg Heil!

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:23AM

U-3 & U-6?

Don't you mean that Irish band U2?
You sound like their lead singer, Bonehead.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:07AM

You're an Economic Buffoon Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

victor| 11.7.10 @ 12:13AM

And you're just a buffoon.
Straight, no chaser.
PS, you're still a bonehead.

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:51AM

Tim*:
Granola Gay-Bar Apocalyse Tie-dyed Ringo...

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:38PM

The Psychotic Fanatic Israel Firsters Club Of AS Led By RINO-CINO NeoCon Victor-Margie & ObamaBoy Brooks Has Come To Order.

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:23AM

Apocalyse-MarshmallowFluff Jumping Jehosophat Quetzacoatl...

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:24AM

Sieg Heil!

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:06AM

You Eat The Bone Victor-Margie.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:25AM

*Timmy:
"You Eat The Bone Victor-Margie."

Once again the Libertarian Leftist mindset and debating technique is illustrated once again.
*Timmy accuses me of doing something that *Timmy engages in.
Plus he still confuses men with women, i.e. he thinks that my wife is a man and that I am a woman.
Perhaps, because he has a "wife", eh?

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 10:45PM

Oh Yeah !
Sarah Palin Endorsed & Our Tea Party Kingmaker Senator Jim DeMint Endorse Our Tea Party Candidate & The New Senator From The Commonwealth of Kentucky Dr. Rand Paul.

Deal With It Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Carpe Diem.

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:02AM

Apocalypse Now Hanoi Jane Fonda Granola
Gay Bar Woodstock Bellbottoms...

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 1:28AM

Another LIBERAL TROLL defends the troll Margie.

Trolls stick together.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:28AM

Willey the Troll:
"Another LIBERTERRIER TROLL defends the troll Timmy*."

Listen Dude, you either stand up and defend the Truth, or you're just another weasel.

Margie has more Truth in her left pinky than you have in your whole libertarian infested body.

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 2:31AM

Buzz off, victor/Margie troll. All of you Catholic haters stick together.

I'm not a libertarian, dumbass, I just don't support Israel over my own country like you do, traitor.

Stick it in your ear, loser.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:53PM

And liars stick together.
I am no "Catholic hater."
I hate false doctrine though, and that goes for any Religion that doesn't adhere to the Bible.
As to haters, you are doing quite the job at that.
I pity you.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 9:17PM

You're An Anti-Catholic White Trash Pig From Joisey Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:28PM

And you're a godless human being filled with hate.

Uncle Tom| 11.7.10 @ 5:33PM

Massah Marge, shall I be kleening dem floorboreds to you? oh thank god, massah marge for your mercy. i aint vary edjewkated. jesus loves me yes i know. i'm a darkie, god tells me so. to serve you is my will. or else god will make me fall ill. ... and die.

don't let dem take me away, massah marge! follow dat bible to a tee!

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:24PM

I'm your fan, Margie. You and Old Texican. I'm just looking for some consistency from Tim*. He whinges on about the evil JOOOOS, and then quotes their allies to support his point. Bit of a wanker, if you ask me.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:26AM

Yes he does, Occam's Tool.
Proving once again that Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Timmy* is no conservative.
He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Just as Hitler was.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:28AM

*Timmy:
"White Trash Pig From Joisey:

Only White Trash Pigs From Joisey (sic), talk like this. and use the word "joisey"

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:12AM

Get Bent Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:28AM

Don't ever forget them hemp seeds in Paul Newman's salad oil.
As ever-body knows, they is jes plum full o' heroin!

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:34AM

Why, lansakes, I drunk me a whole bottle o'
"Paul Newman's Sweet 'N' Sour" salad dressing, an' had me a buzz that lasted well nigh almost five minutes!

It's that Hanoi Jane fer sure!

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:27AM

LOL!!!

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:47PM

LOL.
Or like my Dad used to say.. the rustafarians with the restafeathers and the thingamjobs in the doohickeys with the watchamacallits.

manonthestreet| 11.5.10 @ 10:45PM

Obama keeps saying I hope Palin runs.
Jimmy Carter use to say,I hope Ronald Reagan runs.
Be careful what you wish for Obama because you might just get it.

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:41AM

Palin is no Reagan. She's pretty good but Reagan was an all time great.

John Navratil@sbcglobal.net| 11.6.10 @ 12:47PM

Did you say that about Reagan in 1976? If so, you really were ahead of your time.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:56PM

LOL.

Matt X| 11.5.10 @ 10:45PM

It would be nice if this author would admit he is one of the Republicans that does not like Palin, instead of hiding behind other people. It's amazing how soon the dump on Palin bandwagon started the day after the big landslide defeat of Democrats.

I've never heard of Gary Johnson, and he'll never be president of anything, or come close. Palin will spank this prick in any election.

Spicy Joker| 11.5.10 @ 11:35PM

Sarah Palin is shallow, uninformed, and increasingly shrill. She can't hold a candle to Michelle Bachmann.

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 12:33AM

Spicy Joker is shallow, uninformed, and increasingly shrill. His useless bark is just another canine howl among a pack of RINO dingos.

I like Bachmann--but she's no Sarah Palin.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:17AM

Sorry guys, but they are both great and what the Party needs right now.
As a matter of fact, the Party needs more level headed, clear thinking Conservatives not just now, but into the future.
We should have a dozen each of them.

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 2:25AM

I didn't knock Bachmann, Shallow Spicy knocked Palin.

Michelle's great but no one holds the stage and an audience like Sarah.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 3:05PM

And Hitler held one heck of an audience (and so did Obama). The fact that one can fire people up and make speeches shouldn't be the criteria. And being a mayor of

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 3:38PM

Yes.. yes.. being the mayor of....?

Heh, Sarah Palin's the anti-Hitler. Duh.

If the people who looked to Hitler could have seen him for who he really was... and the people who voted for Obummer too... would they have followed them? Maybe.. maybe not. If they could have seen the murderous results of Hitler's "belief" system? If they could have seen the end result (and indeed this is just the beginning) of Obummer's policies? That under Socialism and Communism they become slaves to the government or to those in power.. and worse?

Sarah Palin and conservatives like her are the anti-Hitlers and anti-Obamas.
That anyone cannot see that is just sad.
Substance and not just personality she has.
Unless of course you'd prefer more of the same.
We don't need to cater to the Left's version of what makes a great candidate... or do we? It's up to us.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 4:28PM

Sorry, seems that my responses keep getting cut off. mayor of a town of

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 5:38PM

Hitler burned books. And Palin tried to get the library to remove certain books she didn't approve of as "mayor" of Washitta.

Palin's state is a bunch of welfare parasites, leeching off the money from military bases and a quasi-nationalized oil supply. They get a "citizen's check", which is just code for personal pork.

If you were true to your conservative chops, you'd oppose that, you uneducated hick.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:43PM

Hey Posseur, While Imitation is The Sincerest Form of Flattery ,Get My Opinions Right When Ya Hijack My Name & Pretend It's Me posting.

Sarah Palin Has Every Right To Run For The Presidency in 2012.

One Thing's For Sure. She's One Hell Of A Lot Smarter Than You Are Posseur Name Hijacker.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:26PM

Yes, but Hitler hated JOOOOS, Tim*. Indeed, you and Adolf are remarkable similar in your views. You are the last one to criticize Hitler, as I'm sure you have quotes from "Mein Kampf" emroidered on your underwear.

By the way, I don't agree with Mr. Brooks a lot, but one can be civil. Try being civil in your disagreements.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:15AM

Hey Look ! Israel Firster AgendaBoy Tool Job Is Playing The Hitler Card Again.

Let's See Now ObamaBoy RCV, RINO-CINO NeoCon Tool Job, ObamaBoy Alan "Crazy Ass" Brooks & RINO-CINO Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Are Into Their Little Israel Firster Hopey Changey Thingy.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:45AM

And why not, Tim*? You want to kill over 5 million Jews. Explain your differences with Der Fuerher on the matter of Jewish survival, pottty mouth.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:30AM

Sieg Heil Timmy* Sieg Heil!

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:30AM

Is that you *Timmy?

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:18AM

The name of this column should have been Some Liberterian Guy From New Mexico Sneers at Palin. The guy is going to be the Ron Paul of the 2012 cycle, at best. His big issue is legalizing pot it seems.

He's going to find out you can't beat Palin or anybody by being a jackass. Might get you an interview at The New Republic though.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 12:36AM

Gee, how original, another anti-Palin. It's perverse, but the more you losers pile on, the more I like her.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 12:37AM

Not you, Matt X--just the anti-Palin losers.

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:42AM

Palin is the only thing, right now (except maybe another McCain run), that could bring us Obama's second term.

Matt X| 11.7.10 @ 6:51PM

Wanna See How easy It Is For Posseur's To Hijack Your Name Matt X.

Now, If I wrote "Palin Is An Incompetent Boob " Would People Then Think You Just Wrote That ?
See How They Hijacked My Name Tim* & Made It Look Like I Posted, "Hitler burned books. And Palin tried to get the library to remove certain books she didn't approve of as "mayor" of Washitta."

That's Smearjob Propaganda From Some Name Hijacker.

I got No Beef With Sarah Palin Runnin' For The Preaidency In 2012 . Even Though I Prefer And Support Jim DeMint As A Tea Party Rebel.

Be Careful Of TROLL POSSEUR NAME HIJACKERS.
A Wors To The Wise.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:46AM

We have another 2 years of them running down Palin, even at ostensibly conservative magazines like American Spec. This author wants to pit some liberterian guy that nobody has heard of against Palin? Palin's response would be, Gary who? If he wants to be president in 2 years, I guess the only way he knows how to get some name recognition is to attack Palin as stupid.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 1:09AM

I agree. AmSpec is loaded with a bunch of irrelevant squishes. It's obvious they've drunk the Beltway Kool-Aide. Sarah's got more balls than all of them put together.

Who cares? We've just gotten started!

Palin2012| 11.7.10 @ 6:57PM

See Above Post Under Matt X Palin 2012.

A TROLL Posseur Could Write " Palin Sucks " & People would think that You Wrote That,Which Of Course You Didn't , Because You Support Sarah Palin Which Is Fine With Me.

A Word To The Wise From TIM*

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:11AM

The funny thing about Gary Johnson's statement above is that he says he puts issues before politics, but I don't see him talking about any issues. It's just ad hominem attacks on Palin and him bragging about what a badass he is. I had to go research this guy on my own elsewhere to find out where is he is on the issues. Ron Paul has already endorsed him, talk about the kiss of death, especially when you are big on legalizing pot, which isn't even a winner in California among Democrats. :)

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:14AM

That's why Ronaldus Paultrimus endorsed him.
He wants to be the only loon in the pond.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 2:37AM

Please don't put anything about Ronald Reagan near Rand Paul.

It offends me.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 12:43PM

Er, "Ronaldus Paultrimus" = Ron Paul in my above post. NOT Ronald Reagan.
And putting either Paul anywhere near Ronald Reagan offends me, too.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:30AM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie is too Damned Freakin' Economically Illiterate to understand what Dr.Ron Paul has to say about The Important Economic Issues that drove this election.
The Tea Party is now inside Congress & The GOP.
Carpe Diem.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:23PM

The "good" Dr. Ron Paul votes with Bawney Fwank to defund our military and alongside Dennis the disgusting Leftist Kucinch.

You are too darn down in the gutter to wanna come out.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:28PM

Indeed correct, Margie. Awesome as always.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:52PM

Thank you, OT.
I always enjoy your posts. You say a lot with a few words, always very sincere.
I appreciate your support very much.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:22AM

Now The Rest Of The Story Tool Job & Crank Lady Israel Firster Agenda Fanatics.

" we continue to spend huge sums protecting countries in Europe and Asia. This defense subsidy allows Europeans to provide a level of social welfare far in excess of what the United States offers its citizens. If Germany, France, and Britain bore more of their own defense costs, US tax dollars could go elsewhere, or nowhere.

Overpriced, underperforming weapons systems are a hardy Washington perennial also ripe for the cutting. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the V-22 Osprey -- all identified as potential cost savings in the task force report -- have been targeted by reformers for years. No less a hawk than Dick Cheney has pronounced the V-22 "a turkey.'' That we continue paying for these weapons makes even less sense now that terrorists, not communists, are the enemy."

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:33AM

Those who back Israel, according to this man are "Israel-Firsters."
Sieg Heil Timmy*!
True conservatives cannot be anti-semites and hide behind "fiscal responsibility."

Lol @ fag| 11.7.10 @ 5:43PM

I'm loling at a fag and his name is Matt X. A interviewee generally responds to questions asked of him. If the interviewer doesn't ask you questions of policy (or maybe he does and you don't read the full interview, you just read the snippets someone posts on spectator) then obviously, you're not going to hear/talk about policy.

Or maybe you're more in favor of those elitist politicians who hijack a question and talk about whatever THEY want to talk about. Yeah, that's real subtle. That's not brash at all. Hypopublicans to the rescue!

(And prop 19 was flawed. it didn't go nowhere near as far as it could have, and that's why democrats opposed it. Also they were afraid Obama would sue them, and that would mean they wouldn't get a bail out from the federal government. Do your research, eh, fag? =)

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:15AM

I like Jeffrey Lord, but most of the rest of them underwhelm. They lashed out at Lord as being an "activist" for reporting that Mike Castle voted for some kind of procedure to impeach Bush that only 26 other Republicans voted for.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 1:26AM

Jeff is my favorite, too. No surprise there, though, he worked for the great man himself, Ronald Reagan.

I still don't see anyone who eclipses Palin, and these RINOs never offer a viable alternative.
Weak.

It's up to us anyway, the Republican party was dead in the water before the Tea Party movement caught fire. Rush and a few others are the only ones I listen to. RINOs can take a hike.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:51AM

I'm not opposed to conservatives supporting another candidate in 2012 rather than Palin. But I am getting tired of these kind of articles that are meant to put her down. Gary Johnson offers no issue-based criticism of Palin in this piece, and there was no good reason to post this damn thing. The guy dumpster diving right now behind a Burger King in Topeka Kansas has much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 as this Gary Johnson clown does. You'd think this guy had some kind of strong conservative following, but there are plenty of Republicans out there in a better position to be the "anti-Palin" than Gary Johnson is. Sneering at Palin just indicates he's a stupid politician, that will only take you so far.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 2:06AM

Let me know when you find that "other" Conservative candidate, Matt, I'm all ears.

I like Palin and I don't apologize for it.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:28PM

AND, she's hot.

Dis Palin at your own risk| 11.6.10 @ 2:02AM

Palin is electric -
Everyone else is either dead or sleeping!
Sarah has more support than you think...and she is vastly smarter than anyone here (politically and issues)... and she connects with a majority of Americans.
The LSM and the corrupt dems will fight her like hell - but after the crap Obama is doing I do not see how the dems can win in 2012.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 2:09AM

I agree. I've never worked for a politician in my life but I will work my tail off for Palin!

There's just something about Sarah. The girl's got grit, and she's American to the bone.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 3:23PM

Really, I'm not doubting her electrifying personality, but everything else here is factually incorrect. I don't think she connects with a majority of Americans, in fact almost all poll show a majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of her.
Second, I would wager a bet that the majority of American Spectator readers (especially those who have been readers prior to 2008) are vastly more intelligent than her. Personally, I'd wager any stakes you'd like to name that I'm vastly more knowledgeable than she is on any issue (including the one her supporter's love to throw out -- energy). Based on your implied intelligence from your comments, I'll extend that wager to you.

Mike| 11.6.10 @ 4:42PM

It's amazing the Palin heads can't see how closely she resembles Obama. A photogenic person with almost no experience that has a small but fanatical group of followers who thinks she is the second coming. Unfortunately, she is not as smart as Obama and that is saying something.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 5:10PM

Mike,

For being so stupid, she sure had a good election cycle, as she is seen as the leader of the Republicans right now. Obama, not so much. :)

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:11AM

I don't apologize for liking Palin but I like other conservatives too, like Jim DeMint, Rubio, Eric Cantor, and some others. We don't even know if Palin is going to run yet. I look forward to some good debates on the issues, and hopefully this Gary Johnson clown is not invited. He just does not seem like a serious candidate to me if pot legalization and Palin-bashing are his top issues.

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 2:18AM

I like DeMint, Rubio's too new right now and Cantor's a little unctuous for me.

I definitely see Rubio as POTUS material--he has it all, but he'd have to start campaigning now! I only hope he's as good as he seems to be. Time will tell.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 3:31PM

I'm definitely open to listening to other candidates, but it's funny that Johnson is a clown while Sarah is not. You have one individual who truly built a successful business and then served as governor for 8 years of a state (3x as populous). Contrast this to someone who was mayor of a TOWN (maybe hamlet, etc..) of

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 4:26PM

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 5:14PM

Maybe it's the fact that he doesn't represent even a minority of conservatives. He's a liberal on maybe everything but taxes, and it doesnt' seem like he talks much about tax policy. He seems to be more interested in legalizing pot, prostitution, and abortion rights than anything else, and letting us know how cool and badass he is because he doesn't go to church. He doesn't seem like a man that understands who votes for the Republican party. He's comes across as a jackass in that article. And what has the guy done the past 8 years? He's been out of office since 2002. He has zero name recognition.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:11AM

Narcissicus*:
"I never voted Libertarian in my life"

Some folks imagine that they are Louis IV, the Sun King, and everyone revolves around them.

Listen Sunshine, we were talking about the Liberterrier, Pot smoking, Athiest, Wife swapping?, ex-Gov of New Mexico.

No one was rattling your cage, precious.

As far as the QE2,
She sailed the ocean blue,
Back and forth she went,
Across the waves she was sent,
Now she sits in a berth in Dubai.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:34AM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie is an Economic Asshole .

Come back when someone teaches you about FED Monetary Manipulation.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:27PM

Timmy* is a foul mouthed anti-christ and backer of anti-semite candidates who vote along with Bawney Fwank to defund our military & that other creature named Dennis Kucinich.

"Fiscal" responsibilty, eh?
Wolves in sheep's clothing!

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 7:04PM

Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Is A Psychotic Israel Firster With An Obsession About Tea Party Senator Dr. Rand Paul & His Dad, Tea Party Congressman Dr. Ron Paul.

See A Psychiatrist Apocalyptic Psychotic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:30PM

As a Board Certified Psychiatrist at my real job, Tim*, I worry about you...not Margie.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 10:07PM

OT,
Heh,
I think I'll print this out, frame it, and hang it on my wall.
Ya know it is a never ending interesting thing.. the Leftist anti-semite Libertarians are exactly like the Left. They share many traits. Especially the one where they are the most vile, filthy, lying, condescending, insulting creatures on God's green earth.
They cannot argue in good faith~ they are out of their minds with hatred.
The only tool they have is to try and discredit their opponent with personal attacks.. all the while accusing us of doing that very thing.

David Horowitz has it down pat.
The Leftist mind.
It's all based on fantasy.
The ability to reason is utterly discarded.
They simply cannot deal with reality.
As a psychiatrist I'm sure you know this~ when a person acts crazy for long enough, they actually become crazy.
The mind really IS a terrible thing to waste!

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:33AM

Tool Job The Unprofessional Bloviatin' Sorry Assed Self-Help Excuse For A Shrink is worried about Tim.

Now, Go Push Some Pills Unprofessional Walkin' Wounded Neurotic GoofyBoy.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:35AM

Sieg Heil!

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:19AM

Carpe Diem.

Are you selling fish for dime now?

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:40AM

Apocalyptic Crank Victor-Lady Smells like Gefilte Fish.

Learn some Latin Pig
Oooor, even some Pig Latin .

victor| 11.7.10 @ 12:07AM

Latin Pig or Pig Latin,

So, you're saying that you are the one to see for those?

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 8:16AM

No Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie ,I'm sayin' You're A White Trash Joisy Pig.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:29PM

Spoken like the true racist pig that you are.

Does your Religion really approve of you?

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 7:06PM

You're A Pstchotic Liar White Trash Joisey Pig Broad.

See A Psychiatrist.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 10:09PM

I have. He's here right now. See Occam's Tool, above.
He says he's worried about you, Timmy*~ not me.
LOL.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:24AM

Victor, what are you and the other guy smoking?

Is it true he's a wife swapper? I wouldn't doubt it.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:21PM

Uh. Matt X,

Just to let you know.. Timmy* here who is a rabid anti-semite said he refused to vote for McCain/Palin.

He considers us who did to be "Traitors to conservatism."

He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 5:19PM

You're a Slandering Liar Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic crank Lady Victor-Margie.

You're A Psychotic Obsessed Israel Firster Apocalyptic White Trash Joisey Pig.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:30PM

I didn't lie.
Archives here at AS honey.
You said it, and you know it.
You voted for your bro-in-law and you said what you said, liar.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 10:24PM

I don't appreciate scumbags like you lying about me and trying to present me as what YOU really are.
A liar and deceiver.
You have been caught in another lie.
I suggest NO ONE trust you:
Here is your post saying you voted for your bro-in-law:

Tim*| 5.6.10 @ 3:47PM

That's pretty bold talk for an one-eyed fat man .

I voted for both Bushes and wrote in a protest vote for my Brother-in-Law , because McCain ia a Serial Traitor & then voted for TARP.

You don't know me & you don't know what you're freakin' talkin' about.

Shove Off Old Man.

REPLY TO THIS

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 5:25PM

Get Bent Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Now, tell us all about Your Personal Mancrush on The Serial Traitor to Conservatism John McCain and McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, The Gang of 14, Opposition to The Bush 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts, Vote For TARP.

You're Up Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 6:41PM

Exhibit A.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 9:15PM

Zoo Exhibit !

The AssBackward Apocalyptic Cretin Crank Lady From The Wilds Of Joisey.

victor| 11.7.10 @ 12:04AM

Yo Doofus, NOBODY in Jersey says JOISEY.
That only comes from out of town hicks such as yourself.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 8:23AM

Screw You White Trash Joisey Pig, I've Lived In Joisey, The Door Mat to Pennsylvania.

victor| 11.7.10 @ 9:52AM

*Timmy:
"I've Lived In Joisey,"

As a White Trash Joisey Pig?

You sound like one and smell like one.

Your folks would be so proud.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 7:08PM

Your Folks Wouldn't Fat Ass Victor-Margie Psychopath.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:34AM

And your folks would be proud of their son who is an Anti-Semitic hater of Israel and the Jewish People?

They probably died of embarrassment.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 10:29PM

Another slandering lie from Tim*.
He lies and tries to present himself as a conservative but he isn't.
Conservatives don't lie. Especially ones that claim to be Religious.
They also aren't anti-Israel and filled with vile hatred toward other conservatives who back Israel.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:28AM

Well unfornately they all have to start campaigning now as we live in a never-ending election cycle these days.

What is interesting is the same people that were behind McCain which includes a lot of people at Natiional Review and American Spectator are now the ones trying to run down Palin, McCain's pick for vice preisdent. It's kind of poetic justice that their favorite moderate McCain gave them this monster Palin, in their view, that they don't know how to deal with. :)

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 2:34AM

I guess the old RINO is a 'maverick' after all. lol

Serves them right!

Matt Heath| 11.6.10 @ 2:46AM

This is from a column written back in 2000 about Gary Johnson:

"The Associated Press reported Johnson has repeatedly called the nation's war on drugs a failure. He says drug legalization would reduce crime and drug-related health problems.

But his ideas have not been embraced - not by government officials or the population at large. The secretary of New Mexico's department of public safety resigned his post in protest of Johnson's stance.

A newspaper poll showed Johnson's approval rating plummeted from 54 to 35 percent once his views on decriminalizing drugs became known.

State G0P officials have acknowledged they're concerned the governor's push could complicate the party's efforts to gain seats in the state Legislature this fall. "

I think most conservatives goign to roll with Palin over the pothead. I dont' know if a pothead like Gary Johnson should be blasting others for looking like a deer in the headlights. :)

DRed| 11.6.10 @ 9:57AM

Pothead or not he's right about the war on drugs being a failure. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:03PM

Easily, you provide no supporting evidence. I'm even sure what the "war on drugs" involves. I would say things like the "Just Say No" campaigns did have an impact on me when I was a kid. Also, somebody once told me that you end up looking like Keith Richards if you abuse drugs...ie, you look like you are 100 when you are 50, and well, that's not for me. Maybe I'm too vain? :)

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 3:41PM

First, if we take a few minutes (about 2 or 3) including the time it takes to google Gary's name, find his website (or you could look at wiki) load, etc.. you'd find out that he personally is against drugs, drinking, etc.... but realizes that as a true libertarian, it's not in the government's interest to restrict it. Even more, the war doesn't work. It only wastes resources and and enriches black market participants. Even worse, our poor neighbors to the south have to deal with the violence associated w/ feeding our habit. Legalize, tax it and allow private companies (including insurance) to test and discriminate against users if they choose. Matt, who's more impressive than Obama, this might be a little over your head.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 4:49PM

You've just enlightened us on the Leftist Libertarian mindset.
Thank you.
It's exactly what we don't need or want in this country!
"War doesn't work."
Yeseree, this is exactly why your pal Gary what's his name will not "travel very far" in his political career.
About as far as Ron Paul.
Thus far and no farther.
That's why they have to run as Republicans.. heh, they pretend to be but then their Libertarianism sneaks out and thus the anti-war, do as you please as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else lawless "belief system" is revealed and these folks go... absolutely... positively...nowhere!

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 5:16PM

Jrs, the problem you liberterians have is you are arrogant. You think are you smarter than everybody else, but all you are is a pothead that never graduated from college. This guy will be taken seriously by the electorate. You can engage in your wishfult hinking if you wish, but he is Ron Paul v 2.0. Another arrogant liberterian prick that's going to go nowhere fast.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 6:54PM

Matt, my arrogance and ignorance or yours. First, I never implied I'm smarter than everyone else, but you do. The whole war on drugs / prostitution implies that the government knows better than the individual in regards to making these decisions. Second, I can understand your arguement about why nobody will pay attention to him, and as you say it's just like Ron Paul (aka he makes sense, and if we listened to him we'd likely be much better off). Instead, the person who can inspire our vote is a woman who was responsible for running a hamlet of between 5 and 10 thousand people and who dropped out of running the fourth smallest state once the going got a little tough.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 6:59PM

She's famous but for about the same reason that the Kardashians or the cast of the Jersey Shore is. Unfortunately, America would more likely vote for Snooki than a guy that makes sense, just like they'd vote for Palin. Finally, I don't know if you are talking about me or about Gary, but if you are referring to me, I have never touched pot (therefore, not a pothead) and have both an undergrad and graduate degree from rather prestigious institutions.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:57AM

From the leftwing Salon, a puff piece about Gary Johnson....this guy has a real shot, no doubt. Enjoy: Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico and a likely candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is talking about hookers.

"It's never been a consideration that I would enlist the services of a prostitute, myself personally," he says. "But if I were to do that, where would I want to enlist that service? Well, it would probably be in Nevada, where it's legal, because it would be safe."

When's the last time Mitt Romney engaged in a hypothetical like that? But Johnson doesn't even blink. It's not like this is the only topic on which he risks offending the GOP's base. He also favors legalizing pot, supports abortion rights, and opposes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, and he doesn't go to church. "I don't think you'll ever hear me invoking God in anything I do," he tells me.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 10:54AM

You social conservative Republicans will learn soon enough one lesson which you have not yet learned:

Small government and individual liberty are not reconcilable with using government to uphold your moral agenda . You cannot be proponents of limited government, yet still feel that you can use government force from keeping people from doing what they please in the privacy of their own homes and lives.

Those two ideas simply are not compatible intellectually.

You can try and justify your positions of social conservatism via government coercion all you please, but it only make you CINO (Conservatives in Name Only). There is nothing conservative about the glut of government resources used to fight the war on drugs, prostitution, etc. That's not to say that you must agree with it, but you must also understand that there is a vast difference between using social means of persuasion and government force, and if you advocate the use of government force to uphold a moral agenda, you're no less a tyrant than Obama (though you are far more hypocritical).

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:30AM

Liberterians are in no place to lecture to social conservatives. The Republican party is not a viable one if it seeks to scoff at social conservatives. We won't win if we run on a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot legalization, pro-prostitiution agenda. That's not a majority of Americans.

What's your proof that the "war on drugs" has failed? I always here liberterians make this assertion but where's the supporting evidence? I have never abused drugs. What exactly does the "war on drugs" involve?

Gary Johnson has asserted that we would be a healthier nation if pot was legal. That's so stupid it's funny.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:21PM

Great posts, Matt X.
Keep exposing the Leftist Libertarians for who they really are.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 12:53PM

And what is it that us "leftist libertarians" are?

Do you have any idea what the meaning of constitutionally limited government and individual freedom is?

Apparently not. You're a fraud if you think you can espouse small government, yet use government to uphold your agenda.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:50PM

I'm not sure how liberterians that support snuffing out life via abortion can put themselves forth as advocates of liberty. You support government enabling others to destroy life, so don't make yourself out some kind of liberty lover. You liberterians are so hypocritical on that issue. You more about the world revolving around your selflish desires, not liberty.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 12:51PM

Proof of failure?
How about over a trillion dollars spent and not a dent in drug usage? How about kids having easier access to pot than to alcohol?

Do I really need to show you exactly what the War on Drugs involves?
How about SWAT raids on people, terrorizing families in the middle of the night for what amounts to non-arrestable amounts of pot? How about the nearly million people arrested per year (along with the associated costs for prosecuting these "crimes") for marijuana possession, placing them in with hardened violent criminals? How about the FACT that money is diverted from going after violent/property crimes so we can arrest all of those "dangerous" pot smokers?

But go ahead and keep your head in that hole. When you wonder why people are calling you a hypocrite for claiming to want small government, yet actually advocating for very big, authoritarian government, people will know it's because that's exactly what you are.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:04PM

Very funny. Fortunately lies don't work. And in your case they still won't.

But for those who want to discover the mind of the Leftist Libertarian~ well you've just read it.
According to him and Timmy* and the other ones like them, I am for big government because I am against what he's for.
Okeedokee.
Heh. This is why, as I explained, these people will not succeed.
Anti war, anti-Israel, lawlessness is not what this country was founded upon, nor will it ever be.
And if there has to be another civil war over this issue.. well so be it.
Advice to all who really believe that Libertarianism is peachy: Go and read David Horowitz.
Read this: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/0.....ur-of-the-“ron-paul-revolutionary”-mind-2/

Oh and by the way: They can't STAND David Horowitz. But if you really want an education~ read his writings!

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 1:41PM

No one said you were for big government because "you don't agree." In fact, if you would ACTUALLY read what I wrote (instead of simply reading what you'd like for me to have written - what I wrote was "That's not to say that you must agree with it, but you must also understand that there is a vast difference between using social means of persuasion and government force . . ."), you'd see that I wrote the exact opposite.

It has nothing to do with what you do or don't agree with, but that you agree with using government force in order to enforce your belief system. I wouldn't engage in all manner of things (prostitution for instance), but that doesn't mean that I advocate using government to uphold MY objections. If someone else wants to pay a hooker for his/her time and engage in a mutually beneficial activity that affects no one else, what business is that of mine (or yours)? But because you disagree with prostitution, you feel that both prostitutes and their patrons should be thrown in jail along with violent criminals. That is what makes you a big government authoritarian.

Your philosophy for the use of government force is no different than the typical leftist. The differences that you think you have with liberals are simply managerial and NOT substantive. You both want to use the government to enact your moral agenda (whether that agenda be "Say no to drugs" or "Save the poor people from a lack of health insurance" is irrelevant - which is to completely set aside the hypocrisy that you wish the government to stay out of our health care decisions, yet somehow agree with telling people they can't put a particular substance in their own bodies because you don't agree with it).

You are an authoritarian statist, and as long as you wish to use the government in order to enforce your moral code, you will be no matter how hard you try and convince the world that you're for small government.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:49PM

And you sir, are a liar!

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:31PM

Can you point out where I lied rather than just throwing out an unfounded accusation?

It's doubtful.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:39PM

Typical Leftist tactic.. they always cry.."Point out to me where I lied!."

LOL: Your claiming I'm a statist because I believe in the Constitutional republican form of government we have in place, put there by the Founding Fathers.

Heh, you're the one left twisting in the wind.. so disingenuous.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 4:17PM

No. I'm claiming your a statist for advocating using government force to uphold your moral agenda.

If you want the state to do your moral crusading for you, you are a statist. It is that simple.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 4:42PM

Aww, poor fellow. Then you're also saying that the Founding Fathers were statists too, eh?
Tsk, tsk.
Poor guy.
Sell your wares to the uninformed. I ain't buyin'.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 5:31PM

Oh Really, Apocalyptic Israel Firster Agenda Broad Crank Lady Victor-Margie

Ronald Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

The Tea Party Is Now Inside Congress 7 The GOP.

Carpe Diem.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:24PM

In that same interview in 1975 with Reason Mag, Reagan continued~

""Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."

He makes a distinction between Libertarian Party and libertarianism, darlin'.

Reagan was very, VERY pro-Israel.
You dishonor his memory by trying to use him for your anti-semitic Leftist side.

You've been outed and I'm loving it:

Ronald Reagan on Israel:

"Since the rebirth of the State of Israel, there has been an ironclad bond between that democracy and this one.

In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith. Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest.

America has never flinched from its commitment to the State of Israel--a commitment which remains unshakable.

Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

Since the foundation of the State of Israel, the United States has stood by her and helped her to pursue security, peace, and economic growth. Our friendship is based on historic moral and strategic ties, as well as our shared dedication to democracy.

For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side."

He would be turning over in his grave right now to see the likes of you.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:33PM

Margie, Victor, G-d love you. You guys rock.

Man, Tim* annoys. (Stringing ad-hominems together does not consitute an argument, Mein Kampf boy.) I wonder what it will take for him to GO AWAY.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:55AM

An aneurysm, perhaps?

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:38AM

OT~
AS has authors who agree with Timmy*.
He has a haven here.
It's up to those who give a darn to out him constantly.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:09PM

Link broken, so here is just a tidbit of a wealth of information revealing today's Libertarianism by Horowitz. His website is called Frontpagemag.com:

Horowitz explains:
“The left’s “original sin” is utopianism… It is the left’s utopianism that has produced its “anti-Western predispositions”… the belief in an alternate world to replace the one into which he has been born.
Those identifying themselves as Constitutional Republicans, as did Medina, dream of a profoundly transformed America. In this “Constitutional Utopia,” free from the “military-industrial complex,” America would no longer be controlled by greedy corporations and global bankers who plunder the world. Freedom fighters everywhere “would no longer be terrorists since America wouldn’t be an occupier.” We would withdraw to pristine isolationism, a Daniel Boone wilderness with virtually no government involvement in our lives. Of course, initial massive government regulation would be needed to bring about the country’s liberation from the Big Corporations now enslaving us. Once the people are free from the Military-Industrial neo-cons, power would be returned to the small businesses and individuals.
Nihilism is the second element of the Leftist mind-set, it is the bitter hatred for any manifestation of American world intervention. Withdrawal of American military influence is a common theme for the Drs. Paul and sympathizers.
Horowitz points out:
“Today the Left is still divided over its plans for the future, but these plans pale into insignificance in the face of its real passion which is its nihilistic antagonism towards the United States the metropolis at the center of the global capitalist system, and Israel, its imperialist pawn in the Muslim world. The left’s overweening hatred of global capitalism – “globalization” – which is its energizing force, explains how it can make alliances with Islamic fundamentalists who share the same enemy.”
“In the section of Unholy Alliance called The Mind of the Left, I show how this psychological trope distorts and energizes the vision of leftists across the political spectrum…I explain how the left’s religious need for a social redemption overcomes such differences and forges the coalition which includes…Islamofascists as well. This coalition is most obvious and visible in the global crusade of Islamist fundamentalists and secular leftists to produce a second Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle East.”
Mr. Horowitz set out to explain why disparate Leftists put aside conflicting political agendas to unite against the War in Iraq. He could easily extend the boundaries to include those following the Ron Paul Revolution. Dr. Rand Paul spoke of forming a coalition with the Left to “defeat the Military-Industrial Complex,” a move that would eliminate America’s presence in the Middle-East, contributing as effectively as the Left to the Holocaust of which Mr. Horowitz wrote."

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 9:09PM

Horowitz is a Red Diaper Baby turned NeoCon Israel Firster.

Get Bent Apocalyptic Crank Lady Israel Firster Broad Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:44PM

LOL. David Horowitz is a world class Conservative.
He speaks at Leftist colleges all over the country exposing the Leftist mind.
He's a patriotic American, decent~ unlike you.
He understands as well as I do the demented mind of the Leftist anti-semite.
Heh, that's why you can't stand him.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 8:41AM

Horowitz Is An Opportunitstic Neocon Israel Firster AgendaFreak ,Just like You Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Tell The Whole Truth Israel Firster NutBag Broad.

"Horowitz is the son of two Jewish-American Communist Party members, causing him to start out radical, but he began to veer to the right later in life. He was educated at Columbia University and the University of California at Berkeley.

Horowitz was an activist in the New Left movement in the 1960s and claims to have been "a lifelong civil rights activist". From 1969 to 1975 he was editor of an anti-Vietnam war magazine Ramparts.However, currently Horowitz is known to side with corporate interests and conservative ideals, and is best described as a Neo-Con"

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 11:46AM

Point made!

You hate real conservatives like me and like David Horowitz because of your own anti-semitism. You cannot stand the light of day being shone upon you!

David Horowitz has written many fantastic books. He is very pro-Israel, thusly very pro-American. I especially recommend to you to read the books, "Hating Whitey" since you call me white trash~

And "Radical Islam and the American Left."
~Especially since your pals are the terrorists.

Books and other publications:

Student: The Political Activities of the Berkeley Students (New York: Ballantine Books, 1962)

Corporations and the Cold War (editor) (New York: Monthly Review, 1969)

Sinews of Empire Ramparts, October 1969, pp. 32–42

Empire and Revolution: A Radical Interpretation of Contemporary History (1969)

Corporations and the Cold War, edited, and with introduction (1970)

The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War (1971)

Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties, ed. by Peter Collier and David Horowitz (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989)

Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the '60s, by Peter Collier and David Horowitz (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1989)

Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (New York: The Free Press, 1997) autobiography

The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice (Prima Lifestyles, 1997)

Hating Whitey: and Other Progressive Causes (Spence Publishing, 1999)

The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future (Free Press, 2000)

The Art of Political War And Other Radical Pursuits (Spence Publishing, 2000)

How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas (Spence Publishing, 2002)

Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations For Slavery (2002)

Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey (Spence Publishing, 2003)

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery Publishing, 2004)

The Anti-Chomsky Reader with Peter Collier (Encounter Books, 2004)

The End Of Time (2005)

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery Publishing, 2006)

Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Thomas Nelson Books, 2007)

Indoctrination U:The Left's War Against Academic Freedom (Encounter Books, 2007)

Cracking of the Heart. Regnery Press. October 26, 2009.

[edit]Histories co-authored with Peter Collier
The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976)

The Kennedys: An American Drama (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1985)

The Fords: An American Epic (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1987)

The Roosevelts: An American Saga (1994)

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:37AM

*Timmy:
"Horowitz Is An Opportunitstic Neocon Israel Firster AgendaFreak"

You don't have the onions to tell that to his face, do you, HamasFirsterAgendaBoy?

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:51PM

"Horowitz Is An Opportunitstic Neocon Israel Firster AgendaFreak ,Just like You Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Tell The Whole Truth Israel Firster NutBag Broad."

Sieg Heil!

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:52PM

Some jackass like you that supports abortion on demand doesn't need to be lecturing me about liberty. The right to life seems kind of enshrined in the declaration of independence to me. You support snuffing it out if it's convenient.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:34PM

Again:

Can you point out One. Single. Instance. in which I disclosed any views about abortion I might have?

You are talking from your nether regions and you know it. But go ahead. Keep those eyes closed and ears shut and just keep screaming "ABORTION LOVER! ABORTION LOVER! over and over if it makes you feel better. It says a lot more about you than it does me.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 5:36PM

David Horowitz was a Red Diaper Baby turned Neocon Israel Firster.

He couldn't carry Ronald Reagan's Jockstrap Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Ronald Reagan:
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 6:37PM

Exhibt A. Timmy* Boy.
Heh.

The rest of that quote reads thusly:

"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

LOL. Ronald Reagan was for a STRONG military. He was NO anti-semite. Heh. Dream on, boy.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 9:05PM

DUUUUHHHH !

And Your Point is ?????

Ronald Reagan:
"But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?

Oh Yeah, Ya Forgot This Part of the interview Sneaky Ass Israel Firster.
REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people."

Fire departments are primarily "LOCAL " Government Organizations & Vounteer Private Organizations.

Police Departments are Primarily "LOCAL " Government Organizations, as are Auxiliary Police and Private Security Firms.

Ya Could Have Asked Reagan.

National Defense is a Fedreal Government Constitution Obligation.

Aaaand ,We Have No Written Treay With Israel.

You're An Israel Firster Buffoon.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:38PM

You are mentally ill.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 8:51AM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Is The Psychotic Paranoid Bus Callin' A Lemon Pie Yellow.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 11:34AM

You conveniently chose to miss the point, slicko.
It isn't about fire departments.
DDuuuuuhhhh!

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 1:23PM

Double DUUUUHHHHH !

The Point Is That The Tea Party Is The Ronald Reagan Answer To The Libertarian Party RINO-CINO NeoCon Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
That's Why Sarah Palin & Our Tea Party Kingmaker Senator Jim DeMint Endorsed Dr. Rand Paul And His Dad Dr.Ron Paul Is A Founding Tea Party Member.

Deal With It NeoCon RINO-CINO Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:05PM

Heh, is that why Randy Boy's wanting to start TEA party in the senate and invite the stinking Democrats?

OOh, more "bi-partisanship, eh?

And then he's gonna vote along with his papa to defund the military with Bawney Fwank and Dennis the girly man Kusinich?

Yeah, your so-called conservative Libertarians (the Pauls) who cloak themselves in Republican clothing calling themselves "fiscal" conservatives while really being wolves (read: anti-Israel) are as phony as a three dollar bill. Just like you, Boy Wonder.

Like I said~ they won't get far.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:47PM

The TEA party are people EXACTLY like me who are Ronald Reagan conservatives.
Ronald Reagan was very pro-Israel. He was not an anti-semite filled with filthy hatred toward conservative Christians and Jews like you are.
Ronald Reagan conservatives are regular Americans just like me and are from all walks of life who believe in American exceptionalism.
We do not call America the Aggressor like you and your ilk do, and thusly side with the terrorists who say the same thing.
Ron Paul actually stated on national t.v. that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!"
This is your ilk, not the TEA party you claim to be a part of.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:37PM

Tim*: explain please, minus the insults, how Reagan would not have qualified, in your vernacular, as an "Israel-Firster." For example, he supported the raid on Osirak, unlike Haig. That raid made it much easier for the US troops in the first Iraq war, which was run by a Notorious NON-Israel firster, George Bush I.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:49PM

"You're An Israel Firster Buffoon."

Sieg Heil!

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 3:01AM

Never heard any poiltical analyst say this about Palin's chances. More from the Salon piece on our new conservative hero Gary Johnson: Johnson faces other obstacles, too. Aside from his low name-recognition, he has no discernible power base. After eight years on the job in Santa Fe, he was term-limited out of the governorship at the end of 2002 and stepped back from public life thereafter. Fundraising will be arduous. And his ambitions are the object of outright scorn from the Washington establishment.

"His chances are zero," political analyst Stu Rothenberg says via e-mail. "I'd say that they are less than zero, if there was such a thing. I'd expect his impact to be nonexistent."

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:45AM

His chances are zero? Well, that ties him with Palin.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:33AM

C'mon man! You know that isn't true. She's a household name and obviously the #1 target of liberals as well as conservative pundits. Nobody's ever even heard of Gary Johnson. The guy has not been in public office in 8 years, and his views are not mainstream conservative ones. You have to face reality. He's not going to hijack the Republican party and make it a liberterian one. You guys have to come to us, not the other way around.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:38PM

Johnson also set things up for a SEVERE Mental Health Crisis in NM by allowing psychologists to prescribe medication without sufficient medical training. As a result, no Psychiatrist in their right mind in the US moves to NM to practice.

The boy's a loser.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:39PM

Heh, but that won't matter to these Paul-bots.
He's one of their own and that is ALL that matters.
Lawlessness? That's EXACTLY what they want.
Remember the Lefty Libertarians ARE Leftists.
Think Billy Boy Clinton.
His illegal activities didn't matter a wit.
He was a Democrat! This is to show how with Libertarians, the ends justify the means. Their goal is anything goes, just like the Left.
This is what is infiltrating the Republican party.. that and a good thick dose of anti-semitism.
All in the name of "fiscal responsibility" of course.
These guys are running in the Republican party because they know they can't get elected in the Libertarian party. But just KNOW that they are NOT conservative.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 3:11AM

When I think of hookers, I think of STDs. This Gary Johnson guy hilariously talks about how if he were to want to get a hooker, he's go to Nevada, because it "would be safe". Yeah, having sex with prostitutes is safe if it's legal, Gary. And Palin's the stupid one.

I guess it would be kind of hard to invoke God in your quest to legalize prostitution. :)

Seriously, American Spectator writers, if you are going to be throw out candidates for us to consider, more "sophisciated" and "cerebral" and less "folksy" than Plain, surely you can do better than this Gary Johnson clown.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 4:21PM

Safe might not be the best word, but it would be safer engaging in prostitution anywhere else in the United States and most likely safer than your local bar. The reason; because it is legal and regulated. Girls are tested on a regular basis and required to wear condoms. Violations will result in unemployment for the prostitute. You can't say this for the cute girl from across the bar. Additionally, using prostitutes normally increases one's risk of physical harm due to the pimps associated with the business. In legalized brothels this is eliminated. The same could be said for legalized drugs. You'd eliminate risks the drugs were cut w/ rat poison, your shot buying them, etc...

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 4:40PM

Wow... here we have on display the Leftist Libertarian mind.
And they try and say Ronald Reagan would agree!
Sounds like you got some experience with the "girls", eh?

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 6:50PM

Margie,
I am recently happily married, thank you. All I am doing is pointing out that when something is legalized and regulated you reduce the risks associated with carrying out the act, but not necessarily the act. Is cocaine dangerous whether it is legal or not. YES. But, since legalized cocaine can be bought at a regulated establishment, we've removed the risk of being mugged buying it or buying chemically altered product. If we tax it, we can obtain revenues from it and we reduce the amount of resources needed to prevent this action. These are all supportable facts. Now, could there be other effects such as a coke'd up pilot crashing a plane, yes... and we can continue to conversation to examine these risks and potentially try and offset some of them (in this case testing of pilots). A similar argument can be made for prostitution.
Second, Libertarian is not leftist. Libertarians believe in limited government in all aspects of life. Liberals believe in limited government in social aspects and large scale economic involvement. Traditional conservatives believe limited government involvement economically HOWEVER they want government to control / regulate our private actions.
Finally, while I'm partially a fan of Reagan (re-inspire America and important to fight of communism), there's also some serious faults this man including shifting us from the leading creditor to debtor nation (although he regrets these actions) that would continue for 30+ years. Therefore, I am not nor would not seek his approval.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 1:05PM

Well congrats on your Marriage but I cannot at all fathom your type of reasoning concerning our form of government.

I do believe your mind has been poisoned by the Lefty Libertarian that is rampant around these parts.

All I can say is I am for our form of republican government and I revere our Constitution and the Founding Fathers. They tried their best and came up with this form of government.

I, along with my conservative friends, are just trying to keep it that way.

In Heaven I will be looking for Benjamin Franklin to tell him how much I got where he was coming from when he said that.

"A Republic... if you can keep it!'

Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.6.10 @ 5:00AM

This blogpost is a joke.

Palin can be credibly criticized for many reasons, but she's not stupid. Palin is not the idiot that the liberal media and the Dems claim she is. And BTW, folks, as I've demonstrated on my blog, there IS a place in Alaska from where you can see Russia.

jrs| 11.6.10 @ 4:24PM

Zbigniew,
Stupid (i.e. IQ < 70) is doubtful, but highly intelligent or gifted is even less probable. She is likely amongst the least intelligent of republican contenders, but that is just part of the continuing trend of dumbing down America.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.6.10 @ 6:52AM

The fear of the members of the ruling class of Sarah Palin is beginning to go into overdrive.

The article never establishes Gary Johnson's credentials to make such an observation.

Rui Nobre Pinheiro| 11.6.10 @ 7:45AM

Gary Johnson is the real deal to fix the mess. He demonstrated, as a successful governor and businessman, excellent skills to make change happen in executive positions. Gary Johnson is very principled. He has actually made change happen. He did exactly what he said he would do in NM. He advocates a 43% cut in government (What others advocate?). He is the voice of the reason. He’s got a chance!!! (http://duelingbarstools.com/2010/11/defeatist/).

PS
"As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common-sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons.

Johnson also shifted state Medicaid to managed care (which led to better healthcare by creating a statewide healthcare network that previously did not exist and which saved money) and reduced state employees by over 1000, with no firings. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history.

While in office, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which is about equal to all the combined vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at the time ) and thousands of line item vetoed bills."
Source: http://ouramericainitiative.com/about-gary-johnson

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 11:04AM

If Tea Partiers outright reject a person like Johnson because of his "lack" of social conservatism, they will have shown themselves as nothing but a groups of hypocrites.

*If* getting government back on good fiscal ground is the primary goal of the Tea Party, anyone with a socially conservative platform should automatically be ruled out.

Small government and self governance are not compatible with using government as a means to keep people from seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or private property, whichever you prefer) in their own way.

It is that simple. You cannot have both limited government and self governance if you actively use government to oppress people and their private lifestyle choices.

Not liking or agree with certain choices are one thing; using government force to keep people from doing them is another, and is NOT a conservative idea, but an authoritarian one.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:26PM

Spoken like the true Leftist Libertarian.
Just what private lifestyle choices are you talking about?
Making speed in your bath tub? And then selling that speed to whoever wants to buy it?
What about making your own hundred dollar bills in your basement?

I suppose you agree with Barney Frank that what goes on in his basement is none of your business.
What else goes on in your house that could be called "a private lifestyle choice?"

Heh, the Founding Fathers were not in agreement with lawlessness.

Anarchy=no government=utter chaos.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 1:51PM

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You really have no idea what libertarianism is, do you? Clearly not.

You live in a fantasy world, my dear.

You're no different than the typical leftist. Government is bad, except one run by The Right People (TM).

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:11PM

Fantasy?
Libertarian Utopia you mean?
A world without laws?
Anything goes?
Ron Paul for Prez. LOL.
Never happen.
Thank God for the Founding Fathers.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Here's a pretty darn cool video. I agree with the Constitutional republican form of government we now have.
Do You?
Yes or no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:39PM

If you would take 8 seconds of your time and find out even one single fact about libertarianism, you would know the answer to that.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:44PM

Yes or no?

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:54PM

The stupid really does flow through you, doesn't it?

"If you would take 8 seconds of your time and find out even one single fact about libertarianism, you would know the answer to that."

I'm not going to do your intellectual work for you.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 3:07PM

Aww, can't answer the question can you?

"..let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation." James 5:12.

And all the while with the lying and condescending and obfuscating of the typical Leftist.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:50PM

So what you're saying, then, is that authoritarianism is okay, so long as it's the states that are doing it? Under that theory, Obamacare would be okay were it enacted NOT at the federal level, but at the state level. Somehow I doubt that you buy that argument because it will still encroach on your rights by forcing you to do something you don't want to do. Which is where your conundrum lies.

If you don't agree with Obamacare at the state level (as opposed to the federal level), you're a hypocrite. If you do agree with Obamacare at the state level, you're an authoritarian.

And if you want to get in some sort of constitutional pissing match, why not use the REAL constitution?

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to *the people*."

The people have room to make decisions about their own lives without government interference. If you can't agree with that, you don't believe in the thing you claim to revere (which is plainly clear).

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 3:14PM

I'm sorry that you didn't like the video explaining how the Constitutional republic which the Founders have given to us with the blessing and honor of God the Father is the very thing that I am in agreement with and that you have the need to try and make it look like I'm something that I'm not.

I pity you.
May you one day come up from the dregs of the barrel you are drinking from to the light.
I am a Ronald Reagan conservative. I was actually born that way~ praise God! I have a lot to be thankful for, don't I?
I love the Sarah Palins of this country.
She's got it all.
You guys prove who and what you are and you just got done proving it again. Right here. Cool.
The line has been drawn. I'm glad. The voters will choose which type of freedom they want.
The Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan kind~
Or the Ron Paul, Gary what's his name kind.
Heh, I think I know who would win.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 4:25PM

I don't need your video to understand the Constitution and our form of government. I have the Constitution and a brain for that.

And I didn't make you sound like you said anything at all; you did that. I just highlighted it. You say you are for small government, but advocate for big government to uphold your own moral crusade. By definition, that is authoritarianism. You can call it what you want, but when you want for the government to throw people in jail for doing something you don't agree with and that does not harm others, you are a statist. It's plain and simple.

You're a Reagan Conservative are you?

Then how about some Reagan for your edification.

From 1975 while Governor of California:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 4:36PM

The little puke just has to keep it up.

Keep on lying, bud.

Suit yourself.

Ronald Reagan was not one of today's Libertarians... duh. And certainly not like Ron Paul!

Heh, keep trying though.. keep trying!

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 5:31PM

Heh, you Lefty Libertarian liars love to use that quote but do not like to post the rest of it, so I will.
Yep. I'm a Reagan conservative, baby.
You sure as shootin' ain't!

From a 1975 Reason Mag interview the rest of that quote goes like this:

"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?

REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people."

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

Heh, guess Reagan must be a Statist along with those rascally Founders (and me) too. NOT!

And if he knew how Leftist and anti-war and anti-Isreal the Libertarianism of that party is today he'd roll over a few times in his grave.

Like I said~ Ron Paul and his posse are no Ronald Reagan conservative Republicans!

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 8:56PM

DUUUUUHHHHH !

Aaaand Your Point Is ??????

Ronald Reagan:
" But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?

REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people."

DUUUHHHH !
Firemen are primarily "LOCAL Government & Volunteer Organizations, Not Federal .
Same with Local Police Organizations, auxiliary police & Private Security firms.

Read The Constitution . Israel Firster Buffoon
nstitutional Mandate. We Have No Written Treaty with Israel, You Israel Firster Agendist Clowns.
National Defense Is A Federal Co

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:58PM

And you laugh about the possibility of Ron Paul becoming president?

Thank again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....ngers.html

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 3:27PM

Look madhatter guy,

Let him run, he's got the right to.
But everyone knows he's an anti-war and anti-Israel believer.
He left being a Libertarian because he knows he couldn't get elected.
So he's a Libertarian in Republican's clothing. Everyone knows that.
He's unelectable.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 11:58PM

31% of 2400 people and you consider that a LANDSLIDE?

Boy, you Pauleos sure have a way with numbers.

If RonPaul ever ran as a Libertarian, he'd never get elected to anything.

victor| 11.6.10 @ 11:58PM

31% of 2400 people and you consider that a LANDSLIDE?

Boy, you Pauleos sure have a way with numbers.

If RonPaul ever ran as a Libertarian, he'd never get elected to anything.

Rui Nobre Pinheiro| 11.6.10 @ 7:58AM

Must read:
"Gary Johnson’s 7 Principles of Good Government"
http://duelingbarstools.com/20.....overnment/

Yosemeti Sam| 11.6.10 @ 9:16AM

" ... how unabashedly impolitic Johnson can be ...."

Well there you have it - yet now a 'one' SMART ASS wanting to be elected in 2012 over the 'one' DUMB ASS.

GoSarahGo| 11.6.10 @ 9:55AM

As a Democrat, I only have to ask...

where do I go to donate to Sarah's PRIMARY campaign.

I figure for every one dollar to her...it's worth ten dollars to the President.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:36AM

As a Democrat, how does it feel after the Democrats lost in a historic landslide on Tuesday. I know what the hell you have to be cocky about...Obama's brought more destruction to the Democratic label than Palin ever could.

John Navratil| 11.6.10 @ 12:49PM

I'll match you dollar for dollar! But for a different reason.

Tom| 11.6.10 @ 10:02AM

Tabin seems to revere the vitriolic Johnson - a Barney Frank of the right. I don't think many conservatives will agree. Sneering get tiresome pretty fast, and does not enhance leadership. Palin's positivism is contagious.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:41AM

Yeah, I don't get what was unique about his comments. It's the kind of thing you expect any liberal or liberterian to say about Palin. I thought it was funny that he's bragging about how he talks issues rather than politics, but all he does is mock Palin and talk about what a badass he is in general. Ron Paul did the "smarter than thou" thing in 2008, how did that work out for him?

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:13PM

Libertarians (the Leftist ones) are the most vile creatures other than staunch Communists that I've read, on the face of this earth.

Like Timmy* here who seems to espouse their "credentials" they in fact HATE conservatives.

They are trying to take over the Republican party.. like he always posts: "We're inside the GOP now."

Yes, they are. The Pauls had to run as Republicans in order to get elected.
They are in fact, Libertarians.
Trying to use Ronald Reagan's quote to justify their godless politics doesn't wash. Mr. Reagan would NEVER agree to their anti-Israel, anti-war, pro-abortion hateful ideology.

Timmy* and his ilk may SAY it's "His" TEA party rebels, but the TEA party he's referring to isn't the TEA party most Americans relate to.

Why do you think Michelle Bachmann and others have proposed a resolution backing Israel? Because they realize this anti-Israel faction among the TEA party~ and reject it!

America will NEVER be a Leftist Libertarian anti-war, anti-Israel, lawless country.
We've suffered and died to make this country what it is now and that is not going to change.

The "fiscal" only crap that these Libertarians promote is just that. There's way more to conservatism than just fiscal responsibility and I believe I've just explained it quite well.

This Johnson dude is just yet the latest example of this ilk... and I'm here to be the constant thorn in his and all of their collective sides!

Real conservatives need to post more here and take these people to task. If we don't stand up against them they will get by.
"..but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light." Eph. 5:13.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 1:01PM

So what you're saying is that everything that was said about Tea Partiers, that they are frauds who are using fiscal conservatism as cover for your moral agenda, is true?

You're exactly what many thought you to be: an authoritarian in small government clothing.

You're not for small government and self-governance: you're for an authoritarian state which tells people how they must live their lives, so long that it's run by The Right People (TM).

You're no less statist than Obama, and worse because you have actually convinced yourself that you are.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:12PM

No, snake, that isn't what I said.
Let him who has ears to hear, hear.
It was quite clear.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 1:55PM

You clearly need to re-read what you wrote.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:34PM

You clearly need to quit defending the indefensible. But you won't. You believe in it whole and hard heartedly.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 3:03PM

What is it that is indefensible?

My support for you being an authoritarian for preferring the use of government force to uphold your moral agenda? Or calling you a hypocrite for claiming to want small government and self governance yet advocating openly for the use of government because YOU think it's a good idea?

The liberal agenda is too a moral agenda, yet you decry their use of government in order to uphold it. How is your support for the use of government force any different than theirs, except that you don't agree with it?

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 3:17PM

READ darlin':

"A Constitutional Republic, if we can keep it!"

(To paraphrase Ben Franklin.)

That's my aim.

Matt Heath| 11.6.10 @ 4:01PM

I don't think it's big government to protect abortion. You want government to endorse the barbaric denial of the right to life of innocent babies. You are supporting big government if you support abortion. You have stated that you are opposed to abortion and you would support a ban on it, you just deny that you ever said anything about it. That's true, as far as it goes, but pretty frickin' obvious you have no problem with abortion. You see opposition to it as somebody want to impose their "morals" on you. By your own sloppy logic, we shouldn't ban murder, rape, theft, etc, because afterall, that's people imposing their morals on society, right?

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 4:44PM

Matt:
Nowhere have you seen me defend abortion. Do a quick search and you will find that the only people who mention it in this thread are people claiming that I have somehow adopted a pro-abortion stance, and me saying "what the hell are you talking about?"

How is it "obvious" that I support abortion? You're projecting what you'd like me to be with absolutely no support, because you can't imagine life outside of binary politics. That's typical of Team Donkey/Team Elephant partisans and perhaps the biggest reason why this nation is in a rut.

I could call you a racist and not support it (as many in the media have done of late), and say "it's totally obvious", and it would carry about as much weight as your argument. Exactly none (except for those who already believe nonsense-sans-support).

Unless you'd like to talk about something other than some fantasy conspiracy theory that you all have pulled out of thin air, we haven't got much left. And remember that it has been your choice to resort to some phantom argument all while avoiding the things I actually have written.

And second off, even if I supported abortion, I wouldn't claim to want "government endorsement", but a lack of government interference. There is a very big difference between the two.

I don't look to the government to solve anything because I don't believe they can.*

*I do support a Constitutional government which has certain, limited duties such as national defense (which should not be confused with the brand international adventurism we've traditionally engaged in) and the upholding of our Constitutional rights, etc. But nothing in the Constitution demands that the government engage in the personal lives of its citizens.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:55PM

What's pro-liberty about abortion? You are the statist, my man. You want people to be given the right by the government to decide the fate of unborn children. Don't make yourself out as Captain Liberty if you think ending life is some kind of expression of liberty. It's an avoidance of personal responsbility, and the unborn children never get a say in their fate.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:14PM

I never once mentioned abortion. Not once.

So if we can get back to what I have addressed, this conversation could be an actual conversation as opposed to you talking to the progressive you reeeeeaaaaaaaalllllly want me to be.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 3:57PM

So on what social issue were you sneering at us about? I'm a statist because I don't support the legalization of pot? You are the one that engaged in the ad hominem attack, so don't expect me to care about getting your positions right, and I'm confident you are pro-abortion but don't want to admit it. You are an intellectual coward, and you used the same exact argument that social conservatives are actually for big govenermnet that liberals use. If you don't want people to view you as a leftwinger, don't use their argumenets. An opposition to abortion, gay marriage, prostituion and pot legalization hardly makes one a champion of big government. As far as pot goes, it seems like a lot of people are abusing it already and they aren't being arrested for it, so what's the big need to legalize it? Just get wee-we-weeed up at home and nobody's going to know.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 4:54PM

I'll write it as plainly as possible since you seem either unwilling or incapable of grasping my very simple argument.

It's not the opposition that matters. It's the advocacy of government force to enforce your opposition that makes you a statist.

It's not what people believe, but what they want government to do for them. For you, it isn't enough to disagree with gay marriage or drug use or prostitution; you want the government to seek out those who don't agree with you and prosecute them for it, or, at the very least, legally bar them from doing it.

Last year 858,000+ people were arrested for marijuana, about 80% of which were for simple possession (as opposed to dealing/trafficking). Don't give me the whole "no one gets arrested for it" garbage. If you truly believe that, you are as uninformed as they come and could really use some real information as opposed to propaganda.

And just to go a bit further, if, as per your argument, one could do it at home and "no one would know it" why make it illegal at all? If it's so harmless as to be unnoticeable, what's the point of outlawing it and using extreme force against it if it is discovered?

Oh, I know. Because you disagree with it.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 6:25PM

You're so full of baloney.
LOL. Say, how do you reconcile with this Lefty guy?

Ronald Reagan: "Well, government’s only weapons are force and coercion and that’s why we shouldn’t let it get out of hand. And that’s what the founding fathers had in mind with the Constitution, that you don’t let it get out of hand."

Oh, how statist of him, heh.

Reagan conservatism, baby! That's what I am.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 9:18PM

And somehow arresting nearly a million people a year, spending over a trillion dollars on the War on Drugs, tens of thousands of people dead, SWAT raids in the middle of the night for negligible amounts of pot, et al isn't somehow "letting it get out of hand?"

You're deluded.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:34PM

Hey lunatic~
I didn't say what you just said I said.
Sicko.
Somewhere there's a padded cell waiting for you & Timmy*.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 6:00PM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie has been A Serial Badmouther of Sarah Pain's & Our Tea Party Kingmaker Senator Jim DeMint's Endorsed Candidate Dr.Rand Paul, The NewTea Party Senator of The Commonwealth of Kentucky

Crank Lady is an Economic Imbecile , who has a problem sorting out The U-6 from Bono's U-2, & is also a Serial Badmouther of The Informed Expert on Economic Issues Republican Tea Party Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, who is The Senior Republican of The House Monetary Subcommittee.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:49PM

Awww poor baby.
I don't like Randy Boy Paul.
I don't like his Papa.
For good reason.
They're just like you, heh.
As for serial badmouthers~ heh, ahem.........

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 8:58AM

We Tea Party Rebels don't like RINO CINO Israel Firsters like You Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie & Arlen Specter.

Sarah Palin & Our Tea Party Kingmaker Senator Jim DeMint Endorse Our Tea Party Senator from The Commonwealth of Kentucky Dr. Rand Paul.

Deal With It RINO-CINO Israel Firster .

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 11:31AM

Tim* the slanderer lies yet again.

Liars go to Hell dear sir.

You are currently on your way there.

I never backed Arlen Specter. I think he is a fool, and I pity him. Much, in fact, the same way I pity you.

If anyone's a RINO-CINO, it's YOU!

A Christian does not lie.
A Christian does not stalk.
A Christian does back Israel.

Bob K.| 11.6.10 @ 10:05AM

Palin's been around for a while. I doubt she will be nominated. But after seeing her for a while, I rather like her. Don't know if I would even vote for her unless, of course, she runs against Obama!

Johnson I just heard of. I don't like him. Just another Libertarian egomaniac with all the answers. He should get a talk show and shut up!

Bob K.| 11.6.10 @ 10:05AM

Palin's been around for a while. I doubt she will be nominated. But after seeing her for a while, I rather like her. Don't know if I would even vote for her unless, of course, she runs against Obama!

Johnson I just heard of. I don't like him. Just another Libertarian egomaniac with all the answers. He should get a talk show and shut up!

Sean| 11.6.10 @ 10:57AM

I would take Johnson over Huckabee, Romney, Newt, Rudy and all the other clowns the GOP like to push. As for Palin, I am not sold on her. She endorsed McCain and Perry and big negative for me.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:38AM

It would have looked bad if Palin had not endorsed McCain, as he selected her as his VP. McCain will probably still try to derail her in 2012 though, that's what a shameless politician he is.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 11:46AM

If Gary Johnson was a honest man, he would as the Liberterian candidate. If Liberterianism is what the people want, especially the Teapartiers, why does he need to run as a Republican? He should not run as a Republican as he obviously has a disdain for social conservatives. Reagan didn't win historic landslides by sneering at social conservatives.

Sean| 11.6.10 @ 12:05PM

Do you want people voting for third party candidates or do you want Libertarians running in the Republican party? If everyone left that leaned towards libertarianism the Republicans would be a minority party always. Gary Johnson was an elected Republican Governor. He does have some flaws I don't like, but over all he is much more conservative on economic issues than most of the potential GOP candidates. That being said I prefer Demint to run or Ron Paul again.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:10PM

Sean,
You arrogantly assume that the social conservatives are going to vote Republican no matter what. Republicans will not beat Democrats without the social conservatives.

I have no problem with people voting for 3rd party candidates. The Liberterian candidates never do well. Few people are going to throw their vote away on a Gary Johnson 3rd party type if the GOP nominates an economic conservative who does not alienate social conservatives. If you want to beat Obama, Gary Johnson is not the answer.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 1:08PM

This is what you seem incapable of understanding:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING GOVERNMENT TO ESPOUSE SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE VALUES.

Why is it so hard to grasp? You cannot be for small government yet wish to oppress those who don't agree with your moral agenda. What you describe is authoritarianism.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 1:18PM

What you don't seem to understand is that Americans do not want your Anarchistic Libertariansim foisted upon them.

What you don't seem to understand is that conservatives like us want the form of government that the Founders set up.

This is a Constitutional republic, and we want to keep it that way.

What you don't seem to know and understand is that the Founding Fathers were God fearing people and they knew that without a moral people this form of government couldn't stand.

Heh, moral agenda you say? You haven't read what the Founders proclaimed. We're with them, bud.

By saying what you are saying you are making yourself an enemy of this country because you are trying to tear it down.. Anarchy and lawlessness=Libertarianism and this is what you are proclaiming.

Your lying about us and saying we are for big government will get you nowhere.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:06PM

If you think that libertarianism=anarchy, you're an idiot not worth engaging with any longer.

If you would just get an ounce of fact concerning what is and isn't libertarianism, you see how idiotic your arguments are.

But you're too intellectually lazy and dishonest to find out and instead throw out the whole "libertarianism = lawlessness" clap-trap.

Go learn something then get back to me. Until then, enjoy your cave.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:29PM

Uh huh.
Sorry but anyone can Google Libertarianism and read their platform.
And anyone can read here daily to see what those who call themselves same react to conservatives like me.
And anyone can see what the likes of Ron Paul and his lunatic mind believes.
So while you are busy "dis-ing" conservatives like Sarah Palin we will continue to expose the Gary Johnsons of the country.
Lotsa luck.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:56PM

Again, my man, you are an abortion zealot. You support something that is barbaric. But you are feedom lover here, guy? Fuck you.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:07PM

I'm an "abortion zealot"? I'm not sure I mentioned abortion even once.

You can't know my opinions on abortion unless you're omnipotent. And I can tell you you're not.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:11PM

Now the badass liberterian is running away from his abortion views, after sneering at social conservatives. Abortion kind of the top issue among the social conservatives. You are smarmy as hell. Gary Johnson, this no-name loser that you support, is pro-abortion.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:14PM

Mad liberterian guy, you got a bug up your butt about life in general, and you need to get over your bitterness. Your beliefs are not mainstream, so you need to stop lecturing people who are in the mainstream about what we must do to please you. That's not how it works. You ever adapt to the conservative platform of the GOP, or you go vote for the Liberterian party. Good luck with that.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:23PM

I'm the one with a bug?

I have one person telling me that libertarianism is something that it isn't in order to avoid any actual intellectual engagement, and another making stuff up out of the air without any support whatsoever for the same reason.

Methinks you have misdiagnosed the "bug up butt" syndrome.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:50PM

I dont' need some abortion nazi telling me that I'm statist. You can take your bitterness elsewhere. I'm not going to be polite to you if all you got is ad hominem for me and others that think abortion is wrong. You want to run away from your pro-abortion stance like all liberals/liberterians do. You guys are only badassess until somebody actually responds to you and puts your stupid distortion of freedom in regards to abortion in perspective.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 2:19PM

If you can find one place where you have read my "abortion views" please point it out to me.

I dare you.

You act as if I must agree with everything a particular politician stands for to support them. I assure you that isn't the case.

But, as typical of the social conservative, let's ignore everything and yell ABORTION!!!!! in the face of NOT HAVING ANY GROUND FROM WHICH TO ARGUE INTELLIGENTLY.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:24PM

You are for abortion, man, you just don't want to admit it because I countered your "social conservatives are authoritarians" assertion so effectively. And you support Gary Johnson, who is pro-abortion rights. There's plenty of other economic conservatives who are not pro-abortion, so I don't think it's irrational to conclude based on your hostility toward social conservatives, your demonization of them as authoritarians, and your support of a pro-abortion politician, that you are pro-abortion. Pro-choice, if you prefer. :)

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 5:05PM

You haven't countered anything. You've pulled many things out of thin air and patted yourself on the back.

When did it become logical and necessary that one must support *every detail of a platform* in order to support a candidate? It's easy, I guess, when you inhabit a world in which there is only Team Red and Team Blue and engage in nothing but the talking points spouted out on cable news.

But in the real world, people can disagree with particular points yet still support a larger platform.

It's called ACTUAL thought, not reciting talking points and making things up and congratulating yourself for a job well done.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:28PM

It just also be noted that a vast majority of americans oppose the legalization of pot, prosstitution, and gay marriage. Oppositon to abortion is over 50% now, with exceptions for rape and the probality that the mother would die in childbirth. For an authoritarian social conservative, I seem to be in the majority. It would seem you want to impose your minority views on the rest of society, which could be one definition of a statist. See Obama.

DRed| 11.6.10 @ 2:38PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144.....juana.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128.....ghtly.aspx

That's a vast majority?

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:45PM

Pot legalization just went down in California, but you dont' want to talk about that, do you?

Liberterians are never going to win anything by making that their pet cause. That's the reality. If you want to know why Liberterians never get any votes, your support for legalization of pot is the reason why. Nobody takes a pothead party seriously. We have bigger issues to deal with right now, and the legalization of pot isn't one of them.

DRed| 11.6.10 @ 2:57PM

Sure, I'll talk about it. What do you want to talk about? From what I can tell, you don't want to talk about anything seriously-you just want to make wild claims, and then change the subject when someone challenges you. Can you admit you made up the claims that marijuana legalization and homosexual marriage were opposed by the vast majority of Americans?

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 3:24PM

Show me where pot legalization and gay marriage wins at the ballot, bro. You can't, they even lose out in the liberal state of California.

WHy don't you pothead liberterians join the Democrats? You don't care that much about tax cuts and spending, you hate social conservatives, and you support a dovish foreign policy. Why not go try to hijack the Democratic party that you have more in common with?

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 5:13PM

This is where you confuse your thinking for mine.

I don't want the government to impose anything on anyone. I simply want the freedom to act according to my principles without you imposing the state on me for not agreeing with you. Government shouldn't advocate for gay marriage. It should stay out of marriage entirely. Government shouldn't advocate prostitution. It should stay out of people's bedrooms entirely.

If you don't like some of the choices/vices that others have chosen, don't engage in them. It's like TV. Don't like the show? You turn the channel. You DON'T tell the government that they need to ban whatever programming it is you don't like (unless you're a statist). And don't tell me you're not a statist when you want for the government to prosecute others for doing something that you don't authorize, because that's the very definition of a statist.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 5:23PM

Ok, mad liberterian guy wants the government to rule against them majority of Americans on prostitution, gay marriage, and legalizing pot. But I'm the statist? Politicians are supposed to represent the people, not rule against them. Those that do are the statists.

Again, society has the right to vote on issues. If you don't like the democratic process, that's not my problem. It's liberalls and liberterians that want government involvement in their relationships, so it's humourous that you attempt to make me out as a statist for simply holding the belief that a society does not have any olibgation to formerly rubberstamp gay marriage. I'm not getting in anybody's bedroomm, I simply voting against gay marriage when it's on the ballot. If a majority of Americans think it's a necessary for society to recognize gay marriage, I wont' lose any sleep over it. Nobody's out to get you because you are gay, bro.

Matt Heath| 11.6.10 @ 5:27PM

Does the government have the right to do anything in your view? As I pointed out before, laws against murder, rape, theft, etc are all based on morals. Some people have no problem with killing other people, they see nothing immoral about it. Ditto for other felonies. Free societies do get to vote on certain morals, and you not ever goign to get the "anything goes" society that you want.

mad libertarian guy | 11.6.10 @ 10:03PM

These things are *not* based on morality, but upon the idea that all of those things actively harm another. Rape violates the rights of another. Murder obviously does as well. Theft does as well. These are not simple "I disagree with murder therefore it should be illegal" arguments. These are laws against actual harm being done to others, not items on some morality checklist.

I don't advocate for an "anything goes" society (that's you projecting what you'd like for me to be saying). I never did. But I do advocate for victimless "crimes" to not be treated as crimes. I advocate for government to only be involved when a particular action violates the rights of others. Government's ONLY job is to protect the rights of individuals (and it does this in many forms) while staying out of the way to allow individuals to go about their business, not oppress them via force because some people think something is eeeeeeeeeevil. That's using government as a tool (statism).

Who does one harm if one engages in prostitution? No one; the engagement is mutual and is mutually beneficial. It's a transaction involving a particular service in exchange for an agreed amount of money. It's no different than any other service, except that some people don't like it so those who engage in it go to jail. Government involvement is nothing but market distortion, and all of the dangers that accompany prostitution are caused by its prohibition.

Ditto with drugs. Who is harmed by some dude smoking pot in his home after a long day at work? (Hint: the answer is exactly the same number of people who are hurt by the average Joe having a beer or a shot of bourbon when he gets home from a long day at work: NONE.). Again, the prohibition causes the crime associated with drugs. Notice that there was no such thing as a drug cartel before prohibition, and no such thing as drug violence before prohibition. Look to alcohol prohibition for all of the examples you need to see that prohibition (I.e., government intervention) is the problem, not the answer. As soon as alcohol prohibition ended, all of the crime associated with it ended as well. When was the last time you heard of someone being robbed for their 6-pack of Bud Light? Likely never, because we can go to any corner store in a non-dry county and buy all the beer we want at a reasonable price. Violence to keep hold of a very lucrative black market position isn't necessary, and so we don't see any violence. When you actively prohibit something that millions of people demand, you don't get rid of the "problem", but simply shift it to the black market where all manner of unpleasant things happen.

To misconstrue libertarianism as lawlessness or some free-for-all anarchical system of governance is to miss the point entirely (willingly or not), and to ignore the argument being made. In general, most libertarians don't have a moral system that's too terribly different from a lot of conservatives; we just don't believe in the use of government force in order to enforce that moral code. We don't feel that government advocacy is needed in order to dictate morality because that is the very embodiment of big government intrusion in to the private sphere. We don't look to the government to tell us what is right and what isn't, because we don't want to live in a nanny state, but one of self-responsibility. We don't look to the government for legitimization because we don't want to live in a nanny state where, in opposition to freedom, we have to ask the government for permission to engage in mutually (or singularly) agreed upon activities.

Our system of government is designed so that we have a sea of freedom with the occasional island of government restrictions. Using government to uphold a moral agenda eviscerates that idea of freedom and turns it on its head. Using government to uphold a moral agenda is the very embodiment of authoritarian statism.

In short, if I don't hurt someone else, it's no one's business what I do, and I shouldn't have to ask permission to do it.

That is liberty.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:51PM

Tell it to the Founders, lunkhead.

mad libertarian guy | 11.7.10 @ 1:22AM

You mean the founders who grew pot themselves?

Or the ones you clearly don't understand and willfully misappropriate if you feel that they saw it appropriate for the government to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

Just as they would be appalled at Obamacare for its infraction on our individual liberty, they would be equally disgusted by your view that a core function of government is to control the private lives of citizens. There entire effort of rebellion and ultimately revolution was contrary to your view of the function of government.

"Don't Tread on Me"

victor| 11.7.10 @ 1:10AM

Madlibertariandude:
"You mean the founders who grew pot themselves?"
They did no such thing. The founders grew hemp for its material properties, not its pharmacuetical properties.
But I'm sure you have a citation for that ludicrous assertion, eh?

mad libertarian guy | 11.7.10 @ 5:03PM

Marijuana and hemp (plants) were not separated until fairly recently due to the stigma attached to pot; one can get hemp fibers from any marijuana plant.

There is some scant evidence that Washington would have smoked the flowers and sold the fibers for other purposes. In one journal entry (Aug 7, 1765), he lamented that he did not separate the males from the females in time to keep the females from having seeds, which there is NO REASON TO DO whatsoever if the fibers are the only thing you're farming for. It was also widely known that if you cull males, not only will you not have seeds, but you will have stronger medicinal effects. This was common practice in Washington's time as it had been for thousands of years all over the world.

You would only want to separate the males and females if you were interested in smoking it. There is no other agricultural reason to do so. In fact, culling males would assure a smaller crop in direct opposition to using it solely as a cash crop for material reasons.

It is also known that he regularly traded seeds with other marijuana farmers which (one as far as Missouri), while inconclusive, suggests that he was looking for differing medicinal effects from different varieties (industrial hemp is industrial hemp is industrial hemp - the fibers don't differ in any significant way as to actively try other people's strains, whereas in smoking it, there are vast differences between one strain and another).

Of course there is no concrete evidence that Washington smoked his "great weed" (his words, not mine), but you must also remember that there was no negative stigma attached to marijuana until very recently (the 1930s). Your puritanical hate of pot is not only new in human history, but unfounded, and even if he didn't smoke it himself, there's no reason to think that he would have tried to prohibit others from doing so (there is NO evidence that anyone during the time, much less those who farmed it, tried to outlaw it in any way).

Because he wasn't an authoritarian who sought to control what private citizens did in the privacy of their own lives.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:47AM

LOL!
It is hilarious to me how these pothead Libertarians try and co-opt the Founders to suit their Leftist leanings.. just as they try and co-opt Ronald Reagan and conservatism.

Mr. Know-it-all here thinks he knows what George Washington was thinking and doing but that he knows what he was thinking while he was writing .. and of course ..in his mind it was to be a pot head!
Yeah, baaaby!

victor| 11.7.10 @ 1:25AM

madlibertarian:
"I don't want the government to impose anything on anyone."

Then I guess you don't observe any speed limits?
112 in a residential or school zone as Rodney King did?
Or how about following the NEC when doing work in your home?

You mean those kinds of government impositions, eh?

mad libertarian guy | 11.7.10 @ 4:18PM

Way to COMPLETELY avoid the argument.

Great job.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:42AM

Madguy:
"Way to COMPLETELY avoid the argument."

madlibertarian:
"I don't want the government to impose anything on anyone."

You're the one who said it.
NO impositions on ANYONE.
That's pretty absolute, innit?

mad libertarian guy | 11.7.10 @ 5:08PM

And, while I'm at it, way to be intellectually honest and take that quote out of context. It was in direct response to being accused of wanting government to impose gay marriage, pot smoking, etc on others, not in the context suggesting that government has no role whatsoever.

But I'm sure you're used to being called intellectually dishonest if this is the way you argue. It's akin to a liberal spouting off that opposition to Obamacare means that we want poor people to die in the streets, or that wanting to fix social security = wanting old ladies to eat cat food. It's the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

But don't feel bad. You're exactly like every other Team Red/Team Blue cheerleader out there; an authoritarian statist who is only happy when they can tell others how to live their lives.

Run along now.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:53AM

madguy:
"These things are *not* based on morality, but upon the idea that all of those things actively harm another. Rape violates the rights of another. Murder obviously does as well. Theft does as well. These are not simple "I disagree with murder therefore it should be illegal" arguments. These are laws against actual harm being done to others, not items on some morality checklist."

So murder, rape or robbery are simply, what, violations of property rights?
You mean that murder or rape is not WRONG in anyway shape or form.
It's just an inconvenience of some sort?
It's not MORALLY wrong, but just a violation?
And you don't consider harming someone morally wrong?
That is, you only look at things from an amoral viewpoint. There is no right or wrong, only "violations".
As with a Parking Violation, you should, what, get a ticket or maybe a fine?
You propose that the state governments not only not consider these acts to be a crime, but there be no penalties as well.
What should happen to someone who robs your house or rapes your wife?

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:07PM

I think we can find an economic conservative that social conservatives can get behind. Gary Johnson isn't a coalition builder. He also a liberal on foreign policy. He's not viable, and that's why I am perplexed how in ends up in a column entitled Gary Johnson vs. Sarah Palin.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:17PM

Matt X,

See my above post for an explanation.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:22PM

That's right, Ron Paul does seem to be anti-Israel, or at least panders to that crowd. He's a 9-11 Truther, and he thinks we deserved 9-11 due to our foreign policy. It's his blowback theory. I have no use for any politician that engages in soft justification of the 9-11 attacks, I don't care how economic conservative they claim to be.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:27PM

Uh.. this post here isn't mine. I don't know if R. Paul's a "Truther" or not but he certainly has made some comments like that. For example he said that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us," That can be googled, it is on you tube.
But please~~ post in your own name, who ever you are!
Heh, this town ain't big enough for 2 Margies.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:30PM

That was a goof on my part, I meant to address you by name in the body of my post.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:38PM

LOL. Oh, good.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm enjoying your posts.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:09PM

Circle Jerk!!!!

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:31PM

Excuse me?
I love how cowardly Trolls cannot use their regualr screen names to lie and attack.
Oh well, par for the course.

David| 11.6.10 @ 12:21PM

Sarah is the best thing that has happened to the Republican party in a long time. She defines its policy and its direction. She should run simply to keep the other candidates on the "right" path. But she should lose to someone who can get votes from the middle. Sarah will never get those votes.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:36PM

David,

You may be wrong about Sarah not being able to get from the middle. My sister who is an Obama supporter told me she loves Sarah.. not likes but loves!

And I have heard other women who are Liberals (or think they are) say the same thing. When I say "think" they are Liberal.. I mean they have been poisoned by media and well, mostly media and perhaps their Liberal friends and family for so long that they automatically think conservatives are crazy and wrong.
Then what happens? Well.. someone like Sarah comes along who is SO much the genuine article.. so much like Ronald Reagan so as to confuse the heck out of them and they can't believe what they are seeing and hearing.. what? She's so fabulous, she's so real.. she makes.. so.. much.. sense!
And there you have it.
If these pitiful, and I mean pitiful, Libertarian Lefties are so arrogant that they actually believe that Sarah couldn't win the Presidency if she chose to run.. they they haven't learned a thing since the success of Ronald Reagan.. heh.. maybe they just weren't alive then.

David| 11.7.10 @ 8:18PM

Well, maybe you're right. I actually hope so.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:24PM

I'm not so sure why Palin can't win indepedent votes, if they are truly independents. I think the lesson of McCain is this notion that we got to put up a guy that appeals to moderates. He got spanked. If we go with another dull moderate that doesn't want to take it to Obama, it's probable we lose again to Obama.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 12:26PM

Gary Johnson thinks legalizing drugs will lead to a healthier society, and that legalizing prostitution will make having sex with prostitutes "safe". This guy is a bimbo.

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 1:59PM

Somebody needs to give this mad liberterian guy a beatdown. He needs something real to crcy about. I have no use for jackass liberterians who want to hijack the Republican party. Go vote for the Liberterian party and have the courage of your convictions, even if that means perpetual deefeat. :)

Matt X| 11.6.10 @ 2:06PM

In mad liberterian guy's delusional mind, I am Hitler because I think a civilized society protects the unborn, children, and the elderly. A civilized society does not slaughter them, or allow citizens to do so. That is one legit role of the governmnet, to protect the innocent and helpless. To suggest I'm somehow for big intrusive government for supporting a legit role of the government is absurd. The same small government arguments were made to support slavery back in the day, and it's just as absurd to defend abortion in the name of smaller government as it was defending slavery in the name of liberty. Both abortion and slavery are anti-liberty by definition. One group of people imposes their decisions on another group.

All Hail The Stupid Party!| 11.6.10 @ 2:49PM

It just doesn't end does it. Yet another "Let's provoke Sarah Palin fans again!" column. Rush Limbaugh was right when he said, "The left will tell you exactly who they are afraid of!" What he forgot to say was, "The Ruling Class GOP & their pundits will do the same!". Mr. Tabin, if you want to promote Gary Johnson (whoever he is) as Presidential timbre that's just fine. What I want to know is WHY does Palin have to be dragged into every column here & every other so-called conservative publication & website as someone who needs to be beaten? The "conservative" punditry are just as pathetic as the left & Democrats in their fear & loathing of Palin. I get it. You dislike Palin & don't want her elected to anything. Fine, don't vote for her if she runs for anything! Just stop wasting space inciting her fans & detractors to be at each other's throats constantly & continually. I, for one am sick of it! Grow up & stop turning conservatism into all out war over Sarah Palin!

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 2:57PM

Heh, don't forget now... like Billy Boy Clinton always liked to say... "it depends on your definition of conservatism."

Well you know what he really said but I'm paraphrasing..sorta.

I will just come out and say it: Those who call themselves conservative and yet promote Libertarians who dislike Sarah Palin are NO conservatives!

By their dislikes ye shall know them.
After all~ what does Sarah Palin represent? What does she believe?
Does a good tree bear rotten fruit?
Does a Libertarian have conservative values?
Why is it that they cringe at the likes of Sarah?
It is because they share the same traits as the Left.
Not to mention they are anti-war, anti-Israel, pro-abortion, pro legalization of all immorality.
Ah, there's the rub!

media pendidikan | 11.6.10 @ 3:45PM

Honesly I think Republican will be held to a higher standard, but who knows??

Matt X | 11.6.10 @ 5:17PM

Why does mad liberterian guy have a bug up his ass about social conservatives if he's all for banning abortion? Why the pretentious lectures about us forcing our morals on others?

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 5:41PM

These Lefty Libertarians are all about trying to call themselves the "true conservatives" and they try and co-opt Ronald Reagan in doing so.

Yet they vote and believe with the Left.
Ron Paul is now "working with" Barney Frank to defund the military, He also votes alongside Dennis Kusinich.
The Libertarian platform is anti-war, anti-Israel and anti-freedom because it believes that all forms of immorality ought to be legalized.

This is why they cannot stand Sarah Palin or any other Christian conservatives and have to lie about us and call us "statists."
It's all they have.
Just another wonderful trait they share with the Left.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 6:13PM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie can't stand the fact That We Tea Party Rebels Support Tea Party Congressman Dr. Ron Paul & Tea Party Senator Rand Paul, both who are Economically Focused on Smaller Government , Stopping Deficit Spending, Stopping The Obama Health Scam and Making America Economically Strong With A Free Market.

With Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie It's An Obsessed Psychotic Attachment to The Israel Firster Agenda and attempting to stop any American Freeman, Who Dares Not Asskiss The Israel Firster Agenda.

Get Bent Israel Firster Psychopath Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Robert Sheets Byrd| 11.6.10 @ 7:34PM

Tim,

Your hatred of Jews and Israel made me weep here in heaven. The KKK will rise again with people like you.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 8:43PM

I don' put Jewish people down for their religion slandering Liar. I just don' t Asskiss The Israel Firster Agenda for Good Reasons.

Aaaand, I've probably have more Jewish Friends, been to more Seders, Bar Mitzvahs, Bah Mitzvahs, Brises & Jewish Weddings than others who Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Tell us About Illegal Israeli Sales of U.S. Weapons Technology to The Red Chines, Jeopardizing Our Allies Japan & Taiwan Israel FirsterAgendist.
Ya Want More After Ya Answer that Israel Firster?

Bring It !

victor| 11.6.10 @ 11:53PM

Timmy*:
"Aaaand, I've probably have more Jewish Friend"

Some of my best friends are....

Boy. I haven't heard that line since, what, Nixon was president?

"Bah Mitzvahs"

I think you mean BAT Mitzvahs, Sparky.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 9:15AM

You can tell that Crap to my Jewish Friends, Steve, Ari, Ron, Julie , Craig, Abbie, Sandy, Paula, Judy ......Joisey White Trash Broad.

I'll Match My Jewish Friends Against any You might even remotely know.

Bring It Religious Bigot Broad !

victor| 11.7.10 @ 9:49AM

Hey *Timmy, do you call your Jewish friends "Israel Firsters" when they express support for Israel, eh?

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 10:55AM

Most of my Jewish friends are not Israel Firster Fanatics, such as You Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
Do you spew your Anti-Catholic propaganda at your Catholic Parents and Neighbors? Do you tell your Practicing Jewish and Muslim acquaintances where you believe They go when they die?
You're Up Religious Bigot Broad.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 11:23AM

Sir,
You were speaking to my husband. You are paranoid because you choose many screen names to post your vitriol and so you think everyone else does it.

I am a Christian therefore I believe everything that's written in the Bible. That means when I speak, I speak from the Scriptures.

That means that when Jesus says this:

"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Nicode'mus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'" Jn. 3:3-7.

It means that I tell that to everyone, Jew, Greek, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, et al. It means everyone, including my own family, yes.

Don't you preach the gospel? If you are a Christian you are called to do so. Do you find fault with what Jesus says?

Why does a supposed Christian man find bigotry in what Christ says, and with another Christian who preaches His gospel?

Who is the real bigot here?

You call yourself a Christian but the only thing you do is spew filth and lies.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 11:56AM

That's Easy Victor-Margie !

You Da Religious Bigot Here Apocalyptic Anti-Catholic,Anti-Everyboby Who Doesn't Asskiss Your Personal Church of Victor-Margie Fanatic Religious & Political Agenda.

Now Tell everybody what You Say To Your Catholic Parents Religious Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
You're Up Religiuos Fanatic Bigot Broad From Joisey .

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:56PM

Maybe when you are able to quit with the lies, insults, slander, hatred and filth you can answer the questions honestly.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 1:28PM

Maybe when you get over your Shock Treatments & Drug Therapy& Psychiatric Counseling, You'll be cured of your Psychotic Evasiveness, when I Hit You in The Face With Your Own Psychotic Apocalyptic Religious & Political Agenda.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 1:55PM

You are projecting again.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:44PM

So, your Jewish friends support people who kill Jewish infants, huh? What friends, Tim*? This Jewish guy thinks you're a toad.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:42PM

And your Jewish friend "Casper, the Friendly Ghost," huh?

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:45PM

The Ghostly Comment was directed at Tim*, Margie. You Go, Girl.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 12:06AM

First, You're an Unprofessional Pseudo-Intellectual Sorry Assed Excuse for a Shrink, to constantly come on AS & Bloviate about your Psychiatric Expertise. Apparently, You're one of the walkin' wounded self-help losers,who got into Psychiatry.
Second, Asked & Answered Ad nauseum Israel Firster.
Read The Tea Party Mission Statement,Core Values & Philosophy. The War In Afghanistan & Israel aren't mentioned. They fall under concern as Deficit Spending and Balanced Budget Issues, as well as Constitutionally Limited Federal Government Issues,Declarations of War ,etc.
Dr.Ron The Texas Congressman And Air Force Veteran, who has been elected by Texans in Texas' 14th Congressional District for 8 terms called for the issue of letters of marque and reprisal. H.R.3074 & H.R.3076.
Speaking for my Jewish friends, Israel Firster AgendaBoy, I'm certain that they don't support Illegal Israeli Weapons Sales to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing Our Allies Japan & Taiwan. Do your Jewish Friends support The Illegal Israeli Weapons Sales to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing Our Allies Japan & Taiwan.
Hmmmmm Israel Firster AgendaBoy.

You're Up Toadstool !

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:56AM

I'm sorry, Tim*, I am having difficulty in understanding your meaning through your cursing.

You don't know me professionally, for which I am thankful. You write like a brain damaged first grader. Israel's arm sales of advanced technology, if they involve US technology, must go through the US. government and be approved by same. As we sell to the Saudis, so Israel will sell arms at times. The Chinese also support iran's nuclear program . They are hardly Israel's friends.

As to your Jewish friends, you lie. I doubt you have any, since your copy of Mein Kampf has been read so often, it is in tatters.

Do you think if we don't answer him, Margie and Victor, that he will go away?

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:08PM

Excellent answer, OT.
As to the question of not speaking back to this creep, I say we should. And constantly.
if we do not he will continue to fool others who think he is a conservative.
I think he and his ilk ought to be constantly called on their sin.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Prov. 26:5.

Some say don't answer. But I truly think it is important to expose this anti-Israel faction that's infiltrating the Republican party.
Timmy* just can't hide his hatred. But others can.
You will know them by their votes.
Ron Paul NEVER votes to back Israel.
He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He is now currently voting alongside Barney Frank and Dennis Kuscinich to defund our military.
These Paul-bots can claim conservative fiscal responsibility all they want but to be a true conservative you must be pro-Israel and for a strong military defense.

I believe it is very important to make this creep answer the types of questions that you just posed to him.
He won't though.
He can't.
He doesn't want to.
He has no ability to reason.
Only to insult, demean and personally attack.

What are these people's goals?
They despise Israel and side with the Left.
They call America the Aggressor and blame her for terrorism.
This is the same thing Osama bin Laden says!
These are no conservatives.
They are lying scum.
I say never cease exposing them.
They want to disrupt AS with their filth and lies.. and they are not banned!
Well then we ought to answer to them.
The free country I was born in is still free for now the last time I looked.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 11:26AM

Tim* says:
"I don' put Jewish people down for their religion slandering Liar."

~Except Bible believing Christians.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 11:47AM

DUUUUHHHH !

You Seem So Confused Today Reigious Fanatic Bigot Broad Victor-Margie. Jewish People aren't Bible believing Christians . They Are Jews. Ya Know, The Old Testament .

You Seem All Atwitter Today.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:54PM

Little little snake:

You said you don't put people down for their Religion.

You certainly do.

Each and every day. Right here on AS.

You revile, lie, slander, insult, demean and spew filth toward Bible believing Christians.

You are a hateful human being all the while pointing your finger at us. Hypocrite.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 1:34PM

FAT, FAT PSYCHO FANATIC RELIGIOUS CRANK LADY VICTOR-MARGIE.

I Put Down Your Personal Anti-Catholic, Anti-Everybody, Who Doesn't ASSKISS Your Personal Psychotic Views Religious Agenda.

You're A Freakin' Pseudo-Religious NAZI !

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 1:51PM

Leftist lowlifes like yourself always personally insult, demean, lie, and slander their opposition.

I am Fat, Fat am I? Hmm. Interesting.
I guess you just like the terminology, eh?

As for psycho~ you can't even see what you truly are.

Sad that a conservative Christian is considered your opposition.

Sad that you reject the Bible. Very, very sad.

You may call yourself a Christian, but you prove the opposite.
It matters not which Religion you use to hide behind.

But you have been exposed.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 12:23AM

Zzzzzzzzzzz !

Get Bent Apocalyptic Israel Firster Crank Lady Fat Assed Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:10PM

Sieg Heil!

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:46PM

No, Tim*, you're the one who want to kill 5.5 million Jews. That makes YOU the Nazi. Sorry.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 12:10AM

Uh Oh ! Israel Firster AgendaBoy Attempts to Play The nazi Card on Tim.

Get Bent You Sorry Assed Excuse For An American.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 12:19AM

By The Way, Sorry Assed Israel Firster AgendaBoy.
5.5 Million Non-Jews Died in those Nazi Concentration Camps.
Americans Are Getting Fed Up With You Israel Firsters Playing Your Cheap Politics & Attempting To Rewrite History & Minimize The Deaths of Non-Jews in those Nazi Camps.
Aaaand, My Dad's Troopers Liberated One of those smaller Nazi Death Camps on The !st Army's Line of March.
Don't You Dare Attempt To Play Your Cheap Assed Israel Firster Crap on Me,You Puke Son of a Bitch.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:17AM

*Timmy:
"Aaaand, My Dad's Troopers Liberated One of those smaller Nazi Death Camps on The !st Army's Line of March."

I'm sure that your father would be appalled that his son is such a vicious anti-semite downplaying the murder of six million Jews.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:12PM

Sieg Heil Timmy*! Sieg Heil!

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:57AM

Yes, and some Jews like Pastor Hagee. Like this one. And Tim*, you're the Bigot. Not Margie.

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 6:28PM

Hey Brooks~ give us an interpretation on this dimwit's burbling, will ya?
LOL.

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 8:48PM

Hey Apocalyptic Israel Firster Crank Lady Victor-Margie, Tell Us All About Israeli Intel withholding Key Info From U.S. Intel Personnel regarding The Mercedes Truck which then Blew Our U.S. Marines To Hell .

You're Up Apocalyptic Israel Firster Crank Lady Victor-Margie

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 10:52PM

Oodles & oodles of noodles!
Wooohoo.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:58AM

Actually, Tim*, the marines were warned by the Israelis. They took no action because they were engaged in a pissing contest.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:14PM

Please, keep exposing each and every lie by this creep.
Lest he be wise in his own eyes!

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 10:58PM

Attendants Get The Net & a Syringe of Thorazine.

Psycho-Lady Is Havin' An Episode.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:50PM

Oodles and oodles of noodles.. this is your brain.. on crack.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 1:37PM

Paging Dr. Vinnie Boombatz !

Your Patient Victor-Margie Has Chewed Through Her Restraints & Is Running Wild Across The New Jersey Institute For The Criminally Insane Grounds.

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 2:09PM

Leftist anti-semites only have one weapon: Lies and personal attacks.

This is the "New Conservative" folks.

You either openly reject him, or you stay silent and accept him.

Those who "Amen" Timmy* share in his wicked work.

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:04PM

Get Bent Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:52PM

Tim*---I haven't used IM thorazine in over a decade on a patient---the risk of hypotension is too high. IM Geodon, Haldol, and dissolvable Zyprexa and Risperdal are the drugs of choice, as Invega Sustenna is the long-acting antipsychotic of choice. I would take it as a presonal favor if you would stop with the Psychiatry comments as you know as much about it as the average Scientologist, and your screechings are uncomfortable.

Margie and Victor believe, as do I, that we are at war with the scum that brought down the Twin Towers. We believe that retreat will not help our cause; this is where we differ from Dr. Paul the Elder, and, apparently, yourself. We also believe that throwing our allies to the wolves will not help us; hence, our concern for the welfare of Israel.

There. That's a disagreement without an ad hominem, and with correct English. Do you think you could do the same, Tim*? I tend to doubt it, but one does hold out hope.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:54PM

Sorry, "personal" favor. The mention of Geodon, etc. is what is used for acute agitation in psychiatric hospitals today. We don't use restraints or seclusion very often, as they are not necessary in a well-run hospital.

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:56PM

Nor do we use "nets." Jesus, Tim*.

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 12:27AM

First, You're an Unprofessional Pseudo-Intellectual Sorry Assed Excuse for a Shrink, to constantly come on AS & Bloviate about your Psychiatric Expertise. Apparently, You're one of the walkin' wounded self-help losers,who got into Psychiatry.
Second, Asked & Answered Ad nauseum Israel Firster.
Read The Tea Party Mission Statement,Core Values & Philosophy. The War In Afghanistan & Israel aren't mentioned. They fall under concern as Deficit Spending and Balanced Budget Issues, as well as Constitutionally Limited Federal Government Issues,Declarations of War ,etc.
Dr.Ron The Texas Congressman And Air Force Veteran, who has been elected by Texans in Texas' 14th Congressional District for 8 terms called for the issue of letters of marque and reprisal. H.R.3074 & H.R.3076.
Speaking for my Jewish friends, Israel Firster AgendaBoy, I'm certain that they don't support Illegal Israeli Weapons Sales to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing Our Allies Japan & Taiwan. Do your Jewish Friends support The Illegal Israeli Weapons Sales to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing Our Allies Japan & Taiwan.
Hmmmmm Israel Firster AgendaBoy.

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:04AM

*Timmy:
"Speaking for my Jewish friends," and Jews Everywhere, I'm certain that they don't support:

H Res 34, “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process”

That's because I am a Paulistinian Firster AgendaBoy.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:00AM

It's not Bloviation when you actually do it, Tim.* Unlike you, I've got a job, wanker.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:03AM

So much for my hope of minimizing ad hominem attacks and using correct grammar. Tim*, you are hopeless, you know? Please, insult me using Capitals; it's so manly.

I went to Medical ASchool in Ron paul's district. Galveston has all the sophistication of a small town and crime of a big city. Until Katrina, Paul's district was known for the worst Man-made disaster and Worst natural disaster in US history. A perfect district for Dennis Kucinich's ally to be from.

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:05AM

Sorry, "Medical School." Keep up the fight, Margie and Victor. Truly you are among the Righteous.

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 12:26PM

Thank you, the righteous are all those who love the God's Truth, like you and millions and millions of true Christians and conservatives the world over.

King David said:

"If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!" Ps. 137:5.

I exhort you to stay involved here.
Not that many seem to care to get involved with this particular thing, this blight on conservatism.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

victor| 11.7.10 @ 1:01AM

Will-I-Am:
"a Trotskyite."

Trotsky was founder of Red Army.
Palin was Commander of Alaskan National Guard.
Close enough.

Trotsky was member of Politburo:policymaking and governing body
Palin was Governing and making policy for Alaska.
Close enough

Trotsky was opposed to Stalinist policies.
Palin also opposed to Stalinist policies.
Right on!

Hey Will-I-Am, anyone ever tell you that you're a dud at forecasting presidential races?
No? Well then, let me be the first.

William R| 11.7.10 @ 1:45AM

Palin won't run. She's making too much money and has a very handicapped child.

Good instincts on domestic issues, but on foreign policy she comes across as a Trotskyite.

hook| 11.7.10 @ 6:38AM

Mike, kid yourself all you want. Palin is not well educated as a voter might like and maybe in some areas not as sophisticated, but as the democrat publisher of a democrat paper said, she is anything but dumb. I suspect you are adopting the msm mantra that ALL republicans are dumb. I think anyone with the exception of romney will beat Obama. Things are only going to get worse.

Incompetent is incompetent and wrong notions are wrong notions which is what obama is and has.

DaveT| 11.8.10 @ 2:52AM

Who is this idiot Brooks? (Any relation to David?)

wodiej| 11.8.10 @ 6:53AM

I know of Sarah Palin very well. Never heard of Gary Johnson. Case closed.

The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Gary Johnson vs. Sarah Palin

View all comments (397) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

hook| 11.5.10 @ 8:47PM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:56AM

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 1:30AM

sean | 11.6.10 @ 8:21AM

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:35AM

David| 11.6.10 @ 12:17PM

John Navratil| 11.6.10 @ 12:40PM

Mike| 11.6.10 @ 4:38PM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:41AM

Jack Bauer| 11.7.10 @ 8:10AM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:54PM

lipa| 11.7.10 @ 7:15PM

lipa| 11.7.10 @ 7:22PM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:56PM

Anthony| 11.5.10 @ 8:53PM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:52AM

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 12:58AM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:33AM

PALIN 2012!| 11.6.10 @ 1:59AM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:43AM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:47PM

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:19PM

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:02AM

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:39AM

inge| 11.6.10 @ 2:44AM

John Navratil| 11.6.10 @ 12:44PM

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:52PM

GBinPA| 11.6.10 @ 10:45PM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:46AM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:42PM

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:19PM

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:20PM

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:05AM

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:40AM

Dan Pet| 5.9.11 @ 10:23PM

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 9:02PM

Bo| 11.6.10 @ 8:39AM

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 10:34AM

Bo| 11.7.10 @ 11:04AM

The Corrector| 11.7.10 @ 5:22PM

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:27PM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:37PM

Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:41AM

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:11AM

Margie| 11.5.10 @ 9:36PM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 12:48AM

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 10:37AM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:33PM

Oops, you did it again| 11.7.10 @ 5:29PM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 9:18PM

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:35PM

Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:21PM

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:53PM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:47AM

Margie| 11.7.10 @ 12:30PM

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:32PM

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:14AM

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:18AM

Lol, you're a toll| 11.7.10 @ 5:25PM

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 10:41PM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:00AM

Margie| 11.6.10 @ 12:54PM

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:08AM

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:23AM

victor| 11.6.10 @ 2:23AM

Tim*| 11.6.10 @ 4:07AM

victor| 11.7.10 @ 12:13AM

Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:51AM

Tim*| 11.7.10 @ 6:38PM

Alan Brooks| 11.8.10 @ 12:23AM

Margie| 11.8.10 @ 11:24AM

Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:06AM

victor| 11.8.10 @ 2:25AM

Tim*| 11.5.10 @ 10:45PM

Alan Brooks| 11.6.10 @ 1:02AM

Willey| 11.6.10 @ 1:28AM