PDA

View Full Version : In Reversal, Gov. Gary Johnson Now Supports Mandatory Vaccination




Krugminator2
08-24-2016, 06:40 PM
I don't want to perpetually post bad stuff about Johnson. I completely understand people voting for him. I don't think it will do anything but reasonable people can differ.

But this guy doesn't represent my views. And I am sure people will find this interesting. http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination#stream/0




“You know, since I’ve said that … I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,” he said. “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”


“In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” he said.



Not exactly Ayn Rand's view. http://www.peikoff.com/2009/12/07/what-is-the-moral-status-of-quarantine/


I won't even start a new thread for this. He is for mandatory GMO labeling. The guy takes the shithead position everything.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/gary-johnson/science/gmo-labels

jkr
08-24-2016, 06:51 PM
talk about wearing your ass for a hat...and then there is THIS:

"Ive come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,... So its dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.

a sphincter sez whut?

fuck off gary

here is MY mandatory vaccine for YOU!

http://www.tshirtvortex.net/wp-content/uploads/Johnny-Cash-Middle-Finger-T-Shirt.jpg

specsaregood
08-24-2016, 07:06 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

TheTexan
08-24-2016, 07:08 PM
Anyone know stock symbol for any vaccination companies ?

TheTexan
08-24-2016, 07:09 PM
talk about wearing your ass for a hat...and then there is THIS:

"I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,”... “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”

a sphincter sez whut?

fuck off gary

here is MY mandatory vaccine for YOU!

http://www.tshirtvortex.net/wp-content/uploads/Johnny-Cash-Middle-Finger-T-Shirt.jpg

If its any consolation, hes definitely not going to win

phill4paul
08-24-2016, 07:15 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

Yeah. Time for an re-evaluation check. I won't be able to get to it until Monday but his candidate re-evaluation thread needs to be re-visited. Mandatory non-smoking. Mandatory vacs. His V.P.'s gun stance. Sorry, but it's re-evaluation time and come Monday his letter grade might just put him in the "non-support" range.

Origanalist
08-24-2016, 07:31 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

Yes, please....

Maybe they could go here instead...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?225-Individual-Rights-Violations-Case-Studies

AuH20
08-24-2016, 07:45 PM
Trump beats him on this as well. That's not good.

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/trump-tweet-2.jpg

CaseyJones
08-24-2016, 07:47 PM
lol

CaseyJones
08-24-2016, 07:50 PM
Barr may have actually been better than this guy

Natural Citizen
08-24-2016, 07:54 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

Yeah, I'm with specs on this one. Good call, specs.

euphemia
08-24-2016, 08:06 PM
Mandatory non-smoking.

Let's be specific here: Johnson supports mandatory non-smoking of *tobacco*.

donnay
08-24-2016, 08:16 PM
“OK, you bring the syringe, I’ll bring my .45, and we’ll see who makes a bigger hole.” ~ Michael Badnarik (A REAL Libertarian Candidate)

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 11:12 AM
Gary Johnson Alters Position: Now Supports Mandatory Vaccination
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/johnson-reverses-vaccination/#ixzz4IMhBHa32

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson recently reversed his stance on mandatory vaccination. Governor Johnson had previously held a staunchly pro-choice position, allowing each individual to choose for himself and each parent to choose on behalf of their child to vaccinate or not. Recently Johnson reversed his position. (http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination)


In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science, and I would probably require that vaccine.
In phrasing it that way, Gary Johnson appears to have difficulty with two concepts: 1) What is science and 2) what are individual rights.


Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/johnson-reverses-vaccination/#ixzz4IMhGyC2J

jllundqu
08-25-2016, 11:47 AM
What a freaking clown.

How the Libertarian Party can even stand for this nonsense defies belief. In that one quote he tried to hedge, but actually said that he supports a federal mandate.

That pisses me off. I use an alternate vaccine schedule for my children. Hep B Vaccine at birth (as per schedule)? No... neither my wife nor I have that particular STD. Ilotycin Gel in Newborn's eyes? NOPE! Neither my wife nor I have chlamydia or gonorrhea. 5-6 shots at once every two months (as per schedule)? No thanks. We prefer monthly visits and stagger the shots so as not to overwhelm the fragile immune system.

If Johnson thinks he or ANY statist politician can force me to do ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR MY CHILDREN, he is gravely mistaken.

jmdrake
08-25-2016, 11:50 AM
What a freaking clown.

How the Libertarian Party can even stand for this nonsense defies belief. In that one quote he tried to hedge, but actually said that he supports a federal mandate.

That pisses me off. I use an alternate vaccine schedule for my children. Hep B Vaccine at birth (as per schedule)? No... neither my wife nor I have that particular STD. Ilotycin Gel in Newborn's eyes? NOPE! Neither my wife nor I have chlamydia or gonorrhea. 5-6 shots at once every two months (as per schedule)? No thanks. We prefer monthly visits and stagger the shots so as not to overwhelm the fragile immune system.

If Johnson thinks he or ANY statist politician can force me to do ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR MY CHILDREN, he is gravely mistaken.

The LP lost me when they nominated Bob Barr in 2008. They lost me again when the nominated Gary Johnson in 2012 and he said that we should intervene in Darfur. Three strikes and you're out.

euphemia
08-25-2016, 12:00 PM
In phrasing it that way, Gary Johnson appears to have difficulty with two concepts: 1) What is science and 2) what are individual rights.



And it seems Gary Johnson has difficulty with the actual job description for POTUS. He seems to think it is a President's job to promote science, not protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 12:01 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

Honestly...enough is enough already with this Johnson ass clown.

Outside of Vermin Supreme or writing in Ron Paul, Castle is the only one in this race worthy of a "real" vote.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 12:05 PM
It doesn't matter. Libertarian votes weren't important. Moderate ones were. This is pitch perfect for moderate democrats and republicans, who are decidedly pro-vax.

And as for self-identifying "libertarians," the jury is still out (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/759548534/962379). It appears about half support mandatory vaccinations.

Full disclosure: My family doesn't vaccinate.

Origanalist
08-25-2016, 12:06 PM
Honestly...enough is enough already with this Johnson ass clown.

Outside of Vermin Supreme or writing in Ron Paul, Castle is the only one in this race worthy of a "real" vote.

Indeed.

Schifference
08-25-2016, 12:07 PM
If Johnson thinks he or ANY statist politician can force me to do ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR MY CHILDREN, he is gravely mistaken.

They are not your children. You are only granted responsibility for their financial and liability needs. Once it becomes known that you are non compliant, the powers that be remove the children and place them with a more suitable custodian.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 12:08 PM
“You know, since I’ve said that … I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,” he said. “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”

So wait...

If I get a vaccinated against yellow fever, this logic means that the vaccine is worthless, since everybody else is not vaccinated against it.

This is the "herd immunity" argument all over again.

And a good glimpse into what GJ considers us to be...the mindless herd to be controlled, by science.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 12:09 PM
It doesn't matter. Libertarian votes weren't important. Moderate ones were. This is pitch perfect for moderate democrats and republicans, who are decidedly pro-vax.

And as for self-identifying "libertarians," the jury is still out (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/759548534/962379). It appears about half support mandatory vaccinations.

Full disclosure: My family doesn't vaccinate.

So he's lying?

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 12:11 PM
They are not your children. You are only granted responsibility for their financial and liability needs. Once it becomes known that you are non compliant, the powers that be remove the children and place them with a more suitable custodian.

Bingo...

Your home, your land, the fruits of your labor or your loins...you own none of it.

You are just renting it from government.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 12:18 PM
So he's lying?

Could be lying to get votes. You'll have to decide for yourself whether to take his word for it whether he "didn't realize that." If you do believe he's a lying snake then you can draw that conclusion. I haven't heard him lie flagrantly.

Good on the OP for pointing out that Johnson thinks that like abortion and other things this is a tenth amendment issue. Bad on everybody else for ignoring that.

Is there a link to the full interview? For some reason (hmmmm...) this NPR affiliate's post-interview report centered in on something that they knew would incense far-left progressives. I'm sure much more was discussed. Some of it may even have found approval on this forum.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 01:10 PM
Castle is the only one in this race worthy of a "real" vote.

Hey wait a minute. What's this?

Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? stats discuss
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/domestic-policy/eminent-domain)

This seems a little like a violation of Natural Citizen 's fundamental principle of liberty. And we're not talking about cakes here. We're talking about huge swaths of land.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 01:55 PM
The LP lost me when they nominated Bob Barr in 2008. They lost me again when the nominated Gary Johnson in 2012 and he said that we should intervene in Darfur. Three strikes and you're out.
Didn't he also join the "Stop Kony" bangwagon and say he'd be open to sending US troops to Uganda?

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:01 PM
Didn't he also join the "Stop Kony" bangwagon and say he'd be open to sending US troops to Uganda?

Yes, but you know, at one time Ron Paul thought it was a good idea to give Bush authority to send US troops to Afghanistan. Both were wrong. I still think both are good guys.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 02:04 PM
Yes, but you know, at one time Ron Paul thought it was a good idea to give Bush authority to send US troops to Afghanistan. Both were wrong. I still think both are good guys.
When did Ron support that?

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:19 PM
When did Ron support that?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h342

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:19 PM
Hey wait a minute. What's this?

Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? stats discuss
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/domestic-policy/eminent-domain)

This seems a little like a violation of @Natural Citizen (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=38270) 's fundamental principle of liberty. And we're not talking about cakes here. We're talking about huge swaths of land.

Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. As a Constitutionalist, I have less than zero problem with this answer.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:20 PM
Yes, but you know, at one time Ron Paul thought it was a good idea to give Bush authority to send US troops to Afghanistan. Both were wrong. I still think both are good guys.

No, just because he voted for the AUMF out of the demand of pressure from his own constituency, does not mean that he ever thought it was "a good idea." SMDH

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 02:22 PM
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. As a Constitutionalist, I have less than zero problem with this answer.

Yes, this.

While I think the constitution is wrong on this, it's clearly there, and Castle clearly defined it's limited use.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:24 PM
When did Ron support that?

He didn't. He voted for the Afghanistan AUMF as a last resort because Congress had rejected his proposal for Marque and Reprisal and also rejected his proposal for a Declaration of War. His constituents, who elected him to represent him, demanded that something be done, and that was the only avenue left. Even as he voted for it he said blatantly that it was a horrible idea. He never supported the AUMF even if he did end up voting for it.

At this point it seems to me that both Trump supporters and Johnson supporters have become rank propagandists, eager to lie their pants off to sucker in a new victim.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:31 PM
Yes, this.

While I think the constitution is wrong on this, it's clearly there, and Castle clearly defined it's limited use.

That's one of the areas where I think if we actually followed the principles of the Constitution it would not be as big a deal as it is now. Eminent Domain I think is horrible mostly because it's being abused not obeyed. Fundamentally and philosophically, I'm not a fan of the doctrine because at heart it allows a government to seize private property without permission, which thing is horrible on it's face...but at the same time I think the actual non-abusive use of Eminent Domain while extremely rare, is probably a lot less infringing than what we have come to know as the 'ordinary' abuse of Eminent Domain today.

I'm not a fan of the doctrine, but yet I think if the actual principles were upheld it wouldn't be 1/10 as tyrannical as it is today. So basically I think 90% of the problem with Eminent Domain just goes away if we could figure out how to prevent it's abuse. That doesn't mean it's NOT a problem, of course, just that it's only 1/10 of the problem it looks like today, because 90% of Eminent Domain use today is abusive.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:32 PM
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. As a Constitutionalist, I have less than zero problem with this answer.

So Gary Johnson is being less constitutional than Castle when he speaks out against eminent domain.

But which is a defense of private property rights, a pro-eminent domain or an anti-eminent domain stance?

William Tell
08-25-2016, 02:34 PM
I honestly thought Johnson was done getting worse. I guess he never will, imagine if he was president.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:35 PM
He didn't. He voted for the Afghanistan AUMF as a last resort because Congress had rejected his proposal for Marque and Reprisal and also rejected his proposal for a Declaration of War. His constituents, who elected him to represent him, demanded that something be done, and that was the only avenue left. Even as he voted for it he said blatantly that it was a horrible idea. He never supported the AUMF even if he did end up voting for it.

At this point it seems to me that both Trump supporters and Johnson supporters have become rank propagandists, eager to lie their pants off to sucker in a new victim.

Fair enough. Then he thought it was a good idea to vote for it, but not that the actual authorization was a good idea. It's a correct distinction.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 02:35 PM
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h342
I must be hallucinating. I could have sworn it read "give the British authority to send US troops to Afghanistan."

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:39 PM
Fair enough. Then he thought it was a good idea to vote for it, but not that the actual authorization was a good idea. It's a correct distinction.

You are still spinning. You don't have to think something is a good idea to vote for, to vote for it. You can think something is a horrible idea and still vote for it. You can think it is a horrible idea to vote for something and still vote for it. The prophet/judge Samuel thought it was a horrible idea to anoint a King over Israel and he still did it. The fact that he did it did not reflect his thinking that ANY of it was a 'good' idea.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:44 PM
So Gary Johnson is being less constitutional than Castle when he speaks out against eminent domain.

But which is a defense of private property rights, a pro-eminent domain or an anti-eminent domain stance?

I don't think it's that cut and dried. If we continue to abandon the Constitution we will end up with no property rights at all regardless of the motivation behind such abandonment. So while on the face of it the rejection of ED may appear to be more property-friendly than Castle's recognition of it's Constitutionality, the long term effects of further abandoning the Constitution will do more damage to property rights than Castle's correct assessment of ED ever will. So while for the short term (instant gratification) Johnson's position looks more property friendly, it ends up long term that Castle's position does 100-fold more to actually protect property by upholding the actual Constitution.

William Tell
08-25-2016, 02:53 PM
Good on the OP for pointing out that Johnson thinks that like abortion and other things this is a tenth amendment issue. Bad on everybody else for ignoring that.

No, Johnson didn't say anything about the 10th amendment. But if you want to insert the 10th amendment into this conversation He can be translated to have said he would prefer it to be local but when it (inevitably)
ends up to be a federal issue He would probably support totally gutting trashing and destroying the heart of the 10th amendment and enumerated powers because blah blah blah public good blah blah science.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:54 PM
You are still spinning. You don't have to think something is a good idea to vote for, to vote for it. You can think something is a horrible idea and still vote for it. You can think it is a horrible idea to vote for something and still vote for it. The prophet/judge Samuel thought it was a horrible idea to anoint a King over Israel and he still did it. The fact that he did it did not reflect his thinking that ANY of it was a 'good' idea.

Ron Paul was famous for voting no. For being the only no vote. You're saying he caved. I give Ron Paul the benefit of having made his own judgement that it was the right thing to do after such a heinous event. He was moved just as much as all of us. Would it be such a bad thing if he voted his conscience, even if it turned out to be wrong?

And don't spin the bible - God told Samuel to anoint a king (twice). I consider Him to be a very different level of authority than a constituency of voters, and I know you do too.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 02:55 PM
I don't think it's that cut and dried. If we continue to abandon the Constitution we will end up with no property rights at all regardless of the motivation behind such abandonment. So while on the face of it the rejection of ED may appear to be more property-friendly than Castle's recognition of it's Constitutionality, the long term effects of further abandoning the Constitution will do more damage to property rights than Castle's correct assessment of ED ever will. So while for the short term (instant gratification) Johnson's position looks more property friendly, it ends up long term that Castle's position does 100-fold more to actually protect property by upholding the actual Constitution.

Thanks. That makes sense.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 02:57 PM
And don't spin the bible - God told Samuel to anoint a king (twice). I consider Him to be a very different level of authority than a constituency of voters, and I know you do too.

Even GOD said it was a horrible idea, but go ahead and do it anyway.

jmdrake
08-25-2016, 02:59 PM
Yes, but you know, at one time Ron Paul thought it was a good idea to give Bush authority to send US troops to Afghanistan. Both were wrong. I still think both are good guys.

Sending troops into Afghanistan was based on an identifiable U.S. national interest, namely that this guy named Osama Bin Laden who supposedly carried out the 9/11 attacks and was supposedly determined to attack the U.S. again and had undoubtedly been behind two U.S. embassy bombings was based there. What's the identifiable U.S. national interest for going after Kony in Uganda or intervening in Darfur? Rhetorical question.

William Tell
08-25-2016, 03:00 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.
Yeah, this does it. If carbon taxes didn't.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 03:01 PM
Sending troops into Afghanistan was based on an identifiable U.S. national interest, namely that this guy named Osama Bin Laden who supposedly carried out the 9/11 attacks and was supposedly determined to attack the U.S. again and had undoubtedly been behind two U.S. embassy bombings was based there. What's the identifiable U.S. national interest for going after Kony in Uganda or intervening in Darfur? Rhetorical question.

I agree. Gary's got a liberal do-gooder streak. It can't be denied.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-25-2016, 03:03 PM
Yeah, this does it. If carbon taxes didn't.
Him wanting to use government force to mandate that nuns pay for birth control wasn't enough?

William Tell
08-25-2016, 03:06 PM
Him wanting to use government force to mandate that nuns pay for birth control wasn't enough?

Forgot about that one. I have never supported him myself.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 03:08 PM
Him wanting to use government force to mandate that nuns pay for birth control wasn't enough?

I, for one, have not supported Johnson in any way shape or form since middle 2011. He was out of my realm of possibilities long before any of this.

William Tell
08-25-2016, 03:28 PM
Reason says this is good.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/gary-johnson-changes-his-mind-on-mandato

Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 03:37 PM
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. As a Constitutionalist, I have less than zero problem with this answer.

Yep. That's correct. Lots of folks throw that term around the wrong way. There is a correct application and an incorrect application. Good work.

Natural Citizen
08-25-2016, 03:39 PM
Hey wait a minute. What's this?

Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? stats discuss
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/domestic-policy/eminent-domain)

This seems a little like a violation of @Natural Citizen (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=38270) 's fundamental principle of liberty. And we're not talking about cakes here. We're talking about huge swaths of land.

As Gunny had mentioned, Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. I also have less than zero problem with this answer.

It's rather clear that his position is constitutional in the context he provided.

undergroundrr
08-25-2016, 03:39 PM
Yep. That's correct. Lots of folks throw that term around the wrong way. There is a correct application and an incorrect application.

My understanding is that at one time it was thought only to apply to property in DC and federal territories, not to property in the states themselves. Anybody have any perspective on this?

presence
08-25-2016, 03:46 PM
If the uncle eminent domain's my body for his vaccine experiments do I get reasonable compensation?

loveshiscountry
08-25-2016, 03:51 PM
I don't want to perpetually post bad stuff about Johnson. I completely understand people voting for him. I don't think it will do anything but reasonable people can differ.

But this guy doesn't represent my views. And I am sure people will find this interesting. http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination#stream/0





Not exactly Ayn Rand's view. http://www.peikoff.com/2009/12/07/what-is-the-moral-status-of-quarantine/


I won't even start a new thread for this. He is for mandatory GMO labeling. The guy takes the $#@!head position everything.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/gary-johnson/science/gmo-labelsIt's a pussy move on his part.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 03:58 PM
My understanding is that at one time it was thought only to apply to property in DC and federal territories, not to property in the states themselves. Anybody have any perspective on this?

When it comes to non-federal property, the vast majority of the States themselves also have an Eminent Domain clause in their respective Constitutions which they exercise. Some of these states have it written so that ED is a lot more tightly controlled than fedgovs, and some are written a lot more poorly so they can get away with more than fedgov.

As to where fedgov is allowed to apply ED, this should naturally align with the delineation of federal properties listed in the Constitution,


Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17,

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;And

And it is perhaps possible to connect the federal doctrine of Eminent Domain to the enabling of


Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

All the while, we do not need to rely on clauses 12 and 13


Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12-13

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

since "forts" and "dock-yards" are already authorised in the aforementioned clause 17

So fedgov CAN apply ED in places other than Washington DC -- for the purpose of "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings," and probably "Post Offices and Post Roads," however, to do this requires the explicit consent of the Legislature of the State in question....at which point you are likely operating under STATE ED instead of FEDERAL ED anyway.

Fedgov clearly DOES NOT have authority to exercise ED in cases like oil pipelines or other commercial and/or private seizure.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 04:42 PM
Fedgov clearly DOES NOT have authority to exercise ED in cases like oil pipelines or other commercial and/or private seizure.

Not according to the SCROTUS in Kelo v. New London.

That "allows" ED takings for private gain in both Fed and State takings proceedings.

Which, BTW, that whole area where they ran everybody out of their homes, is still a blighted mess of urban weedscape.

Way to go goonverment.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 04:44 PM
Honestly, what fucking difference does it make?

You don't own your home or land anyways, you just pay rent to government to squat there.

The massa can take his shit back whenever he feels like it.

GunnyFreedom
08-25-2016, 04:47 PM
Not according to the SCROTUS in Kelo v. New London.

That "allows" ED takings for private gain in both Fed and State takings proceedings.

Which, BTW, that whole area where they ran everybody out of their homes, is still a blighted mess of urban weedscape.

Way to go goonverment.

I do not consider SCOTUS to be any kind of authority on constitutionality. The Constitution does not grant them the authority to decide what is and is not constitutional, that's just something they randomly started doing and at the time nobody called them out on it. By the time someone figured out what they were really doing it had become the status quo. Mostly the justices are just a bunch of self absorbed childish lunatics trying to push their own brand of political authoritarianism.

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 04:48 PM
Reason says this is good.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/gary-johnson-changes-his-mind-on-mandato

Yeah that's Ronald Bailey, (T)Reason's resident mandatory vaccine supporter.

He thinks this is freedom:

http://www.larryformanlaw.com/uploads/2/4/6/1/24615096/5876933.jpg?415

Anti Federalist
08-25-2016, 05:19 PM
I do not consider SCOTUS to be any kind of authority on constitutionality. The Constitution does not grant them the authority to decide what is and is not constitutional, that's just something they randomly started doing and at the time nobody called them out on it. By the time someone figured out what they were really doing it had become the status quo. Mostly the justices are just a bunch of self absorbed childish lunatics trying to push their own brand of political authoritarianism.

Oh I hear you brother, loud and clear.

It does not change the fact that we live in a court imposed tyranny, where the clowns in gowns essentially dictate to us, exactly how things are gonna be.

Mike4Freedom
08-25-2016, 06:55 PM
I really wanted to support GJ. I really did. This is the last straw. It is either Castle or I will most likely stay home and not waste my time. Politically it was a smart move for GJ to take this stance. Libertarians are not that big of a voting block.

Also Herd immunity is just an observation study. It is not hard science.

Cleaner44
08-25-2016, 07:19 PM
Can we move news about this control freak out of the Liberty Campaign forums already? Put him in the trash heap with Hillary and Trump.

For real. Gary Johnson is not a liberty candidate in any way, shape or form. A politician like all of the rest. He has no understanding of libertarian philosophy. I hate that he will be what many people come to know as a libertarian.

CaseyJones
08-25-2016, 07:35 PM
don't vote for this loser for sure, but don't stay home
there are down ballot items that may be worth going
real candidates or referendums
maybe legalize the weed

P3ter_Griffin
08-25-2016, 07:38 PM
Yep. That's correct. Lots of folks throw that term around the wrong way. There is a correct application and an incorrect application. Good work.


As Gunny had mentioned, Eminent Domain is in the Constitution, and Castle properly identified it's correct application. I also have less than zero problem with this answer.

It's rather clear that his position is constitutional in the context he provided.

So if the proper government to man relationship is a reflection on the proper man to man relationship, does that mean it is proper for me to seize property by eminent domain?

69360
08-25-2016, 07:39 PM
He said his opinion is leave it to the states. That's not the end of the world.

Do we really need one of these threads every single day? He's not going to pass your libertarian purity tests. We have already established that. We have two scumbag criminals running for the major parties on one hand and a decent honest good guy advancing a newly viable party. Why is this such a hard choice? Do some of you just want to continue your circle jerk or actually do something?

P3ter_Griffin
08-25-2016, 07:47 PM
Honestly, what fucking difference does it make?

You don't own your home or land anyways, you just pay rent to government to squat there.

The massa can take his shit back whenever he feels like it.

Here, I think you could use this more than me.


What seems to be a very real issue here still, and which is why I think much care is needed when going into promote people rather than ideas, is how the support for Johnson turns into too easy of a dismissal of serious liberty issues. When one joins the supporting team of a candidate, it's nothing but human how our strong biases tends to take over and make us see past their very real errors. People might not support the worse parts of Johnson/Welds candidacy, but many most certainly downplays them in a way dangerous to our long time cause.

HTH (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298364-Ron-Paul-hit-a-home-run-with-the-eminent-domain-question)

Anti Federalist
08-26-2016, 03:53 AM
He said his opinion is leave it to the states. That's not the end of the world.

Do we really need one of these threads every single day? He's not going to pass your libertarian purity tests. We have already established that. We have two scumbag criminals running for the major parties on one hand and a decent honest good guy advancing a newly viable party. Why is this such a hard choice? Do some of you just want to continue your circle jerk or actually do something?

Setting yourself on fire with gasoline is "doing something".

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 06:36 AM
Setting yourself on fire with gasoline is "doing something".

Supporting a pro-NAP, anti-war candidate isn't analogous to setting oneself on fire with gasoline. Why not consider another semester in metaphor school?

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 07:28 AM
Supporting a pro-NAP, anti-war candidate isn't analogous to setting oneself on fire with gasoline. Why not consider another semester in metaphor school?
Gary Johnson is not pro-NAP. He wants to use aggression against nuns if they refuse to pay for birth control.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 07:37 AM
Supporting a pro-NAP

The man openly contended that he'd send men with guns from the government to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish the principal support for their right to Life and Liberty itself.

So you're full of horse pucky with that pro-NAP spew. He's anti-NAP in the most fundamental and consequential way given that his contention is one that, because it is directly aggressive toward Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting right, is aggressive to the right to Life and Liberty fully.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2016, 07:46 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOyPNGRPukw

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 07:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOyPNGRPukw
What he basically said was that he knows that people have the right of choice and he's okay with it....well..until he's not okay with it and arbitrarily claims authority to decide otherwise.


Now that reminds me of what Jefferson was saying the other day...

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" - Thomas Jefferson (Kentucky Resolutions)

The only way that he could get away with forcing Individuals to consume pharmaceutical products at gunpoint would be to make a claim of national security for the purpose of proceeding to function outside of the consent limitations of general Welfare as it relates to the defense of the United States.

RJ Liberty
08-26-2016, 08:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOyPNGRPukw

Thanks! That clears things up. I'd just been reading this article (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again) from Reason.



And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 08:49 AM
Thanks! That clears things up. I'd just been reading this article (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again) from Reason...



...And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not.


Not really. You conveniently left the other part of what he said out....



.....as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine.

RJ Liberty
08-26-2016, 08:58 AM
:rolleyes:

"Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine."

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:01 AM
:rolleyes:

"Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine."

Thank You.

No such thing as zombies, though. Inserting zombies into the terms of controversy is as arbitrary as having morning coffeee.

Heck, me neighbor panics when someone sneezes in his immediate vicinity. In the company of a few people sneezing in his immediate vicinity, he'd likely consider it a "zombie apocalypse."

Opinions vary in terms of what one surmises a "zombie apocalypse" to be. As does the extent that one would pull out the old arbitrary victim status card.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 09:12 AM
Here's Gary Johnson's position:

"If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.

"And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016 (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again).

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:16 AM
...as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016 (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again).

How would he enforce it? Hm? How, undergroundrr? If I say that I don't want to consume a given pharmaceutical product into my body, how is he going to enforce his mandate?

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 09:22 AM
How would he enforce it? Hm? How, undergroundrr?

By being directly aggressive toward Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting right, and aggressive to the right to Life and Liberty fully. I'm sure. Maybe he'd bake the vaccine into a fluffy chocolate cake and have it forcefully administered to toddlers that way.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:36 AM
Maybe he'd bake the vaccine into a fluffy chocolate cake and have it forcefully administered...


Well. If history is any indication, we can likely skip your idea that forced consumption of pharmaceurtical products will entail fluffy chocolate cake...



...as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016.

http://winningdemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NoRefusalBloodDraw.png

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 09:37 AM
:rolleyes:

"Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine."

I'm sure if you replace zombies with Zika, ebola, or any other epidemic Gary Johnson would support mandatory vaccination.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 09:38 AM
...as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016.

Sorry you don't have the cultural context for "zombie apocalypse," but it's disingenuous not to include it in that quote.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 09:40 AM
Sorry you don't have the cultural context for "zombie apocalypse," but it's disingenuous not to include it in that quote.
Not really, because Gary Johnson has already shown himself to love federal mandates. He supports a federal mandate with regards to birth control, he supports a federal mandate forcing states to recognize homosexual unions, he supports a federal mandate barring states from banning abortion. He supports government mandates outlawing smoking on private property.

He loves government mandates. No wonder he wants to give Mitt Romney a position in his fictional White House.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:42 AM
"zombie apocalypse,"...it's disingenuous not to include it in that quote.

Zombies don't exist. As I correctly stated, they're as arbitrary to the terms of controversy as morning coffee is to breakfast.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:43 AM
cultural context

Spoken like a right proper SJW.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 09:51 AM
I'm sure if you replace zombies with Zika, ebola, or any other epidemic Gary Johnson would support mandatory vaccination.

Exactly correct.

Weasel words ( "zombie apocalypse" in this particular instance) are most often euphemisms for police action or other government force to get around limitations on Presidential powers. An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions or policy which under old names have become odious to the public. This, of course, is disingenuous.

Apparently, undergroundrr thinks we're stupid or something. Heh. Gosh love him.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 09:57 AM
He loves government mandates. No wonder he wants to give Mitt Romney a position in his fictional White House.

He has his own take on religious liberty. But for you to lecture about it? You've called for a ban on Burkinis, burqas, niqabs, minarets, and Qurans. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500109-French-Court-Strikes-Down-Burkini-Ban&p=6296081#post6296081)

As for "fictional White House," you seem to be correct about that unfortunately.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 10:00 AM
Ah well. I think I'm going to get off of here and clean my house while I have a good day of free time and no work to do.


Win the debate while I'm away, boys. All of it.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2016, 10:02 AM
He has his own take on religious liberty.

Religious Liberty is Individual Liberty. They are not mutually exclusive. There is no separation or difference. Individual Liberty is Individual Liberty no matter what religion an Individual or group of Individuals practice. There you go with those weasel words again. Heh.

There is only 1 take on Individual Liberty. Just 1. And it isn't open for compromise. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 10:03 AM
He has his own take on religious liberty. But for you to lecture about it? You've called for a ban on Burkinis, burqas, niqabs, minarets, and Qurans. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500109-French-Court-Strikes-Down-Burkini-Ban&p=6296081#post6296081)
You need to replace the batteries on your sarcasm meter.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 10:03 AM
Spoken like a right proper SJW.

LOL. I'll just let you get back to Archie & Jughead.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 10:04 AM
He has his own take on religious liberty.
His own take meaning he doesn't believe in private property and the right to freely associate?

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 10:06 AM
Ah well. I think I'm going to get off of here and clean my house while I have a good day of free time and no work to do.


Win the debate while I'm away, boys. All of it.

I like your spirit.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again.

undergroundrr
08-26-2016, 10:09 AM
You need to replace the batteries on your sarcasm meter.

Sorry, you stated you're not a libertarian. By extension...

But maybe that was sarcasm too. Sometimes it's hard to tell with these new accounts.

NotAnIllegalImmigrant
08-26-2016, 10:19 AM
Sorry, you stated you're not a libertarian. By extension...

But maybe that was sarcasm too. Sometimes it's hard to tell with these new accounts.
What does me not being a libertarian have to do with anything?

Gary Johnson isn't one either. The difference is he's a progressive statist.

osan
08-26-2016, 08:40 PM
I don't want to perpetually post bad stuff about Johnson. I completely understand people voting for him. I don't think it will do anything but reasonable people can differ.

But this guy doesn't represent my views. And I am sure people will find this interesting. http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination#stream/0






Not exactly Ayn Rand's view. http://www.peikoff.com/2009/12/07/what-is-the-moral-status-of-quarantine/


I won't even start a new thread for this. He is for mandatory GMO labeling. The guy takes the shithead position everything.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/gary-johnson/science/gmo-labels


Oh gee... how surprising.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
08-27-2016, 01:10 AM
he voted for the AUMF out of the demand of pressure from his own constituency,

The pressure wasn't so much from his constituency as it was from the neocon scum embedded in his staff, such as Eric Dondero Rittberg.