NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds

[DRZinn]

Because it was PERFECTLY FREE ALREADY

You 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 idea

Explain to me the connection between the Free State Project and Lenin.

 

[Werewolf]

THR - A Varied Demographic to be SURE

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...

 

[Manedwolf]

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]

Oh, yes, and here's a photo I found on the Free Stater site.
Tell me again how they're not hippies?

 

[Live Free Or Die]

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]

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]

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.

 

[yucaipa]

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]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

This is what I would want to do

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]

Constitutionality of Free Speech Zones

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]

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]

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]

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]

How is advocating succession (the overthrow of the US Government in NH) part of the NH motto ?

 

[Phetro]

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]

Voice of a Free Stater

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]

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]

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]

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]

Replies

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]

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]

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]

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.