In the New Mexico statehouse, he vetoed 750 bills, fired 1,200 state employees and left the state with a billion-dollar budget surplus.

Tried twice to introduce statewide school voucher programs in New Mexico. Continues to support individual choice in education: “All parents should have an opportunity to choose which school their children attend.. It's time to free individuals from burdensome federal mandates so they can pursue the right educational strategies.”

Things Republicans won't like:

“Can we provide a strong national defense for this country and cut military spending by 43%? Yes, and we have to.

Splits from the Republican field in supporting the right to abortion and non-standard marriage.

Here is his website for President, give it a look and consider a third choice for president.  Or, at the very least, don't vote for Obama or Romney.

Gary Johnson 2012

I have no life.  As evidence, I found myself actually watching the Libertarian convention on C-SPAN this weekend. 

I was not too impressed with the rhetoric coming from the podium, but I did notice one thing:

The Libertarian party is really, really, white.  Even whiter than the Tea Party folks.  That's white!

Now, regarding this governor from New Mexico.

Can you show us examples of when he turned down federal money for the state of New Mexico?

You see, folks that are all up in our business about 'states rights' forget that there is no requirement for states to take federal money.  Not for education, not for highways, not for healthcare, not for unemployment, not for disaster relief, not for anything.  But as long as the states continue to feed at the federal trough, there will be strings attached.  There always is.  It is called 'accountability.'  If a state takes money collected from Americans all across the USA, it is reasonable that the state answer for how it spends those dollars.  In other words, if you take the king's coin, you will do the king's bidding.

For someone in the position of governor, he could have literally put his money where his mouth is and refused to accept federal grants of all kinds.  The state of New Mexico could have gone it alone, without the federal government dictating standards in education, healthcare, or any other area of life.  Until I meet a politician who stands on principle and refuses to take federal money, I will know these guys are just a bunch hypocrites who are simply pandering to the uneducated and ignorant masses who don't have a clue about how things are actually done in a republic.

May 8, 2012 -- 10:59AM, Nepenthe wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Unworthyone wrote:

Can you show us examples of when he turned down federal money for the state of New Mexico?

You see, folks that are all up in our business about 'states rights' forget that there is no requirement for states to take federal money.  Not for education, not for highways, not for healthcare, not for unemployment, not for disaster relief, not for anything.  But as long as the states continue to feed at the federal trough, there will be strings attached.  There always is.  It is called 'accountability.'  If a state takes money collected from Americans all across the USA, it is reasonable that the state answer for how it spends those dollars.  In other words, if you take the king's coin, you will do the king's bidding.

For someone in the position of governor, he could have literally put his money where his mouth is and refused to accept federal grants of all kinds.  The state of New Mexico could have gone it alone, without the federal government dictating standards in education, healthcare, or any other area of life.  Until I meet a politician who stands on principle and refuses to take federal money, I will know these guys are just a bunch hypocrites who are simply pandering to the uneducated and ignorant masses who don't have a clue about how things are actually done in a republic.

Did New Mexico give any money to the federal government through taxes?  Yes?  Then why would they not accept that money in return?  If money is forcably taken from you, and then the entity which took the money said, here is some of that money back, you would say no?  On principle?  Governors can start refusing to accept federal money when their citizens no loner give the federal government money.

The state of New Mexico benefits from the taxes the citizens pay to the federal government already, in the form of national defense, the federal mint, regulation of interstate commerce, etc.  You know, all the things enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  So the idea that New Mexico citizens should first be exempt from federal taxation and then they will give up the federal teat is bogus on its face. 

Did the governor refuse federal funds in support of the fine arts?  I'll bet he didn't.  What's up with that?  He's as phoney as the rest of them.

May 8, 2012 -- 11:43AM, Bodean wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Unworthyone wrote:

The Libertarian party is really, really, white.  Even whiter than the Tea Party folks.  That's white!

 

You see, folks that are all up in our business about 'states rights' forget that there is no requirement for states to take federal money. 

1) that's a really racists view ... but then, I've come to expect racism from the left.

2) yep .. just like there is no law against Buffett and Soros wooping out their checkbooks and paying more taxes.

I wasn't making a racist statement.  It was a simple observation.  I just noticed that the convention was significantly lacking participants of color.  I wonder why that is.  Perhaps it is because the Libertarian party's political views do not appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans. Or, it could be that the Libertarians deliberately exclude people of color from their party.  I'm not saying that either of these possiblities are the only options.  Maybe C-SPAN puposely refused to air the true representative cross-section in the convention hall.  Perhaps someone on this board who is libertarian could explain the reason there were no visible minorities at the convention.

May 8, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Unworthyone wrote:

I wasn't making a racist statement.  It was a simple observation.  I just noticed that the convention was significantly lacking participants of color.  I wonder why that is.  Perhaps it is because the Libertarian party's political views do not appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans.

I would gather that this is most likely the case.  Most individuals are not fond of the idea of self-determination or non-government interference with life.  The basic ideal for teh libertarian is the non-initiatino of violence against another person or their property.  I understand that many people do not share this ideal, but it is one that I have started to embrace over the years.