News reports have noted that Johnson "is highly regarded in the state for his outstanding leadership during two terms as governor. He slashed the size of state government during his term and left the state with a large budget surplus."[8] According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."[32] The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."[21]
According to a profile of Johnson in the National Review, "During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times. He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico’s budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico’s government in half."[33] Johnson has "said his numerous vetoes, only two of which were overridden, stemmed from his philosophy of looking at all things for their cost-benefit ratio and his axe fell on Republicans as well as Democrats."[13] "[W]hen he was governor of New Mexico: [Johnson] never raised taxes in eight years; cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone; cut taxes 14 times; vetoed over 750 bills; was the biggest advocate in the country for school vouchers; started his own small business and became a multimillionaire."[34]
So yeah I guess if you're a socialist he's probably awful. But at least he's not a hypocrite. He wasn't spending public money on his own pet programs while publicly panning others like many Republicans.
Edit: He also won re-election by 10 points. He was term-limited out.
So yeah I guess if you're a socialist he's probably awful. But at least he's not a hypocrite. He wasn't spending public money on his own pet programs while publicly panning others like many Republicans.
Edit: He also won re-election by 10 points. He was term-limited out.
his last term he was trying to legalize heroin in new mexico
So yeah I guess if you're a socialist he's probably awful. But at least he's not a hypocrite. He wasn't spending public money on his own pet programs while publicly panning others like many Republicans.
Edit: He also won re-election by 10 points. He was term-limited out.
his last term he was trying to legalize heroin in new mexico
That's freedom you're mainlining son.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So yeah I guess if you're a socialist he's probably awful. But at least he's not a hypocrite. He wasn't spending public money on his own pet programs while publicly panning others like many Republicans.
Edit: He also won re-election by 10 points. He was term-limited out.
his last term he was trying to legalize heroin in new mexico
It's nice to have 50 meth laboratories of Democracy (Thank you John Stewart).
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
the rise of widely-available meth in new mexico has gone to show that new mexicans are ready to responsibly handle addictive narcotics.
you know, since there haven't been any real social costs to widespread meth addiction in new mexico. things are great.
I think you have to admit that the war on drugs and the stringent criminalization of contraban doesn't really do much to cut into demand, though, right?
We legalize alcohol and tobacco, but we still criminalize reckless behavior done under its influence. I don't see why similar guidelines shouldn't be in place for all drugs.
Think of it kind of like Amsterdam's soft-ban on pot. Or Hamsterdam's soft-ban on . . . well, whatever went on there.
the rise of widely-available meth in new mexico has gone to show that new mexicans are ready to responsibly handle addictive narcotics.
you know, since there haven't been any real social costs to widespread meth addiction in new mexico. things are great.
I think you have to admit that the war on drugs and the stringent criminalization of contraban doesn't really do much to cut into demand, though, right?
We legalize alcohol and tobacco, but we still criminalize reckless behavior done under its influence. I don't see why similar guidelines shouldn't be in place for all drugs.
Think of it kind of like Amsterdam's soft-ban on pot. Or Hamsterdam's soft-ban on . . . well, whatever went on there.
i'd argue that cutting supply - especially cutting supply for non-members of the drug subculture - of addictive drugs ends up cutting demand. because fewer people are getting addicted.
cigarettes are quite addictive but barely psychoactive and quite cheap. social costs of cigarettes are arguably positive in some senses because smokers tend to die quick (painful) deaths after they retire.
alcohol has high social costs, but has a very low degree of addictiveness and the US has a lot of social safeguards against alcoholism (we have some of the lowest rates in the first world, which is kind of a good thing because we have to drive everywhere). anyhow, alcohol is simple to make, can be made pretty much anywhere, and is deeply and broadly ingrained into american society.
i don't really think that the analogies between narcotic illegalization and prohibition really work all that well. they are different things, and need to be taken case-by-case. the most benign illegal drugs, like ecstasy or pot, are competely different things from meth, cocaine or heroin.
Education and opportunity cut into drug demand a Hell of a lot more than trying to gut the supply.
If the supply gets low, those addicted don't just stop taking it. For most addicts it's an inflexible demand - they'll pay huge amounts, and the suppliers know it. They jack up the price, people pay for it, and the drug-lords get richer, and expand or shift operations to where it's harder for us to stop the drugs.
i don't really think that the analogies between narcotic illegalization and prohibition really work all that well. they are different things, and need to be taken case-by-case. the most benign illegal drugs, like ecstasy or pot, are competely different things from meth, cocaine or heroin.
Oh, I agree entirely. My position is that the intense criminalization of their usage does little to deter usage in those who don't care about its criminalization, and I'm not sure penalties like imprisonment go a long way in helping such a problem. It's not like you can't get plenty of drugs in jail.
the rise of widely-available meth in new mexico has gone to show that new mexicans are ready to responsibly handle addictive narcotics.
you know, since there haven't been any real social costs to widespread meth addiction in new mexico. things are great.
I think you have to admit that the war on drugs and the stringent criminalization of contraban doesn't really do much to cut into demand, though, right?
We legalize alcohol and tobacco, but we still criminalize reckless behavior done under its influence. I don't see why similar guidelines shouldn't be in place for all drugs.
Think of it kind of like Amsterdam's soft-ban on pot. Or Hamsterdam's soft-ban on . . . well, whatever went on there.
i'd argue that cutting supply - especially cutting supply for non-members of the drug subculture - of addictive drugs ends up cutting demand. because fewer people are getting addicted.
cigarettes are quite addictive but barely psychoactive and quite cheap. social costs of cigarettes are arguably positive in some senses because smokers tend to die quick (painful) deaths after they retire.
alcohol has high social costs, but has a very low degree of addictiveness and the US has a lot of social safeguards against alcoholism (we have some of the lowest rates in the first world, which is kind of a good thing because we have to drive everywhere). anyhow, alcohol is simple to make, can be made pretty much anywhere, and is deeply and broadly ingrained into american society.
i don't really think that the analogies between narcotic illegalization and prohibition really work all that well. they are different things, and need to be taken case-by-case. the most benign illegal drugs, like ecstasy or pot, are competely different things from meth, cocaine or heroin.
Alcohol is actually one of the most addictive drugs out there, up there with Cocaine (though below meth/heroin). The withdrawals are also some of the most violent. I still think it would be cheaper to legalize everything and sentence people to rehab vs. jail.
Glenn Beck has seriously irked fellow FOX News host Mike Huckabee, whom he labeled a "progressive" on his radio show yesterday over the once-obese governor's support for Michele Obama's campaign to promote children's health. A clearly upset Huckabee fired back at Beck today with a statement that not only addressed the individual incident but broadly condemned the host's trademark fearmongering against the left.
"This week Glenn Beck has taken to his radio show to attack me as a Progressive, which he has said is the same as a 'cancer' and a 'Nazi,'" Huckabee said. "What did I do that apparently caused him to link me to a fatal disease and a form of government that murdered millions of innocent Jews? I had the audacity -- not of hope -- but the audacity to give respect to the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to address childhood obesity."
While noting that he's "no fan of her husband's policies for sure," Huckabee said Beck misrepresented the First Lady's program "either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate attempt to distort them to create yet another 'boogey man' hiding in the closet that he and only he can see."
OH SNAP!
TwoQuestions on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
I love Glenn Beck's innate fear of progress.
"First it's efforts at preventing childhood obesity, then it's laws dictating what foods we can eat, next thing you know we'll be rounded up into fat camps and rendered down for soap to sell back to China! It's a slippery slope!"
Glenn Beck has seriously irked fellow FOX News host Mike Huckabee, whom he labeled a "progressive" on his radio show yesterday over the once-obese governor's support for Michele Obama's campaign to promote children's health. A clearly upset Huckabee fired back at Beck today with a statement that not only addressed the individual incident but broadly condemned the host's trademark fearmongering against the left.
"This week Glenn Beck has taken to his radio show to attack me as a Progressive, which he has said is the same as a 'cancer' and a 'Nazi,'" Huckabee said. "What did I do that apparently caused him to link me to a fatal disease and a form of government that murdered millions of innocent Jews? I had the audacity -- not of hope -- but the audacity to give respect to the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to address childhood obesity."
While noting that he's "no fan of her husband's policies for sure," Huckabee said Beck misrepresented the First Lady's program "either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate attempt to distort them to create yet another 'boogey man' hiding in the closet that he and only he can see."
OH SNAP!
Now that his show is over or about to be and he's not longer one of of Huck's co-workers for several reasons, can we expect a Becklash from the Republicans?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Man I wonder if Trump will run as a independent if he doesn't get the nomination. And the Obama electoral landslide that will follow.
I don't think there's any great Republican love for Trump other than the fact he's eager to exploit hot-button Right Wing issues and he's a face that has good visibility for the party (i.e., he'll get the votes out).
Republicans, more than anything right now, are just looking for someone to motivate the party, which is something I don't even think Romney is all that capable of, and social conservative goosebags like Huckabee and Palin divide the party too much.
If Trump jumps ship, I wouldn't expect the party to follow.
Man I wonder if Trump will run as a independent if he doesn't get the nomination. And the Obama electoral landslide that will follow.
I don't think there's any great Republican love for Trump other than the fact he's eager to exploit hot-button Right Wing issues and he's a face that has good visibility for the party (i.e., he'll get the votes out).
Republicans, more than anything right now, are just looking for someone to motivate the party, which is something I don't even think Romney is all that capable of, and social conservative goosebags like Huckabee and Palin divide the party too much.
If Trump jumps ship, I wouldn't expect the party to follow.
All he'd have to pull would be 3 or 4% of the vote to absolutely crush any Republican campaign.
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
Selling heroin should probably be illegal. Possessing or using heroin, not so much.
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
Selling heroin should probably be illegal. Possessing or using heroin, not so much.
Aside from marijuana, I'm probably against most other illegal/abused narcotics being made fully legal. I would rather see simple possession decriminalized and/or have punishment consist of court ordered rehab/treatment. Jail is not the place for addicts to get better nor is it cost effective to us as a society.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Beck ever since losing his Fox show has increasingly been under attack from the right. I swear I saw a headline that said Breitbart himself was getting in on it.
Still though Huckabee is opportunistic slime and him now bad talking beck does not make up for his wishy washy birther crap, or how he likes to go on that one wackadoodles radio show.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
Selling heroin should probably be illegal. Possessing or using heroin, not so much.
Yea I'm with you. Treating people who are addicted as criminals instead of sick people has done absolutely zero good and filled up the jails needlessly.
If someone shanks someone for more money for heroin, sure treat them the same way you would a drunk person doing the act, but just being an addict? Why is that a crime? Throwing them in jail often just puts em in contact with exactly the kind of people you don't want them in contact with
Beck ever since losing his Fox show has increasingly been under attack from the right. I swear I saw a headline that said Breitbart himself was getting in on it.
Still though Huckabee is opportunistic slime and him now bad talking beck does not make up for his wishy washy birther crap, or how he likes to go on that one wackadoodles radio show.
Beck has meddled with the primal forces of nature.
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
Selling heroin should probably be illegal. Possessing or using heroin, not so much.
Yea I'm with you. Treating people who are addicted as criminals instead of sick people has done absolutely zero good and filled up the jails needlessly.
If someone shanks someone for more money for heroin, sure treat them the same way you would a drunk person doing the act, but just being an addict? Why is that a crime? Throwing them in jail often just puts em in contact with exactly the kind of people you don't want them in contact with
Not to split hairs, but being addicted isn't illegal. People aren't put in jail for being addicted to illegal substances, they're put in jail for possession of illegal substances.
Now, if you want to argue that simple possession should be decriminalized, that's a fine debate, and one I'd agree with.
the rise of widely-available meth in new mexico has gone to show that new mexicans are ready to responsibly handle addictive narcotics.
you know, since there haven't been any real social costs to widespread meth addiction in new mexico. things are great.
Meth is a different animal though. It can be made cheaply using widely available, over the counter chemicals. And consequently I suspect that has played a big part in its rise to prominence in rural areas over the last 10+ years. Meth's prominence and debilitating social effects aside, it's still become incredibly clear that prohibition simply does not work, all it does is create a vibrant black market. And I'm happy to see any politician who's willing to address that.
I still don't think selling the stuff should be legal, but education and social services seem to be a far better use of our govt's time to combat drug use.
Drugs are not the topic, unless a baggy full of nose candy has announced its intention to run for office.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
But yes, let's not go crazy with the abortion discussion.
gary johnson was governor of NM while i lived there and is remembered as an especially bad governor of new mexico.
and "relatively average governor of new mexico" is a pretty low fucking bar let me tell you.
Where does Bill Richardson fit on this spectrum, as he's the only Governor of New Mexico I'm aware of.
Hmm
So yeah I guess if you're a socialist he's probably awful. But at least he's not a hypocrite. He wasn't spending public money on his own pet programs while publicly panning others like many Republicans.
Edit: He also won re-election by 10 points. He was term-limited out.
his last term he was trying to legalize heroin in new mexico
That's freedom you're mainlining son.
It's nice to have 50 meth laboratories of Democracy (Thank you John Stewart).
I don't think being addicted to something should be a jailable offense. Your anecdote doesn't make me want to vote for him any less. In fact I'm even more inspired.
the rise of widely-available meth in new mexico has gone to show that new mexicans are ready to responsibly handle addictive narcotics.
you know, since there haven't been any real social costs to widespread meth addiction in new mexico. things are great.
I think you have to admit that the war on drugs and the stringent criminalization of contraban doesn't really do much to cut into demand, though, right?
We legalize alcohol and tobacco, but we still criminalize reckless behavior done under its influence. I don't see why similar guidelines shouldn't be in place for all drugs.
Think of it kind of like Amsterdam's soft-ban on pot. Or Hamsterdam's soft-ban on . . . well, whatever went on there.
i'd argue that cutting supply - especially cutting supply for non-members of the drug subculture - of addictive drugs ends up cutting demand. because fewer people are getting addicted.
cigarettes are quite addictive but barely psychoactive and quite cheap. social costs of cigarettes are arguably positive in some senses because smokers tend to die quick (painful) deaths after they retire.
alcohol has high social costs, but has a very low degree of addictiveness and the US has a lot of social safeguards against alcoholism (we have some of the lowest rates in the first world, which is kind of a good thing because we have to drive everywhere). anyhow, alcohol is simple to make, can be made pretty much anywhere, and is deeply and broadly ingrained into american society.
i don't really think that the analogies between narcotic illegalization and prohibition really work all that well. they are different things, and need to be taken case-by-case. the most benign illegal drugs, like ecstasy or pot, are competely different things from meth, cocaine or heroin.
If the supply gets low, those addicted don't just stop taking it. For most addicts it's an inflexible demand - they'll pay huge amounts, and the suppliers know it. They jack up the price, people pay for it, and the drug-lords get richer, and expand or shift operations to where it's harder for us to stop the drugs.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Oh, I agree entirely. My position is that the intense criminalization of their usage does little to deter usage in those who don't care about its criminalization, and I'm not sure penalties like imprisonment go a long way in helping such a problem. It's not like you can't get plenty of drugs in jail.
Alcohol is actually one of the most addictive drugs out there, up there with Cocaine (though below meth/heroin). The withdrawals are also some of the most violent. I still think it would be cheaper to legalize everything and sentence people to rehab vs. jail.
Evidently the Huckster got his panties in a bunch for the big bad Beck calling him a 'progressive'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/mike-huckabee-tears-into-glenn-beck-for-labeling-him-progressive.php?ref=fpc
OH SNAP!
"First it's efforts at preventing childhood obesity, then it's laws dictating what foods we can eat, next thing you know we'll be rounded up into fat camps and rendered down for soap to sell back to China! It's a slippery slope!"
Now that his show is over or about to be and he's not longer one of of Huck's co-workers for several reasons, can we expect a Becklash from the Republicans?
Even though Beck 'started it,' it's pretty weird to see one of the front-runners (such as they are) take a shot at him like that, though.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't think there's any great Republican love for Trump other than the fact he's eager to exploit hot-button Right Wing issues and he's a face that has good visibility for the party (i.e., he'll get the votes out).
Republicans, more than anything right now, are just looking for someone to motivate the party, which is something I don't even think Romney is all that capable of, and social conservative goosebags like Huckabee and Palin divide the party too much.
If Trump jumps ship, I wouldn't expect the party to follow.
We're talking Mondale + 50.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, being addicted to something is not a jailable offense. The act of shooting up heroin, however, is. Just a nitpick.
Selling heroin should probably be illegal. Possessing or using heroin, not so much.
Aside from marijuana, I'm probably against most other illegal/abused narcotics being made fully legal. I would rather see simple possession decriminalized and/or have punishment consist of court ordered rehab/treatment. Jail is not the place for addicts to get better nor is it cost effective to us as a society.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Still though Huckabee is opportunistic slime and him now bad talking beck does not make up for his wishy washy birther crap, or how he likes to go on that one wackadoodles radio show.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yea I'm with you. Treating people who are addicted as criminals instead of sick people has done absolutely zero good and filled up the jails needlessly.
If someone shanks someone for more money for heroin, sure treat them the same way you would a drunk person doing the act, but just being an addict? Why is that a crime? Throwing them in jail often just puts em in contact with exactly the kind of people you don't want them in contact with
Beck has meddled with the primal forces of nature.
And Murdoch will not have it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3vbCxj2ifs
I was referencing this. I thought it worked.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Not to split hairs, but being addicted isn't illegal. People aren't put in jail for being addicted to illegal substances, they're put in jail for possession of illegal substances.
Now, if you want to argue that simple possession should be decriminalized, that's a fine debate, and one I'd agree with.
Meth is a different animal though. It can be made cheaply using widely available, over the counter chemicals. And consequently I suspect that has played a big part in its rise to prominence in rural areas over the last 10+ years. Meth's prominence and debilitating social effects aside, it's still become incredibly clear that prohibition simply does not work, all it does is create a vibrant black market. And I'm happy to see any politician who's willing to address that.
I still don't think selling the stuff should be legal, but education and social services seem to be a far better use of our govt's time to combat drug use.
Drugs are not the topic, unless a baggy full of nose candy has announced its intention to run for office.