NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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:

7993080_F_tn.jpg


WE ALREADY LIVE HERE and LIKE it the way it WAS! :mad:
 
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
 
Gordon Fink said:
Well, these folks are would-be revolutionaries.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hammer4nc said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
BigRobT said:
What a better way to keep the President in the dark
Click to expand...

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."
 
Merkin.Muffley said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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
 
JohnBT said:
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
Click to expand...


"Free Speech Zone". More Clinton legacy that this Bush Administration embraces. :rolleyes:
 
JohnBT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
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.
 
Herself said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
ArmedBear said:
The standard word is “wannabe.”
Click to expand...

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
 
Gordon Fink said:
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
Click to expand...

"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.
 
The President needs special protection these day. I am for the actions of the SS and whoever moved the protesters.

Jerry
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
NH law saves Free Stater in latest open carry incident
Replies
12
Views
2K
DadaOrwell2
D
D
  • Locked
Openly armed Free Staters clean up "troubled" NH neighborhood
Replies
5
Views
1K
LAK
L
D
  • Locked
NH: Free Staters kill statewide smoking ban
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
New Hampshire House votes to defy Fed ID
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
DadaOrwell2
D
D
  • Locked
NH: Feds to hold Free Stater till September
Replies
24
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top