Gary Johnson It's time to throw our full weight behind Gary Johnson.

[V3n]

Then his son RAND should have waited until the Convention to endorse Romney.

No-no-no...you don't understaaaand....he HAD TO endorse before the Kentucky Convention because...

It was better for RAND.

No-no-no...you STILL don't understand...Rand is just a vehicle for Liberty and in an elaborate pretzel-logic kinda way, this compromise of principle actually ADVANCES Liberty down the road.

B-b-but Gary Johnson is ALSO a vehicle for Liberty, on the November ballot, this year.

And I said we should work together instead of fighting and bashing one another.

I think you're just an angry person and I don't want to play with you anymore.

 

[W_BRANDON]

examples or sources?

1) Gary Johnson never came out to defend Ron Paul when people were accusing him of being a racist.
2) GJ could be found routinely misrepresenting Ron Paul's political views:
a) Abortion (Their policies would be identical at the federal level, yet GJ would spin it differently)
b) Gay marriage. Ron Paul, ad nauseum, expressed marriage as being a private matter, while GJ would have you believe RP was anti gay marriage
3) GJ was very much a contributor to the narration that RP could not be nominated.

 

[cheapseats]

And I said we should work together instead of fighting and bashing one another.

I think you're just an angry person and I don't want to play with you anymore.

Then I apologize, sincerely.

You cannot NOT have noticed the incessant juvenile (often untrue) deriding of Gary Johnson...as tho it is HIS fault that Ron Paul (in that famously stubborn way of his) would not budge on the Third Party thing. Tho he was being blacked out left, right and center, tho he was trailing worse and worse, he would not budge from the GOP.

But yer right. I am VERY angry. I have two gears left for Anger: TOTALLY PISSED OFF and PAYBACK IS A BITCH. That's just the way it is in 2012. It's so bad that, unless they are living in poverty or other hardship, I have contempt for the "centered" Ohhhhm people.

Howard Beal, Network: All I know is, FIRST, you gotta get mad.

Go-go-go, do-do-do, best of luck to Republicans trying to reform the Republican Party. It NEEDS it. The more honorable people in Government, the better...irrespective of party affiliation. In the meantime, Gary Johnson COULD get into the debates, backing BOTH Obama & Romney into corners, and a gang of Ron Paul Devotees have been BUSILY trying to prevent an effort to that purpose from coalescing.

Again, I apologize for mistaking you as one of that posse.

 

[V3n]

Then I apologize, sincerely.

You cannot NOT have noticed the incessant juvenile (often untrue) deriding of Gary Johnson...as tho it is HIS fault that Ron Paul (in that famously stubborn way of his) would not budge on the Third Party thing. Tho he was being blacked out left, right and center, tho he was trailing worse and worse, he would not budge from the GOP.

But yer right. I am VERY angry. I have two gears left for Anger: TOTALLY PISSED OFF and PAYBACK IS A BITCH. That's just the way it is in 2012. It's so bad that, unless they are living in poverty or other hardship, I have contempt for the "centered" Ohhhhm people.

Howard Beal, Network: All I know is, FIRST, you gotta get mad.

Go-go-go, do-do-do, best of luck to Republicans trying to reform the Republican Party. It NEEDS it. The more honorable people in Government, the better...irrespective of party affiliation. In the meantime, Gary Johnson COULD get into the debates, backing BOTH Obama & Romney into corners, and a gang of Ron Paul Devotees have been BUSILY trying to prevent an effort to that purpose from coalescing.

Again, I apologize for mistaking you as one of that posse.

last two lines of Comment 206 (edited 5:19est before your reply of 6:45) - but whatever - apology accepted.

I read the Mission Statement of this site prior to having some time to think:

Mission Statement: Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

What I learned is, this site is not just to promote Ron Paul's vision, it is to promote the Founder's vision.

I think Gary Johnson would do that a helluva lot better than Mitt Romney, so (in my mind) he does indeed have a place here.

Obviously I think Ron Paul continues to do this, in office or not. And I believe Rand Paul continues to do this from the floor of the Senate (despite what we've seen on TV).

There's no reason why we can't support all efforts in this vision - but I think we need to do that without tearing down the efforts of others. Even if we don't agree with the strategy, the end goal is the same.

 

[Erik L]

GJ was very much a contributor to the narration that RP could not be nominated.

I agree that this is sort of mistake. However, he did endorse him for the Republican nomination after dropping out. In one of the debates, he said flat out that if he were the Republican nominee, he would choose Paul for VP. He also aired an ad that had the words "Go GJ and RP" in it. Gary Johnson also said this in his speech at the Libertarian Party Convention:

It's always been about the message. I think the message that I'm delivering is the same as that of Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always said he's a messenger. Ron Paul, a week ago, says, "Look, I'm not dropping out of this race because the crowds are growing!" This is the growing movement in America today, and when Ron Paul's candidacy comes to an end, and I hope it doesn't, I hope he's the Republican nominee, but I think it is going to come to an end, and when it comes to an end, where does this message go? Well, it continues. There's an absolute viable alternative to voting for Ron Paul, and it will be the Libertarian nominee.

Keep in mind that he praises a member of an opposing party at the party convention. Keep in mind that this is his nomination speech (where he asks for the delegates' votes) and not just some off hand remark. I imagine LP people are less party-bound in their thinking, but he is around their top players. He must at least admire Ron Paul's movement, beliefs, and followers if he's able to do that in an environment that may be a little hostile to that notion.

 

[JohnAshman]

1) Gary Johnson never came out to defend Ron Paul when people were accusing him of being a racist.

Was he even asked? I would say that Ron Paul and the whole Libertarian foundation has some racism in it. It's kind of the whole politically incorrect Archie Bunker style stuff, and I wouldn't hold that against him, but how would Gary defend him? How would he know. If asked, I imagine he would say "hey, look, I don't believe he's a racist", but it's not like he can whip out evidence.

2) GJ could be found routinely misrepresenting Ron Paul's political views:
a) Abortion (Their policies would be identical at the federal level, yet GJ would spin it differently)
b) Gay marriage. Ron Paul, ad nauseum, expressed marriage as being a private matter, while GJ would have you believe RP was anti gay marriage

Ron actually SAID he was against gay marriage at various points, then said "well, I just don't think government should get involved". But can you point out where Gary has made the distinction between them?

3) GJ was very much a contributor to the narration that RP could not be nominated.

Quote?!?!? If anything he was a very tentative contributor to the REALITY that he was not going to be. But he was very clear that he hoped he would prevail. He never once said that Ron Paul couldn't win the Republican nomination. In fact, had Ron Paul announced before him, he might not have run at all, knowing it would be impossible for him to beat Ron.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

GJ never promoted the notion Ron couldn't get elected. When asked his opinion, he said he really liked Ron Paul, wished him all the best, hoped he got the nod but didn't think he would.

And how could he? He had just been smashed down by the establishment. GJ knows these guys are crooks. He was getting treated the same way Ron was. He knows how it is, so how could he?

He never said "Ron will never win" or anything...come on. You're making a stretch here.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I notice you keep changing your argument. You are simply now making things up because we showed that your original premise was incorrect.

Translation: I lost you somewhere around post #201.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Also, can you kindly share your source for your budget numbers.

I've shared my sources multiple times and in fact there are convenient links to some of them located in the very post in which you make this request, right below your request, in the quoted text.

I feel like you and JohnAshman, as well as cheapseats, have all been very unfair to me and have relentlessly pounced on me as if I am an enemy, with no attempt at understanding whatsoever. Your posts are not giving me any signals of even basic reading comprehension (other than a couple of JohnAshman's, but he has now deteriorated too). I can't deal with people with no reading comprehension. It's too frustrating. Also pointless. I invite you to read all my posts a second time and see if you can't figure out what I'm trying to say. If not, that's fine too. I will wish you luck one more time, and you can reply of course by pointing out my dishonesty, retardedness, and moral turpitude one more time. And I guess we can leave it at that.

 

[Revolution9]

Fuck 'em. The Republican Par-taaay can HAVE 'em.

Some are being deliberately obtuse, some are more devious...BOTH are for purpose of DERAILING advocacy of Gary Johnson.

Payback is a bitch, that's my new policy. Nooooooo, I am not making threats. I am issuing Fair Warning, AS PEOPLE OUGHT.

I will match Johnson bashing with bashing of Compromisers on Twitter, even-steven. "Naturally." That's what people DO with Opposing Candidates...riiiight?

RON. PAUL. WILL. NOT. BE. ON. THE. NOVEMBER. BALLOT.

NON. REPUBLICAN. FREEDOM. FIGHTERS. ARE. THEREFORE. NO. LONGER. ONBOARD. WITH. THE. REPUBLICAN. TAKEOVER. STRATEGY.

The people taking mean-spirited and even BASELESS potshots at Gary Johnson should be up in Grassroots Central helping "real" Liberty Lovers GET DELEGATES.

G A R Y J O H N S O N W I L L N O T M A K E A D E N T I N S H I T. We already have more clout than five Gary Johnsons.

Rev9

 

[cheapseats]

We already have more clout than five Gary Johnsons.

Which, alas, is still not enough to get 'er done in 2012...year of NOBP.

G A R Y J O H N S O N W I L L N O T M A K E A D E N T I N S H I T.

N O V E M B E R I S S O O N E N O U G H F O R A L L T O K N O W W H E T H E R Y O U A R E S M A R T O R S M A R T A L E C.

Looking forward to it.

Rev9

Punctuating thousands and thousands and thousands of posts among "your people" with Rev9 speaks volumes.

Sincerely,
Mo.

 

[Erik L]

G A R Y J O H N S O N W I L L N O T M A K E A D E N T I N S H I T. We already have more clout than five Gary Johnsons.

Rev9

Probably right. But what use is clout if you only choose to get behind candidates that are perfectly, intellectually libertarian?

In my personal opinion, which I'm sure most of you share, there are issues separating Johnson and Paul in which I'm a little uncomfortable with Johnson's position. He's not the perfect candidate. Many of you think he's not even a great candidate (if this was not the case, there would not be a discussion here).

Of course demanding consistency and ideological purity is useful. It forces candidates to see things our way if they want the movement's support. It is particularly useful in the early nomination processes. It is quickly becoming late in the game, however, and it is pretty obvious that Ron Paul will not be on the ballot come November. People in this movement will have to choose between candidates that are NOT ideal. Comparatively speaking, Gary Johnson is the only viable alternative candidate (defined unfortunately as ANY press coverage and more than a 1% likely vote). Johnson polls, when he is included, around 8% - more than any third party candidate since Perot and certainly the only one close to our ideals in a long time.

You have some alternatives: two statists, a protest vote, or no vote. That's it. I think anyone is delusional if they think any of these options better represents liberty than Gary Johnson.

Paul is still the "intellectual godfather" of all this, but it is unlikely that we're going to get another Ron Paul for a while. But there is someone who will still move the country in the right direction that will be on the ballot. We don't get that very often. Who wants to waste this opportunity battling about style ("cost-benefit analysis"), an imperfect record, or something rubbing you the wrong way? Even a debate presence would bolster libertarian positions in the public mind and do tremendous good, especially combined with local Republican Party wins. Who is ready to actually support this guy, and see some real change?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Every additional percentage point he could get would be a great victory for the Libertarian Party.

They are not going to let him into the debates, no matter what percentage he polls. That is my prediction. If you think the debates are very important -- and they may be -- then I recommend you guys start brainstorming ways of hacking the debates. Badnarik went to the debate and protested, tried to make a high-profile event. You need that times 100. Disrupt it somehow -- physically (lower someone down onto the stage on wires?), electronically (hijack the feed and replace the debate with one where Gary is in it, virtually),... hack it somehow.

 

[Revolution9]

Which, alas, is still not enough to get 'er done in 2012...year of NOBP.







N O V E M B E R I S S O O N E N O U G H F O R A L L T O K N O W W H E T H E R Y O U A R E S M A R T O R S M A R T A L E C.

Looking forward to it.






Punctuating thousands and thousands and thousands of posts among "your people" with Rev9 speaks volumes.

Sincerely,
Mo.

I am and was never in this for the standard reasons. Ergo you will never get my goat. The fact that Ron Paul appeared on the world stage tells me I won what i started a long time ago. Now the fruit is ripening for harvest. I could give a hoot about your prattlings. You are the same as an Agent Smith or Jones to Ron's Neo. Gary Johnson is not unplugged. He is still being taught how to be. So your razzberries amount to so much spittle frothing down the front of your nightdress.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Probably right. But what use is clout if you only choose to get behind candidates that are perfectly, intellectually libertarian?

Frankly. I could give a hoot about labels. I am a practical man. No label I ever seen slapped on something did justice to what is actually was... except poison labels. The libertarians on this board are all over the frikkin' place yet they claim ideological purity. Pfft..to themselves. But they dress it up in a fancy gown and golden slippers and everything is just dandy and they are doing it for everyone else's liberty. BS. Gary Johnson? Not impressed. No chin. Says something about how the brain hangs in the skull.


Rev9

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Of course, refusing to acknowledge every concern I brought up in my post.

I've shared my sources multiple times and in fact there are convenient links to some of them located in the very post in which you make this request, right below your request, in the quoted text.

I feel like you and JohnAshman, as well as cheapseats, have all been very unfair to me and have relentlessly pounced on me as if I am an enemy, with no attempt at understanding whatsoever. Your posts are not giving me any signals of even basic reading comprehension (other than a couple of JohnAshman's, but he has now deteriorated too). I can't deal with people with no reading comprehension. It's too frustrating. Also pointless. I invite you to read all my posts a second time and see if you can't figure out what I'm trying to say. If not, that's fine too. I will wish you luck one more time, and you can reply of course by pointing out my dishonesty, retardedness, and moral turpitude one more time. And I guess we can leave it at that.

 

[JohnAshman]

Translation: I lost you somewhere around post #201.

I now can't verify your new numbers that replaced your old numbers. New Mexico's website doesnt' come up except as a blank page. Further, the US website is unclear because they don't supply all data, just certain data points that they don't explain.

I do know that Bill Clinton never truly balanced a budget in reality, but states can't print money so they usually do have to balance their budgets. Everyone is on record as saying that Johnson balanced his budgets and took a debt and turned it into a surplus.

Perhaps you can find a news article or a site that provides data to the contrary?

 

[JohnAshman]

[2003] Budget details


By The Associated Press


Key provisions of the state budget passed by the Legislature in its extraordinary session Friday:

* $3.87 billion in spending from the state general budget account in the fiscal year that starts July 1, which is less than 1 percent above current spending. The spending is about $8 million less than a previously vetoed budget proposal.

* Reserves of about $383 million at the end of the next budget year, which is equal to almost 10 percent of spending. Gov. Gary Johnson's administration uses different accounting and contends that the reserves would be about 9 percent.

* $1.8 billion of the general budget spending is for public education. The overall budget increase for education, including state aid, the Department of Education and special programs, is $2.6 million. or 0.15 percent. A budget vetoed in March would have increased spending by $10 million.

* $605 million for colleges and universities, which is nearly unchanged from the current year. Assumes colleges will collect additional revenues through 3 percent tuition increases.

* No money earmarked for salary increases for public school employees, state workers or college faculty.

By The Associated Press

 

[JohnAshman]

2002 -



Article
Add to MyCollection
Send by E-mail…
Print…
Save as HTML…
Show Full Page
Close
View
Text Size
Smallest
Smaller
Medium
Larger
Largest
Additional Info
Hits

Section--New Mexico Edition--Final Date--12/21/2000 Page--C3


Johnson Seeks 7% Boost In State Budget


David Miles Journal Capitol Bureau


Teacher Pay Raises Smaller in Plan

SANTA FE Gov. Gary Johnson released a budget proposal Wednesday that includes smaller pay raises for teachers and other state employees than legislators have recommended.

Johnson's budget for the 2002 fiscal year, which begins July 1, amounts to nearly $3.8 billion in spending from the state's general fund.

That's an increase of about $250 million, or roughly 7 percent, over the current fiscal year.

The Legislative Finance Committee last week recommended a 2002 spending increase of $325.8 million, or 9.3 percent, over the current fiscal year.

The committee called for an 8 percent pay raise for teachers in public schools and a 7 percent raise for other state workers in its general fund budget proposal.

Johnson's proposal includes enough money for a pay raise that would average 5 percent for all public school employees. However, the proposed raise for teachers would be based on their performance and would not be linked to a set percentage.

Similarly, Johnson called for a performance-based pay raise for all other state employees. Although raises would vary from worker to worker, they would average 3.5 percent.

The governor's proposal also includes a $75 million cut in personal income taxes and $140 million in additional funding to cover the operating expenses of public schools.

The education money includes about $41 million for teacher pay raises; $17 million to speed up implementation of all-day kindergarten; and $24 million for vouchers, which would help parents send their children to public, private or religious schools of their choice.

Budget negotiations between Johnson and Democrats have been strained during the Republican governor's six-year tenure, but both sides have expressed a willingness to work together this year.

"I think we're willing to look at the governor's tax reduction and see if it's something we would approve of," said House Majority Leader Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe.

Johnson told reporters on Tuesday, "It would be nice to work together with the Legislature."

But Lujan said Johnson's voucher proposal probably wouldn't be on the bargaining table.

Legislators have rejected such proposals in the past, and Lujan said he fears vouchers would hurt public schools.

Lujan, who supports a teacher pay raise of 7 percent or 8 percent, said Democrats want to target areas that they think are underfunded, such as education.

"We have certain needs we feel need to be addressed," Lujan said.

On Tuesday, Johnson said the LFC's proposal is too costly.

"One of the fundamental differences between the Legislature and myself, and it's already shaping up, is this size of the spending," Johnson said.

Harold Field, secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration, called the governor's proposed 7 percent increase in state spending "pretty significant."

Field said Johnson was able to recommend the increase because of expected additional revenues from higher oil and natural gas prices and state taxes on those products.

The state is projected to have about $416 million in "new money" available to spend during the next fiscal year.

Johnson's spokeswoman said Tuesday that state general fund spending increases have been held to an average of 4.8 percent a year during the governor's first six years in office.

 

[JohnAshman]

Edition--Journal North Date--05/14/1999 Page-- 1


$21 Million Vetoed From State Budget


Michael Coleman, Loie Fecteau And Wren Propp Journal Capitol Bureau


Democrats Protest Gov.'s Education Cuts

Gov. Gary Johnson signed a $3 billion state budget Thursday to keep state government and schools open, but vetoed $21 million in new spending as lawmakers adjourned a special session and headed home.

Democrat lawmakers were frustrated with the Republican governor's line-item vetoes while Johnson was frustrated by what he didn't get in the 10-day session.

Johnson complained about the Legislature's spending priorities and its rejection of his school voucher and tax cut plans. He said the budget was poorly crafted, shortchanging executive agencies and overspending on new school programs.

"It's the worst budget I have signed in five years," Johnson said. "I think I took it on the chin in this special session and I suggest citizens took it on the chin."

Democratic majority leaders charged Johnson scrimped on education and social programs.

"I think the message is clear that this administration is at war with public education in the state of New Mexico," responded Senate President Pro Tem Manny Aragon, D-Albuquerque. "Millions and millions were taken out of the public school system by Gary Johnson."

House Speaker Raymond Sanchez, D-Albuquerque, said the vetoed items in the state budget illustrated Johnson's priorities.

"He vetoed a lot of money for children and a lot of money for domestic violence (prevention)," Sanchez said.

Senate Minority Leader L. Skip Vernon, R-Albuquerque, complained that lawmakers increased education spending while enacting almost no new reforms.

"At some point, we've got to start changing the system instead of continuing to feed it," Vernon said.

Despite Johnson's vetoes, the budget contains about $76 million in new spending for public schools.

The education money vetoed by Johnson $11 million of the $21 million total included spending for early childhood literacy programs, an alternative education program for dropouts and visual arts education programs.

Other Johnson line-item vetoes included $100,000 for youth suicide prevention programs, more than $700,000 for domestic violence programs and about $210,000 for women's club sports at state colleges and universities.

The new budget increases General Fund spending by about 5 percent.

Johnson did not veto money for pay raises for state employees or public school teachers. He said he cut only new spending and did not reduce money for existing programs.

But Johnson's final approval of the budget averted possible shutdowns of state government and public schools when the current fiscal year ends June 30.

Johnson called the lawmakers back to Santa Fe on May 4 after vetoing two budgets earlier this year. Legislators also had rejected his school voucher and tax cut proposals in the earlier session.

The state's 112 part-time legislators adjourned the special session shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday.

Most lawmakers and Roundhouse workers stayed around the Capitol until the end, for once outnumbering lobbyists.

The special session was expected to cost taxpayers about $49,000 a day, an amount including $131 in living expenses, or per diem, for the legislators.

Legislators earlier this week voted overwhelmingly to reject Johnson's latest school voucher plan, but Sanchez and Senate Majority Leader Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, on Thursday urged Johnson to agree to form a task force to study vouchers and other school issues before the next legislative session.

"I would hope and I would literally beg the governor to sign a task-force bill," Jennings said.

Johnson said he is reconsidering his opposition to a task force because lawmakers agreed to increase the number of people he would be able to appoint.

Johnson said he will accept a compromise with the Legislature over the future of the state parks system.

Democrats pushed a bill to transfer the state parks from the Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources to the Tourism Department. Lawmakers later agreed to keep parks where they are until April 2000, but said they would re-evaluate parks management during the next session in January.

In addition to rejecting school vouchers in the special session, legislators shelved Johnson's $25 million personal income tax cut proposal, saying there just wasn't enough money this year.