PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson on the issues




scandinaviany3
11-08-2008, 10:00 PM
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)
More federal funding for rural health services. (Aug 2001)
Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure. (Apr 1999)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
* Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding. (Sep 2001)
* Maintain flexibility & funding levels for TANF block grants. (Sep 2001)


http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

TruthAtLast
11-08-2008, 10:02 PM
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)
More federal funding for rural health services. (Aug 2001)
Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure. (Apr 1999)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
* Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding. (Sep 2001)
* Maintain flexibility & funding levels for TANF block grants. (Sep 2001)


http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

anything in the last 7 years?

ArrestPoliticians
11-08-2008, 10:02 PM
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)
More federal funding for rural health services. (Aug 2001)
Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure. (Apr 1999)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
* Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding. (Sep 2001)
* Maintain flexibility & funding levels for TANF block grants. (Sep 2001)


http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Yeah but he is good on the Big 4 issues, plus he actually endorsed Ron Paul.

jmlfod87
11-08-2008, 10:03 PM
he has renounced the drug war since then.

literatim
11-08-2008, 10:06 PM
Not only renounced, but spent most of his time between then and now working to stop the drug war. Plus according to that source, he listed as that only because he was part of the National Governors Association which supported such a policy. It is the same with the stance of the more funding for rural health services (only with the Western Governors' Association).

scandinaviany3
11-08-2008, 10:28 PM
the point is there are no perfect candidates if you digg into their records.

The problem here is that its posted for the whole world to see and marginalize him on.

He has a lot of merits..and i mean a lot...but his negatives will kill him in the republican primary and will make sure romney or jindal win.

literatim
11-08-2008, 10:31 PM
You haven't exactly told us what are his negatives that will cause him to lose. None of those you listed would even remotely effect his chances.

scandinaviany3
11-08-2008, 10:42 PM
fighting for drugs in the party is a no..no..

We see the logic...but we also see the logic on getting rid of the fed, not doing the bailout, etc.

Its easy for the NWO guys to pull a few strings and scare people if you give them any open wounds to do it on, like they did on ron and on the bailout.

siding against big business and pro on settlements is a no..no..

pro welfare in any way is a no..no.. in the republican party..

pro social security instead of seperate funds focus..isnt the parties desire

Federal spending on medicare which isnt sustainable...vs pushing for more and more money getting spent..whether noble or not...not a republican thing except to get some of your tax money back to your local area.

Kyoto treaty involvement at all is a obama dream...not a republican thing at all...

We need to slip him in to the vp so they dont have time to say no

yongrel
11-08-2008, 10:47 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/election.png

literatim
11-08-2008, 10:53 PM
fighting for drugs in the party is a no..no..

We see the logic...but we also see the logic on getting rid of the fed, not doing the bailout, etc.

Its easy for the NWO guys to pull a few strings and scare people if you give them any open wounds to do it on, like they did on ron and on the bailout.

siding against big business and pro on settlements is a no..no..

pro welfare in any way is a no..no.. in the republican party..

pro social security instead of seperate funds focus..isnt the parties desire

Federal spending on medicare which isnt sustainable...vs pushing for more and more money getting spent..whether noble or not...not a republican thing except to get some of your tax money back to your local area.

Kyoto treaty involvement at all is a obama dream...not a republican thing at all...

We need to slip him in to the vp so they dont have time to say no

I vote for someone based on the principles he holds, one of those principles is the drug war. If you don't want to support a candidate based on the principles, then why not just support Romney that you seem to be against?

nate895
11-08-2008, 11:05 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/election.png

That is me.

Jeremy
11-08-2008, 11:08 PM
He was the highest person in U.S. government to oppose prohibition

mrchubbs
11-08-2008, 11:13 PM
Gary Johnson is my preferred choice as I outline here:
http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/08/ron-paul-liberty-torch-to-be-handed-to-gary-johnson/3121/

But this is the part that worries me... It was in 1998 but still....

Ron Paul takes pride in saying that he would never vote to regulate the Internet, even in the case of perceived “positive” regulation such as Net Neutrality. Likewise, Paul refuses to regulate the “bad” or “obscene” things on the Internet. In essence, he wholeheartedly supports the First amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for Gary Johnson.

The ACLU brought a suit against the state of New Mexico and Gary Johnson in 1998 for signing a bill that makes it a crime to disseminate material over the Internet that is “harmful to a minor.” In fact, according to the ACLU web site the law was blocked via judicial order on Constitutional grounds. While this law was likely lauded by “family values” Republicans it is obviously a major problem for strict Constitutionalist libertarians.


Is this a deal breaker for you?

It's not for me, but I supported Bob Barr so you do the math. :)


Enjoy.

WRellim
11-08-2008, 11:28 PM
He was the highest person in U.S. government to oppose prohibition

I thought he quit smoking pot?



Oh... you meant "highest" in terms of elected position.... got it.
;)