161 replies to this topic

[hblask]

With Johnson announcing his presidential run this week (what do you mean you MISSED IT?!?!?!), there has been a flurry of articles about him.This has been my favorite so far:The Zen of Gary Johnson

[FCP Bob]

Pot Head HippyI found these articles linked from the one you posted. Interesting reading.http://www.slate.com...91703/pagenum/2http://www.theatlant...al-race/237689/http://reason.com/ar...angerous-politi

[CaneBrain]

Private prisons = more prisoners. I'm not sure I like this guy all that much. He just completely ignores the downsides of privitization and that is his answer to almost everything. Not that impressed.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 10:20 AM, said:

Private prisons = more prisoners. I'm not sure I like this guy all that much. He just completely ignores the downsides of privitization and that is his answer to almost everything. Not that impressed.

Because private companies have so much more pull than public employees unions?His answer is to do cost-benefit analysis. If that means privatization, then that's what should happen. If that means let the public sector do it, that's what happens. Would you have it any other way?

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 12:55 PM, said:

Because private companies have so much more pull than public employees unions?His answer is to do cost-benefit analysis. If that means privatization, then that's what should happen. If that means let the public sector do it, that's what happens. Would you have it any other way?

No, but I don't think his cost-benefit analysis is all that accurate if he thinks private prisons are a success story. They are other "costs" besides simple dollars and cents. I think someone like Gary Johnson who hates how the drug war puts too many people in jail would at least be somewhat leery of creating an entity (private prisons) with an express financial interest in keeping more people in jail longer.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 11:17 AM, said:

No, but I don't think his cost-benefit analysis is all that accurate if he thinks private prisons are a success story. They are other "costs" besides simple dollars and cents. I think someone like Gary Johnson who hates how the drug war puts too many people in jail would at least be somewhat leery of creating an entity (private prisons) with an express financial interest in keeping more people in jail longer.

Their financial interest can only be realized if government is too big and doing too much. So once again, the so-called problems of leftist big-government agenda are being blamed on free markets.Basically, he was going by his experience in NM, where it worked perfectly. Now, admittedly, he was an exceptionally good governor, so under someone incompetent, e.g. Obama, it's possible it wouldn't work as well. Which brings us back to Johnson's philosophy: let the govt do as little as possible so that after people like Johnson leave office, people like Obama can't destroy the country.There are two problems with this complaint against him: first, this is such a tiny part of his total policy picture that it would be like picking on Obama for the color of his tie. Second, he's the guy who would immediately cut the prison population in half, so complaining that in certain circumstances, where corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude, you could end up with a few extra prisoners, seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

[Balloon guy]

Plus we can just do a simple questionnaire at the end of each prison stay.A. Did you think this prison adequately incarcerated you in a manner you felt was justifiable to your crime?B. When you commit another crime and are arrested, would you rather be placed back in this prison, or another one? Why?C. Were any of the guards worthy of your admiration in the conduct of their job performance? D. Were you able to acquire illegal drugs while incarcerated? If so what kind?E. What could the democrats do to politicize your incarceration so they can achieve more power?

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 1:26 PM, said:

There are two problems with this complaint against him: first, this is such a tiny part of his total policy picture that it would be like picking on Obama for the color of his tie. Second, he's the guy who would immediately cut the prison population in half, so complaining that in certain circumstances, where corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude, you could end up with a few extra prisoners, seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

Except he could accomplish one and not the other.I'd want to see a lot of evidence before I would say that it went "perfectly" in NM.It's not like he is a serious candidate so I don't want to get too fired up about it. I like a lot of individual things about him but the GOP would NEVER nominate him. Ever. And third party candidates don't win. Those articles were very interesting reads though.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 12:02 PM, said:

Except he could accomplish one and not the other.I'd want to see a lot of evidence before I would say that it went "perfectly" in NM.It's not like he is a serious candidate so I don't want to get too fired up about it. I like a lot of individual things about him but the GOP would NEVER nominate him. Ever. And third party candidates don't win. Those articles were very interesting reads though.

Well that's why I subtitled this thread "just for me".... there are not enough intelligent, wise, moral people like me to ever vote in someone like Johnson.

[brvheart]

Almost sold. Hit me again.

[hblask]

brvheart, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 9:23 PM, said:

Almost sold. Hit me again.

Oh, don't worry, I will.

[Moneyball16]

Gary Johnson seems pretty great. I'm glad it seems like hes picking up some notoriety. I hadn't heard of him till he was on Bill Maher a while ago and he definitely made an impression. Its nice to see a true libertarian in both the economic and social sense that doesn't seem to have the religious baggage of Ron Paul. He also seems to have a more reasonable stance on immigration.Also outside of his stance on various issues, his honesty, forthcoming nature and pragmatism is also refreshing. It would be wonderful if he started to make a real name for himself during the next election with the goal of becoming a real candidate in 2016.

[Mercury69]

Privatization of jails...How would they be funded? If the taxpayer still gets hit for the bill, wouldn't that make this a questionable act, in terms of administration and governance of all levels (municipal, state, federal) of law enforcement? Is privatization of law enformcement agencies next? What happens when these private law agencies begin to get more power legislated to them?I'm not clear on how all of this would work out favorably. I'm heavily in favour of measured legalization, however, as it seems to be a real time and money suck on all levels. Regulation is def warranted in terms of quantities and how and where to obtain it, as well as restrictions on usage, but I think it's fair to say that imprisoning someone fo smoking a J and have a quarter on them when they get busted trying to pick up a pizza is overkill.I'm not suggesting pot is a GOOD drug, but it certainly has it's place in many segments of society. As for anything stronger, I'm pretty sure as many people in the US medicate using opiates as smoke pot, yet they do so "legally", because they have a 'scrip. Good job, pharmaceutical companies...

[brvheart]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 10:22 AM, said:

Good job, pharmaceutical companies...

eyeroll

[Mercury69]

brvheart, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:24 AM, said:

eyeroll

So, let me guess...Because it's not possible that the parma companies have a say in what does or doesn't get to marketorBecause some of the medicinal uses for marijuana would cut into thei profit margins and I am stating the obviousorYou have some other half-baked asinine remark you wanted to make Btw, this may be a discussion thread, but there is room for questions and expansion of said discussion. If alluding that the pharma companies have an interest in preventing marijuana from being "legalized" and/or that the the US government has their marijuana legislation all wrong is out of place when discussing a pro-legalise candidate for President and you don't think it's part of the discussion, then maybe you should be clear about your facetious post.

[brvheart]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:31 AM, said:

So, let me guess...Because it's not possible that the parma companies have a say in what does or doesn't get to marketorBecause some of the medicinal uses for marijuana would cut into thei profit margins and I am stating the obviousorYou have some other half-baked asinine remark you wanted to make Btw, this may be a discussion thread, but there is room for questions and expansion of said discussion. If alluding that the pharma companies have an interest in preventing marijuana from being "legalized" and/or that the the US government has their marijuana legislation all wrong is out of place when discussing a pro-legalise candidate for President and you don't think it's part of the discussion, then maybe you should be clear about your facetious post.

Is it hard being so retarded wonderful all the time?Just in case you missed what you said:

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 10:22 AM, said:

I'm not suggesting pot is a GOOD drug, but it certainly has it's place in many segments of society. As for anything stronger, I'm pretty sure as many people in the US medicate using opiates as smoke pot, yet they do so "legally", because they have a 'scrip. Good job, pharmaceutical companies...

I'm assuming what you meant to say, while navigating your typos/grammar, is that "you are sure that just as many people in the US "medicate" (I don't know if you are saying medicate or "medicate") with legal drugs/opiates as there are marijuana users".1. Obviously there are WAY WAY more users of legal opiates that pot smokers in the US. I mean, it's not close.2. Strong medication and opiates are absolutely necessary and very important.3. Pharmaceutical companies make these important drugs.4. You even suggested that they obtain these drugs legally with a prescription, but you put legally in quotes, since you think that many times they are not needed, but they get them anyway.5. HOW THE **** IS IT THE DRUG COMPANIES FAULT THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING A PRESCRIPTION FOR A DRUG?!!?

[Mercury69]

brvheart, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 12:45 PM, said:

Is it hard being so retarded wonderful all the time?Just in case you missed what you said:I'm assuming what you meant to say, while navigating your typos/grammar, is that "you are sure that just as many people in the US "medicate" (I don't know if you are saying medicate or "medicate") with legal drugs/opiates as there are marijuana users".1. Obviously there are WAY WAY more users of legal opiates that pot smokers in the US. I mean, it's not close.2. Strong medication and opiates are absolutely necessary and very important.3. Pharmaceutical companies make these important drugs.4. You even suggested that they obtain these drugs legally with a prescription, but you put legally in quotes, since you think that many times they are not needed, but they get them anyway.5. HOW THE **** IS IT THE DRUG COMPANIES FAULT THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING A PRESCRIPTION FOR A DRUG?!!?

No, see, your reply is what happens when a self-aggrandizing ******* decides he knows exactly what someone means when, in fact, the ******* (you, sir) isn't nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is and apparently needs a checklist to help him arrive at a conclusion that still misses the mark. Let me help you out of your little corner, because you can't seem to make more than one step locic without some assitance.1.Opiates are, in fact, much more dangerous than canniboids. The fact that, as you say, WAY MORE people use opiates than pot tells me that it is more likely that opiates are abused (by use and by distribution) and create addiction issues on a much greater level than pot, yet pot remains illegal. Why?2. The medicinal benefits of opiates and canniboids are not at issue here. Both have been proven to have benefits when used appropriately.3. I never said it was the Pharma company's fault that people are able to obtain opiates. What I DID allude to is their interest in protecting their profitability and their ability, financially and politically, to make that happen, thanks in large part to the LOBBY movement, which is apparently protected by the "right to petition" part of the First Amendment. So, when you have companies who make LOTS OF MONEY and have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to PAY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY to Federal, State and Municipal law makers to make something happen, isn't it kind of naive to think that everyone is playing on a level field?Also of note: Despite changes to legislation regarding lobbying practices, there remains large loopholes protecting this practice.The estimated amount of $$$ used for Health industry lobbying between 1998 and 2010 was more than $4.2 billion dollars.

[brvheart]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 12:18 PM, said:

No, see, your reply is what happens when a self-aggrandizing ******* decides he knows exactly what someone means when, in fact, the ******* (you, sir) isn't nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is and apparently needs a checklist to help him arrive at a conclusion that still misses the mark. Let me help you out of your little corner, because you can't seem to make more than one step locic without some assitance.1.Opiates are, in fact, much more dangerous than canniboids. The fact that, as you say, WAY MORE people use opiates than pot tells me that it is more likely that opiates are abused (by use and by distribution) and create addiction issues on a much greater level than pot, yet pot remains illegal. Why?2. The medicinal benefits of opiates and canniboids are not at issue here. Both have been proven to have benefits when used appropriately.3. I never said it was the Pharma company's fault that people are able to obtain opiates. What I DID allude to is their interest in protecting their profitability and their ability, financially and politically, to make that happen, thanks in large part to the LOBBY movement, which is apparently protected by the "right to petition" part of the First Amendment. So, when you have companies who make LOTS OF MONEY and have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to PAY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY to Federal, State and Municipal law makers to make something happen, isn't it kind of naive to think that everyone is playing on a level field?Also of note: Despite changes to legislation regarding lobbying practices, there remains large loopholes protecting this practice.The estimated amount of $$$ used for Health industry lobbying between 1998 and 2010 was more than $4.2 billion dollars.

This whole post is 100% bs. Even the part about me thinking I'm smart. Also, I never once was referring to anything about pot itself. I could care less if pot is legalized. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. You should probably just reread your post again, maybe you'll start to understand what you actually said vs. what you meant to say.If you think opiates are dangerous, then you should be complaining about the DOCTORS prescribing the medications, not the manufacturers.

[Mercury69]

"eyeroll"

[FCP Bob]

Mercury69, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 1:42 PM, said:

Oh Noes! I didn't mention the culpability of DOCTORZ!!! I can haz be inkerrect!

Trust me, your thought process was muddled and your flippant comment about the Pharmaceutical Industry didn't convey any thought to anybody reading it. If you meant it to have meaning you would have been better explaining what that meaning was.Now don't make me put up a picture of a dead horse.