Johnson First Intro of Johnson/Weld to the public by CNN..

[flacaltenn]

I actually disagree with a lot of these stances here. Not happy at all about this.

Click here for other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

• Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016)
• Arizona anti-immigrant law leads to racial profiling. (Aug 2012)
• A 10-foot wall just requires an 11-foot ladder. (Aug 2012)
• 2 year grace period for illegals to get work visas. (Nov 2011)
• 1 strike & you're out for legal immigrants who violate terms. (Nov 2011)
• Let some, but not all, illegal immigrants stay in US. (Nov 2011)
• We educate the world's best & brightest; why send them back? (Jun 2011)
• Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. (Jan 2001)
• Mexican immigrants are pursuing same dreams we all have. (Jan 2001)
• Share costs of legal immigration between states & federal. (Feb 2001)
• Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation. (Feb 2001)

It's realistic to recognize the Mex. immigrant families are not gonna remain "unskilled" labor. Their children are already Americans for the most part and planning on being professionals -- not yard workers or janitors.. So deporting Granny and Pappa or a 40 something mom and dad is not a high priority. The "triage" should be to empty the jails of illegals and sent THEM back first. And a ONE STRIKE plan for serious offenses would be awfully refreshing.. Cali is OVERFLOWING their prisons with illegal alien criminals and STILL operates "sanctuary cities". That's insane and hypocritical.

All those "earlier" statements don't have the 10 year perspective on the "newer type" of immigrant that even the older illegals don't appreciate coming over the border -- so I think Johnson as governor saw a different problem back in 2000 in New Mexico than we have now.

Plans will become more specific in the next couple months. And I HOPE he goes back down to the border in N.Mex to get a fresh view of the problem..

We DO abide by the Constitution and the legal system. And there is a clear Federal Duty to control the borders. So I don't think "open borders" really means what people fear it means. Because America has virtually SHUT it's borders in the past. And we should be generous -- but NOT suicidal about it..

Well, I agree with you for the most part. I do not like the words "open border" at all. Total turn off for me.

We had an open border policy thru Ellis Island for decades. Open in the sense of more generous than at other periods in our history. As opposed to the sketchy politically motivated quotas now that highly favor immigrants from the countries we helped to destroy.

Open doesn't mean no screening for "means of support", disease, crime, corruption, etc. Under Libertarian policy, EVERY border crosser would HAVE to be a contributor, because all the "bennies" would go away. If they are attracted for the RIGHT reasons. Why not be generous?

 

[ChrisL]

flacaltenn, are there any stances of Gary Johnson's that you DISAGREE with? If so, I would be interested in hearing about them.

He's a politician. But a politician that actually has a commitment to certain principles. So I wake up every morning in a bit of a panic attack and pray that nothing embarrassing happens today. It's not a SERIOUS panic. Not like the one a Hilliary or Trump supporter experiences -- but I'm volunteering hundreds of hours in the next couple months to write position statements, campaign, and correct all the FUNDAMENTAL misunderstandings about the Lib Party. And I don't want that effort to go for nothing because a candidate doesn't clearly separate the "ideal" philosophical view --- from the pragmatic view of actually governing from where we are right now.

We don't WANT to talk about marijuana, but that's always the 1st thing that comes up. It's a bit embarrassing because we have to OWN UP to working for decades for Drug War reform.

We are clearly not supporting the anger and hate involved in the current immigration debate. And that it is a MOTIVATIONAL problem with voters. Both in Cali and Tenn -- I've seen Mex immigrant communities take completely ROTTEN parts of town and revitalize them. They did not LIKE to live in squalor or disorder. They are God-fearing, family oriented people. We need to work from the top down. Stopping the warehousing of unescorted children that were Politically encouraged to crash the border by rash statements from politicians. Statements that Libertarians would NEVER had made. Because we want CONTRIBUTING immigration, not parent-less children who are long welfare recipients.

My biggest issue with Johnson is on the military "redirection".. Libertarians will defend this country against any clear threats from abroad. We just are not keen on bombing 3 to 5 countries every year. That's insane. So while I applaud the restraint in NOT trying to export "democracy" to the Mid East, and getting our defense partners to pony up their share -- I would NOT like to see our closing of bases and constraining our projection of force around the world should it be required. I think a stronger Homeland defense force would be good insurance should terrorists get a hold of capability in the Cyber or Nuclear or Biological arena. I'd trade carpet bombing Syria for THAT any day..

I still have a hard time with the immigration issues. My stance on immigration is not related to hate or anger. My point is that we are a country of over 300 million people and not nearly enough jobs for everyone as it is. Why continue to take in more?

 

[ChrisL]

I actually disagree with a lot of these stances here. Not happy at all about this.

Click here for other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

• Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016)
• Arizona anti-immigrant law leads to racial profiling. (Aug 2012)
• A 10-foot wall just requires an 11-foot ladder. (Aug 2012)
• 2 year grace period for illegals to get work visas. (Nov 2011)
• 1 strike & you're out for legal immigrants who violate terms. (Nov 2011)
• Let some, but not all, illegal immigrants stay in US. (Nov 2011)
• We educate the world's best & brightest; why send them back? (Jun 2011)
• Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. (Jan 2001)
• Mexican immigrants are pursuing same dreams we all have. (Jan 2001)
• Share costs of legal immigration between states & federal. (Feb 2001)
• Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation. (Feb 2001)

It's realistic to recognize the Mex. immigrant families are not gonna remain "unskilled" labor. Their children are already Americans for the most part and planning on being professionals -- not yard workers or janitors.. So deporting Granny and Pappa or a 40 something mom and dad is not a high priority. The "triage" should be to empty the jails of illegals and sent THEM back first. And a ONE STRIKE plan for serious offenses would be awfully refreshing.. Cali is OVERFLOWING their prisons with illegal alien criminals and STILL operates "sanctuary cities". That's insane and hypocritical.

All those "earlier" statements don't have the 10 year perspective on the "newer type" of immigrant that even the older illegals don't appreciate coming over the border -- so I think Johnson as governor saw a different problem back in 2000 in New Mexico than we have now.

Plans will become more specific in the next couple months. And I HOPE he goes back down to the border in N.Mex to get a fresh view of the problem..

We DO abide by the Constitution and the legal system. And there is a clear Federal Duty to control the borders. So I don't think "open borders" really means what people fear it means. Because America has virtually SHUT it's borders in the past. And we should be generous -- but NOT suicidal about it..

Well, I agree with you for the most part. I do not like the words "open border" at all. Total turn off for me.

We had an open border policy thru Ellis Island for decades. Open in the sense of more generous than at other periods in our history. As opposed to the sketchy politically motivated quotas now that highly favor immigrants from the countries we helped to destroy.

Open doesn't mean no screening for "means of support", disease, crime, corruption, etc. Under Libertarian policy, EVERY border crosser would HAVE to be a contributor, because all the "bennies" would go away. If they are attracted for the RIGHT reasons. Why not be generous?

Why not be generous? Because our own resources are limited and the more people, the less resources.

 

[ChrisL]

I actually disagree with a lot of these stances here. Not happy at all about this.

Click here for other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

• Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016)
• Arizona anti-immigrant law leads to racial profiling. (Aug 2012)
• A 10-foot wall just requires an 11-foot ladder. (Aug 2012)
• 2 year grace period for illegals to get work visas. (Nov 2011)
• 1 strike & you're out for legal immigrants who violate terms. (Nov 2011)
• Let some, but not all, illegal immigrants stay in US. (Nov 2011)
• We educate the world's best & brightest; why send them back? (Jun 2011)
• Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. (Jan 2001)
• Mexican immigrants are pursuing same dreams we all have. (Jan 2001)
• Share costs of legal immigration between states & federal. (Feb 2001)
• Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation. (Feb 2001)

It's realistic to recognize the Mex. immigrant families are not gonna remain "unskilled" labor. Their children are already Americans for the most part and planning on being professionals -- not yard workers or janitors.. So deporting Granny and Pappa or a 40 something mom and dad is not a high priority. The "triage" should be to empty the jails of illegals and sent THEM back first. And a ONE STRIKE plan for serious offenses would be awfully refreshing.. Cali is OVERFLOWING their prisons with illegal alien criminals and STILL operates "sanctuary cities". That's insane and hypocritical.

All those "earlier" statements don't have the 10 year perspective on the "newer type" of immigrant that even the older illegals don't appreciate coming over the border -- so I think Johnson as governor saw a different problem back in 2000 in New Mexico than we have now.

Plans will become more specific in the next couple months. And I HOPE he goes back down to the border in N.Mex to get a fresh view of the problem..

We DO abide by the Constitution and the legal system. And there is a clear Federal Duty to control the borders. So I don't think "open borders" really means what people fear it means. Because America has virtually SHUT it's borders in the past. And we should be generous -- but NOT suicidal about it..

Well, I agree with you for the most part. I do not like the words "open border" at all. Total turn off for me.

We had an open border policy thru Ellis Island for decades. Open in the sense of more generous than at other periods in our history. As opposed to the sketchy politically motivated quotas now that highly favor immigrants from the countries we helped to destroy.

Open doesn't mean no screening for "means of support", disease, crime, corruption, etc. Under Libertarian policy, EVERY border crosser would HAVE to be a contributor, because all the "bennies" would go away. If they are attracted for the RIGHT reasons. Why not be generous?

Hmm. I wouldn't consider Ellis Island as being an "open borders" policy.

 

[dblack]

And here is one place where I might strongly disagree with Mr. Johnson. I do not want a corporotacracy. I want corporations to pay taxes. It's the least they can do, and also they should provide their employees with a living wage so that we taxpayers don't have to pick up the slack!

That's the thing though. Libertarians don't want a corporatacracy either. But when you really look at how a regulatory regime works, it actually provokes corporate/government collusion. There should be a 'wall of separation' between economic power and state power, just as their is between religious power and state power. Western society learned, after many painful lessons, that giving a coercive state power over our religious beliefs and activities was a mistake. We're learning the same lesson with the market.

 

[WinterBorn]

flacaltenn Do you support him??

I have not really seen anything so far about him that has my interest. Plus I am conservative on many social issues, and Libertarians are not - - at least to my knowledge.

Plus it bothers me that he is an admitted pothead.

A pothead? If someone has built a multi-million dollar business from scratch (not using $1,000,000.00 his father gave him), been a two term governor, climbed 7 of the highest mountains in the world, slashed the wasteful spending of the state he governed, and they smoke pot, you forget everything else and label him a pothead? lmao

 

[Kat]

flacaltenn Do you support him??

I have not really seen anything so far about him that has my interest. Plus I am conservative on many social issues, and Libertarians are not - - at least to my knowledge.

Plus it bothers me that he is an admitted pothead.

A pothead? If someone has built a multi-million dollar business from scratch (not using $1,000,000.00 his father gave him), been a two term governor, climbed 7 of the highest mountains in the world, slashed the wasteful spending of the state he governed, and they smoke pot, you forget everything else and label him a pothead? lmao

No labeling. I suppose I used a bad term.

 

[WinterBorn]

flacaltenn Do you support him??

I have not really seen anything so far about him that has my interest. Plus I am conservative on many social issues, and Libertarians are not - - at least to my knowledge.

Plus it bothers me that he is an admitted pothead.

A pothead? If someone has built a multi-million dollar business from scratch (not using $1,000,000.00 his father gave him), been a two term governor, climbed 7 of the highest mountains in the world, slashed the wasteful spending of the state he governed, and they smoke pot, you forget everything else and label him a pothead? lmao

No labeling. I suppose I used a bad term.

No biggie. But please look at what he has accomplished.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is my question to you and it is how do you get the sheep to think about voting outside the two party system?

I have seen many replies to me that I am always wasting my vote because I will not vote for Trump or Clinton and will vote for Johnson, and it make me realize so many people just not on here but across this nation seem to believe that voting for the third party candidate is a wasted vote.

Dear Bruce_T_Laney
What I am suggesting is organizing
the Libertarian and Cruz supporters
and the Green and Sanders supporters in pushing a LAWSUIT against BOTH major parties demanding billions if not trillions in compensation/reimbursement to taxpayers, then open up the floors to Constitutional conventions to the public to bring in their proposals for where the reimbursements/credits should go.

And bring together the independent Cruz/Trump supporters and Clinton/Sanders supporters who DON'T WANT the same old politics, but are willing to stand together to ensure all FOUR camps get their proposals endorsed, both the platforms and points of objections refused.

Work out an agreement in advance with Ryan to pick a VP to try to get elected in the House, who COMMITS to working with supporters of the four major camps and with all other parties that want to represent themselves.
And either find a way to get what they want through
a. federal govt if all parties agree on policy
b. state govt if they agree it belongs there
c. parties or people if they agree it should be private
and not in the hands of either state or federal govt

And create JOBS for all the candidates to represent their constituents and their platform.

Agree to have reps from Democratic and Republican parties to SUE and BE SUED to force the parties to fund their policies promised to constituents and to get these out of federal govt if they don't belong there.

by opening up the process of outlining the abuses/grievances, the cost OWED to taxpayers,
and what solutions could be paid for by applying that credit, then maybe we'll get enough people to go in the same direction with plans, even if they don't all agree which plans to fund. Just write it up and demand a Pres/VP team that can represent, include and negotiate how to get that paid for by collecting or issuing back CREDITS for past govt abuses, in the trillions for contested war contracts and in the billions if not trillions for the corporate handouts and govt shutdown over ACA.

CC: flacaltenn

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here is my question to you and it is how do you get the sheep to think about voting outside the two party system?

I have seen many replies to me that I am always wasting my vote because I will not vote for Trump or Clinton and will vote for Johnson, and it make me realize so many people just not on here but across this nation seem to believe that voting for the third party candidate is a wasted vote.

Dear Bruce_T_Laney
What I am suggesting is organizing
the Libertarian and Cruz supporters
and the Green and Sanders supporters in pushing a LAWSUIT against BOTH major parties demanding billions if not trillions in compensation/reimbursement to taxpayers, then open up the floors to Constitutional conventions to the public to bring in their proposals for where the reimbursements/credits should go.

And bring together the independent Cruz/Trump supporters and Clinton/Sanders supporters who DON'T WANT the same old politics, but are willing to stand together to ensure all FOUR camps get their proposals endorsed, both the platforms and points of objections refused.

Work out an agreement in advance with Ryan to pick a VP to try to get elected in the House, who COMMITS to working with supporters of the four major camps and with all other parties that want to represent themselves.
And either find a way to get what they want through
a. federal govt if all parties agree on policy
b. state govt if they agree it belongs there
c. parties or people if they agree it should be private
and not in the hands of either state or federal govt

And create JOBS for all the candidates to represent their constituents and their platform.

Agree to have reps from Democratic and Republican parties to SUE and BE SUED to force the parties to fund their policies promised to constituents and to get these out of federal govt if they don't belong there.

by opening up the process of outlining the abuses/grievances, the cost OWED to taxpayers,
and what solutions could be paid for by applying that credit, then maybe we'll get enough people to go in the same direction with plans, even if they don't all agree which plans to fund. Just write it up and demand a Pres/VP team that can represent, include and negotiate how to get that paid for by collecting or issuing back CREDITS for past govt abuses, in the trillions for contested war contracts and in the billions if not trillions for the corporate handouts and govt shutdown over ACA.

CC: flacaltenn

Cruz and sanders supporters? they are both globalists part of the corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats.Gary Johnson and Ron Paul supporters is what you should have said,

 

[LA RAM FAN]

flacaltenn Do you support him??

I have not really seen anything so far about him that has my interest. Plus I am conservative on many social issues, and Libertarians are not - - at least to my knowledge.

Plus it bothers me that he is an admitted pothead.

smoking weed and being someone like a drug pusher are two different things entirely.I have friends that smoke pot but they are are good people so that part means nothing to me.Doesnt make them a bad person cause they did that at one time.

Johnson believes in the constitution and has similiar views same as ron paul.In a PERFECT world,the two finalists for POTUS in the last election would have been paul vs johnson.

I can only dream though of that. I would take Johnson over trump because i KNOW he believes in the constitution and honering it,something no president since reagan has.

Trump we dont really know if he believes in it or not.

I never said he was a drug pusher, so please do not try and hang that on me. In my mind he must smoke a good bit, and not just for medical reasons since HE was the one that came out and said he would not smoke it if he became President. So, does that mean that if he were elected, that all of a sudden he would not need it for medical reasons?

In my life I have smoked plenty of pot. I DO know the effects it has on a person first hand.

Oh no I wasnt saying you said he was a drug pusher,I was just using that as an example.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Anyway, I would not strike Johnson of my list for using pot anymore than I would not consider voting for another candidate that drinks.
Well, there is one thing about smoking pot, it is illegal. (At least I think it is in NM, I could be wrong). If I am right, then smoking pot shows that Johnson has no problem with breaking the law. Of course he may see breaking pot laws as an act of civil disobediance....that laws against pot are unjust.

Sorry for rambling

agree whole heartedly. smoking pot may be illegal but doesnt mean it is a good law,same as how wearing a seatbelt being against the law is a freaking stupid law especially since it violates the constitution as being our free choice. someone who goes out and doesnt honor the law of wearing a seatbelt,doesnt mean they are a bad person.lol

 

[Kat]

Anyway, I would not strike Johnson of my list for using pot anymore than I would not consider voting for another candidate that drinks.
Well, there is one thing about smoking pot, it is illegal. (At least I think it is in NM, I could be wrong). If I am right, then smoking pot shows that Johnson has no problem with breaking the law. Of course he may see breaking pot laws as an act of civil disobediance....that laws against pot are unjust.

Sorry for rambling

agree whole heartedly. smoking pot may be illegal but doesnt mean is is a good law,same as how wearing a fucking seatbelt being against the law is a stupid law especially since it violates the constitution as being our free choice. someone who goes out and doesnt honor the law of wearing a seatbelt,doesnt mean they are a bad person.lol

I wear my seat belt as habit now. I feel nekkid without it. But it sure is miserable on long trips. Almost unbearable.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Anyway, I would not strike Johnson of my list for using pot anymore than I would not consider voting for another candidate that drinks.
Well, there is one thing about smoking pot, it is illegal. (At least I think it is in NM, I could be wrong). If I am right, then smoking pot shows that Johnson has no problem with breaking the law. Of course he may see breaking pot laws as an act of civil disobediance....that laws against pot are unjust.

Sorry for rambling

agree whole heartedly. smoking pot may be illegal but doesnt mean is is a good law,same as how wearing a fucking seatbelt being against the law is a stupid law especially since it violates the constitution as being our free choice. someone who goes out and doesnt honor the law of wearing a seatbelt,doesnt mean they are a bad person.lol

I wear my seat belt as habit now. I feel nekkid without it. But it sure is miserable on long trips. Almost unbearable.

everytime I get in the car,i remember all the stupid ass fines I have been given for not wearing a seatbelt "one example how the sheep have been brainwashed we live in a free country." I remember them and then I immediately put my seatbelt on and say to myself- Remember,this is a facist disctatership we live in." That thought IMMEDIATELY enters my mind remembering the times the gestapa fined me is how I remember to put it on now.

 

[Kat]

Anyway, I would not strike Johnson of my list for using pot anymore than I would not consider voting for another candidate that drinks.
Well, there is one thing about smoking pot, it is illegal. (At least I think it is in NM, I could be wrong). If I am right, then smoking pot shows that Johnson has no problem with breaking the law. Of course he may see breaking pot laws as an act of civil disobediance....that laws against pot are unjust.

Sorry for rambling

agree whole heartedly. smoking pot may be illegal but doesnt mean is is a good law,same as how wearing a fucking seatbelt being against the law is a stupid law especially since it violates the constitution as being our free choice. someone who goes out and doesnt honor the law of wearing a seatbelt,doesnt mean they are a bad person.lol

I wear my seat belt as habit now. I feel nekkid without it. But it sure is miserable on long trips. Almost unbearable.

everytime I get in the car,i remember all the stupid ass fines I have been given for not wearing a seatbelt "one example how the sheep have been brainwashed we live in a free country." I remember them and then I immediately put my seatbelt on and say to myself- Remember,this is a facist disctatership we live in." That thought IMMEDIATELY enters my mind remembering the times the gestapa fined me is how I remember to put it on now.

I am so used to it now, I don't think of it at all. BUT, as I said on long trips it is miserable. I suppose it saves lives, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is my question to you and it is how do you get the sheep to think about voting outside the two party system?

I have seen many replies to me that I am always wasting my vote because I will not vote for Trump or Clinton and will vote for Johnson, and it make me realize so many people just not on here but across this nation seem to believe that voting for the third party candidate is a wasted vote.

Dear Bruce_T_Laney
What I am suggesting is organizing
the Libertarian and Cruz supporters
and the Green and Sanders supporters in pushing a LAWSUIT against BOTH major parties demanding billions if not trillions in compensation/reimbursement to taxpayers, then open up the floors to Constitutional conventions to the public to bring in their proposals for where the reimbursements/credits should go.

And bring together the independent Cruz/Trump supporters and Clinton/Sanders supporters who DON'T WANT the same old politics, but are willing to stand together to ensure all FOUR camps get their proposals endorsed, both the platforms and points of objections refused.

Work out an agreement in advance with Ryan to pick a VP to try to get elected in the House, who COMMITS to working with supporters of the four major camps and with all other parties that want to represent themselves.
And either find a way to get what they want through
a. federal govt if all parties agree on policy
b. state govt if they agree it belongs there
c. parties or people if they agree it should be private
and not in the hands of either state or federal govt

And create JOBS for all the candidates to represent their constituents and their platform.

Agree to have reps from Democratic and Republican parties to SUE and BE SUED to force the parties to fund their policies promised to constituents and to get these out of federal govt if they don't belong there.

by opening up the process of outlining the abuses/grievances, the cost OWED to taxpayers,
and what solutions could be paid for by applying that credit, then maybe we'll get enough people to go in the same direction with plans, even if they don't all agree which plans to fund. Just write it up and demand a Pres/VP team that can represent, include and negotiate how to get that paid for by collecting or issuing back CREDITS for past govt abuses, in the trillions for contested war contracts and in the billions if not trillions for the corporate handouts and govt shutdown over ACA.

CC: flacaltenn

Cruz and sanders supporters? they are both globalists part of the corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats.Gary Johnson and Ron Paul supporters is what you should have said,

Not all them agree with the corporate politicians hijacking both parties for dominance. Do you understand there is a split going on in both parties.

That's like assuming all Blacks or Latinos vote liberal Democrat. Wrong.

There are lots of Conservative Christian and Muslim Blacks who don't have an organized voice and representation because ppl only listen if they agree with the media stereotype. If they speak out otherwise they are silenced.

We can't keep leaving ppl out and discounting their representation just because we've already filed them away into a box with a label, and if they don't fit too bad!

 

[emilynghiem]

Anyway, I would not strike Johnson of my list for using pot anymore than I would not consider voting for another candidate that drinks.
Well, there is one thing about smoking pot, it is illegal. (At least I think it is in NM, I could be wrong). If I am right, then smoking pot shows that Johnson has no problem with breaking the law. Of course he may see breaking pot laws as an act of civil disobediance....that laws against pot are unjust.

Sorry for rambling

agree whole heartedly. smoking pot may be illegal but doesnt mean is is a good law,same as how wearing a fucking seatbelt being against the law is a stupid law especially since it violates the constitution as being our free choice. someone who goes out and doesnt honor the law of wearing a seatbelt,doesnt mean they are a bad person.lol

I wear my seat belt as habit now. I feel nekkid without it. But it sure is miserable on long trips. Almost unbearable.

everytime I get in the car,i remember all the stupid ass fines I have been given for not wearing a seatbelt "one example how the sheep have been brainwashed we live in a free country." I remember them and then I immediately put my seatbelt on and say to myself- Remember,this is a facist disctatership we live in." That thought IMMEDIATELY enters my mind remembering the times the gestapa fined me is how I remember to put it on now.

I know someone whose estate got sued over a car accident where both the driver and passenger got killed and I think neither was wearing safety belts at the time. In accidents, ppl are more likely to hit heads together so you do pose risks to other passengers if you don't use seatbelts.

Since driving is not a right but a privilege, the state can pass laws regulating the safety rules on driving. And require that with the license the driver assumes legal and financial responsibility.

Ps wouldn't it be great to issue licenses to ppl who work in govt. And if they violate rules of operation they get their license revoked or pay costs of covering damages of bad govt just like bad driving that costs other ppl. Hmmmmm

 

[william the wie]

Emily N, a useful phrase that cropped up after Brexit is "The Political spectrum is shifting from left/right to north/south".

I know it sounds strange but Leave swept through the northern English labor precincts like it was part of the labor platform. Hence the phrase.

 

[ChrisL]

Marijuana is and should be the LEAST of our concerns. If cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not mary jane?

 

[anotherlife]

Marijuana is and should be the LEAST of our concerns. If cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not mary jane?

Because drug use causes more crime that tobacco and alcohol.