5 votes

As New Mexico Governor, Johnson advocated executing 13-14 year old children.

This is disturbing. As governor, Johnson actually called for extending the death penalty to minors. He he even advocated executing children as young as 13.

I realize he has flip flopped, as he has done on so many issues, however you have to question the sanity of a guy who once was able to rationalize that the state had the right to execute kids, and as governor would have been willing to sign their death warrants.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Crime.htm

Again, I know he says something different now. With Gary, its always something different.

No thanks! I will write it Ron Paul.

Now let all those still in denial about Johnson start their down voting. :) By the way, to those who will try and deflect and say Ron has changed his mind of this issue...You are right. Many people change their position on the death penalty....However, not many people ever held the position that they were willing to personally sign the death warrants of children. Find a new argument.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul initially supported the death penalty

He doesn't anymore. Johnson once supported the death penalty. He doesn't anymore. I once supported the death penalty. I don't anymore.

So I'll concede that Gary Johnson is no better than Ron Paul, or me, on the issue.

Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both

I am cool with it. It wouldn't get through anyway and Johnson

so far outweighs the other GOONS I will be happy to vote for him.

I think thirteen and fourteen year olds are smart enough to know the diff anyway. Screw-em if they did something so incredibly bad that they killed some harmless year-old.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

question is

does it really matter? I assume those voting for Johnson are more so voting for the libertarian position then for the man personally. It's not like he has a shot at winning.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Ron Paul also approved of the death penalty until

he too changed his vote.

Johnson opposes the death penalty completely. Initially, as Governor of New Mexico, he had sought to expand capital sentences to minors, while limiting appeals; he now calls that position "naïve." He believes government inevitably "makes mistakes with regard to the death penalty," and does not "want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Joh...

Pretty hypocritical to call him a flip-flopper for pulling the exact same move as Dr. Paul.

PS: I'm not a Johnson supporter, I'm just a truth fighter and you're argument is along the same lines of those reporters who bombarded Dr. Paul with claims that he wanted to legalize all drugs. How about just reviewing the facts and not stating your opinion as such.

Dr. Paul approved and then later disapproved of the death penalty.
Johnson approved and then later disapproved of the death penalty.
Fact.

flip flopping on the death penalty is one thing

flip flopping on death penalty for minors is another. One is reasonable people disagreeing. The other is barbaric.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Hmmm 30 years of consistency..

I can give the guy a pass on one thing.

Gary on the other hand has so many "Oooops, that was naive" issues it isn't funny. The issue here though is how well do YOU hold to YOUR Libertarian values?

Evidently not enough.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That's rich.

Go ahead and question my values, you don't know anything about me.

I already stated I wasn't a GJ supporter, but I guess I don't have enough libertarian values because I'd rather not twist information to further my own witch hunt.

Golden I say.

For me this is a bigger issue than you people want to admit. It's disingenuous to put Dr.Paul up against Gary or anyone for that matter.. Libertarians are the ones that have the non-aggression policies. Dr.Paul changed his mind.. I could give Gary a pass if he had the rest of his shit together. He doesn't so his "naivety" answer is highly suspect. I do however find, on a personal level, the idea of killing a child for any reason, offensive.

So yeah you may have more "Libertarian" values than you think.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"You people"

Who are "you people"?

Idiots who pretend to search for the truth

while ignoring it on many levels.

I know that's not the answer you expected but that just makes you wrong one more time.

:)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

.

Reporter:

Mr.Johnson, as a Libertarian *cough* do you not follow NAP?

Mr.Johnson:

I'm not familiar with that term but... Since you brought it up. Can I sleep on it? It's noon here.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

uh

keep trolling the internet from your mom's basement while Mr. Johnson actually tries to spread libertarian values, sound money, and peace. what a terrible guy!

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

He doesn't even know what Libertarian values are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTch7InkZjo

Well uh well uh...But but but that doesn't matter.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

.

A kill'n we will go
A kill'n we will go
Hi ho the merry oh
A kill'n we will go
Lets kill'em on the left
Lets kill'em on the right
Lets get those little fuckers
before they're old enough to drive!

Johnson 2012
"Or else"

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Even RP confessed to flipping positions on the death penalty

I was surprised when I saw Ron Paul in an old recorded debate. He explained how he was no longer an advocate for the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQ2EXMn5YU
IF you don't want to watch the whole thing...tune at 1:43

Overall no one's perfect. I don't know if this issue about GJ is really a big deal.

Hawks?

Gary IS a libertarian. PERIOD. You negative nancies need to relax. Go ahead, have your vote thrown out or be changed to Romney an write in Ron Paul, its your right.... i wish I could vote for the good doctor, but sadly, he got screwed. Gary Johnson is a principaled man who believes in our message. To go out of your way to make up points or distort views to suit your own vendetta is childish and ignorant. Its politics and no one is perfect, not even Ron Paul... HUHHHH, (GASP!!).

Gary Johnson could get on the ballots with 15%, which is easily possible with a slew of Ron Paul supporters... why would we not want to hear someone debate Obamney who talks about the Drug War? Over seas interventionism? Cutting Spending? The Federal Reserve? Civil Liberties? and just the what the role of government should be? You guys are gonna have a hard time voting for the rest of your life if your going to compare every candidate to Ron Paul.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Keep it in perspective: Obama HAS executed 3 and 4 year olds

Keep it in perspective: President Obama HAS executed 3 and 4 year olds with his relentless drone campaign. If elected President, Willard "White Horse Prophecy" Romney has promised to increase the killings of 3 and 4 year olds.

Faced with competition like those two, and all the moaning and groaning from the ideologues about Johnson's lack of libertarian purity is totally infantile....

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

GJ is NOT a libertarian, period. However, those gay boys & girls

over at REASON MAG and the LP are SELL OUTS! These PUKES so offend my libertarian thinking.

These shallow sad pukes are so enamored with ANYBODY who speaks well of gays and are pro-murder of fetuses that they WILLINGLY look the other way.

The Death Penalty? Yawn, ...."Hey did you hear GJ marched in our gay parade?!!!!" SELL OUTS!

These happy boys & girls over at REASON MAG will not respond to Dr. Paul's book on Abortion which provided a discussion how its "unlibertarian". AND they will not discuss the fact that STATE LICENSING of Marriage was state control used to stop "miscegenation" (black n white marriages) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

No, the REASON libertarian LP crowd is so flat out GAY and PC, that they will LOOK THE OTHER WAY if GJ or Bob Barr just tosses them a bone "for gay marriage" and "for a woman's right to choose death for her unborn baby".

And what about the "Responsibility for one's actions" principle? -- while this principle applies everywhere else in libertarian theory, is thrown to the dust bin along with the fetus.

And what about ALL THE OTHER Libertarian positions AGAINST STATE LICENSING LAWS? How does a CONSISTENT libertarian square the fact that libertarians are against ALL State Licensing in the first place? Libertarians oppose STATE licensing from plumbers to nail salons to real estate agents to medical doctors to even drivers licenses! So why then the big exception for STATE marriage licenses? Oh, it gives the holder more "benefits"? Well so does holding a pharmacist license. Sure, the "equality before the Law" principle is violated in the case of Marriage licenses, some people are prohibited. So the solution is State Marriage licenses for gays? Maybe yes if you are NOT a libertarian, but if you are one, as the queer boys over at Reason Mag are, then the direction should be AGAINST ALL MARTIAL STATE LICENSING. Real libertarian gays should find it OFFENSIVE to ask the STATE for permission to marry and find ways around the loss of those "benefits". Why open yourself up to "Communal Property Laws" as found in marriage courts? We straight libertarians find THAT horribly offensive!

Its a one-size-fits-all STATE solution and its just plain offensive. Even straight hetro people should be OFFENDED. No two marriages are the same, thus personalized marriage agreements, like any contract, should be unique to those parties. THAT is what those HAPPY BOYS over at Reason SHOULD be talking about. Instead, they have joined the ranks of TNR liberals who are drunk on Political Correctness. Gone is the liberty to the liberty to call a spade a spade and state if you like it or not. Most of all, gone is REASON MAG as a real hard core libertarian magazine (if it ever was one). Perhaps it should move its headquarters out of California and over to Oklahoma City or Fort Worth Texas.

Yes, please copy and forward this to REASON... be my guest.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

You're crazy to think

that talking negatively about gay marriage will make others think badly of Gary Johnson.

You realize the crowd you're talking to, right?

As usual though.. The uninformed are suckers

Gary was against same sex marriages in New Mexico. I wonder how many of them know that.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

SO ...

your a homophobe who believes in the use of force to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body? I guess you never heard about when abortion was illegal about how it only became more dangerous and driven underground just like other black market services... Women going to Mexico or having doctors perform ILLEGAL abortions with coat hangers and unsafe locations. Not only would they just flush the baby down the toilet, but often times the women would get hurt..facts are there is a demand government cannot legislate morality.

anyway, to pick this is one issue, which quite frankly, is on the bottom of the totem pole compared to economic/military/ civil liberty issues, to judge someones character when Mr. Johnson has done more for the cause of liberty than you ever will dream to do is ludicrous. This man believes in liberty and you people push him away because he's not Ron Paul, its pathetic

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Kill them, you kill expect to

Kill them, you kill expect to get executed, simple as that. Once convicted beyond any possible doubt, kill them, sell their organs and donate the money to the victim family.
A 13 year old who kills is not you typical innocent teenager, adopt one if you disagree with me.

The "Crux" of this Article

..Can be clarified in this way:

Ron Paul might have been voting the "will of the people" according to what his constituency made known to him.
HOWEVER:
Dr Paul was never in a position to kill or pardon anyone convicted of such a crime that warranted this death sentence.

Gary Johnson, as Governor, does not necessarily "bend" to this same "will of the people"...he is the "executive", carrying out the laws as enacted by the legislature, according to the people's "will" and signing them into law.

THAT...is the difference.
Gary Johnson went to a "bully-pulpit position" and interjected HIS WISH for the EXECUTION of 13 year olds.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Can anyone answer this question?

When Ron Paul supported the death penalty, what age restrictions did he place on capital punishment? For Ron Paul supporters to condemn Johnson on his former position on capital punishment, you must know what Ron Paul's former positions on capital punishment have been over the years.

Depends on the state as per Thompson v Oklahoma (US 1988)

unless you have evidence to the contrary... Do you have any statement made by Ron Paul stating anything about the minimum age for death penalty or going against Thompson v Oklahoma in regards to the minimum age? If not your question is moot and a cop out for GJ (which did indicate an age that goes against Thompson v Oklahoma)...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

As I said below...

Those that are attacking Johnson on his former positions on capital punishment are the ones trying to draw a comparison between Paul and Johnson. That can only be done if they know Ron Paul's former position on capital punishment. They are the ones making the accusation, so the burden of proof is on them to prove there is a distinction between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on this issue.

But I just stated the distinction...

Paul, as far as I know, never stated anything about age therefore it can be deduced that he wasn't against Thompson v Oklahoma which pretty much leaves it to the states (makes it mandatory for the state to impose a minimum age although nothing is said about what that minimum age would be). GJ, on the other hand, did mention an age for HIS state, as governor. To make it clear, Ron Paul WOULD NOT oppose GJ on that ONLY because it is for each state to decide and he never said anything against that but GJ's position is different to Ron Paul's because we can prove that GJ WAS for executing juveniles aged 13-14 as opposed to Paul that took the "leave it to the states" constitutional position.

An analogy: Is Ron Paul pro-choice because he thinks the federal government shouldn't legislate on that but should leave it to each state? Some states will be pro-choice, some pro-life. If a governor of a given state is pro-choice for that state does it mean that he has "the same" position as Ron Paul?

That's how ludicrous and inappropriate your comparison is...

BTW I'm not "attacking Johnson" on this. It was his duty as governor to establish an age, he had to. I'm just exposing how ridiculous your comparison is...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Knocking Ron Paul AGAIN

!!!

LOL!!!

How am I knocking Ron Paul in the question I asked?

Truth is funny

Your question not only admitted GJ's past fault, but employed RP's as a comparison to make RP look as immoral as GJ.

He's not.

RP would NEVER pose as anything to mislead people and empower TPTB with a red herring run for an office he can't win.

Ron Paul won. We were ROBBED and instead of FIGHTING, you run away.