NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds


PDA






DadaOrwell2
February 15, 2006, 04:21 PM
Interested to get THR's take on this:

---

Manchester, New Hampshire
Feb. 14, 2006

Two New Hampshire Free Staters chose arrest last week rather than allow themselves to be herded into a "Free Speech Zone" while the President was in Manchester. One of the protesters was carrying a sign advocating New Hampshire secession, both were in a non-secure area where civilians were milling around unmolested.

Keene Free Press article/pics:
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/LuncheonPoliceState

Manchester Union Leader article (link is split into two lines):
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Two+arrested+as
+protesters+gather&articleId=ff16795b-bd46-4bc7-bc0d-619d8f8946fc

Free Staters (www.FreeStateProject.org) are libertarian activists who move to New Hampshire from other parts of the country because they consider it the state with the most freedom. About 150 have moved here since 2003, with 7,000 more pledged to follow. Local and Federal officials have made seven arrests so far in civil disobedience incidents involving this group.

If you enjoyed reading about "NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 04:36 PM
As a Libertarian I think that this was really stupid!

I think we have more to offer than to emulate Cindy Sheehan, but these guys are making it seem like that's not the case.

This sort of thing may appeal to old hippies who never grew up, or to underage anarchist wannabes, but it's the wrong way to reach out to intelligent lovers of freedom in the mainstream.

I think most Constitutionalist and Libertarian types can understand the need for security around the President. You want Brit-style gun control, and more of a police state in general? Just watch what happens if someone else takes a shot at the President, no matter when and no matter which party he/she is from. The Secret Service doesn't hurt the Libertarian cause.

The Freeholder
February 15, 2006, 04:38 PM
The Second Amendment applies everywhere (well, except CA, NY, NJ and a few other places), the Fourth, the Sixteenth and so on. Why shouldn't the First?

I don't think the President--any President--or any other elected official's security is so threatened by peaceful protestors that you can make any case for "free speech zones". That concept smells to me like an attempt to stiffle dissent.

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 04:42 PM
Philosophically, I agree, Freeholder.

But I'm also into picking battles, and trying to use tactics and strategies to win those battles. Use your energy up on this kind of college-kid silliness, and what do you have left for affecting real change? Nothing.

Owen
February 15, 2006, 05:49 PM
Armed Bear,

You are probably the first person I have heard defending the proposition of putting protesters in cages located in places where POTUS can't see them.

That is exacly what they are doing. Anyone that isn't wearing a Bush T-shirt or whatever, gets corralled.

Merkin.Muffley
February 15, 2006, 06:11 PM
That is exacly what they are doing. Anyone that isn't wearing a Bush T-shirt or whatever, gets corralled.

And what's wrong with this? Why should the President, the leader of the free world be bothered by this riff-raff? He's out there, every day - on the front line of freedom protecting the Nation against the many threats that exist - I'm sure he and the serfs that travel with him wouldn't want to see these anti-American elements.

Owen
February 15, 2006, 06:24 PM
since when is protesting anti-american. Do you even know what they were protesting?

Is protesting illegal wiretaps anti-american?
Is protesting eminent domain abuse anti-american?
Is protesting the patriot act anti american?

Meplat
February 15, 2006, 06:28 PM
since when is protesting anti-american. Do you even know what they were protesting?

Is protesting illegal wiretaps anti-american?
Is protesting eminent domain abuse anti-american?
Is protesting the patriot act anti american?

Errr...I believe the "serfs" part gave away the sacarcism of this post. :)

At least I HOPE it did.

Owen
February 15, 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, if I missed some honest sarcasm, I apologize.

Otherwise: GRRRRR!

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 07:14 PM
Armed Bear,

You are probably the first person I have heard defending the proposition of putting protesters in cages located in places where POTUS can't see them.

That is exacly what they are doing. Anyone that isn't wearing a Bush T-shirt or whatever, gets corralled.

Try a little nuance on for size. This is politics, now.

I'm not defending "putting protesters in cages." I'm saying that joining in with a bunch of dimwitted, loud-mouthed moonbats makes libertarians look like nothing but idiots. This sort of "civil disobedience", where people do things that have no value or impact, to try to get arrested so they can tell stories about it in the paper just doesn't resonate with many people, nor should it.

Talk to me when they get arrested but aren't deliberately TRYING. I want to win the long-term war, not rant about some pyrrhic victory.

See, "protests" are a pretty silly way to get one's point across in the 21st century. Been to any? I have. Idiotarianism at its finest.

Who has had more of a libertarian influence on politically-aware Americans? These guys, or Glenn Reynolds?

Art Eatman
February 15, 2006, 07:17 PM
When I read some of the vituperation against Bush posted here at this website, and read some of the even more hostile commentaries at the more leftist sites around the WWW, I'm not at all surprised that security efforts have become as harsh as they are.

I was around some of the Secret Service security for LBJ, both before and after he became Prez. I recall Reagan being shot. I recall the hostility expressed agains Clinton and now against Bush.

No, I'm not at all surprised at how security is now handled, compared to before 11/23/63.

I am surprised that others get all bent out of shape on what we--as the public at large--have brought upon ourselves.

And that's even WITHOUT Al Qaida.

Art

WayneConrad
February 15, 2006, 07:30 PM
It's not about the president's safety.

Why would a person intending harm to the president show up with a sign and a t-shirt? I can't believe that weeding out people who look like protesters is the best the SS can offer to safeguard our president. I don't believe that. I think the SS looks beyond the clothes, just as you and I would if we were truly interested in security.

So... better s'plain to me again why clothing and signs denote a physical threat to the president.

Art Eatman
February 15, 2006, 07:41 PM
Wayne, do you reckon it might be what's worn under the shirt and inside the pants? something that goes Boom?

The Secret Service guys are paid to be paranoid. They're paid to believ that somebody is out to get The Boss. All-in-all, as I said above, they have reson to be as they are...

I'm not saying I like it, to put in what seems to be obligatory as a disclaimer. I'm just trying to understand why stuff happens in an apparently unsane world...

Art

WayneConrad
February 15, 2006, 08:09 PM
Wayne, do you reckon it might be what's worn under the shirt and inside the pants? something that goes Boom?

Art, that's exactly right. It's not the clothes that can harm the president. It's what might be under them. And what can be worn under a "Bush Lied" shirt can just as well be worn under a suit & tie. So why would any security detail worth its salt get distracted by the clothes? I postulate that the SS is worth its salt, and is not distracted by appearances. I also believe that they have the will, the right people, the right training, and the right equipment to protect the president. These things I believe are why I conclude that putting people with signs in "free speech zones" has nothing to do with protecting the president.

hammer4nc
February 15, 2006, 08:17 PM
See, "protests" are a pretty silly way to get one's point across in the 21st century. Been to any? I have. Idiotarianism at its finest.

Two examples of idiotic demonstrations:

1. Applause lines at the state of the union address. Choreographed by the Executive Staff. Dutifully counted and reported by the MSM on prime-time TV.

2. Those that occur on the floor of the national conventions (dem and repub). Orchestrated, paid for, cued and directed by the candidate/party.

So, if the "protest" supports one's position/candidate, its OK, & encouraged; if it gets in the way of the photo-op, its idiotic? The king has no clothes.

Those who buy into the "security" pretext for isolating opposing opinions haven't really thought too much about the issue, IMO.

joab
February 15, 2006, 08:25 PM
We have only the word of the woman involved that they were peaceful, but after reading some of these little pieces of childish drivel I don't necessarilt believe her
I switched to holding a sign saying, "Bush, Feds = Fascists" They were saying that they were only following orders. The Nazis said the same thing about locking up Jews. I asked them if they remembered NuremburgI got pretty upset and started screaming about this being a police state. They decided they were going to arrest me, too then. I wasn't about to cooperate with that, so sat down and started screaming more. I basically screamed until I couldn't scream any more and they had to carry me to the paddy wagonI think they're practicing gathering them together so they can shoot them all easily. When you act and speak like an idiot you will generally be treated like an idiot.

I am seriously pulling away from the Republican party and am looking at the likes of the Libertarians, mostly due to the influences of Neal Boortz.
But if freaks like this are representative of the party I'll pass

Merkin.Muffley
February 15, 2006, 08:46 PM
The Secret Service guys are paid to be paranoid. They're paid to believ that somebody is out to get The Boss. All-in-all, as I said above, they have reson to be as they are...


There are people out to get the boss - let us not forget - United flight 93 was thought to be flying to crash into the White House when it crashed in PA. American flight 77 might have been targeting the White House too, and chose the Pentagon as a secondary target. The White House wasn't evacuated until 7 minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon.

Highland Ranger
February 15, 2006, 09:22 PM
This didn't start with Bush did it? Wasn't this practice started during the reign of Slick Willy?

In any event I have a problem with it. It's controlled free speech. And put up jobs on the part of either party aside it just feels wrong.

If you become what you say you aren't while trying to defend what say you are then . . . .well what are you?

Hawkmoon
February 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
And what's wrong with this? Why should the President, the leader of the free world be bothered by this riff-raff? He's out there, every day - on the front line of freedom protecting the Nation against the many threats that exist - I'm sure he and the serfs that travel with him wouldn't want to see these anti-American elements.
This was satire, right?

PLEASE tell me you were kidding.

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 10:09 PM
Interested to get THR's take on this:

---

Manchester, New Hampshire
Feb. 14, 2006

Two New Hampshire Free Staters chose arrest last week rather than allow themselves to be herded into a "Free Speech Zone" while the President was in Manchester. One of the protesters was carrying a sign advocating New Hampshire secession, both were in a non-secure area where civilians were milling around unmolested.

Keene Free Press article/pics:
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/LuncheonPoliceState

Manchester Union Leader article (link is split into two lines):
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Two+arrested+as
+protesters+gather&articleId=ff16795b-bd46-4bc7-bc0d-619d8f8946fc

Free Staters (www.FreeStateProject.org) are libertarian activists who move to New Hampshire from other parts of the country because they consider it the state with the most freedom. About 150 have moved here since 2003, with 7,000 more pledged to follow. Local and Federal officials have made seven arrests so far in civil disobedience incidents involving this group.

Secession? Okay. People like that need to get the hell out of NH. We're quite happy being part of the United States, thank you. :cuss:

DadaOrwell2
February 15, 2006, 10:12 PM
bear wrote:

<<I think we have more to offer than to emulate Cindy Sheehan, but these guys are making it seem like that's not the case.>>

Since you are so unhappy with the activism and the sacrifice Kat and Russell have enganged in on your behalf, could you tell us a little about what kinds of superior things you have done to stand up to or downsize the government?

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 10:15 PM
Wayne, do you reckon it might be what's worn under the shirt and inside the pants? something that goes Boom?

The Secret Service guys are paid to be paranoid. They're paid to believ that somebody is out to get The Boss. All-in-all, as I said above, they have reson to be as they are...

I'm not saying I like it, to put in what seems to be obligatory as a disclaimer. I'm just trying to understand why stuff happens in an apparently unsane world...

Art

Though in response to this, I would think that an actual assassin would be more likely to wear a SUPPORTIVE shirt, just as I think that the most likely vehicle for a domestic carbombing would be an obnoxiously huge, giant new SUV with American-flag window silkscreening.

The guy yelling "I hate you!" can only come up and take a swing at you, you expect it. It's the one praising you who can stab you in the back when you least expect it. And I would expect the Secret Service to know that, too? So I don't think the shielding from protest shirts really has much to do with security.

DadaOrwell2
February 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
bear (armedbear) wrote

<< I'm saying that joining in with a bunch of dimwitted, loud-mouthed moonbats makes libertarians look like nothing but idiots.>>

why are you criticising people for doing what you say they should be doing?

You say they should not be joining moobats... Not joining the moonbats is exactly what they were doing. they refused to stand over there with the liberals where the secret service wanted them.

You say they should get arrested but not try to get arrested.

that is exactly what happened, they had no intention of getting arrested that day. If they had we would have video, a dozen more protestors and a hundred pics of it.

At least criticize people for what they really did, not what you are pretending they did.

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 10:20 PM
bear (armedbear) wrote

<< I'm saying that joining in with a bunch of dimwitted, loud-mouthed moonbats makes libertarians look like nothing but idiots.>>

why are you criticising people for doing what you say they should be doing?

You say they should not be joining moobats... Not joining the moonbats is exactly what they were doing. they refused to stand over there with the liberals where the secret service wanted them.

You say they should get arrested but not try to get arrested.

that is exactly what happened, they had no intention of getting arrested that day. If they had we would have video, a dozen more protestors and a hundred pics of it.

At least criticize people for what they really did, not what you are pretending they did.

I criticize people for coming to my state and having the presumption to say that it should "secede". What gall! Find another state...My town has a Revolutionary War hero buried in the cemetary down the street. We are proud AMERICANS.

Go find some other place where people don't care. The people OF New Hampshire don't want a bunch of moonbats barging in and pretending to own it!

(BTW, if that sort of thing keeps up, the legislators in Concord ARE actually going to mandate some sort of controls on this 'movement'...the citizens really don't like it!)

DadaOrwell2
February 15, 2006, 10:20 PM
<<I am surprised that others get all bent out of shape on what we--as the public at large--have brought upon ourselves.>>

Are you so sure you're right that you're willing to force every man woman and child on this forum to pay for it - this overactive security - with a percentage of their income?

DadaOrwell2
February 15, 2006, 10:31 PM
Manedwolf wrote:

<<I criticize people for coming to my state and having the presumption to say that it should "secede". What gall! Find another state...We are proud AMERICANS.>>

Hmm... I'm more proud to be an NH citizen than a US citizen.
Is that bad? I mean compare the two...

The US government has assault wep restrictions, an income tax, a massive debt, heavy corruption; it's inaccessible; the nation as a whole has a crime rate a lot higher than ours. It imposes affirmative action, partial wage controls, operates completely outside its Constitution. NH does few of those things.

I just get a lot less excited standing in an airport in Croatia telling someone I'm an American than I do standing in an airport in Baltimore telling someone I'm a Live Free or Die guy from New Hampshire and I can't wait to get my ass out of their socialist pit and go HOME.

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 10:36 PM
This is what these moonbats did?!

From the Keene article:
-----------------
"About five minutes later, the Manchester police showed up and informed us that we were going to move to the Free Speech Zone or be arrested. Russell walked off with the policeman, talking to him about this when next thing I knew, Russell was bent over in handcuffs. I went over to find out what they were doing to him. They were saying that they were only following orders. The Nazis said the same thing about locking up Jews. I asked them if they remembered Nuremburg, and they just looked disgusted. It took a while for a paddy wagon to show up, so we stood there arguing with the police for a while."
------------------

:cuss: Manchester police are NICE. They're the sorts you can smile and say "morning!" to walking by on the street. They don't deserve this kind of crap. I don't want them to turn into the kind of bitter, hating-their-jobs beaten-down public servants they are elsewhere. NH is PEACEFUL and they don't have to deal with people like this, usually...it's why I live here! So I just have this to say:

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/0/7993080_F_tn.jpg

WE ALREADY LIVE HERE and LIKE it the way it WAS! :mad:

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 11:51 PM
Well, these folks are would-be revolutionaries.

Of course, I doubt there was any real reason for the President to be in Manchester.

~G. Fink

ArmedBear
February 16, 2006, 01:09 AM
Well, these folks are would-be revolutionaries.


The standard word is "wannabe."

And one of the things I've done to affect change is work hard to get a libertarian mayor elected in a real city. Did we win? No. Did we get some ideas into city hall? Absolutely. They were co-opted by the Republican who won.

Fine with me. I'd have preferred our candidate, who is, BTW, someone who works politically in the real world and can wear a suit and tie when it's called for, not a stupid moonbat t-shirt. But if our ideas win, that's 90% of the battle won.

Sounds like you guys are going to make us look like a weird cult, resented by the locals, who were deep down pretty damned libertarian to begin with, even if they didn't repeat your mantras daily.

The Free State Project didn't have to become that. I'm not too thrilled with what I'm hearing here.

As far as applause for the President, any President, maybe that's silly, too. But that's all part of politics.

No one takes protestors seriously. A guy with a sign is just a guy with a sign. A blog full of commentors and a ring of links can be a movement. The days of controlled media are gone; protests seem masturbatory.

If, say, 90% of the country approves of a President, you can still have 150 protestors follow him around daily. I don't know where they get their money but it comes from somewhere. The presence of these 150 people represents NOTHING, though, and politicians, R or D, know this VERY well.

BigRobT
February 16, 2006, 01:33 AM
Two examples of idiotic demonstrations:

1. Applause lines at the state of the union address. Choreographed by the Executive Staff. Dutifully counted and reported by the MSM on prime-time TV.

2. Those that occur on the floor of the national conventions (dem and repub). Orchestrated, paid for, cued and directed by the candidate/party.

So, if the "protest" supports one's position/candidate, its OK, & encouraged; if it gets in the way of the photo-op, its idiotic? The king has no clothes.

Those who buy into the "security" pretext for isolating opposing opinions haven't really thought too much about the issue, IMO.


You took the words right out of my mouth !! What a better way to keep the President in the dark, feeling all comfy about his decisions than to corral these protesters and keep them out of his sight or limit his exposure to them. Sure, security is an issue. But, they are trampling on the First Amendment. I suppose the Govt doesn't really care because they have trampled all over other rights.

ArmedBear
February 16, 2006, 01:39 AM
What a better way to keep the President in the dark

Why not just give him a tinfoil hat, too. If it goes over his eyes, he won't be able to see. You could offer him yours.:neener:

If the President is "in the dark" it's his own choice. He's got an Internet connection, I hope. He CAN read, right?

There's no conspiracy that's trying to "keep him in the dark."

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 01:58 AM
If the President is "in the dark" it's his own choice. He's got an Internet connection, I hope. He CAN read, right?
\

Debatable :scrutiny:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/K/bush_bookupsidedown.jpg

Hook686
February 16, 2006, 02:04 AM
And what's wrong with this? Why should the President, the leader of the free world be bothered by this riff-raff? He's out there, every day - on the front line of freedom protecting the Nation against the many threats that exist - I'm sure he and the serfs that travel with him wouldn't want to see these anti-American elements.


So the leader of the free world promotes world peace, freeom, our form of constitutional democracy by caging those that wish to express their personal opinions ? Hmmmm anyone with an opposite view is "Riff-raff", eh ? At one point in our country's eveloution they were called "Patriots" .... "Serfs" might be a good term, as what seems to be advocated often sounds more like a Feudal form of government, than a constitutional republican form of government.

joab
February 16, 2006, 02:13 AM
Does anybody here really think that someone who has so little self control that they plop themselves down on the ground and have a screaming temper tantrum should be allowed in close proximity to the president.

Perhaps these peoples reputation preceded them and they were moved back for their own safety.
So that one of the SS team didn't have to shoot them when they had a temper tantrum and started trying to beat the president with one of their signs

What are the chances that their little foray into the eminent domain seminar raised some eyebrows

DesertEagle613
February 16, 2006, 02:59 AM
A half-dozen guys waving signs accomplishes exactly jack :cuss: A few hundred, on the other hand…

If you actually want to accomplish political change, try writing op-eds. If you can string that many sentences together.

Herself
February 16, 2006, 11:15 AM
If T-shirts and signs at a public demonstration are meaningless nuttiness, why not permit them?

If they are instead signs of hostile intent, why didn't John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald or those who shot at or who tried to shoot Presidents Ford, Truman and F. Roosevelt have any?

Nope, this is part of the modern idea that there is some sort of "right" not to be offended by what others might do or say; in this case, it's the President and those who favor him being protected from ungood wrongthink but it is still the same namby-pamby PC neo-Victorianism.


"Free Speech Zones" are inimical to the American way of life. All they do is create a seething pool of resentment. If these folks -- most them well-meaning whackjobs, sure -- were instead allowed to wave their signs and wear their slogan-covered T-shirts in the midst of the throngs of quieter types, it'd be a yawner.

Instead, they get shoved together. Sooner or later, some of them will decide if their message isn't getting across by waving signs inside a cage, perhaps "voting from the rooftops" would work better.

A moonbatty idea? Sure. It is easier to de-elect the bums than to shoot them and less smelly, too. Lone Gunmen generally only leave a mess (Sarajevo and WW I springs to mind). But posters here have already pointed out that many of these folks are moonbats. The choice is to coop 'em up and let them make one another even moonbattier, or put 'em in with the normals where they might pick up a few better ideas.

The States are already just one more Great Leader-type nation, albeit better-run, less centralized and more stable than most. "Free Speech Zones" just rub it in. The entire country is a "Free Speech Zone!" Or at least it was supposed to be, back when the Bill of Rights was thought to be more than just a scrap of paper.

--Herself

PS: for the guy saying "Free Staters Go Home," I'll remind you how well your ancestors listened to my Cherokee ancestors when they said the same thing all the way to the Supreme Court. At least the Free State folks are buying their land!

JohnBT
February 16, 2006, 11:26 AM
I don't even see it as a First Amendment issue. There is no right to speak your mind where and when you like WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. There are plenty of restrictions placed on all sorts of behaviors already. I'm sure you can think of some if you try.

Sure, you can speak your mind in America, but the government has no obligation to provide you with a soapbox to stand on.

John

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 11:45 AM
I don't even see it as a First Amendment issue. There is no right to speak your mind where and when you like WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. There are plenty of restrictions placed on all sorts of behaviors already. I'm sure you can think of some if you try.

Sure, you can speak your mind in America, but the government has no obligation to provide you with a soapbox to stand on.

John


"Free Speech Zone". More Clinton legacy that this Bush Administration embraces. :rolleyes:

GTSteve03
February 16, 2006, 11:52 AM
I don't even see it as a First Amendment issue. There is no right to speak your mind where and when you like WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. There are plenty of restrictions placed on all sorts of behaviors already. I'm sure you can think of some if you try.
Just because Amendment 1 says "free exercise thereof," doesn't mean you can't exercise your freedom of speech anywhere?

I guess then just because Amendment 2 says "shall not be infringed," you can still be prohibited from owning "assault weapons" or whatever else the .gov feels you shouldn't have.

I'm sure you were all for the AWB and any other gun-control bill that happens to crop up, right? Wouldn't want to be hypocritical now, would we? :rolleyes:

Glock Glockler
February 16, 2006, 12:49 PM
DadaOrwell2,

As a New Hampshire resident before the FSP and a Free Stater, I ask you to reconsider your sales tactics. For people to come in and demand secession makes me rather angry, your job should be to 1) be good neighbors, 2) to link up with and support the Freedom movements that already exist in NH, 3) and to be a model for the libertarian way of life.

Look at it this way, should someone like Manedwolf be an ally of yours? What have you done to make him into your enemy? If you can't even win over friends how can you win over people who are opposed to your political agenda?

A very wise person once said "Don't be "right", be effective", please think about that for a bit. Is the FSP about you feeling all high and mighty that you're fighting the good fight and causing sound and fury, or is it about increasing freedom? If you can't get people who are already freedom leaning to support you then you're doing something wrong.

Manedwolf
February 16, 2006, 12:52 PM
PS: for the guy saying "Free Staters Go Home," I'll remind you how well your ancestors listened to my Cherokee ancestors when they said the same thing all the way to the Supreme Court. At least the Free State folks are buying their land!

I'm part Cherokee myself, thanks. :rolleyes:
And who wants a bunch of moonbats coming into their peaceful state and harassing the police, thus shortening the cops' temper in general? Or worse, arriving in a new state and declaring that their new state should secede? 'Scuse me?

If you move somewhere, _you_ should adapt to the local way of life, not the other way around, otherwise you become just like the Suburban Soccer Moms who move into McMansion subdivisions in former farmland and woods, complain that the local general store is 'unsanitary', petition for a supermarket, and demand that hunters stop shooting where they can hear them.

Gordon Fink
February 16, 2006, 01:34 PM
The standard word is “wannabe.”

Actually, wannabe is a non-standard (or slang) word that implies more pretention than action. Like it or not, these folks acted, however childishly. Rightly or wrongly, protest is viewed as the primary factor that defeated de jure segregation in the South and ended the war in Vietnam, so it will remain popular for many years to come.

~G. Fink

ArmedBear
February 16, 2006, 01:47 PM
Actually, wannabe is a non-standard (or slang) word that implies more pretention than action. Like it or not, these folks acted, however childishly. Rightly or wrongly, protest is viewed as the primary factor that defeated de jure segregation in the South and ended the war in Vietnam, so it will remain popular for many years to come.

~G. Fink

"would be" does not have the same connotations, and the word can be found in American Heritage, listed as "informal".

And "popular" in this context means "Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at large". I do not believe that it is accurate to call protests "popular". It would be accurate to call this sort of protest "a common and generally unsuccessful tactic of fringe groups, that usually serves to make these groups and their ideas even less credible to the mainstream."

Furthermore, Martin Luther King had class. His marches bore no resemblance to this sort of stuff. That's one reason why they succeeded. They made the OPPOSITION look stupid rather than making themselves look stupid.

Again, nuance is important. And pomposity doesn't replace basic intelligence.

JerryM
February 16, 2006, 01:59 PM
The President needs special protection these day. I am for the actions of the SS and whoever moved the protesters.

Jerry

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 02:03 PM
The President needs special protection these day.


He sure does. He's PO'd plenty of folks. Lots of them conservative types and we know they tend to have guns... :scrutiny:

Highland Ranger
February 16, 2006, 02:04 PM
Protestor does not equal danger to the president that concerns the SS.

It may be polictical danger for his presidency, but that isn't the concern of the SS.

Gordon Fink
February 16, 2006, 02:05 PM
Hey! I’m all about nuance.

Public protest remains a popular method to attempt to affect change. Personally, ArmedBear, I think you’re probably right about its ineffectiveness in most circumstances, but that doesn’t change the fact that every fringe group thinks it is following in the steps of Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi.

Anyway, my overly nuanced point was that no one should be surprised. :D

~G. Fink

auschip
February 16, 2006, 02:14 PM
\

Debatable :scrutiny:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/K/bush_bookupsidedown.jpg


You are aware of course, that that image was photochopped?

DadaOrwell2
February 16, 2006, 02:41 PM
<< WE ALREADY LIVE HERE and LIKE it the way it WAS! >>

I want it the way it was too, how could I not?

Glock Glockler
February 16, 2006, 03:10 PM
Dada,

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, waving signs about secession is not helping matters any.

The Real Hawkeye
February 16, 2006, 03:32 PM
The Second Amendment applies everywhere (well, except CA, NY, NJ and a few other places), the Fourth, the Sixteenth and so on. Why shouldn't the First?

I don't think the President--any President--or any other elected official's security is so threatened by peaceful protestors that you can make any case for "free speech zones". That concept smells to me like an attempt to stiffle dissent.+1 to that!

Fletchette
February 16, 2006, 03:43 PM
Personally, I do not understand the animosity some people here have towards the Free Staters; if it is too annoying for people to protest with signs and demonstrations, what should people do to regain freedom?

I think it is a bit hypocritical for someone to spend hours each day on this forum, complaining about the government taking our rights away, and occasionally talking about the purpose of the Second Amendment (armed resistance to the govenrment) and then not even show up to a little protest. Or worse, berate those that do!

So tell me, what exactly are we supposed to do to get our country back?

ArmedBear
February 16, 2006, 03:57 PM
So tell me, what exactly are we supposed to do to get our country back?

Put on some nice clothes. Run for office. The LP is often looking for people who will run for various things.

Or help someone else who is running. We have little money since we don't get donations from big companies or organizations.

Study, learn, get articulate. Learn to talk with people, learn to talk on the radio, learn to talk to reporters. Write press releases, or help others to. Blog.

Talk to your neighbors. Plant the seeds of libertarian thinking. Show that you're a smart, educated adult -- just like you do when you want them to see gun owners as upstanding citizens rather than dangerous dirtbags.

You might be surprised at how many more people you can reach that way than you can by marching around with a silly poster and dirty clothes. People won't know if you're from PeTA, Worker's World Party, ANSWER, or anywhere else, because they won't even look. They'll just ignore you.

Go ahead and protest. I'm not trying to stop you. But please try not to undermine the sincere efforts of serious, intelligent grownups when you do it.

JohnBT
February 16, 2006, 04:15 PM
"I'm sure you were all for the AWB and any other gun-control bill that happens to crop up, right? "

You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatan <> insults.

Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

ArmedBear
February 16, 2006, 04:21 PM
Dada,

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, waving signs about secession is not helping matters any.

Bingo!

Liberals do have a point. "The way it used to be" was that we had slavery, then segregation, laws governing women's clothing (not just indecent exposure), laws against birth control, laws governing sex positions used by married couples, etc. That's hardly what Libertarians want to return to!

If you want to preach libertarian ideals, you have to do so in a way that people who aren't already in the choir will understand, and maybe even embrace. "Secession" and "the way it was" won't sell well, even to people who are libertarian to the core, because the message just isn't getting across that way.

It's important to be understood. Communication is about being understood, not being proud to have "spoken your mind" and alienated more people. Libertarians need to get over ourselves.

Mad Chemist
February 16, 2006, 05:02 PM
Though in response to this, I would think that an actual assassin would be more likely to wear a SUPPORTIVE shirt, just as I think that the most likely vehicle for a domestic carbombing would be an obnoxiously huge, giant new SUV with American-flag window silkscreening.

The guy yelling "I hate you!" can only come up and take a swing at you, you expect it. It's the one praising you who can stab you in the back when you least expect it. And I would expect the Secret Service to know that, too? So I don't think the shielding from protest shirts really has much to do with security.

Exactly. To think that the real threats out there do not practice and understand these tactics is ignorant. A real threat is likely to be of the "grey man" type. He looks just like everyone else, blends seemlessly into a crowd, and does not draw attention to himself.

Free Speech Zone? That's a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

JH

Herself
February 16, 2006, 05:44 PM
I'm part Cherokee myself, thanks. :rolleyes:
And who wants a bunch of moonbats coming into their peaceful state and harassing the police, thus shortening the cops' temper in general? Or worse, arriving in a new state and declaring that their new state should secede? 'Scuse me?
'Scuse you for what, for suggesting that newcomers don't enjoy the same freedom of speech that you do? 'Scuse you for believing you have some right to the status quo that trumps other people's right to peacably assemble? Not gonna 'scuse dat. You've got no right to stifle other people's civil rights on the basis of your own speculation and personal philosophical comfort. Nobody has that right -- not you, me or the Free Staters. We all have to put up with the goofy things one another does.

If you move somewhere, _you_ should adapt to the local way of life, not the other way around, otherwise you become just like the Suburban Soccer Moms who move into McMansion subdivisions in former farmland and woods, complain that the local general store is 'unsanitary', petition for a supermarket, and demand that hunters stop shooting where they can hear them.
...Or maybe you become just like the nasty Europeans who refused to adapt to the Indian way of life; like the nasty Irish who brought over their boiled potatos and corned beef, like the nasty Italians with all their gosh-awful food and caterwauling opera..... Or the Amish, those stubborn souls, how dare they not adapt? Make up your own list. It will be long. The States can claim blue jeans, jazz and the internet as local inventions; most of the rest of it was brought here by immigrants.

Ain't a one-way street. Humans affect their environment and are affected by it -- and we each form part of other people's environment. NH gets several thousand immigrants from the blissninny states every year, too, which is why I didn't move there. It's only a matter of time until the Vermont/Mass mindset will win out. A few Free Staters will only serve to slow the process down. Think of them as leaven in tinfoil hats!

Those McMansions? Some local sold that land, and it's an odds-on bet that local developers built 'em. Better take the matter up with them, not the soccer Mom; she would not be there if there wasn't a home to buy.

History does not freeze just 'cos you or I are in the world. Things never stop changing and if all you're going to do is stand there, watch and complain, you deserve your fate.

--Herself

GTSteve03
February 16, 2006, 05:59 PM
You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatantly ignorant juvenile insults.
Ad hominem much?
Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.
So like I said, I guess you're OK with that too, right? The government should put limits on our rights over and above what the Constitution lays out.

Your examples with the 1st show that you still have that right, you just must face the consequences of your actions. In this case, you don't even have the right to express your freedom of speech, you are carted away by the SS and placed in a restricted area, solely because of what you think.

The Real Hawkeye
February 16, 2006, 06:16 PM
"I'm sure you were all for the AWB and any other gun-control bill that happens to crop up, right? "

You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatantly ignorant juvenile insults.

Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.orgThis is a common misunderstanding. There is no law against shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. If, however, you are guilty of a hoax which a reasonable person would anticipate leading to injuries, then you are liable both criminally and civilly for those injuries and damages. The same goes for defamation, i.e., you are not liable for speaking, but for the damage that was done as a direct result of your speech, which damage should have been anticipated by a reasonable person. Being able to protest in an area that will actually matter, on the other hand, goes to the very heart of free speech.

Art Eatman
February 16, 2006, 06:24 PM
Slow down, cut back on using emotionally laden words, and quit insulting each other.

Or you're gonna have to start over.

Art

Herself
February 16, 2006, 06:26 PM
Oh, Daaaaaad...!

Okay.

JohnBT
February 16, 2006, 06:39 PM
"Be cruel, bad-nasty and evil: Make somebody think."

I was trying. Oh well. :o

John

P.S. - 1. Destitute of knowledge

progunner1957
February 16, 2006, 07:05 PM
Okay, lessee...

"Free speech zones":barf: are out of sight and earshot of the President. That means the area around him is a "Free Speech Denied Zone," except for the President - of course, he still has the right to free speech.

The Secret Service, aka "The SS" (Lordy, how they need some new initials:D ) decides who to corral in the "free speech zone":barf: -by what means?? What they look like, you say?? But isn't that picking the corralees by the dreaded, evil, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-child, kitten drowning method known as PROFILING???:what:

So lemme see if I got this right:
1.) Denying freedom of speech is okay when the President is coming.
2.) Profiling is okay when the President is coming. It is not okay at the airport, where it might save hundreds of lives of We The Pee-ons, who are expendable in order to preserve the holy liberal/socialist concept of political correctness.

Just want to make sure I've got all this straight...:fire:

joab
February 16, 2006, 07:20 PM
Just because Amendment 1 says "free exercise thereof," doesn't mean you can't exercise your freedom of speech anywhere?"The free exercise there of" is referring to religion. They weren't even praying much less exercising their religionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The first also states or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Like I said they had already been there for some time. They say simply taking pictures judging by there later actions I have trouble blindly taking their word for that.

As I also said, maybe their reputations preceded them
Here's the rest of the text of the first amendment lest I be accused of selective pasting
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

gc70
February 16, 2006, 11:00 PM
Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.

If, for some bizarre reason, I actually wanted to go and hear the President speak, I would not want some whackjobs disrupting the event. To me, it would be an issue of freedom of association - by a group of people who actually wanted to listen to what the President had to say - rather than an issue of freedom of speech - by a few whackjobs who disrupted everyone else's activity because they could not get any attention on their own.

So, I am a little bemused by the 'Free Speech Zone' complaints. Since when was crashing someone else's party a "right?"

Public protests were effective for the civil rights movement and against the war in Vietnam. But they were most impressive and effective when they were massive and consistent and drew public and media attention away from the 'official' event that was being held elsewhere.

yucaipa
February 16, 2006, 11:26 PM
I know this is a stupid Question,but I'm a little confused.

Is secession the "official" policy of 'freestaters', 'libertarians' both,neither ?

Or are these guys just doing there own thing ?

Herself
February 16, 2006, 11:33 PM
Neither. Secession isn't an option.

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 11:57 PM
Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.


How about it was a Clinton Administration idea?

gc70
February 17, 2006, 12:03 AM
How about it was a Clinton Administration idea?Stupid me! <sound of self slapping forehead> :D

publius
February 17, 2006, 08:22 AM
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can peaceably assemble over here in this cage, far from any possibility that your message will somehow be heard by the President, or worse, the cameras. Please note that this is NOT an abridgement of your right to peaceably assemble. It's just a little restriction designed to ensure proper propaganda control in front of the cameras, but that's not an abridgement. Really. It's not. Bill Clinton said so, and W has confirmed it, so it must be true.

joab
February 17, 2006, 08:48 AM
I'll check but I'm pretty sure juvenile temper tantrums in public are not going to be considered peaceable assembly in just about any state or by any reasonable adult

Sungun09
February 17, 2006, 10:43 AM
the first amendment still existed.

If the president doesn't want to hear dissent, he should stay home.

JohnBT
February 17, 2006, 11:31 AM
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Would someone be so kind as to link me up with the law Congress passed that has violated the 1st Amendment rights of the protesters who were arrested. According to the articles the protesters were arrested by the locals, not the Feds.

John

GTSteve03
February 17, 2006, 11:53 AM
Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.
Here's how I am seeing things based on the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The protestors had a grievance with the government (about what I can't imagine, maybe Bush eating puppies or something?), which is headed by the President, and they wanted to petition the government to hear them out.

Now, as far as I know just about the only way to speak to Pres. Bush in person is to go to one of his public rallies, as he's not want to meet with people very often otherwise, especially not outside his home while on his many vacations... but I digress.

These people were entirely prevented from an audience with the President in order to have their grievances heard. Is this not on its face a direct violation of that 1st Amendment?

GruntII
February 17, 2006, 12:01 PM
I find the concept of free spech zone rather repugnant to the constitution. We edge more towards a beneviolent police state every day.

GruntII
February 17, 2006, 12:03 PM
Neither. Secession isn't an option.


true but each day it looks better and better.

DRZinn
February 17, 2006, 01:07 PM
The very concept of a "free speech zone," besides being oxymoronic, is also an egregious violation of the right to free expression.

It really is as simple as that, and I don't know why people put up with it.

I think what Armed Bear was getting at is not that the authorities were right, but that the protesters made a bad strategic move getting arrested, most likely deliberately.

ArmedBear
February 17, 2006, 01:10 PM
Free speech does not mean the freedom to disrupt others at will.

-- Just saw DocZinn's post -- addendum: I think "free speech zones" are Orwellian, too. But there's a bigger picture here. Thanks, Doc!

These protests are usually designed to disrupt, not to express. Personally, I wouldn't find it to be a violation of free speech if San Francisco had the balls to round up the jerks who paralyze their entire city periodically by blocking the streets and sidewalks, and toss them in the slammer if they don't disperse. See, the people who live and work in San Francisco ALSO have the right to go about their business in peace, and that right is not being respected or protected by the city government or law enforcement, and it's generally not the protesters who are paying the salaries of said people.

If people are denied the right to petition for redress -- a separate right from freedom of speech and considered important enough to enumerate -- then that is the issue at hand and should be addressed. Childishly disrupting the day-to-day business of the government costs me money and accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, Libertarians who make us look like a bunch of college hippie throwbacks make it a LOT harder for those of us who want to be serious about this thing to, say, get a mayor elected. We might have been able to do it -- even NPR seemed to think so -- but it was just too damned easy, in the end, for the R's and D's to marginalize our candidate by association.

So here's the deal. You may have freedom to express whatever, but DON'T expect to be given a free pass for every stupid or alienating thing you do, by the people you are hurting -- people who share your aspirations of freedom.

DRZinn
February 17, 2006, 01:27 PM
Libertarians who make us look like a bunch of college hippie throwbacks make it a LOT harder for those of us who want to be serious about this thing to, say, get a mayor elected.That's exactly it. Now in the minds of the public, "libertarians" are those dope-smoking idiots who cause a lot of trouble over stupid stuff and get on everyone's nerves. Thanks, guys.

carpettbaggerr
February 17, 2006, 02:21 PM
Yeah, what hippies, thinking they have a right to peaceably assemble..........

DRZinn
February 17, 2006, 03:12 PM
No-one's arguing that they didn't have the right. If it makes you feel better, though, keep opposing what we're not supporting, and you'll look like you won the debate.

Thalinor
February 17, 2006, 03:34 PM
Philosophically, I agree, Freeholder.

But I'm also into picking battles, and trying to use tactics and strategies to win those battles. Use your energy up on this kind of college-kid silliness, and what do you have left for affecting real change? Nothing.


+1 Pick and choose your battles. Sitting screaming on the pavement as you get dragged off to jail only makes you look like an idiot. Second, you then run the risk of loosing your right to own firearms, vote, etc...

There is a time, place, and way of doing something for every different scenario. Being “Fanatical” or “Extremist” usually isn’t the way...

I agree with the cause but this is not the way to go about changing things.

gc70
February 17, 2006, 07:45 PM
Here's how I am seeing things based on the 1st Amendment:

The protestors had a grievance with the government (about what I can't imagine, maybe Bush eating puppies or something?), which is headed by the President, and they wanted to petition the government to hear them out.

Now, as far as I know just about the only way to speak to Pres. Bush in person is to go to one of his public rallies, as he's not want to meet with people very often otherwise, especially not outside his home while on his many vacations... but I digress.

These people were entirely prevented from an audience with the President in order to have their grievances heard. Is this not on its face a direct violation of that 1st Amendment?:D Oh, that's totally hilarious - a constitutional right to a personal gripe session with the President! Let's see how that would work.
4 years X 365 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 126,144,000
At one complaint per second, with no time off, a President could cover somewhat less than half of the population during a 4-year term, and that's not counting folks with multiple complaints. Yep, that would just about ensure that the President stayed busy enough listening to complaints to not have any time to do any damage while in office. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea, but it's not a constitutional right.

Here's an idea about petitioning the government... put it in writing and drop it in a mailbox.

ArmedBear
February 17, 2006, 07:59 PM
Let's clarify a few things...

Freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble come with common-sense limits in any community. Just ask whether those rights begin to infringe on the rights of others to do the same things.

Free speech means that no one shall be charged with a crime because of the CONTENT of their speech. However, if I walk up to your bedroom window, even if I'm on my own property, at 2AM and proceed to recite the works of Shakespeare through a megaphone, I can be arrested. I think we want it that way, because I am clearly infringing on YOUR right to peacefully enjoy your own property. So freedom of speech does NOT mean that the time, place, and method of communication cannot be regulated so as to protect the rights of those others who want to go about their business lawfully.

The right to peaceably assemble does NOT mean the right to assemble on the property of another without his/her consent. It does NOT imply the right to "assemble" with the intent to disrupt the lawful activities of others who are not part of your group. It does NOT mean that you have the right to force others to listen to your message. It does not imply the right to coerce anyone to do anything.

There is a legitimate need for government, like any effort involving many people, to act in an organized fashion. I am no lover of organization, and Robert's Rules of Order can drive me nuts. But I recognize that, without such rules, a tiny ultraminority of people without moral restraint or basic etiquette can paralyze an entire country simply by making it impossible for anyone to do anything. This is not "peaceable." Sorry.

As much as government might piss me off on many, many levels, I still don't want my country, state or city to be controlled by a few nutjobs who have not thought through where a place that condoned constant coercive disruption will end up.

And by the way, I'm not bashing Free Staters. These guys happened to be Free Staters, but it's their actions I think were wrong.

DadaOrwell2
February 17, 2006, 09:04 PM
They are now scheduled to be in court March 1, charged with disorderly conduct.

On the other hand, people have been handing them money to thank them for what they did. And they'll have support at court, probably a combination of supporters inside and protestors supporting them outside.

joab
February 17, 2006, 10:11 PM
they'll have support at court, probably a combination of supporters inside and protestors supporting them outside.Just like Tookie

Derby FALs
February 17, 2006, 11:12 PM
Let's clarify a few things...

Freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble come with common-sense limits in any community. Just ask whether those rights begin to infringe on the rights of others to do the same things.

Free speech means that no one shall be charged with a crime because of the CONTENT of their speech. However, if I walk up to your bedroom window, even if I'm on my own property, at 2AM and proceed to recite the works of Shakespeare through a megaphone, I can be arrested. I think we want it that way, because I am clearly infringing on YOUR right to peacefully enjoy your own property. So freedom of speech does NOT mean that the time, place, and method of communication cannot be regulated so as to protect the rights of those others who want to go about their business lawfully.

The right to peaceably assemble does NOT mean the right to assemble on the property of another without his/her consent. It does NOT imply the right to "assemble" with the intent to disrupt the lawful activities of others who are not part of your group. It does NOT mean that you have the right to force others to listen to your message. It does not imply the right to coerce anyone to do anything.

There is a legitimate need for government, like any effort involving many people, to act in an organized fashion. I am no lover of organization, and Robert's Rules of Order can drive me nuts. But I recognize that, without such rules, a tiny ultraminority of people without moral restraint or basic etiquette can paralyze an entire country simply by making it impossible for anyone to do anything. This is not "peaceable." Sorry.

As much as government might piss me off on many, many levels, I still don't want my country, state or city to be controlled by a few nutjobs who have not thought through where a place that condoned constant coercive disruption will end up.

And by the way, I'm not bashing Free Staters. These guys happened to be Free Staters, but it's their actions I think were wrong.

What they were doing has been OK for 215 years. It wasn't until Clinton took office that a standing president didn't have to listen to a few jeers.

ctdonath
February 18, 2006, 12:43 AM
One of the protesters was carrying a sign advocating New Hampshire secessionSomeone openly advocating arguably treasonous activity within yards of POTUS is properly immediately profiled as a threat thereto.

I deeply respect the 1st Amendment.
I also deeply respect the fact that out of 300,000,000 people, it is very possible for a devoted nut (either end of the spectrum) to get close enough to the President to cause an extremely serious problem very fast; see Art's reference to IWB draw time.

While I don't think euphamistic "free speech zones" are Constitutional, I _do_ think the Secret Service has a power & duty to tell obvious nutcases to back off.

And yes, I think someone advocating secession in close proximity to the man tasked with maintaining national unity is a nutcase. The Free State project is going to self-destruct very quickly if members are going to promote secession; I though the point of Free State is to restore freedom to the states, not to vacate national participation entirely.

DadaOrwell2
February 19, 2006, 05:38 PM
Put on some nice clothes. Run for office. The LP is often looking for people who will run for various things.


Yes that is one path, and God bless you for doing *something* (you were the one who says you helped LP folks in the San Diego election,right? )

Well that's great! especially if you had some success in controlling the debate. But there are a lot of things to do in achieving liberty, not all libertarians will do the exact thing you do. I just hope that they will be more supportive of your efforts than you are of ours.

DadaOrwell2
February 19, 2006, 05:48 PM
<<So, I am a little bemused by the 'Free Speech Zone' complaints. Since when was crashing someone else's party a "right?">>

since when was holding a sign *not* a right? these folks were on a public street corner inhabited by other civilians, it was a bus stop ! It was not a secure area.

If you want to attack them, attack what they *did,* not what you are pretending they did.

The Real Hawkeye
February 19, 2006, 05:50 PM
Someone openly advocating arguably treasonous activity within yards of POTUS is properly immediately profiled as a threat thereto.

I deeply respect the 1st Amendment.
I also deeply respect the fact that out of 300,000,000 people, it is very possible for a devoted nut (either end of the spectrum) to get close enough to the President to cause an extremely serious problem very fast; see Art's reference to IWB draw time.

While I don't think euphamistic "free speech zones" are Constitutional, I _do_ think the Secret Service has a power & duty to tell obvious nutcases to back off.

And yes, I think someone advocating secession in close proximity to the man tasked with maintaining national unity is a nutcase. The Free State project is going to self-destruct very quickly if members are going to promote secession; I though the point of Free State is to restore freedom to the states, not to vacate national participation entirely.Well, that was my understanding too, but I guess this guy wanted secession. Nothing "treasonous" about that. Anymore than it was treasonous to oppose union in late 18th century America. Our first loyalty is to our hearth and home, then to our extended family, then to communities in which we live, then to the State in which we live. Only after we have satisfied our duty of loyalty in those regards ought we to begin to look at our duty to the Union of the States of America, called the United States. In the same way we owe greater loyalty to the United States than we do to the United Nations, even though we are quite definitely members of that world organization. Patriotism is first local. First we are Floridians, Virginians and Ohioans. Only subordinate to that are we citizens of the larger union of States, then to the United Nations. That's what patriotism meant when the Founders wrote about it. That's what it still should mean.

DadaOrwell2
February 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
JohnBT wrote:

<<According to the articles the protesters were arrested by the locals, not the Feds.>>

Feds made the call. Their first warning came from an SS guy.

gc70
February 19, 2006, 08:02 PM
<<So, I am a little bemused by the 'Free Speech Zone' complaints. Since when was crashing someone else's party a "right?">>

since when was holding a sign *not* a right? these folks were on a public street corner inhabited by other civilians, it was a bus stop ! It was not a secure area.

If you want to attack them, attack what they *did,* not what you are pretending they did.You have clearly mistaken a general statement of philosophy with a specific "attack." Allow me to expand on the former and then oblige you with the latter.

[this is philosophy]

The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and the right of peaceful assembly. When people assemble for a political purpose, there are often folks who want to make opposing opinions heard - and that pits two Constitutional rights against each other. A neat solution to that dilema is to separate the two groups. The protestors can express their opinions in one spot without disrupting the peaceful assembly of listeners in another spot.

[this is an attack]

But a solution that respects both the speech and assembly rights of the First Amendment wasn't good enough for your friends.One of the Secret Service guys came to me and told me that the agreed upon protest area would be across the street.Your friends could not simply walk across the street and protest from there. They had to throw a tantrum and insist that they could protest from any spot they darned well pleased, regardless of whether it would disrupt the rights of other people to peaceful assembly. So they were arrested... for acting like brats.

I have no sympathy for your friends' faux outrage. Their arrest gave them what they wanted - a platform for media coverage of their position.

CAnnoneer
February 19, 2006, 09:33 PM
+1 Herself

We often disagree, but in this thread we are 100% on the same page.

If the president does not want to hear what his fellow-Americans want to say to him, he should stay home. A public event is a public event. If he wants to have a meeting of supporters, he should reserve an enclosed structure, e.g. a convention center or a football stadium, and admit only by invitation. But they would never do that, because they know how ridiculous it is and they know they cannot claim public support for the Fearless Leader.

Excusing limitations on free speech by security concerns is pathetic and dangerous. Where does it end? Next thing they will claim is that expressing effusive disagreement with the president in public is a security breach because it causes emotional distress to the VIP...

The neo-Victorian crap Herself pointed out is very real, very well spread, and very damaging to the life force of our society. It is a sign of weakness, decadence, impracticality, and willful disregard for reality.

As our society becomes more and more complex, there is and will be an increasing number of issues to disagree upon. The only way to preserve national unity and individual freedoms then is to adopt a philosophy of libertarianism and learn to respect other people's freedoms even if we disagree with their ideas.

GTSteve03
February 19, 2006, 10:46 PM
:D Oh, that's totally hilarious - a constitutional right to a personal gripe session with the President! Let's see how that would work.
4 years X 365 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 126,144,000
At one complaint per second, with no time off, a President could cover somewhat less than half of the population during a 4-year term, and that's not counting folks with multiple complaints. Yep, that would just about ensure that the President stayed busy enough listening to complaints to not have any time to do any damage while in office. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea, but it's not a constitutional right.

Here's an idea about petitioning the government... put it in writing and drop it in a mailbox.
You know, I was totally wrong.

The President was out in a PUBLIC rally, but why should he even listen to the concerned citizens of the country in which he is currently leading. I suppose anyone that might have something they want to say that's not in agreement with government policy should just STFU and GBTW.

Yeah, mail it to the government. I'm sure the President doesn't have anything better to do than sit around and read the mail from the citizens. If he's not willing to listen to them at a PUBLIC RALLY, what makes you think he'll sit around in private and read their mail? :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
February 19, 2006, 10:54 PM
As far as Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, yeah, the protesters have a right to gather and protest. Where is it written that they have the right to proximity to the President? Where?

The Secret Service has the duty to maximize the President's safety. They thus control the route and the area in view of the President. Not only do they have to deal with snipers and close-range pistoleros, they now have the problem of suicide bombers and IEDs.

Given the history of "peaceful protests" which were anything but peaceful, I'm not all surprised, and not all that perturbed at how the Secret Service approaches its duty. The TV cameras show up and "peaceful" is shot all to Hades.

I've already lived through one Presidential assassination and the attempts on Ford and Reagan. Don't need any more...

Art

gc70
February 19, 2006, 11:35 PM
You know, I was totally wrong.

The President was out in a PUBLIC rally, but why should he even listen to the concerned citizens of the country in which he is currently leading. I suppose anyone that might have something they want to say that's not in agreement with government policy should just STFU and GBTW.

Yeah, mail it to the government. I'm sure the President doesn't have anything better to do than sit around and read the mail from the citizens. If he's not willing to listen to them at a PUBLIC RALLY, what makes you think he'll sit around in private and read their mail? :rolleyes:Okay, GTSteve03, I was a bit tough with you. Seriously though, the President doesn't go around the country to have discussions with the people, he goes to make speeches - he talks and we listen. With the number of people in the country, it would be impractical to do otherwise.

Yes, mail your written complaints to the President. The President does not read complaint letters, but he does have staff members who read, classify, and catalog every single complaint. And the President does get summary reports of complaints; that, along with polling results and news summaries, is how the President finds out what the people think.

BTW, what I have described is not callousness, but a simple fact of life for any executive of any large organization where the number of constituents, clients, or customers becomes too large for the executive to be able to deal with individually.

IndianaDean
February 19, 2006, 11:39 PM
Well, I'm Libertarian, and I don't indulge in any drugs, and I do not consume anything with alcohol in it.

I won't go near someone who wants to go shooting somewhere if they've even had one beer or one glass of wine. Firearms are too dangerous to chance even that small an amount, AFAIC.

Herself
February 19, 2006, 11:47 PM
It is a very long-standing tradition of the Republic, Mr. Eatman -- and any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.

Did you hear any gripes from Reagan? Ford? --Pfui, even FDR understood it and stood up to it.

...But wait! Once again, simple, peaceful protest, wavin' signs an' wearin' T-shirts, has gotten conflated with taking pot-shots at the Chief Executive. It ain't the same thing! Stop trying to pretend that it is.

Moonbats with signs are just moonbats with signs. It is the ones without signs and lacking visible battiness about which the SS - and den mothers of all sexes -- ought to worry, possibly even to bedwetting excess. But of course, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world are -- whine! -- soooo armed and soooo scary! Much safer to segregate the easily-IDed sign-wavers, maybe rough 'em up a bit. They've already shown their determination to avoid violence, which makes them way softer targets.

I am not sure what makes me more sick, such gutlessness on the part of all levels of government, or the speed and facile grace with which their apologists rush in to defend the behavior. You should be ashamed, sir. Ashamed.

--Herself

GTSteve03
February 20, 2006, 12:15 AM
BTW, what I have described is not callousness, but a simple fact of life for any executive of any large organization where the number of constituents, clients, or customers becomes too large for the executive to be able to deal with individually.
I know, and I'm probably extending my hyperbole a bit much, but I'm just frustrated that someone that claims to represent the entire country is so willing to shut himself off from anyone that disagrees with him.

It seems to me that everything Bush (and I'm not singling him out here, I was just not that aware during Clinton's era, I was a bit younger then) does is designed to shield him from all this. Pre-screened press interviews, "free speech zones" and lots of vacation time away from the public eye.

It just irks me to no end! :banghead:

The Real Hawkeye
February 20, 2006, 12:20 AM
As our society becomes more and more complex, there is and will be an increasing number of issues to disagree upon. The only way to preserve national unity and individual freedoms then is to adopt a philosophy of libertarianism and learn to respect other people's freedoms even if we disagree with their ideas.Another, and even better way, is Federalism. That works great when it's allowed to. Federalism allows States and local subsidiary governments to generally govern themselves, without interference from Congress, the President and/or the SCOTUS. We would then be 50 experiments in republican forms of government, each placing a slightly different emphasis. California, NY, NJ, Mass, etc., will be socialistic and politically correct, while Wyoming, Texas, Vermont, etc., will be more libertarian in approach, and other States will find themselves somewhere in the middle. People holding minority views would be free to move to States more in line with their thinking about how government should be. This is the way the Founders intended our National Union to operate.

The Real Hawkeye
February 20, 2006, 12:24 AM
It is a very long-standing tradition of the Republic, Mr. Eatman -- and any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.

Did you hear any gripes from Reagan? Ford? --Pfui, even FDR understood it and stood up to it.

...But wait! Once again, simple, peaceful protest, wavin' signs an' wearin' T-shirts, has gotten conflated with taking pot-shots at the Chief Executive. It ain't the same thing! Stop trying to pretend that it is.

Moonbats with signs are just moonbats with signs. It is the ones without signs and lacking visible battiness about which the SS - and den mothers of all sexes -- ought to worry, possibly even to bedwetting excess. But of course, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world are -- whine! -- soooo armed and soooo scary! Much safer to segregate the easily-IDed sign-wavers, maybe rough 'em up a bit. They've already shown their determination to avoid violence, which makes them way softer targets.

I am not sure what makes me more sick, such gutlessness on the part of all levels of government, or the speed and facile grace with which their apologists rush in to defend the behavior. You should be ashamed, sir. Ashamed.

--Herself+1

gc70
February 20, 2006, 12:26 AM
It just irks me to no end! :banghead:Me too, but probably not as much as my inability to personally gripe to the mayor of the city I live in (and the city is not that darned big).

The country just has too many people for democracy to work like many of us think it should.

CAnnoneer
February 20, 2006, 11:57 PM
Another, and even better way, is Federalism. That works great when it's allowed to. Federalism allows States and local subsidiary governments to generally govern themselves, without interference from Congress, the President and/or the SCOTUS. We would then be 50 experiments in republican forms of government, each placing a slightly different emphasis.

I agree in principle, but also recognize the opposite trend, one of centralization and increasing federal control, has been the reality for a long time. The central gov will never surrender power peacefully, which means the only non-revolutionary way to achieve positive changes in that direction is to engender a cultural change at the grass roots level. The problem is that at every level, there are significant forces against it - special interests at the top, busybody statist activists/welfarists at the bottom.

It is frustrating to know what would be best while having no practical means to achieve it.

CAnnoneer
February 21, 2006, 12:06 AM
any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.

My explanation is that they want to protect him from emotional distress. There have been other pings in the same venue:

1) "Whatever you do, do not upset the boy"
2) orchestrated conferences / questions sessions
3) reporter screening
4) reports of petty vindictive atmosphere at the WH
5) freezeup in the schoolroom
6) he does not "hear" questions he does not like

I am not convinced the guy can handle the picture in its entirety.

DadaOrwell2
February 22, 2006, 02:28 PM
One thing that's interesting to me is that Russell and Kat are getting a higher proportion of support on the neutral, neocon and liberal forums than you supposed libertarians are giving them here. Maybe that is one reason why libertarians are not calling the shots in government. So many of them are too busy interrupting their bretheren who actually stand up for their beliefs.

DadaOrwell2
February 26, 2006, 04:17 PM
Hank wrote:

<<Hmmmm anyone with an opposite view is "Riff-raff", eh ? At one point in our country's eveloution they were called "Patriots" >>

Thank, Hank!

Although in fairness I don't think the people on this board are criticizing Russell and Kat simply for having an opposite view from them. They are trying to make the case that they did this or that, or that they presented their view in a way which would alienate people. The important thing for me is that they didn't go into the "Free Speech Cage" when told to and were willing to be arrested for their beliefs.

ctdonath
February 26, 2006, 04:22 PM
Yup. I don't object to their views; I object to them making asses of themselves in public, disgracing their movments, portraying their views as "supid extremists" in the public eye, and generally wrecking any opportunity for the constructionist movement to take hold. Seriously: what is the public view of the Libertarian and Free State movements? legalizing crack and state secession! yeah, that goes far to gain public support.

If the guy had been waving a "Restore the Bill Of Rights" sign, perhaps all would have gone well ... but definitely not with a "Seceed!" sign.

gezzer
February 26, 2006, 10:45 PM
Welcome to NH, now go Home!

Folks wonder why the are not liked by natives come in preaching and stirring up stuff, NH is not libertarian it is Conservative, don't shove your libertarian ideas down our throats we DO NOT like it any more than MA democrats trying the same thing with their agendas.

Try living here and spending some time in town politics before trying to change the whole State. Why do you think the influx of MA folks (Won’t say what they are called by natives) haven’t changed anything as much as they want to.
:banghead:

gezzer
February 27, 2006, 12:36 AM
Free Stater explain this.

NY times 2/25/2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/national/25loving.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

"The goal, said an e-mail message attributed to a group member, was to move in enough Libertarians "to control the local government and remove oppressive regulations (such as planning and zoning, and building code requirements) and stop enforcement of laws prohibiting victimless acts among consenting adults such as dueling, gambling, incest, price-gouging, cannibalism and drug handling."
Leading the effort, the material showed, was Lawrence Edward Pendarvis, a computer analyst from Brandon, Fla., and operator of a Philippine mail-order-bride Web site who has run into a storm of opposition for trying to establish a similar "Free State Project" in Grafton, N.H. He was convicted in Florida in 1997 of downloading child pornography, but the charges were overturned on appeal due to a prosecutorial error."

GO HOME if this is your agenda.

spartacus2002
February 27, 2006, 12:43 AM
"The goal, said an e-mail message attributed to a group member, was to move in enough Libertarians "to control the local government and remove oppressive regulations (such as planning and zoning, and building code requirements) and stop enforcement of laws prohibiting victimless acts among consenting adults such as dueling, gambling, incest, price-gouging, cannibalism and drug handling."

Sounds like someone has a mole inside the FSP, engaging in monkeywrenching. I don't doubt that the FSP has some "extremists", but cannibalism? Dueling? Whoever sent that email actually intends the FSP to fail.

DadaOrwell2
February 27, 2006, 01:08 AM
Gezzer thanks for the suggestions. If you're a conservative, by definition that means you'd disagree with 20 or 30% of what the average libertarian or free stater believes and agree with the other 70 or 80%. With liberals it's the other way around. Of course it's people who almost agree with each other who are always at each other's throats. I guess that's just how human nature works.

In answer to your questions Pendarvis is still in Florida I think, and I don't think he's moving here. He got sort of a threatening letter from some local LP guys in '03 or '04 and I believe the FSP expelled him from membership.

And of course libertarians want to get the government out of the business of punishing victimless crimes, popular or not that's no secret!

Manedwolf
February 27, 2006, 05:53 AM
And of course libertarians want to get the government out of the business of punishing victimless crimes, popular or not that's no secret!

Define "victimless crimes", please?

NH has a low crime rate and a traditional-values culture. Do we want anything "decriminalized" that will change that?

Hell no.

And as to whether that guy moves here, if he does, I will PERSONALLY make sure his home is clearly marked on the NH sexual predator listing and his neighbors informed. We don't want that sort. At all.

Grey54956
February 27, 2006, 10:38 AM
Not that I want to be a total jerkface or anything, but:

To all the folks who think that "free speech zones" are not out of line with our country's principles, I would ask what is the difference between these and the "Gun Free Zones" around schools, churches, goverment offices, and several large metropolitan areas? After all, these were also erected for the safety of the public and elected officials.

The resitriction of freedom is anethma to our country. If you don't think so, I invite you to leave. Go somewhere else, perhaps France or England.

So what if a few hippies want to protest, that's what they do, and that's just fine. And as far as the Commander-In-Chief's safety is concerned, it is a dangerous job. Everybody knows that going into it. Sometimes, elected officials get shot. It happens. It's not good, but history is littered with the bodies of slain leaders, often at the hands of the radical, the insane, or the enemies of the state. In fact, most countries where this doesn't seem to happen from time to time, are those police states that crack down on the people, deny them basic human rights, and rule by strength of arms and not by the will of the people.

It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that we find ourselves confined to "free speech zones".

Glock Glockler
February 27, 2006, 12:28 PM
Manedwolf,

As a libertarian who is also a NH resident, I'd like to see the WoD go the way of the Dodo as well as licensing laws, minimum wage laws, gun laws etc. In general, I probably feel pretty similar to you about govt. I don't child molesters or rapists in my state either.

Dada,

How does it feel to have the people who should be welcoming and supporting you telling you to go home?

Did it occur to you that you're doing something wrong if this is the reaction you're getting? Your comment about human nature is just an excuse for your own failure to convince other people that want less govt that FSPers are good people to move in.

Do you intend to actually repeal stupid laws in NH or do you just want to be cool by causing a bunch of controversy?

ArmedBear
February 27, 2006, 02:18 PM
Gezzer thanks for the suggestions. If you're a conservative, by definition that means you'd disagree with 20 or 30% of what the average libertarian or free stater believes and agree with the other 70 or 80%. With liberals it's the other way around.

That statement could only be made by someone who does not...

1. Earn a decent living.
2. Have a business or want one.
3. Own property.
4. Believe in the right to self-defense.
5. Think the market can solve most problems.
6. Believe that individual freedom should trump collective power over the individual.

On the whole...

"Liberals" in this country -- and the word is misused -- currently support coercive seizure of earned wealth, coercive public use of private property without compensation (using endangered species as an excuse), punitive tax rates, no private ownership of defensive firearms, high taxes on energy and coercive government market manipulation in energy and whatever else is trendy, pseudo-governmental power given to labor unions, protectionism, and an ever-larger more coercive government on every level. They support gay marriage -- not deregulation of marriage, just an additional class who is afforded the privelege. They support SLIGHT decriminalization of some drugs (but evidently 20 year mandatory sentences for digging tunnels), and an absolute right to abortion, no matter how late in the pregnancy, with money taken coercively available to fund it. Liberals support giving the unelected UN a great deal of power over American citizens.

"Conservatives" in this country currently support laws against drug use, putting a stop to the gay marriage movement, a ban on abortion, private property rights, gun rights, a free market, taxes only insofar as necessary and not for the purpose of massive market manipulation, limited government, limited Federal involvement in local government activities like schools, and individual rights over collective rights. Conservatives oppose letting the UN dictate US policy, either foreign or domestic.

Neither side supports radical changes in national defense. Opposing some new weapons project for the political hay you can make is hardly the equivalent of returning to a system of limited foreign involvement and strong volunteer militias.

Neither side supports decriminalizing drug use or trade.

Modern American "liberals" are generally economic Marxists and social trendies -- their many laws governing behavior and possession can hardly be called libertarian.

Modern American "conservatives" are generally economic libertarians and social trendies, but following different trends.

Neither supports free trade with limited other foreign involvement.

Neither supports individual liberty as its first principle; liberals, however, as marxists, tend to see things collectively and seldom in terms of individual freedom at all, except for trendy social causes like gay marriage.

Neither side supports the freedom to have an abortion and the concurrent freedom to not be forced to pay for abortions you find morally wrong.

Liberals seem far more interested in forcing Conservatives to accept their social trends than in actually supporting individual freedom. Conservatives seem to have certain areas where they don't believe in individual choices.

The Bush administration takes flak from Conservatives for not BEING conservative (except for the social trend crap) so don't bother laying out Bush policies as a Conservative roadmap.

If you really find yourself agreeing with Marxists 70-80% of the time, you might want to do a few things.

1. Leave the Free State Movement before you do more damage to libertarians.
2. Subscribe to Reason and read Tech Central Station, starting with all of Arnold Kling's works.
3. Read other libertarian written works, and some critiques of Marxism.

DadaOrwell2
June 2, 2006, 08:08 PM
From NHfree.com

Manchester, NH
6/2/06

Bearing pitchforks, signs and pistols, twenty-five demonstrators got what they were after Friday at Manchester District Court.

The City of Manchester decided to drop charges against two libertarian activists its officers arrested in February.

Russell Kanning and Kat Dillon of Keene were carrying anti-Federal signs on Feb. 8 at a bus stop across the street from the Radisson Hotel, where President Bush was later scheduled to speak. Secret Service agents, then Manchester Police, ordered them to move into a nearby "Free Speech Zone" where demonstrators were being herded. They refused and were promptly arrested.

City solicitor Gregg Muller told reporters he dropped the case because he did not have a Secret Service agent he could call to testify against the couple.

Muller, Manchester Police and local Secret Service agents had been the brunt of unhappy phone calls and angry signs since the arrests occurred. Today's demonstrators sported placards reading "All NH is a Free Speech Zone" and sparred verbally with police, who seemed caught off guard by the size of the protest. Two attempted to enter the courthouse with pitchforks and were asked to check them in as weapons. Upon arriving at the security checkpoint, one demonstrator announced that he wished to check a firearm at the entrance, then shocked police by producing four pistols, butt first.

Manchester Police informed him that one of the guns was "suspicious" and called the ATF to report him. They then returned the weapon.

As for Dillon and Kanning, they have returned *home* and say they are invigorated by the experience. But Dillon says she has at least one gripe:

"No one apologized to us about the arrest."

Sources:

Union Leader: http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/kat_rus.pdf

NHfree.com forum discussion:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=670f13e36f6de0656b725827076a587b&topic=3063.315

Manedwolf
June 2, 2006, 08:19 PM
Upon arriving at the security checkpoint, one demonstrator announced that he wished to check a firearm at the entrance, then shocked police by producing four pistols, butt first.

Oh, GREAT. So they just gave Lynch more rhetoric to use against guns, and likely destroyed any chances we might have had for a legislative veto override of "stand your ground" SB 318.

What a bunch of dumb f....

DAMMIT! The antis will be ALL OVER THAT! :fire:

And you know what? The town I live in has lots of cemetaries with Revolutionary War fighters buried in them. We do not need OUTSIDERS moving in and telling us that they know better than the residents do "how to be free". You want to do that, GO TO MASSACHUSETTS.

Here's some quotes I found from residents about what they think about "free staters".

Libertarian doctrine dictates freedom for all, not to impose your will on others. What, then, are they doing in imposing their will on an entire town and state? And why are they surprised when we slap a “Free Staters Go Home” bumper sticker on our cars?'

The Free Towners who have been scouting out the town since its selection in February have, as a whole, been obnoxious, demanding and disrespectful. One actually stood at town meeting and accused a long-time resident of being a socialist.

Call me a xenophobe, but if you care at all about New Hampshire, you should do everything in your power to cause the Free Staters and Towners to abort their mission. They’re nothing but a selfish group of anarchist carpetbaggers whose sole purpose is to destroy a place and people they don’t give two hoots about.


I particularly like the last one. Free Stater = Anarchist Carpetbagger.

Get the picture? You're not welcome here.

spartacus2002
June 2, 2006, 09:09 PM
Looks like Boston T. Party was right about Wyoming. I was just out there in Wyoming for the FSW Jamboree and RWVA shoot; it seems to be rather more fertile ground for FSP. Of course, not making an ass of oneself helps,too.

Revolver Justice
June 2, 2006, 10:07 PM
I personally think that the President should carry the gun of his choosing and protect himself like the rest of us do. No man deserves extra protection or consideration just because of his job. The only deviation for me would be a minister, these are men who carry out the work of God. I have always belived the pastor of the local church deserves more respect than some politician.

Manedwolf
June 2, 2006, 11:53 PM
Looks like Boston T. Party was right about Wyoming. I was just out there in Wyoming for the FSW Jamboree and RWVA shoot; it seems to be rather more fertile ground for FSP. Of course, not making an ass of oneself helps,too.

Yes. The ivory-tower Yale professor who had this idea for the "free state" thing shows once again that many college professors have their heads jammed up their posterior.

Wyoming is a frontier state. Still "recently settled" in history. New Hampshire is a VERY OLD STATE, most of the towns date to the 1600's and 1700's, The culture is established. And one thing common to New Englanders, they do not take kindly to outsiders with attitudes.

You'd think the guy would have realized that, but then, most college campuses have no connection to reality.

DadaOrwell2
June 3, 2006, 10:21 AM
What is going on with Free State West these days Spartacus? I haven't heard much about them. Do you know if anyone has moved yet?

I used to think Wyoming was better than NH but it can be done either place. It's apparently a lot harder to get people to move to WY, but on the other hand it's more conservative which is mostly good.

Christian Exodus in South Carolina seems to be doing ok; they claim 30 movers and 150 members in-state only a couple years after forming up the organization. That's about where the Free Staters were in 2004. Looks like about 450 free staters in NH currently, around 150 having moved here since the state was picked in '03.

Manedwolf
June 3, 2006, 10:28 AM
You know, one of the reasons Lynch (D) was able to win the governorship in the first place, thus ensuring a lack of 2A protections, was that his campaign attack ads claimed that the incumbent Benson (R) had cooperated with and welcomed the "free staters".

So you know? Thanks a whole :cuss: lot. So far, everything your people has touched has turned to manure.

Keep it up the "progress" with asinine public stunts that turn public opinion against guns and give opposing legislators more ammo, and we'll be Massachusetts 2.

But then your people can just leave the state they wrecked and go elsewhere, right?

DRZinn
June 3, 2006, 11:17 AM
The ivory-tower Yale professor who had this idea for the "free state" thing shows once again that many college professors have their heads jammed up their posterior.And you show once again that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The state was chosen by the membership.

I'm not sure why you hate the idea so much of someone coming into your state and trying to make it more free. If liberty is good, then why would it matter where advocates for liberty come from?

I'm not heavily involved in the FSP, but it seems to me there are a few crackpots making the rest look bad. Don't paint them all with the same brush.

Manedwolf
June 3, 2006, 11:33 AM
I'm not sure why you hate the idea so much of someone coming into your state and trying to make it more free. If liberty is good, then why would it matter where advocates for liberty come from?

Because it was PERFECTLY FREE ALREADY, thank you, and we LIKED IT AS IT WAS. How presumptious of you is it to assume that outsiders have to come in and "fix" it for us, as if we can't do it ourselves?!

Oh, yeah, and,

And you show once again that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The state was chosen by the membership.

Here you go. Want more citations about the guy who had the shades-of-Lenin idea in the first place? Jason Sorens, Ph.D, professor at Yale.

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - Now that more than 5,400 people have committed to moving New Hampshire for the Free State Project, members are getting into the nuts and bolts of how the newcomers can be most effective.

The project, led by a Yale University political science lecturer, aims to bring 20,000 liberty-minded people to New Hampshire in the next five years...



28-year-old Jason Sorens is founder of The Free State Project (FSP) which has focused on recruiting active libertarians to move to a single state of the U.S. - New Hampshire - where research indicates that they could control state politics if they arrive in sufficient numbers and are active enough.

Jason first wrote about the "free state" strategy in a July 2001 column in The Libertarian Enterprise. Within a week after the essay appeared, over 200 people emailed him, eager to put the strategy into action. Thus was the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) born.

By August 2003, over 5,000 people had signed onto the Project, and they voted on New Hampshire as their new home. When those who had opted out of New Hampshire were removed from the rolls, only 4,000 participants remained, but the FSP is now back over 6,300 signed-up members.

DRZinn
June 3, 2006, 11:44 AM
Because it was PERFECTLY FREE ALREADYYou really think that, huh?

How presumptious of you is it to assume that outsiders have to come in and "fix" it for us, as if we can't do it ourselves?! Rather than getting all worked up about where people come from, you should welcome people who want to make your state more free. Apparently you can't do it yourselves, and neither can the popualtions of any other state in the union. So an influx of 20,000 people who want to help should be just fine. I know I'd welcome 20,000 more libertarians in CA (though they wouldn't be enough to be felt, here).

It still looks like a few crackpots making the rest look bad, to me.

And I don't care who came up with the idea, the state was chosen by the membership.

shades-of-Lenin ideaExplain to me the connection between the Free State Project and Lenin.

Werewolf
June 3, 2006, 02:03 PM
I just read this entire thread. Very interesting and then it struck me that there were quite a few responses that I found to be surprising. BUT HOW MANY?

So I attempted to categorize the results. Of the 119 replies (that's how many when I started the process) here's How I categorized the various messages.


Free Speech Zone are in conflict with the 1st Amendment - 29
Avoided or skirted around the Free Speech issue - 10
Free Speech Zones are necessary for the security of the President but are in conflict with the 1st Amendment - 4
Apologists - 5
Avoided the Free Speech issue and took issue with the Free Staters - 19
Avoided the Free Speech issue and supported the Free Staters - 14
Pro Free Speech Zones as lawful and Constitutional - 10
Off Topic - 20
Sarcasm - Stand not fathomable - 8


An interesting spread. I for one was very surprised at the number of folks that took issue with the free staters. It is interesting to note that of the 10 totally pro Free Speech Zones all the messages were from just 3 or 4 posters. Even more surprising were the posters that took issue with the free staters (most took issue with the method not the stand).

A varied demographic among our posters to be sure...

Manedwolf
June 3, 2006, 03:35 PM
And I don't care who came up with the idea, the state was chosen by the membership.

You did a few posts ago!
I said a Yale prof had the idea for the thing. You said I didn't know what I was talking about, that it was chosen by the people. I gave you proof that it was indeed fomented by said professor, he had the idea, AS I SAID.

And in response, you completely ignore the fact I presented, and instead wander off and throw a strawman to try to distract from the fact that you saying I "didn't know what I was talking about" was completely wrong. Instead you say "I don't care who had the idea, the people chose it."

Bull. Strawman, strawman, strawman. I don't discuss anything with people who do that.

Manedwolf
June 3, 2006, 03:41 PM
Oh, yes, and here's a photo I found on the Free Stater site.
Tell me again how they're not hippies? :rolleyes:

http://freestateproject.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=72&g2_serialNumber=1

Live Free Or Die
June 3, 2006, 05:52 PM
Oh, yes, and here's a photo I found on the Free Stater site.
Tell me again how they're not hippies?

I usually find myself agreeing with what you say, but this just seems silly.

First, you're using a picture of one person's car as evidence that "they're hippies" (the entire group of 7,000+). An absurd generalization.

Second, I can't read all the bumper stickers in that picture, but it seems that the jist is: Hemp is good stuff (this falls under anti-prohibition); The driver prefers peace to war; The government can't be trusted; and people should think for themselves. If those sentiments make one a hippy, then I'd wager most of the people on THR are hippes, yourself included.

Respectfully,

LFOD

yucaipa
June 3, 2006, 07:53 PM
One of the protesters was carrying a sign advocating New Hampshire secession,


He should be given a choice, Deportation or Execution.

Live Free Or Die
June 3, 2006, 08:06 PM
He should be given a choice, Deportation or Execution.

Sure, that seems like a reasonable outcome for someone using his 1st amendment rights to express an idea you find objectionable. :rolleyes:

yucaipa
June 3, 2006, 08:16 PM
Sure, that seems like a reasonable outcome for someone using his 1st amendment rights to express an idea you find objectionable.



What about my 1A rights ?

I say Deportation or Execution

You got 5 minutes Christian, hippie, bozo, whatever.

DRZinn
June 3, 2006, 09:51 PM
Yes. The ivory-tower Yale professor who had this idea for the "free state" thing shows once again that many college professors have their heads jammed up their posterior.

Wyoming is a frontier state. Still "recently settled" in history. New Hampshire is a VERY OLD STATE, most of the towns date to the 1600's and 1700's, The culture is established. And one thing common to New Englanders, they do not take kindly to outsiders with attitudes.

You'd think the guy would have realized that, but then, most college campuses have no connection to reality.Which apparently takes issue with the choice of New Hampshire.

And you show once again that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The state was chosen by the membership.Which points out that the ivory-tower resident did not make that choice.

By August 2003, over 5,000 people had signed onto the Project, and they voted on New Hampshire as their new home. When those who had opted out of New Hampshire were removed from the rolls, only 4,000 participants remained,Which proves my point.

I said a Yale prof had the idea for the thing. You said I didn't know what I was talking about, that it was chosen by the people. I gave you proof that it was indeed fomented by said professor, he had the idea, AS I SAID.

And in response, you completely ignore the fact I presented, and instead wander off and throw a strawman to try to distract from the fact that you saying I "didn't know what I was talking about" was completely wrong. Instead you say "I don't care who had the idea, the people chose it."

Bull. Strawman, strawman, strawman. I don't discuss anything with people who do that.Which shows that in addition to what you were talking about, you also had no idea what I was talking about.

Hawkmoon
June 3, 2006, 10:59 PM
Security for the president should not trump the Constitution, nor should it trump anti-discrimination laws.

If the SS wants to clear a "safe zone" of whatever dimensions they choose around the president and along his route, that's fine with me ... as long as nobody not part of the security detail is allowed inside the perimeter. Once they start culling out certain citizens because they don't think El Presidente will want to see the signs they're carrying ... that's completely unacceptable. Regardless of any rationale they may use to "spin" it.

makarova
June 4, 2006, 10:31 PM
Personally I think you are within your rights to peaceably demonstrate anywhere in pubic, during a presidential visit, so long as you're not disturbing the peace. Until somebody stands up for this right and takes .gov to court this unconstitutional practice will continue. That will take major financial backing because I seem to remember that at least one federal court has upheld this practice.

Rule# 1:
Dont go off half cocked. First get solid legal representation and financial backing, then plan for known contingencies based on recent history.

Get a hair cut and dress well.
Get a printed sign mounted on cardboard tube, so it cant be mistaken for a weapon. It would say something like" President Bush should be impeached for not protecting our borders!"

Silently stand in public sidewalk while holding sign. When approached by Secret Service, have lawyer inform him he may be held personally liable for infringing his clients first amendment rights. Have someone videotape incident for record who is not visibly allied to me.

Refuse to move to free speech zone.

Bring lawsuit agains Secret service agent and local L.E. in both State and Federal court.

IANAL. Which is why I said this is what I would want to do. As far as I know everything I have advocated would be perfectly legal and with in my 1st amendment rights.

What I would not do, is appear even remotely threatening, engage in verbal demonstrations, or interfere with scheduled events.

btw, I am not a free stater although I agree with their stated goals but not necessarily some of their fringe elements.

anybody got a problem with that?

Werewolf
June 5, 2006, 01:58 PM
Here is a link to an article that addresses the issue of Free Speech Zones.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040803.html

I was under the impression that the Supremes had already ruled on the issue since FSZ's have been around since about 96 or 97 I think. Guess not or at least I cannot find any reference to a ruling.

Until somebody stands up for this right and takes .gov to court this unconstitutional practice will continue. You've got that right! Problem is - who's gonna volunteer to be a jailbird while waiting the 6 to 10 years it will take the supremes to get around to it - assuming they even choose to review said case - which is a big assumption.

Phetro
June 5, 2006, 02:18 PM
I criticize people for coming to my state and having the presumption to say that it should "secede". What gall! Find another state...My town has a Revolutionary War hero buried in the cemetary down the street. We are proud AMERICANS.

Why, Manedwolf! You're so right. The gall of these New Hampshire citizens! These arrogant Americans, natural-born, moving to your state on their desires. They should be deported!

(Do you think the illegal aliens should be allowed to stay, too? That would be the ultimate irony.)

Go find some other place where people don't care. The people OF New Hampshire don't want a bunch of moonbats barging in and pretending to own it!

Yeah! Those New Hampshire citizens (you know, the Free Staters--who are, in fact, citizens of New Hampshire) should get out and stop breaking your code of behavior!

And um...you're a um...libertarian? ;)

Manedwolf
June 5, 2006, 02:20 PM
Yeah! Those New Hampshire citizens (you know, the Free Staters--who are, in fact, citizens of New Hampshire) should get out and stop breaking your code of behavior!

There's a difference between someone who moves to a state and accepts the local culture, and a carpetbagger who tries to bring their own way with them.

Phetro
June 5, 2006, 02:27 PM
There's a difference between someone who moves to a state and accepts the local culture, and a carpetbagger who tries to bring their own way with them.

That applies to foreigners, not Americans moving from one state to another.

Oh, but one fact that even you cannot dispute supports them: your state's motto. What is it again? Live free or die, isn't it?

So how are they living--or acting--incompatibly with that motto? I'd say they fit right in with what New Hampshire stands for.

(P.S. Thanks for the idea for my new signature!)

yucaipa
June 5, 2006, 02:38 PM
How is advocating succession (the overthrow of the US Government in NH) part of the NH motto ?

Phetro
June 5, 2006, 02:43 PM
How is advocating succession (the overthrow of the US Government in NH) part of the NH motto ?

It isn't. Who said it is? (In case you're confused: I said the Free State Project was in line with the motto. The call for secession was made by one person. One person doesn't equate the Free State Project. And, just FYI, that person does have a right to say that, although I don't agree with it.)

DigitalWarrior
June 5, 2006, 03:00 PM
First I like to say that I am a Granite Stater who had the grave misfortune to be born elsewhere, then get a great job in CA. But I found a job and will be coming home in a few months. I am a former Marine, not a hippie.

Now , I voted for NH because it is the closest thing to perfect that I thought available. I will however be looking to join an org that will make NH even more free such as liberelizing the liquer laws. Maybe I will work on relaxing drug prohibition.

I am strongly against the free speech zones. Either it is publicly accessible, or it is not. If the public is allowed there, then everyone should be. If it is not, then it is not an issue for me. I might have been arrested myself there, though a little more prepared. If I missed the demonstration, but was there for the hearing I too would have shown up. I would have brought a pitchfork, or maybe a torch, if it was legal.

Manedwolf, A man did nothing illegal (checked weapons prior to entering the courthouse), and you are furious at him. I do not understand. Will you be angry with me when I open carry or concealed carry? If so I am sorry that you are upset, but I will exercise my rights. Did you notice that the security guy called the ATF? Intimidation? Maybe.

I spent a Day travelling to Sacremento with Russel (the arrested guy) to distribute FSP flyers at a home-shool convention. Sure we are a little wacky as a group, but we are generally civil. We even ended up helping by directing parking while we were there (since we were in the parking lot/on the sidewalk anyway).

|)\/\/

DigitalWarrior
June 5, 2006, 03:03 PM
How is advocating succession (the overthrow of the US Government in NH) part of the NH motto ?

If the speaker believed the US government was attempting to enslave us, then it would be.

For the record, I do not support Secession

|) \/\/

Manedwolf
June 5, 2006, 03:44 PM
Manedwolf, A man did nothing illegal (checked weapons prior to entering the courthouse), and you are furious at him. I do not understand. Will you be angry with me when I open carry or concealed carry? If so I am sorry that you are upset, but I will exercise my rights. Did you notice that the security guy called the ATF? Intimidation? Maybe.

It was not an exercise of his rights. It was a poorly thought out publicity stunt that the antis will take advantage of. They walked in with pitchforks, he announced he wanted to check weapons, and turned over four pistols.

Now, tell me that's not a publicity stunt, especially since it was done in front of the reporters!

And as I said, after that little display, I doubt there's ANY chance that the veto on "stand your ground" will be overridden.

I will however be looking to join an org that will make NH even more free such as liberelizing the liquer laws. Maybe I will work on relaxing drug prohibition.

Lovely. Are you going to support the tax increases needed for the rehab programs, too? Or hadn't you noticed the rising incidences of meth-fueled-crazyness crimes in the Manchester area? They had to roll drums of explosive chemicals out of several housing areas (meth labs), and a lot of the crimes haven't been _for_ meth, they've been because the perp was completely hopped up on it. Read the Union Leader on its website, you'll see what's going on with that.

Myself, I'm more concerned with fighting to get SB 318, "stand your ground" to go through, and consider the most recent victory the passing of the protection of firearms from confiscation after a disaster. After that, likely, eminent domain. I'm concerned with defense and property rights...not the right to more neighborhood liquor stores.

You seem more concerned with publicity-stunt protests and legalized drugs...?

Sure you don't want to stay in California?

yucaipa
June 5, 2006, 04:05 PM
Phetro said,


The call for secession was made by one person. One person doesn't equate the Free State Project.

There's always "one guy" with an anti-America sign whenever you guys gather, how come these clowns aren't on anybody else's email list ?



And, just FYI, that person does have a right to say that, although I don't agree with it.)


Yes, and ever body else has the right to point these people out and publicly rebuke them, and question the motives and loyalties of the people who always show up with them, i.e. "freestaters"

Digital Warrior said,

If the speaker believed the US government was attempting to enslave us, then it would be.


No, just because some delusional nutball thinks that the USA is trying to "enslave him" that doesn't justify his actions.


For the record, I do not support Secession


That's refreshing to hear.

DigitalWarrior
June 5, 2006, 06:08 PM
Publicity Stunts:
The pitchforks were certainly a publicity stunt. The pistols, probably, but not definitely. I liked it because it was a funny way to say that the serfs were getting uppity. I understand that you feel that someone excercising their rights may be carictured by the media and made into a tool against your favored legislation.

Drugs:
Lovely. Are you going to support the tax increases needed for the rehab programs, too?I would likely work for medicinal marijuana first, and go from there incrementally. I would strongly support any tax on the substance to pay for that substances rehab and/or medical cost to the state. They had to roll drums of explosive chemicals out of several housing areas (meth labs) Not a problem, people don't generally brew legal low-margin substances in their bathtubs. I also read the Nasua telegraph and the Manchester Union Leader very near daily. I do not want to ban guns when criminals use them, and I do not want to ban drugs because criminals use them. I would be happy to buy you a dinner when I am out there and we can talk about it more, but it is propably not appropriate here.
Myself, I'm more concerned with fighting to get SB 318, "stand your ground" to go through, and consider the most recent victory the passing of the protection of firearms from confiscation after a disaster. After that, likely, eminent domain. I'm concerned with defense and property rights...not the right to more neighborhood liquor stores. Actually I would support these measures. I joined the FSP because it seemed more plausible to make the incremental steps in NH, than elect a president with the LP. If these issues are still being fought this fall, I will be joining you on those. To give you an idea of where I stand: eventually I would like to see a way for citizens to buy LEO weapons, such as make citizens junior deputies of the peace or some such lawyer-speak. But liquor stores are fine too (I buy wine at the grocery.)

California:
Hell no. I am coming home. I love the state and the people. I will be a quiet and peaceable neighbor.


Digital Warrior said,

Quote:
If the speaker believed the US government was attempting to enslave us, then it would be.

No, just because some delusional nutball thinks that the USA is trying to "enslave him" that doesn't justify his actions.
If the motto is live free or die, and the person says that they do not want to be enslaved, and that they would rather not be under someone's heel, that seems pretty logical. I am not saying that the person is right, but they are acting consistently with the motto. If I am wrong, please tell me how.

MrTuffPaws
June 5, 2006, 07:46 PM
I just read this entire thread. Very interesting and then it struck me that there were quite a few responses that I found to be surprising. BUT HOW MANY?

So I attempted to categorize the results. Of the 119 replies (that's how many when I started the process) here's How I categorized the various messages.

1. Free Speech Zone are in conflict with the 1st Amendment - 29
2. Avoided or skirted around the Free Speech issue - 10
3. Free Speech Zones are necessary for the security of the President but are in conflict with the 1st Amendment - 4
4. Apologists - 5
5. Avoided the Free Speech issue and took issue with the Free Staters - 19
6. Avoided the Free Speech issue and supported the Free Staters - 14
7. Pro Free Speech Zones as lawful and Constitutional - 10
8. Off Topic - 20
9. Sarcasm - Stand not fathomable - 8


An interesting spread. I for one was very surprised at the number of folks that took issue with the free staters. It is interesting to note that of the 10 totally pro Free Speech Zones all the messages were from just 3 or 4 posters. Even more surprising were the posters that took issue with the free staters (most took issue with the method not the stand).

A varied demographic among our posters to be sure...

Thanks for posting that. Interresting indeed and sad to see so many people willing to give up rights and freedoms for security.

Quaamik
June 5, 2006, 08:10 PM
And what's wrong with this? Why should the President, the leader of the free world be bothered by this riff-raff? He's out there, every day - on the front line of freedom protecting the Nation against the many threats that exist - I'm sure he and the serfs that travel with him wouldn't want to see these anti-American elements.

I think this kinda explains why he should be "bothered by this riff-raff".

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

DRZinn
June 6, 2006, 01:01 AM
Grammatically it's more like this:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

American By Blood
June 6, 2006, 01:47 AM
The moonbats among the Free Staters (and in other movements) do us all a favor by highlighting history's lessons on waging effective campaigns for change.

If you want cultural change you must either take over extant entities of information dissemination or create viable competition.

If you want reform you have to "put on a suit and run for office" as another poster so eloquently put it.

If you want radical restructuring you have to pick up a bomb and a rifle.

There is no room for the left's outlandish street theatre in any of these scenarios. It doesn't raise funds all that well, sway votes, attract recruits, or cause damage/casualties to one's enemies. All it does is waste resources and force activists to exist in a legal grey-area where they risk arrest without causing the sort of disruption that far more serious illegal activity would.

DigitalWarrior
June 6, 2006, 12:10 PM
There is no room for the left's outlandish street theatre in any of these scenarios. It doesn't raise funds all that well, sway votes, attract recruits, or cause damage/casualties to one's enemies. All it does is waste resources and force activists to exist in a legal grey-area where they risk arrest without causing the sort of disruption that far more serious illegal activity would.

I believe that you are wrong.

The point of "street theater" is to raise awareness of an issue by gaining attention in the mainstream press. If I, Mr. Schmuckatelli, attempt to run for office with a platform of "REAL_ID is ineffective and costly, to both our finances and liberties", few people will listen to my message. If I have nude people walking around with signs like "I support REAL-ID, I have nothing to hide", "What's wrong with the government knowing everything about me?", etc. It gets on the news. It holds one's attention. It also gets participants arrested.

The moonbats actually serve an extremely useful purpose! Would the AW ban have ever passed, if no one was calling for the ban of all semi-auto, center-fire rifles? Heck no! The AW ban was a compromise between the NRA and the ban-em-alls. Moonbats make the moderate reformers sound more legitimate. MLK was empowered by Malcom X's militant rhetoric.

|) \/\/

The point is not disruption, if it were, very different tactics would be used.

DadaOrwell2
June 9, 2006, 11:00 AM
TheDigital wrote:

<<I am a Granite Stater who had the grave misfortune to be born elsewhere, then get a great job in CA. But I found a job and will be coming home in a few months. >>

Woo hoo! Can't wait till you get here! Drop by NHfree.com and announce your move date to the forum calendar if you like, some of our guys will help you move in. We had 50 people show up for a moving party a while back, but that was kinda unusual.

Phetro
June 9, 2006, 12:10 PM
There's always "one guy" with an anti-America sign whenever you guys gather, how come these clowns aren't on anybody else's email list ?

Huh? "...you guys..." Apparently you missed where I live. Look a little to the left of this post--I'm nowhere near New Hampshire, and have never been affiliated with the Free State Project. I merely support them as a whole (read: not necessarily as individuals!) because some would-be tyrants want to stigmatize them, marginalize them, and intimidate them into leaving by making them feel unwanted. Hey, even leftist moonbats have the right to move to a new state, and they sure have a right to get active politically once there. Why then are Libertarians supposed to not have this right--or more especially not act upon it?

Regardless, the Libertarians actually want to flood the country with illegal alien invaders, and give full amnesty to the ones already here. I'll never support their ideology, though I will always stand up for their rights as fervently as I would my own. (But the America First Party...now there's a great group!)

Glock Glockler
June 9, 2006, 12:40 PM
Digital Warrior,

You obviously don't know very much about the NH charachter, we don't like stupid moonbats who parade naked holding signs, that's not what we're about. We want people that will speak to us like adults and tell it like it is. By actually taking the time to explain to us why Real ID is bad you will earn our respect even if we don't necessarily agree with you, parading around like a Berkley college student gets from us neither agreement or respect.

I have worked in sales for a number of years with people in various parts of the country and there is something that stands out about people from northern New England, some people misinterpret it as a form of rudeness, but there is a distinct lack of bs as we want people to get to the point and we generally work only with people whom we are comfortable with. We need to get to know someone quite a bit before we feel comfortable doing business with them, we don't have to necessarily like them but we want to know them.

You might think the moonbat thing is effective, and it is, but it's only effective in making the idiots doing it feel cool about themselves. Your average NH person doesnt want to see people come in from out of state and start raising a fuss about seceeding, all you do is create a barrier between yourself and the people by doing that.

Would the AW ban have ever passed, if no one was calling for the ban of all semi-auto, center-fire rifles?

Uh, the left is very skilled at political warfare, anti-WTO moonbat protesters aside, and they have major media outlets to channel their emotional 'winning of hearts" campaign through. There is a helluva lot the left does that is very effective, if you think they got the "Assault weapon" ban passed only because there were a few loonies like Rosie O'Donnell screaming for every last bullet to be banned you are very much mistaken.

DigitalWarrior
June 9, 2006, 03:19 PM
Glock,
Perhaps you are right about me not understanding NH character yet. I might have been in California too long, where insanity is reasonable. I certainly respect and even prefer the more rational approach, and cannot wait to live in a place where it is effective. However, effect is critical.

I do want to say that I never claimed that it was only because of moonbats that the AW ban got passed, but I do think that it was a necessary factor. It made banning a few objects that looked a certain way seem rational and reasonable by comparison.

Glock Glockler
June 9, 2006, 03:50 PM
It made banning a few objects that looked a certain way seem rational and reasonable by comparison

This is true, but the other side also did a damn good job of selling the middle ground as the "reasonable and common sense" alternative.

The FSP is one of the best opportunities I see to make a difference in the country and I see it being tragically squandered. Looking at the whole thing from a sales point of view, if these stunts turn off the average NH person then they are counterproductive and should be stopped. The reason for the parading and stunts, like the Nazi concentration camp thing at the Read ID protest, is because it is far easier for most FSP people to do that than it is for them to actually sell the idea of freedom. Selling freedom means developing relationships with locals before shoving politics down their throats, and many libertarians I know actually loathe dealing with people more than anything. Getting comfortable at relating and interacting with others is key for the FSP's success and it will accomplish 1000x more than the current tactics. The question is whether people in the FSP want to accomplish political change or if they want to feel good about themselves.

yucaipa
June 9, 2006, 03:57 PM
Huh? "...you guys..." Apparently you missed where I live. Look a little to the left of this post--I'm nowhere near New Hampshire, and have never been affiliated with the Free State Project.




I should have typed "them guys"


because some would-be tyrants want to stigmatize them, marginalize them, and intimidate them into leaving by making them feel unwanted.

I didn't feel I was doing any of that, just using my 1A right to say 'that guy' was engaged in anti-America activity. It's OK to challenge someone who is threating your country and way of live.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between 'that guy' with the succession sign and 'that guy' in the cave saying "death to America" is one of them most likely speaks better English.

If I were King of a day I'd put a 45 in both their ears.


Hey, even leftist moonbats have the right to move to a new state, and they sure have a right to get active politically once there. Why then are Libertarians supposed to not have this right--or more especially not act upon it?


Yes, everybody does.

DigitalWarrior
June 9, 2006, 05:07 PM
Glock

I used to be very heavily involved with the FSP. There are reasons I no longer am, and there are some similarities to yours. However I still support the goal of the project, and think that the results will be good. I also agree wholeheartedly that "Selling freedom means developing relationships with locals." I look forward to doing so.

Right now there are four hundred FSPers in NH. The theatre protests are almost all cenetered around Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning. I respect both of them. That means that there are three hundred and ninety some who are on your side and not generating what you consider to be negative publicity. I would like to ask that you consider that while you decide your feelings on the FSP.

I never would have thought of moving to NH if it had not been for the FSP, and no matter what happens to them, I will be coming home. Face it, NH rocks!

Phetro
June 9, 2006, 05:30 PM
I didn't feel I was doing any of that, just using my 1A right to say 'that guy' was engaged in anti-America activity. It's OK to challenge someone who is threating your country and way of live.

Hey, I totally agree.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between 'that guy' with the succession sign and 'that guy' in the cave saying "death to America" is one of them most likely speaks better English.

Someone who wants a state to secede is equal to someone who wants to kill the entire American populace? I don't understand.

If I were King of a day I'd put a 45 in both their ears.

You would shoot an American citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights in speaking about secession? Lincoln would have loved you...seriously though, are you kidding?

DigitalWarrior
June 9, 2006, 05:56 PM
I wasn't going to say anything, but to hell with it, DOGPILE!!!


I didn't feel I was doing any of that, just using my 1A right to say 'that guy' was engaged in anti-America activity. It's OK to challenge someone who is threating your country and way of live.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between 'that guy' with the succession sign and 'that guy' in the cave saying "death to America" is one of them most likely speaks better English.

If I were King of a day I'd put a 45 in both their ears.

Dissent is a patriot's duty. Jefferson advocated frequent rebellions. So tell me, what is this anti-American activity?

You said that one of them speaks better English. Whenever you mention "better English" you should do your best not to say succession when you mean secession. King of a day vs. King for a day. I am assuming you meant "I would put a 45 in the ear of each of them" too.

Would you have put a 45 in President Jefferson's ear?

Nothing personal, I just wanted to point that out.

yucaipa
June 10, 2006, 12:41 AM
Someone who wants a state to secede is equal to someone who wants to kill the entire American populace? I don't understand.


They both want the same thing in the end, the overthrow of the US Government. One wants to overthrow the whole USG., One wants to overthrow it in NH.




You would shoot an American citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights in speaking about secession? Lincoln would have loved you...seriously though, are you kidding


For exercising his 1A rights no, for advocating the overthrow of any part of America yes.

You're right Lincoln would of loved me, because I would have been wearing a blue uniform in that war, just like everybody in NH did.



Dissent is a patriot's duty. Jefferson advocated frequent rebellions. So tell me, what is this anti-American activity?


Dissent is everybody's duty, treasonous behavior is not, if you aren't capable on being intellectually honest enough with yourself to see the difference than so be it.



You said that one of them speaks better English. Whenever you mention "better English" you should do your best not to say succession when you mean secession. King of a day vs. King for a day. I am assuming you meant "I would put a 45 in the ear of each of them" too.


When your position becomes so weak that you have to pick up the clicker and change the channel in order to have a defensibly position, I rest my case.

I apology if you find the level of my communication skills lacking.





[/QUOTE]

DigitalWarrior
June 10, 2006, 03:58 PM
yucaipa:
Dissent is everybody's duty, treasonous behavior is not, if you aren't capable on being intellectually honest enough with yourself to see the difference than so be it.
Difference: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. And providing them with Aid and Comfort means SUPPLIES.

Question: Would you have had Jefferson executed?

twency
June 10, 2006, 07:09 PM
Ok, I admit I'm responding to an old post here, but re: the Bush upside-down book pic, it's a Photoshop hoax. Please see http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp

-twency

If you enjoyed reading about "NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!