1. When you did the Social Security Card Burning Protest, did Russell, Kat, and Lauren really burn their real social security cards, or were those not the real ones, and you just said they were on the video? (I'm not meaning to be a doubter, but I had to ask.)
2. Is Russell the leader of the Free State Project? Looking at your videos, he seems to be the one who is the leader. Maybe that's why they wanted to turn him into a political prisoner.
3. Unfortunately, a lot of people are TV zombies who believe whatever the mainstream news tells them to believe. Perhaps that is part of the reason why you only got 1,000 people to be part of your group instead of 20,000, which is what you wanted. That's not enough people to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian state like you want to, so what are you going to do??
4. Are TackleTheWorld and Lauren Canario the same person? I think they are, but I just want to make sure.
5. I will admit that I am not a libertarian, but to me, opposing the U.N., favoring replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or similiar, opposing Social Security, opposing most of the "alphabet agencies", etc., reducing the size of the government, are not libertarian issues. They are issues which to me are common sense, bipartisan issues.
6. What if the people in New Hampshire who were there before the Free State Project got there get mad at the free state project for one reason or another?
7. What happens in two years when New Hampshire's Real ID extension that they didn't ask for expires? What will all of you do then when they won't let you get on planes?
8. When people like Lauren Canario drive without a license and registration, they do it because of "Freedom to Travel". But they still have license plates on their cars. (Or at least I think I saw license plates on their cars, I might have been mistaken.) Wouldn't they not have to have license plates either if there really is a "freedom to travel"?, or maybe you guys believe that there is a compelling state interest in the gov't making you have a license plate, but just not a registration/driver's license? And how would you get a license plate without a registration?
9. One of the claims, in fact the main claim, that the U.N. uses to keep itself in good standing with people is that it is a "humanitarian organization" and a "peacekeeping organization". Of course any work they have done in those two areas is overshadowed by the fact that they are a threat to our national sovereignty. But anyway, to make effective protests against the U.N. in the future, you should (in fact you need to) attack the image of them as a humanitarian/peacekeeping organization. You need to mention incidents such as the Rwanda genocide incident in the 90's (pointing this out will damage their reputation as a peacekeeping organization), and the tsunami relief in 05, where Kofi Annan was on a vacation at a ski resort in a lavish hotel when there were people dying from the tsunami (pointing this out will damage their reputation as a humanitarian organization). Also don't forget to mention the Oil-for-Food scandal.
1. Can't attest to that, wasn't there.
2. No.
3. The First 1000 was created to encourage people to move before we recruited 20,000 people. We're still working on recruiting 20,000 people.
4. Yes.
5. You'd think they'd get more traction then, wouldn't you?
6. Some who have agendas that involve the state controlling more of your life don't seem to like the idea of the FSP. A lot of natives and people who moved to NH before the FSP are quite happy to have us join their ranks. Once someone moves they become part of whatever community they wish to, we're not all gathering in one spot and only interacting with each other.
7. They'll still let you on a plane, you have to go through secondary screening, or show a passport.
8. I have a driver's license and a license plate, I'm not as far down that path as others. Though I do understand the point they are making. Some people are more willing to work outside the conventional system than others. The Embassy of Heaven issues their own license plates and drivers licenses, their website I believe details some of the interactions they've had with authorities concerning those as well.
1. Social Security Card Burning Protest was nothing to do with the Free State Project (FSP) -- neither is anything that people do after moving to NH. FSP exists only to get liberty-lovers to move to NH -- not to tell them what to do once they get here.
As for me, I drove around for half an hour (with Mike F.) looking for the place. By the time we found it, the fun was over, so we just had pizza with everyone afterwards.
2. There is no "leader" of the FSP. There is a Board of Directors, and a President (the current Prez happens to my wife, BTW)
3. I don't think we need 1,000 people to make NH libertarian. We need about 200 who are as active as the most active 50 that are here already. Or a few dozen willing & able to get elected to State House, plus a dozen or so people getting our message into the media. Or 1,500-2,000 as active as the "average" FSPer is now. Or 25,000 people who "just vote". Or an infinite number of people who just talk and don't do.
4. Tackle=Lauren
5. "I am not a libertarian" ... how can you be so sure >:D
6. Some NH'ers are mad at the FSP. Some are not. My co-host (http://nhcaptv.com) is a native, and not a libertarian, and she's literally thankful to God that we're here.
7. We'll deal with 2 years from now... in 2 years. Personally I'll just get the secondary search. Lots of people will use their passports. More likely, the game will be over by then and Real-ID will be gone because of states like NH.
8. Personally I think driving w/out a license is going to be 100% ineffective in effecting any real pro-liberty change. Obviously, some people will disagree. Gee, ain't freedom fun? ;D
9. Was there a question in there? The UN sucks. I want no part of it.
There!
1. I guess nobody would know but them. Not thats it's relevant.
2. No, the FSP is a movement, not an organization. The only bit of organization are the nice people who run the website for the movement, and the organizers of some events.
3. As of this writing, there are 8,288 people signed up. As I said, it's non-hierarchical, so "members" means members of the movement, not of any organization. That does not include most natives and many movers who don't want to be on the board, etc. And not every mover wants a "libertarian state" in the first place.
4. Yes.
5. That's a statement, not a question. An incorrect statement, but good try.
6. Many have tried to fight the FSP, as though it were some cohesive organization. Many more welcome us. That's life. Not everyone is going to be your friend.
7. That wouldn't be a FSP issue, that would affect everyone in the state. But it ain't gonna happen.
8. At the time of Lauren's last arrest, she was using souvenir Area 51 plates. It's part of the public record.
9. Another statement.
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
5. I will admit that I am not a libertarian, but to me, opposing the U.N., favoring replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or similiar, opposing Social Security, opposing most of the "alphabet agencies", etc., reducing the size of the government, are not libertarian issues. They are issues which to me are common sense, bipartisan issues.
How has that working out for you? The part about the parties taking care of that.
JohninRI,
you need to hook up with the RI Ron Paul meet up group, there are a large percent of possible free staters there, and the leader of the group, and his girl moved out of RI for freedom.
wait a minute, i seem to be suffering from brain damage, I swear the name of the person who started this thread was johninRI...
omg so confused.
(darn horses, and too much freedom lately)
1. Link to the Social Security Card Burn thread. http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=2099.msg32581#msg32581
Sapphire, We don't vote down here in RI. We prefer to withhold our vote (= our consent).
I do think that Ron Paul is wonderful and courageous but even if he got elected, they would either kill him or ignore him to death. Either way I believe that withholding consent is, or could be, more effective. If the Government doesn't get a majority we could make things very interesting by attempting to have the government declared illegitimate.
A few elections ago, we started that movement down here and the government responded by organizing a get out the vote campaign. You should have seen it, they were busing them in with coffee and danish and grabbing them off the streets. The day after the election the office was completely broken down and the phone lines disconnected. They claim to have gotten 57%, but they did the counting.
Also, I don't give a flying f... about computer voting. If they write the programs anyone they want will win and by any percentage they want.
A few years ago RI voted for and started a third party - the "Cool Moose". IT surprised them, but they took care of it in the next election. Our attorney Bob Healey was the founder and ran for Governor. My wife ran for state rep. She worked her ass off and when the votes were counted it turned out that she received the smallest number of votes of any Cool Moose candidate. They sent us a message. One that was not wasted on us. We have had more than our share of wins though!
Quote from: JohninRI on April 01, 2008, 06:34 PM NHFT
My wife ran for state rep. She worked her ass off and when the votes were counted it turned out that she received the smallest number of votes
Don't let that beat you down ... try again in NH, and she'll have a much better chance of winning her race!
Well, except that there's no "Cool Moose" party here, but hopefully she can get over that ;)
1. Yep, I burned my real SS card. I'm pretty sure Kat and Russell did too. Of course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.
QuoteQuote from: JohninRI on Today at 06:49 PM
My wife ran for state rep. She worked her ass off and when the votes were counted it turned out that she received the smallest number of votes
Don't let that beat you down ... try again in NH, and she'll have a much better chance of winning her race!
Well, except that there's no "Cool Moose" party here, but hopefully she can get over that Wink
I've been trying to get her there and I think it is only a matter of time. She knows that I can't work as a contractor here anymore. I've pointed out to her that there is no contractor registration board up there, and that I can work as I've always worked - under my Common Law Right to contract. We just have a lot going on here and many things to do. I hope to be ready by September, but I can't speak for her.
Quote from: JohninRI on April 01, 2008, 07:45 PM NHFT
I've been trying to get her there and I think it is only a matter of time.
You can join without moving to NH... it will give you a better idea of what's going on, politically, in-state:
http://www.nhliberty.org/join
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on April 01, 2008, 07:16 PM NHFTOf course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.
Freedom is not free.
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
2. Is Russell the leader of the Free State Project? Looking at your videos, he seems to be the one who is the leader. Maybe that's why they wanted to turn him into a political prisoner.
The President of the Underground rules with an iron fist. We do not speak his name. At some point, he may choose to grace you by allowing you to meet him, but until then, it's probably best to speak no more of this matter. :icon_pirat:
When the cops ask who is in charge, it is best to simply say, "Denis Goddard tells me what to do." :P
Quote from: Caleb on April 01, 2008, 11:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
2. Is Russell the leader of the Free State Project? Looking at your videos, he seems to be the one who is the leader. Maybe that's why they wanted to turn him into a political prisoner.
The President of the Underground rules with an iron fist. We do not speak his name. At some point, he may choose to grace you by allowing you to meet him, but until then, it's probably best to speak no more of this matter. :icon_pirat:
When the cops ask who is in charge, it is best to simply say, "Denis Goddard tells me what to do." :P
Actually, when the cops arrest you, if you are male, it is recommended you say "My name is Russell Kanning" [if female, "My name is Lauren Canario"], and show no ID, take no fingerprints, etc. Not because anyone wants to confuse the authorities, but because there are a large number of signs/banner already printed up and ready to go.. If people have to make new signs saying "Free John Smith", that's a lot of work. :icon_pirat: It'll be fun when there are two or three people all claiming they are Russell Kanning at once. No, I am Spartacus.
[This post is not an endorsement of being arrested, lying about who you are, or Russell Kanning. Your mileage may vary. Batteries not included. Etc.]
Not voting is what they want, better to show up and write in "None of the above" in every race than not vote. If enough people start to do this NOTA will begin to win multi-way races, and the fun will begin.
Its really helpful in the primaries, as it screws their delegate percentages.
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 11:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on April 01, 2008, 07:16 PM NHFTOf course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.
Freedom is not free.
She could get a new one. Of course, then they could make the 'burning' an annual tradition.
Quote from: JohninRI on April 01, 2008, 07:45 PM NHFT
QuoteQuote from: Joining on Today at 06:49 PM
My wife ran for state rep. She worked her ass off and when the votes were counted it turned out that she received the smallest number of votes
Don't let that beat you down ... try again in NH, and she'll have a much better chance of winning her race!
Well, except that there's no "Cool Moose" party here, but hopefully she can get over that Wink
I've been trying to get her there and I think it is only a matter of time. She knows that I can't work as a contractor here anymore. I've pointed out to her that there is no contractor registration board up there, and that I can work as I've always worked - under my Common Law Right to contract. We just have a lot going on here and many things to do. I hope to be ready by September, but I can't speak for her.
If at all possible try to get your wife to the Porcupine festival this June. If she doesn't camp reserve a room at the Gunstock Inn quickly. You have no idea how powerful a visit to Porch Fest is. The reason it is so powerful is the spouses and families that come to the event. When she meets the quality of the people and all the things they do that are not political it is easier to find New Hampshire a home.
http://www.freestateproject.org/festival
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 01, 2008, 04:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
5. I will admit that I am not a libertarian, but to me, opposing the U.N., favoring replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or similiar, opposing Social Security, opposing most of the "alphabet agencies", etc., reducing the size of the government, are not libertarian issues. They are issues which to me are common sense, bipartisan issues.
How has that working out for you? The part about the parties taking care of that.
I have to admit not too well. It's more of a theoretical "ought" than an "is". What I was trying to say is you'd think that people from both sides of the political spectrum would favor a reduction in government over an increase in size of government (even the liberals to some extent, since the ACLU, as much as I loathe that organization sometimes, often tries to get rid of big government when it infringes on civil liberties.) I mean who wants "bigger government"? The problem, though, is that I think many people don't realize the connection between getting more handouts and the government getting bigger.
Russell is not a leader in the choosen or elected sense. He has been the most active out of the system activist, and an early mover. He is a 'leader' because he does stuff, and many people admire him.
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 12:29 PM NHFT
who wants "bigger government"?
Anyone with a grade of "D" or below in this list:
http://www.nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 11:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on April 01, 2008, 07:16 PM NHFTOf course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.
Freedom is not free.
Actually being free is the natural state of being, a state of rest in scientific terms, which costs nothing. It requires energy/effort to limit freedom thus a cost is incurred. Once liberty has been subverted a cost in energy/effort is necessary to bring one back to the state of being free.
Quote from: d_goddard on April 01, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
5. "I am not a libertarian" ... how can you be so sure >:D
I am a traditional conservative (
not a neoconservative!)
This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty, the right to keep and bear arms, preservation of personal privacy, and of private property. These have long been part of the traditional conservative platform.
This is why I hate Social Security and the U.N. The U.N. is a threat to both US national security and national soverignty for obvious reasons. And Social Security is a threat to personal privacy because someone can steal the number and use it to get into your private information, and it is also a national ID card, which is unfitting of a free nation. It is also for that reason why I am very much against Real ID, just as you are.
I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.
I also am not in favor of Ed Brown. While I don't favor the income tax and think it should be cut way down, and the remainder replaced with a national sales tax, what Ed Brown did was both extreme and very illegal. Many libertarians seem to be in favor of Ed Brown, but I certainly am not.
I also favor a wall being built which will block off the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, which is a measure I can't see too many libertarians, especially not the ones here, agreeing with me on.
So in essence, conservativism departs from libertarianism whenever libertarianism comes up with a plank that is utopian in nature, and which would only work in a perfect world (which is not what we live in).
Now I do realize that this is a libertarian forum and not a conservative forum, and I also realize that I'm not the one who pays the bills for this forum, so therefore I will respect all of you and not mention the things I have mentioned on this post again. But I felt like I had to mention them just once to answer the question that I was asked of why I am not a libertarian.
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I am a traditional conservative
Nothing wrong with that... I was a conservative, once :)
And that was back before Bush Jr. fucked up the Republican Party, so it didn't have to be called "traditional"
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty
Since government is by definition dumb, slow, expensive, and bureaucratic, why do you want government to protect our national security and sovereignty?
Why is it that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution says, quote, "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." ?
At the time, "militia" meant, literally, every able-bodied man between 16 and 60, and "well-regulated" meant that all such men had to own a weapon and know how to use it.
Seems to me that the Founders understood that the
people keep us free and sovereign, not the
government.
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
preservation of personal privacy, and of private property.
Yes.
Except when they disagree. (eg: war on drugs, war on terror)
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do.
Answer this question:
who owns your body?If it's
you, and you agree that private property rights are paramount, then you must conclude that government has no valid role dictating how you manage your body.
If you do believe that government has a valid role determining how your body is managed, than you implicitly believe that the
government owns your body -- and that's the worst kind of Communist, statist, totalitarian bullshit there is. I will lay down my life, if necessary, to fight such evil.
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I also am not in favor of Ed Brown.
Me neither. I think he & his wife did a very stupid thing.
That said, I don't think we all should be forced to pay the expense of persecuting them, nor that they did anything worthy of such serious persecution. Couldn't the government simply refuse to render him any services? Freeze any bank accounts? In general, tell him if he doesn't want to pay, he doesn't get any benefit?
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I also favor a wall being built which will block off the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants
... which it won't stop.
Remember the bit about "government is bureaucratic and bumbling?" Why do you think
this agency will be different?
What the Wall
will do, is enable the creation of a police state.
Sorry -- that's just how government works, baby.
After all -- don't you think Lyndon Johnson was 100% sure Social Security would eliminate poverty in the elderly?
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
Now I do realize that this is a libertarian forum and not a conservative forum
Actually this is a radical anarchist forum, though some pansies here may run from the term.
FYI, there are plenty of true conservative forums in NH where people will agree with you a lot more than with me (and I'm good friends with those people, FWIW).
Try the RLC-NH group. They are good people, and they are
activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLCNH/
Russell and I burned our actual social security cards.
Social Security Card Burnproduced by politicalGRAFFITI
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty, the right to keep and bear arms, preservation of personal privacy, and of private property. ...
I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.
Up until September 11, the most common excuse behind every privacy invasion the government engaged in was the effort to fight drugs. The biggest attack on private property rights is a result of the same efforts, too.
You have no financial privacy nowadays due to laws passed in efforts to stop money laundering by drug traffickers. The same goes for communication privacy (drug dealers using cell phones), and many of the infringements the government has placed on firearms ownerships (drug dealers using automatic weapons).
As for private property—ever heard of civil forfeiture? If you're arrested on drug charges while in your car, they can seize your car. If you're ever arrested with "large amounts" of cash on you, they can seize the cash—because it's treated as suspicion of involvement in the drug trade. They can take your house and land if drug activity occurs on the property, whether or not you were involved or even knew it was taking place. And in all cases, even if they drop the charges, or even if you're acquitted, they get to keep what they seized.
We're never going to get privacty, or property rights, back in this country if we don't end the drug war.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 04, 2008, 09:09 PM NHFT
As for private property—ever heard of civil forfeiture? If you're arrested on drug charges while in your car, they can seize your car. If you're ever arrested with "large amounts" of cash on you, they can seize the cash—because it's treated as suspicion of involvement in the drug trade. They can take your house and land if drug activity occurs on the property, whether or not you were involved or even knew it was taking place. And in all cases, even if they drop the charges, or even if you're acquitted, they get to keep what they seized.
No, it's even worse than that.
If you're found to have a large amount of cash, they can "arrest" the cash on charges of drug trafficking (its mere existence in large amounts is proof enough) without even pretending to charge you with anything. A trial is swiftly prosecuted -
with the money as defendant. Because cash is not not guaranteed human rights, it isn't allowed to present a defense, so of course loses every time, and goes into the hands of the arresting agency. I wish I weren't making this up.
Oh, I've heard of that, cases like United States of America v. $124,700...
Yeah, $124,700 has been really out of control lately. Sad to say, but I saw this life of crime coming. >:D
I new him when he was only 99,000.
You're talking about Lloyd, right? ;D
Quote from: Pat K on April 05, 2008, 01:40 AM NHFT
I new him when he was only 99,000.
At the rate he's been devaluing, that time is nearly once again upon us. ;D
Quote from: Luke S on April 01, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
6. What if the people in New Hampshire who were there before the Free State Project got there get mad at the free state project for one reason or another?
I don't know of many natives actually knowing of the movement, so most are apathetic towards it.
Life here shouldn't be a movement but simply a lifestyle that each of us customizes to his or her wishes.
Maybe public outreach?
I'll certainly tell you that longwinded intellectual monolauges are unappealing to natives.
Most natives live simmilar lifestyles as the FSers, but are turned off to ALL media, politcal party rhetoric, religous guilt, and most imprtantly nosey-condescending-elitist neighbors. The values and wisdoms of intellectuals can and must be simplified in form, without losing the passion for ideals, so that people gain faith in alternatives to status quo.
Quote from: ReverendRyan on April 04, 2008, 09:35 PM NHFT
I wish I weren't making this up.
I think you mean "I wish I
were making this up."
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.
Drug-related crime grows because of the drug war thanx to prohibition driving it all underground and raising the cost of addictive substances. Also, tossing marijuana into the mix as far as drug-related crimes is absolutely absurd. Even with prohibition, pot's not that expensive and not addictive. I guarantee no one is committing crimes just so they can buy pot, at least no one who wouldn't be committing the crimes anyway for other reasons. Pot is competitive price-wise with alcohol. If they're committing crimes for pot, there are probably more committing crimes to buy alcohol.
While pot may be affordable compared to cocaine, let's make a quick comparison to a legal product:
6oz of tobacco: $11 (http://www.rollyourown.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=90_38)
that's less than $2 per ounce.
1oz of mid-grade pot is going for about $150 in Keene. That's 7500% more than the tobacco.
It's a good point, Ian. The drug war definitely makes things more expensive and contributes to so-called drug-related crime. Still, I think it's important to bear in mind that an oz of pot goes a lot further than an oz of tobacco. Tobacco is dangerously addictive and unhealthy and people tend to crave it all day long whereas even a "heavy" pot smoker is probably only smoking once or twice a day.
Quote from: dalebert on April 05, 2008, 07:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 02, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.
Drug-related crime grows because of the drug war thanx to prohibition driving it all underground and raising the cost of addictive substances. Also, tossing marijuana into the mix as far as drug-related crimes is absolutely absurd. Even with prohibition, pot's not that expensive and not addictive. I guarantee no one is committing crimes just so they can buy pot, at least no one who wouldn't be committing the crimes anyway for other reasons. Pot is competitive price-wise with alcohol. If they're committing crimes for pot, there are probably more committing crimes to buy alcohol.
No, that's not all of what happens. It's part of what happens, yes. They commit crimes to get money to buy pot. But what also happens is that they smoke pot, and then it messes with their heads, and causes them to commit crimes. For example, I knew a guy at college who would smoke pot, and then whenever he would smoke pot, he would sometimes hit people who tried to talk to him or who went anywhere near him, i.e. committing the crime of assault and battery.
And in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam, where it's legal and where I've been, it along with heroin causes people to throw bottles and other garbage all over the streets, so the streets are nothing but a great big mess of bottles and garbage. I saw it with my own eyes.
I don't want the streets of every city in the USA (including my own!) to be a mess of bottles and garbage, and I don't want to have a horde of people that go around hitting other people (including me!). So that is why I, along with what is apparently the majority of Americans, oppose legalization of pot and other illegal drugs.
That's just not rational, Luke. You're taking anecdotal evidence at best and connecting things that just aren't necessarily, or even likely to be connected. Do you have any idea the percentage of Americans that smoke pot? It's quite high (I bet someone he remembers it) and yet we don't have garbage in streets. There's a local cop here who testified that alcohol is often tied to violent behavior but pot almost always makes people more passive. Pot is just not tied in anyway statistically with violent behavior. It's just not; not even close. It's like this- initiating violence is always wrong and throwing garbage in the streets is wrong regardless of why you do them.
Honestly Luke, IMHO the FSP is not for you. Read the statement of intent and the pledge. If you signed the pledge, you'd be lying. You have a very statist and authoritarian view of the government's role in our lives. You're not even libertarian-leaning. It wouldn't be helpful at all to us, again IMHO, for you to move here and get involved with the FSP. I suspect you would be frequently at odds with others here. Supporting the drug war is probably one of the most harmful things an individual can do for this country right up there with supporting other needless wars. I would not even want you as my friend or as an employee with that kind of aggressive attitude; much less as an ally for achieving liberty. Your morals seem inconsistent and I just don't feel like you would be trustworthy. I can only speak for myself, of course, but that's my honest opinion. I have frequently said I prefer quality to quantity (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12740.0) when it comes to activists.
Of course, attitudes do change. Mine has changed a lot over the years. If I met a 20-year old version of myself now, I'd probably not like that guy very much. :) Maybe if you stick around in the forum a while, your attitude will change as well. Of course, you could try posting your thoughts on the drug war and immigration in some of the other forums started by FSPers and see what kind of response you get. How soon were you considering moving?
For now at least, I would encourage you to consider Montana if you're big thing is Real ID. Whatever you end up doing, I wish you much success in most of your endeavors, other than pushing statism.
Dalebert, I did not sign the pledge, and I was not considering moving to New Hampshire. I might move to Massachusetts, since the guy who is in charge of helping people get jobs at my college after graduation has said that I'll probably be stuck in Mass., San Fransisco, or Silicon Valley since my main things are math, statistics, and computers. But I was not considering moving to NH to be involved with the FSP.
The reason why I am here, as I believe I explained at the beginning, is that I saw a video of people burning U.N. flags, and at the end of the video, it said "nhfree.com". And there was also another video of people burning Social Security cards, and in the video description of that video, it also listed "nhfree.com". I was really excited about the burning of the UN flags and social security cards, since I hate the UN and Social Security with the flame of a thousand suns, so I went to nhfree.com, and here I am.
As for Montana, I have no doubt that Montana is the best state in the Union. I love it so much, and I wish so badly I could live there. If I could live there it would make all my dreams come true, but the guy who helps everybody get jobs at my college has been telling everybody that there is a job crunch, and so even though we are all talented, we will pretty much just have to take what we can get, and he said to me that quite frankly, I will probably be stuck in San Fransisco, Silicon Valley, or Massachusetts, since my main things are math, statistics, and computers.
As for the FSP, I have no doubt that you are right that it is not for me. And you are certainly right that I am not libertarian leaning (I am a traditional conservative).
But the FSP is not why I came here. I came here because I saw videos of people burning UN flags and Social Security cards, and I was so moved by the valiant stand that those people took against the tyranny of the UN and of Social(ist) Security, that I went to the website that was advertised at the end of the videos, which was nhfree.com. Then I wound up on nhfree.com/forum, which is here.
And I keep seeing more and more videos against Real ID (which I also hate) coming from Dave Ridley, and I keep seeing more Dave Ridley videos of people standing up for their second amendment rights. That stuff really inspires me, and keeps causing me to keep coming here, i.e., to nhfree.com/forum. So in other words, every time I see people on Dave Ridley's videos standing up against Real ID, and standing up for their second amendment rights, I will keep coming to nhfree.com. Until you guys kick me off, I guess.
Luke,
NHUnderground is not the FSP.
If you want to see government smaller than it is, the FSP is for you.
If there are areas where you still want government control, you are in the same boat that EVERY PERSON ON THIS FORUM, even the radical anarchists, were at one point.
If, on the other hand, one specific area of disagreement makes you think that you cannot possibly work with or live near these people, then you're correct -- FSP is not for you. Neither is civilized society of an kind. Buy a lot of land and go self-sufficient. Peace be with you.
...I'll try to catch up with this thread. I just got back from committing marijuana induced violent crimes and throwing bottles in the street...now where did I put my GOD DAMN bong!!??? Ooooh I get so violent when I forget where I put that!
Quote from: d_goddard on April 06, 2008, 06:23 AM NHFT
Luke,
NHUnderground is not the FSP.
If you want to see government smaller than it is, the FSP is for you.
If there are areas where you still want government control, you are in the same boat that EVERY PERSON ON THIS FORUM, even the radical anarchists, were at one point.
If, on the other hand, one specific area of disagreement makes you think that you cannot possibly work with or live near these people, then you're correct -- FSP is not for you. Neither is civilized society of an kind. Buy a lot of land and go self-sufficient. Peace be with you.
d_goddard,
I was not the one who brought up the FSP. Dalebert was.
And I never, ever said that one area of disagreement alone would make me incompatible with a certain person or group of people. If anyone said anything like that, it was Dalebert, who said that he would not even want me as a friend due to our differences in beliefs about drug laws.
Some of my best friends are hard-core liberals. Living in academia, I have no other choice but to accept the fact that some of my friends will be liberals. In fact, last year I was the leader of a band in which I didn't even talk about politics with my fellow band members because I was (am) a conservative, and they were all liberals, and any time we would discuss politics, it would only cause big arguments. Instead, we dropped the issue of politics entirely and made beautiful music together.
Oh, and by the way I should mention that I was also very inspired by a speech in another one of your videos made by one Rep. Neal Kurk of the NH state House, who pointed out that opposing Real ID was an issue that stretched across Republican/Democrat party lines, and also across conservative/liberal and other ideological lines, rather than being an issue that was confined to one political party and one political ideology. And I also saw "nhfree.com" advertised on that video as well.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 06:05 AM NHFT
Dalebert, I did not sign the pledge, and I was not considering moving to New Hampshire.
I'm relieved. :)
Quote
I will keep coming to nhfree.com. Until you guys kick me off, I guess.
That's cool. I have no problems chatting with you. I just won't put my trust in you... not yet. Like I said, people change. I am not the same person I was 20 years ago by far.
Denis has a point. NHFree is not the FSP. That's why I said check out some of the other forums that were started by FSPers. You
might will probably find people less discriminating than me. I judge my personal relationships by the would-you-shoot-me? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccgQWcLD7EY) principle and don't ally myself with people who would shoot me. I guess I'm picky. :)
Quote from: dalebert on April 06, 2008, 06:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 06:05 AM NHFT
Dalebert, I did not sign the pledge, and I was not considering moving to New Hampshire.
I'm relieved. :)
Oh wait a minute. That's right. I said I might move to NH if I worked in Massachusetts, since NH is right next to Mass., and Mass. is so small. Dalebert, I forgot about that. I'm so sorry Dalebert.
But I still won't join the FSP, and I won't sign the pledge, just like I said before.
Oh well. I don't believe in using violence to stop behavior that I don't like so I can't stop you. Just don't come over to my house to borrow a cup of sugar. :)
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 04:53 AM NHFT
No, that's not all of what happens. It's part of what happens, yes. They commit crimes to get money to buy pot. But what also happens is that they smoke pot, and then it messes with their heads, and causes them to commit crimes. For example, I knew a guy at college who would smoke pot, and then whenever he would smoke pot, he would sometimes hit people who tried to talk to him or who went anywhere near him, i.e. committing the crime of assault and battery.
I've smoked pot with hundreds of people over 35 years and never saw
anyone get violent. On the other hand it seemed, for years, that I couldn't go to a Bar without seeing a fistfight.
You
really don't know what yu are talking about!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 06, 2008, 08:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 04:53 AM NHFT
No, that's not all of what happens. It's part of what happens, yes. They commit crimes to get money to buy pot. But what also happens is that they smoke pot, and then it messes with their heads, and causes them to commit crimes. For example, I knew a guy at college who would smoke pot, and then whenever he would smoke pot, he would sometimes hit people who tried to talk to him or who went anywhere near him, i.e. committing the crime of assault and battery.
I've smoked pot with hundreds of people over 35 years and never saw anyone get violent. On the other hand it seemed, for years, that I couldn't go to a Bar without seeing a fistfight.
You really don't know what yu are talking about!
Amen, brother Lloyd. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Actually, its not the always the alcohol.
We've had several non-alcoholic dance clubs in NH shut down due to violence... seems men get their hormones from someplace below their lungs and stomache.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2008, 09:33 AM NHFT
Actually, its not the always the alcohol.
We've had several non-alcoholic dance clubs in NH shut down due to violence... seems men get their hormones from someplace below their lungs and stomache.
That's the evils of dancing. Elvis was Satan's spawn, with his pelvis twisting!!!
It's occurring to me that maybe Luke doesn't mean that he wants to use violence to stop people from using drugs. One of the things that was hardest for me when I was younger and didn't quite see everything the way I do now is the thought that a law IS by its very nature violent. It's easy to see that a law is intended to use violence against some evil guy, like a murderer or rapist. Those people are hurtful law breakers, right? Who cares if you use violence against them. But for more routine laws, it's hard to see the violence because it usually doesn't come to violence. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone get shot over some violation? Not normally. There's a fine, usually a peaceable-esque sort of banter between a cop and the guy who is usually quite aware that he's broken a rule, and then life goes on. So it was kind of easy for me to think of laws as nonviolent things. A law is made, and people just fall in line behind it. It took some thinking for me to see that they only fall in line because of the threat of violence, and that threat of violence will become real violence if they don't fall in line.
So I guess where I'm going with this is this: Luke, I have in the past used pot. I used it for a medical condition. Thankfully, that medical condition seems under control by diet now, but I wouldn't hestitate to use pot again, if need be. Also, I enjoy the relaxing feeling that I get from pot, and the clarity that it brings to my thoughts. I find life to be more vibrant while using the drug. Now, the question for you is this: Should I personally be chained and dragged before a court, and then placed in a cage for doing this?
Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you need to use violence to stop it. I am opposed to Heroin use. In that, if I had a friend that used heroin, I would ask him to stop and tell him that I would help him stop any way that I could, if he needed help. (It's very addicting.) I have also begged friends that I have to stop using LSD. LSD is not addictive, per se, and it is a fun sort of drug that lets' you see neat things ... but it also, in my opinion, can be destructive to the mind, and I hate to see my friends go down that route. I don't want to put a gun to their chest though. Is this what you mean when you say you are against drugs? What level of violence do you think is ok to use against someone else who is using a drug. Keep in mind, that people who are addicted to drugs tend to have other problems. There's some reason for the drug use. They need help. Is a cage the best help for these people?
btw, the violence that accompanies drugs is a result of drug prohibition, not the drug itself. When you make a product illegal, it creates a black market, and the accompanying turf wars lead to violence. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition back in the day. Alcohol *can* make a person violent, as it tends to release inhibitions and bring out the true self, but it usually doesn't make people violent. The extreme violence associated with Prohibition was a result of the black market. Same with drugs today.
QuoteSo I guess where I'm going with this is this: Luke, I have in the past used pot. I used it for a medical condition. Thankfully, that medical condition seems under control by diet now, but I wouldn't hestitate to use pot again, if need be. Also, I enjoy the relaxing feeling that I get from pot, and the clarity that it brings to my thoughts. I find life to be more vibrant while using the drug. Now, the question for you is this: Should I personally be chained and dragged before a court, and then placed in a cage for doing this?
Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you need to use violence to stop it. I am opposed to Heroin use. In that, if I had a friend that used heroin, I would ask him to stop and tell him that I would help him stop any way that I could, if he needed help. (It's very addicting.) I have also begged friends that I have to stop using LSD. LSD is not addictive, per se, and it is a fun sort of drug that lets' you see neat things ... but it also, in my opinion, can be destructive to the mind, and I hate to see my friends go down that route. I don't want to put a gun to their chest though. Is this what you mean when you say you are against drugs? What level of violence do you think is ok to use against someone else who is using a drug. Keep in mind, that people who are addicted to drugs tend to have other problems. There's some reason for the drug use. They need help. Is a cage the best help for these people?
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.
As for marijuana dealers, I haven't decided if the punishment for being a marijuana dealer should continue to be jail, or if they should be punished by having a much heavier fine, and a much lengthier sentence of community service building the wall than the users have. One side of me says that marijuana dealers are scum, and a scourge upon society, and there's absolutely no way they should get out of going to jail. But another side of me sees the argument that we really need more labor for the wall -- and badly. So I'm actually not quite sure which one of the abovementioned punishments dealers should get.
well, if the marijuana "criminals" are punished by building a wall, if they want pot bad enough, arnt they going to just grow their own? I think I know more folks to know a local grower/dealer, than users who get it from mexico.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up.
Except that's not true.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1
Quote
Contrasting government figures for traditional crops -- like corn and wheat -- against the study's projections for marijuana production, the report cites marijuana as the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30.
The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs21/21137/marijuana.htm
Quote
Marijuana production in Mexico may be declining as production in the United States rises: Very limited data from which to accurately gauge foreign and domestic marijuana production appears to indicate a 25 percent decline in marijuana production in Mexico (see Table 5) since production peaked in 2003. In 2005 marijuana production estimates for Mexico were only slightly higher than estimates for 2001 and 2002, when a severe drought greatly reduced marijuana production in Mexico; no such conditions account for the recent decrease. During the same period, law enforcement reporting strongly suggests an expansion of domestic cannabis cultivation and marijuana production, particularly in remote areas of public lands including national Forest System lands. These reports are supported by domestic cannabis eradication data for 2005 that show the highest level of cannabis eradication ever recorded (see Table 4) at a time when significant National Guard eradication resources were curtailed because of overseas deployments and Hurricane Katrina relief. Those states where cannabis cultivation and eradication were highest in 2005 include California, Kentucky, Tennessee, Hawaii, and Washington. Nonetheless, Mexico will remain a leading source of marijuana.
Luke, If I may call upon the learned words of a man greater than I:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - Copy to Clipboard
-- George Washington
When properly discovered and applied, the law is merely an extension of what is right and good with the world. Historically, I think that as the common law developed, people understood that, because the penalties for being on the wrong side of the law were so tragic (death, torture, disembowelment, etc) that they reserved the law for the most heinous of offenses. The one major problem came when religion got involved, and of course we in the U.S. made provisions to assure that that will never happen again.
One problem, I think, as we have progressed as a civil society, is that we have forgotten that law is force. Nothing more, nothing less. It is violent, even when it is polite. Even a simple parking ticket, if resisted totally, will result in the eventual hunting down and killing of the transgressor. This is crazy.
Historically, there are three types of law, felony criminal, misdemeanor criminal, and civil.
There was a time when felonies were only those crimes which had a potential penalty of death. This is why I challenge people around me to think of the law as follows. 'This law that Im voting for here. Would I feel comfortable and morally justified in killing someone who refuses to obey this law? Would I literally be able to sleep at night if I killed someone to prevent them from breaking this law?' If such a law is just, right and moral, then I should have no problem executing myself if called upon.
I cannot justify the killing of someone over a possession they have chosen to purchase, or a substance that they choose to put in their body. I would feel justified in killing someone to keep them from murdering, robbing, burglaring, assaulting, molesting, or giving life endangering drugs to a child.
The next layer of historical law is the criminal misdemeanor. Crimes which are punishible by fine or imprisonment. Obviously, the more serious are borderline, and you would feel justified taking someones freedom, and their life only if they resist. I would put in this category things like shoplifting, embezzlement, theft by fraud or deceit, etc. People like this are a threat to society, but you would prefer to punish them if they give you any choice, and perhaps they will see the error of their ways later, but their damage is no threat to life, and as a result, their life should not be threatened. Misdemeanors punishable by fine should be lesser crimes, that have real victims. But you always have to keep in mind that if these people were to resist your application of the law, would you feel that they are a threat enough to society to warrant their extinction. Personally, I cant think of many criminal misdemeanors that I would feel justified in killing a resistor over. Maybe blocking access to a common waterway that the whole community depends on, or fouling the ground water. Nonviolent crimes with no single ascertainable victim but measurable damage for many might fall into this group.
Finally Civil law is necessary for a society to prevent individuals from harming others, and to address past wrongs. These simply use monetary damage awards and injunctions to stop damaging behavior.
Somewhere, we as a society that we can kill people just to make the world a better place. Hence we have prohibition on guns, drugs, other items, etc. We force people to adhere to crazy ordinances. We make manufacturers install equipment they dont need. etc. We will put someone in prison for not paying a bill.
So I ask you Luke, would you shoot someone who uses heroin to prevent him from doing it? would you feel comfortable locking him in a box, and putting a bullet in his back if he tried to escape. Personally I cannot say that I would, which is why I support ending the drug war, for example.
Quotemarijuana "criminals"
Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.
Anyway, folks, I was not familiar with these new statistics indicating that more of it is coming from within the US now than from Mexico. Fair enough. But still, a substantial portion of it is still coming from Mexico, so the border wall will obviously solve a substantial part of the problem, even if it can't solve the entire problem. Given that, I still stand by what I said earlier about marijuana criminals (possibly excluiding dealers, who still might be punished through jail) being punished through having to contribute to the wall's construction.
Notanumber, as for heroin users, obviously I would not shoot a heroin user, or even a dealer, as heroin use, or even heroin dealing, are not capital crimes. I would not shoot the dealers for trying to escape jail, either, since escaping jail is not a capital crime. What I would do is I would take the same stance toward heroin criminals that I take toward marijuana criminals. A lot of heroin is coming from Mexico, so the heroin criminals would be punished right alongside the marijuana criminals by paying a fine and building the wall. (possibly excluding heroin dealers, who might still be punished through jail. And if the dealers do end up building the wall instead of going to jail, they will be there longer than those who were just users, and they will pay a bigger fine.)
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 02:30 PM NHFT
Anyway, folks, I was not familiar with these new statistics indicating that more of it is coming from within the US now than from Mexico. Fair enough. But still, a substantial portion of it is still coming from Mexico, so the border wall will obviously solve a substantial part of the problem, even if it can't solve the entire problem.
Except that not only won't solve ANY of the problem, it's ignoring that will only increase the marijuana grown here, already a huge percentage, not to mention Canada. (You did follow the links, right? Canadian pot is big business too...)
Quote
Given that, I still stand by what I said earlier about marijuana criminals (possibly excluiding dealers, who still might be punished through jail) being punished through having to contribute to the wall's construction.
And then you'll build a wall against Canada, right? And then, since we'll still have massive pot growing here in the US, you'll do what? The walls will be built... maybe you'll have the 'criminals' tear them down, break them into small rubble, and rebuild them?
God save us from people who ignore the facts, in order to continue believing whatever they want.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 02:30 PM NHFT
Quotemarijuana "criminals"
Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.
The same way that people who own guns & sell guns in Washington, DC are "gun criminals"
I wasnt actually calling users criminals, because I believe they are not. Same with the "gun criminals" Falls under that victimless crime thing. Can one commit a punishable crime if there is no victim? Why is it when I do something illegal, to myself, the government is right around the corner to arrest/threaten me?
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.
As for marijuana dealers, I haven't decided if the punishment for being a marijuana dealer should continue to be jail, or if they should be punished by having a much heavier fine, and a much lengthier sentence of community service building the wall than the users have. One side of me says that marijuana dealers are scum, and a scourge upon society, and there's absolutely no way they should get out of going to jail. But another side of me sees the argument that we really need more labor for the wall -- and badly. So I'm actually not quite sure which one of the abovementioned punishments dealers should get.
Luke,
I notice many flaws in the issues you posted but I will let others point them out.
I chimed in wishing you do further research along with common sense and input from others here and elsewhere to see that it is the prohibition and not the marijuana that is the problem of any marijuana related problems. To fine a non violent person is wrong for their personal choice, say in their use of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol or type of food intake. As a scientist I have seen where "bad" science about drugs, environment and in life itself is given the "Stamp of approval" by the government and nothing else is accepted. As an EMT for 35years I have yet to recall being called even one time to "help" a person due to their use of marijuana. Most if not all of my non trauma calls deal with people that abuse the other three plus the very few calls dealing with hard drugs.
I may be incorrect but it appears that you believe in responsibility for ones self. By the very reasons that you came to this site and are interacting with us gives me reason to suggest that you believe in smaller government and personal liberty and freedoms. I wonder though what part of the FSP Intent that you do not agree with.
About the FSP, and its
Statement of Intent
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. "
You may need to sit back and question yourself if what you believe about not only drugs but the role of government in peoples lives really makes sense when you analysis the facts and then ask yourself if it may be a pre-conditioning that is preventing you from questioning what you have been taught. I am not a libertarian and as others know I do not agree with everything that is said, done or believe in here (or elsewhere) but I will not prevent nor deny others their visions or routes and will assist where I can those that are for the principles of the FSP Intent, personal Liberty or Freedom.
Quote from: d_goddard on April 06, 2008, 03:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 02:30 PM NHFT
Quotemarijuana "criminals"
Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.
The same way that people who own guns & sell guns in Washington, DC are "gun criminals"
No. The people who own guns in Washington DC are not gun criminals because the Second Amendment to the US constitution gives them the right to do so. Any statuatory law criminalizing them for owning guns is a lower law than the constitution, and is therefore null and void. So this DC law obviously may not be enforced. And if that's what these DC city officials are doing, then these DC city officials are in fact the lawbreakers, since they are now guilty of conspiracy to deny rights granted under the Constitution, and thus they are the ones who should be punished.
As for selling guns, I don't know. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention selling guns, it only mentions possession. But then again, I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution saying that one of the government's duties is to regulate the sale of guns, and I really don't know what interest they could fulfill by restricting the sale of guns if they can't use it to restrict the possession of guns (which according to the Constitution they can't do). Anyway, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I really don't know these things. But for now, my personal opinion is that because of the 2nd, they can't ban the sale of guns in DC, or anywhere else.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.
I got a pretty great chuckle out of the idea of pot users being the group who builds the border wall. I can see it now:
"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired." Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."
Supervisor: "Get to work!"
"Whoa! Dude, he's like angry, man, what's up with him?"
;D
Seriously, I won't build your wall. I'm morally opposed to xenophobia. Now what are you going to do to me?
LOL!! perfect Caleb.
Quote from: Pat K on April 06, 2008, 05:36 PM NHFT
LOL!! perfect Caleb.
Caleb needs more dot, dot, dots... like... that's cool Caleb... wait... what........ why's that guy all pissed at people for... smoke'n pot and building walls don't go together.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 06, 2008, 06:55 PM NHFT
Caleb needs more dot, dot, dots... like... that's cool Caleb... wait... what........ why's that guy all pissed at people for... smoke'n pot and building walls don't go together.
Yeah, I think after a good smoke, I'd just wanna lay down and look at the clouds too. Fuck the damn wall. Fuck the chain gang boss. Cool Hand Luke wants it so bad, he can go build it himself. "Yeah boss! Whatever you say boss! I'm shaking that branch, boss. See! I'm shaking that branch!"
Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.
In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 05:14 PM NHFT
But then again, I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution saying that one of the government's duties is to regulate the sale of guns, and I really don't know what interest they could fulfill by restricting the sale of guns if they can't use it to restrict the possession of guns (which according to the Constitution they can't do).
Nothing in the Constitution gives them a duty to regulate drugs, either—unless you're going to point to something like the commerce clause, or the "necessary and proper" clause, or one of the other holes-big-enough-to-drive-a-truck-through... which if you believe can be applied to drugs could also be applied to guns.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.
Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 06, 2008, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.
Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot.
That's the inference I was hoping to get him to draw—that no matter how "lenient" a government punishment may appear, it is
always backed by the threat of death.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 05:14 PM NHFT
No. The people who own guns in Washington DC are not gun criminals because the Second Amendment to the US constitution gives them the right to do so.
This kind of thinking is why Madison
insisted on the 9th amendment. You should read it.
Suppose 66.67% of the people get together and amend the US Constitution, repealing the 2nd amendment.
Does that mean that suddenly you'll give up your guns, or become a criminal?
NO!The right to self-defense is innate. Inherent. From God, if you will.
It does not come from anything written by humans.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
I'll second that question.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 06, 2008, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
I'll second that question.
Well, the wall is being built on the southern border, so they will have to be bused from wherever they are to the southern border in order to do the community service. At the southern border, there will be camps set up for where they can sleep at night and eat food, and during the day they will do the community service, and this will go on until their sentence has been served, and then they will be bused back to wherever they originated from.
If they absolutely refuse to do the community service, as two of you brought up, then they will be bused back, their community service time will be converted into jail time, and they will receive additional jail time on top of that for noncompliance. So the short answer to your question is that if I were them I would do the smart thing and do the community service so they could get back to their lives quicker.
Same thing for the fines. If they don't pay, then their fine will be converted into jail time, using a conversion rate of $50 per day or something like that (I don't know how much it is in Ohio). And there could also be the possibility of additional jail time for noncompliance on top of that.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 06, 2008, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.
Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot.
No. If they don't want to go to jail at that point, then they will be taken to jail by force, just as is done with other lawbreakers who don't want to go to jail, but who have to go to jail.
I've given you every benefit of the doubt imaginable.
I hope you change your mind. Violence begets violence. You not approving of something is not enough reason to use violence.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 07:46 PM NHFT
Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.
In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.
Yes, the feds would have no jurisdiction, but the fact is that state and local governments do.
:o
Luke, how can you support violence being committed against your neighbors, friends, and family? Don't you have a conscience?
Also, how is it your precious laws created an obligation on me to obey them in the first place? Is it magic?
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 07:46 PM NHFT
Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.
In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.
Yes, the feds would have no jurisdiction, but the fact is that state and local governments do.
Go forth to http://leap.cc
There you can learn from law enforcement officers why the drug was is more harmful than drugs ever can hope to be and perhaps you will change your mind on it.
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
Yes, the feds would have no jurisdiction, but the fact is that state and local governments do.
Oh they do? Why? Where does their authority come from? What is it that makes one person's judgment superior to another person's judgment?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 07, 2008, 02:31 PM NHFT
:o
Luke, how can you support violence being committed against your neighbors, friends, and family? Don't you have a conscience?
Also, how is it your precious laws created an obligation on me to obey them in the first place? Is it magic?
First of all, I don't support violence in this situation. Fining them is not violence. Sentencing them to community service is not violence. If we were to go back to the old punishments used during the 1800's, such as whippings, then that would be violence. But that's not what we're doing, now is it.
Secondly, none of my family, friends, nor neighbors use pot or other illegal drugs. I know none of my family nor friends use it, and as for the neighbors, the police and college security totally cleaned up the pot situation in my college town 3 years ago when I was a freshman. (I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, including the guy who would hit people whenever he would smoke pot) There wasn't very much of it to begin with compared to other colleges' pot situations that I had heard about, and once the police decided to crack down on it, what little was left of it petered out or was confiscated, and the users who were caught had an example made of them (we never got the dealer, though, but he must have stopped because he saw the examples that were being made of the users), So now there is virtually no more pot here. So therefore the neighbors don't use it either.
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 07, 2008, 03:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 07:46 PM NHFT
Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.
In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.
Yes, the feds would have no jurisdiction, but the fact is that state and local governments do.
Go forth to http://leap.cc
There you can learn from law enforcement officers why the drug was is more harmful than drugs ever can hope to be and perhaps you will change your mind on it.
I don't care. The worst possible thing we could do is to wave the white flag and hand our country over to the drug criminals, like they did in the Netherlands.
Then we will have broken bottles all over the streets, trash all over the streets, people walking around naked, and our country will look like a great big version of the Netherlands.
And furthermore, what they are saying on that link is wrong. It is possible to get drugs out of communities. The community where I'm at right now is living proof of that. It's just that most police departments don't have the backbone to do what's necessary to get the drugs out of the communities, like the sheriff and his deputies here did.
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
I don't care. The worst possible thing we could do is to wave the white flag and hand our country over to the drug criminals, like they did in the Netherlands.
(http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7533/hollandothlw3.gif)
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
Secondly, none of my family, friends, nor neighbors use pot or other illegal drugs.
::) At least they are smart enough not to do it around you, your being a self-confessed narc and all...
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
Fining them is not violence.
You are
very close to swallowing the Red Pill that many of us here did at one point or another.
And it hinges on the above incorrect statement.
Two questions.
Luke: if there were a $200 fine for owning a handgun, and I refused to pay it because I know it is both immoral and unconstitutional to restrict in any way my ability to own such a defensive weapon:
1) would my refusing to pay the fine be morally wrong, or morally just?
and
2) what would the State do after a few months, when my fine went unpaid?
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 07, 2008, 03:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 06, 2008, 07:46 PM NHFT
Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.
In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.
Yes, the feds would have no jurisdiction, but the fact is that state and local governments do.
Go forth to http://leap.cc
There you can learn from law enforcement officers why the drug was is more harmful than drugs ever can hope to be and perhaps you will change your mind on it.
I don't care. The worst possible thing we could do is to wave the white flag and hand our country over to the drug criminals, like they did in the Netherlands.
Then we will have broken bottles all over the streets, trash all over the streets, people walking around naked, and our country will look like a great big version of the Netherlands.
And furthermore, what they are saying on that link is wrong. It is possible to get drugs out of communities. The community where I'm at right now is living proof of that. It's just that most police departments don't have the backbone to do what's necessary to get the drugs out of the communities, like the sheriff and his deputies here did.
They can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, and that's what a full blown police state looks like. You may think there are no drugs in your community, and perhaps there are none. Of course, you might have a community full of people addicted to perscription drugs instead.
Drugs are a medical problem, making them a criminal issue gets us what we have today, drugs are more powerful, more readily available, and scumbags are getting rich off them. Overdoses are more the result of poor quality control than anything else. This is no different than Prohibition, and we will have no better success than we did then.
Luke, there will be people walking around naked??
LOL
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
(I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, i.
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
(I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, i.
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
Second.
Wait, he's almost got the connection between fines and violence.
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
He did an asshole thing, but I think
you're being an asshole by suggesting this. He's grappling with a lot of philosophical issues most people never do, and he's continuing the discussion with us in an honest and respectful fashion.
Lloyd... you're being a fucking asswipe example of the intolerance on this forum.
Take it back.
Now.
Edit: you too, Facilitator
Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
He did an asshole thing, but I think you're being an asshole by suggesting this. He's grappling with a lot of philosophical issues most people never do, and he's continuing the discussion with us in an honest and respectful fashion.
Lloyd... you're being a fucking asswipe example of the intolerance on this forum.
Take it back.
Now.
Edit: you too, Facilitator
You take it back first.
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 07, 2008, 03:06 PM NHFT
Go forth to http://leap.cc
There you can learn from law enforcement officers why the drug war is more harmful than drugs ever can hope to be and perhaps you will change your mind on it.
I don't care...
Did you stomp your little jackboot when you said that? ;D
All this talk about naked people makes me want to break out my lawnmower! ;)
And Tom's snowblower :P
Well, you guys do live in Vermont. Wait til Luke finds out about all the hippies running around naked there. That'll make him forget all about pot. Maybe we can send naked people to build the border wall.
This is the really sad season between lawnmowing and snowblowing. :'(
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFTWell, you guys do live in Vermont. Wait til Luke finds out about all the hippies running around naked there. That'll make him forget all about pot. Maybe we can send naked people to build the border wall.
There are hippies in Vermont? I thought they all lived in California.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 05:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
(I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, i.
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
Second.
Wow, usually on the forums I've been on, you don't get kicked off the forum unless you write personal attacks against the other members and stuff like that.
Anyway, ok, ok, I get the message.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 05:42 PM NHFT
This is the really sad season between lawnmowing and snowblowing. :'(
Yes. The Mark Twain characters begin to turn pale ;D except Indian Joe ;D
I know what would cheer everyone up!
Lets banish Dennis to live forever only on dailypaul.com for calling Lloyd an asshole and for calling Lloyd a wiper of other peoples butts while while having congress with them.
seconded ;D
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 05:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 05:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
(I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, i.
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
Second.
Wow, usually on the forums I've been on, you don't get kicked off the forum unless you write personal attacks against the other members and stuff like that.
Anyway, ok, ok, I get the message.
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it ;D
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 05:52 PM NHFT
I know what would cheer everyone up!
Lets banish Dennis to live forever only on dailypaul.com for calling Lloyd an asshole and for calling Lloyd a wiper of other peoples butts while while having congress with them.
Denis is OK. I don't think there is any hope for Luke, though.
I doubt Kat will ban you for being a Republican. :P
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 06:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 05:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 05:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
(I actually helped them catch two people who were using it, i.
I vote we kick this Asshole off of the forum
Second.
Wow, usually on the forums I've been on, you don't get kicked off the forum unless you write personal attacks against the other members and stuff like that.
Anyway, ok, ok, I get the message.
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it ;D
Does this mean we're not going to vote?
Cause I thought we where bound by Robert's Rules of Order.
I still have some hanging chads and the cream really isn't working to remove them.
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 06:02 PM NHFT
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it
"I didn't mean it" -- the excuse of every bully there is, be he a mental or physical bully.
Take back calling Luke an asshole.
Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 06:02 PM NHFT
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it
"I didn't mean it" -- the excuse of every bully there is, be he a mental or physical bully.
Take back calling Luke an asshole.
He is an asshole. As a matter of fact he is a Fucking Asshole.
Nobody here is advocating that he be sent to Texas and put to hard labor, which he thinks is just if people vote for it.
What are you going to do if Lloyd doesn't take back his statement?
You seem to think you have some sort of power here.
Are you going to take out your gun and point it at Lloyd or are you going to do some political bull shit and see how many friends you can turn against Lloyd?
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 05:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFTWell, you guys do live in Vermont. Wait til Luke finds out about all the hippies running around naked there. That'll make him forget all about pot. Maybe we can send naked people to build the border wall.
There are hippies in Vermont? I thought they all lived in California.
Yeah, a whole bunch of hippies moved to Vermont way back, now it's kinda artsy and bohemian. I actually like the feel of vermont, if not all their taxes.
You do have to deal with naked people though, cause there are no nudity laws. They just wander around the downtown Brattleboro area, no doubt in a pot-induced stupor. ;D
He's also young, with plenty of time to change his mind.
When I was his age, I was handing out Watchtowers and trying to induct people into a mind-controlling religious cult.
People can change.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 06:42 PM NHFT
I doubt Kat will ban you for being a Republican. :P
Dennis should be banned for being a Republican, he should know better.
Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 06:02 PM NHFT
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it
"I didn't mean it" -- the excuse of every bully there is, be he a mental or physical bully.
Take back calling Luke an asshole.
Nah! And if you think someone can be bullied in print, there is something wrong with your thinking. This guy got people jailed!
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 07:25 PM NHFT
He is an asshole. As a matter of fact he is a Fucking Asshole.
I care about you and what you say less, because I know you less.
You are the kind of intolerant asswipe that judges people less "NAP holy" than yourself and gives them no opportunity to progress along the path.
I
expect that kind of behavior from you.
From Lloyd, who is generally a laid-back kind of guy, and who I know at least slightly, I expect more.
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 07:53 PM NHFT
Nah! And if you think someone can be bullied in print, there is something wrong with your thinking.
If you think shit you type on the internet doesn't get read by
real live human beings, you're more fucked up than I thought.
I don't know Luke from Adam. By his own admission, he's done a really asshole, bullshit thing by turning somebody in. But he stayed here and was (is?) willing to question his outlook on the world. And just as he gets close to the revelation that you take for granted... you attack him. In print. And Facilitator comes and joins in. Like the sniveling side-kick that seems to accompany any bully.
It's one thing to attack someone out of ignorance.
It's another thing to attack someone out of pure spite.
What kind of sick satisfaction does it give you?
Fuck you, Lloyd.
Fuck you, Facilitator.
I'm out of here. I don't want to associate with abusive people.
GOOD FUCKING BYE.
I know all of us and, we're all kinda cool. Chill out Denis.
I heard smoking pot makes men's breasts grow. Is that true Sophia er Lloyd?
The funny thing is, in all this asshole this and asshole that....I uh forgot what you guys were talking about...oh yeah violent Pot criminals and that kind of stuff.
Maybe the moral of the story is...oh shit I forgot again.
Well I gotta go see what's in the fridge.
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 07:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 06:02 PM NHFT
If I though the powers that be would really throw you off, I wouldn't have said it
"I didn't mean it" -- the excuse of every bully there is, be he a mental or physical bully.
Take back calling Luke an asshole.
Nah! And if you think someone can be bullied in print, there is something wrong with your thinking. This guy got people jailed!
I wasn't going to discuss this issue again, but for the sake of clarification, I didn't get anyone jailed or arrested at all.
As far as I recall, they were fined, the weed was confiscated, and that was it, since it was a first offense for both of them. They weren't even so much as arrested.
Under Ohio law (they might have changed it now since 3 years have passed), if you have less than 100g, which is what they had, then all you get is a fine, along with a very stern warning from police that you'd better never ever do it again. Anyway, after that, they stopped smoking marijuana as far as I know. Because I used to often see both of them walking around the dorm with marijuana cigarettes, and I used to smell marijuana coming from their rooms, and then once they got their fine/warning, that stopped.
Luke, why do you think it's okay to determine what another person should do with their own body, when it's not hurting you or anyone else?
If you decide to watch Sophia Loren's ample, full bouncing breasts should we incarcerate you?
If you're palms are getting hairy while you're watching...where's the crime? Just clean up the mess and
we won't tell your mother okay? :icon_biggrin:
If you enjoy watching our Sophia Loren's boobs bounce, you are either very stoned or a madman, and should seek out a psychiatrist immediately.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFT
If you enjoy watching our Sophia Loren's boobs bounce, you are either very stoned or a madman, and should seek out a psychiatrist immediately.
Looking at boobs is sort of a "gateway" drug thing...could lead to lust, lechery and debauchery. (is that a word?) Anyway I'm hooked and need to go to some sort of counseling...can't... take.... my... eyes... off the boobs....please help! Please NO...don't ship me to Vermont where naked hippies will blow marijuana smoke in my face...please help me.
;D
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 07, 2008, 03:06 PM NHFT
Go forth to http://leap.cc
There you can learn from law enforcement officers why the drug was is more harmful than drugs ever can hope to be and perhaps you will change your mind on it.
I don't care. The worst possible thing we could do is to wave the white flag and hand our country over to the drug criminals, like they did in the Netherlands.
Then we will have broken bottles all over the streets, trash all over the streets, people walking around naked, and our country will look like a great big version of the Netherlands.
And furthermore, what they are saying on that link is wrong. It is possible to get drugs out of communities. The community where I'm at right now is living proof of that. It's just that most police departments don't have the backbone to do what's necessary to get the drugs out of the communities, like the sheriff and his deputies here did.
That sounds pretty closed-minded to me. Certainly doesn't seem like the opinion of someone "questioning their outlook on the world", and "close to the revelation..." as Denis stated. Luke seems pretty proud of what he did. He doesn't see it as an "asshole, bullshit thing".
Denis, I'm sorry you're having a bad day, but I thought that was a pretty abusive post from someone complaining about "abusive people". :-\
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 07, 2008, 09:57 PM NHFT
Luke, why do you think it's okay to determine what another person should do with their own body, when it's not hurting you or anyone else?
If you decide to watch Sophia Loren's ample, full bouncing breasts should we incarcerate you?
If you're palms are getting hairy while you're watching...where's the crime? Just clean up the mess and
we won't tell your mother okay? :icon_biggrin:
Free Libertarian, I'm not discussing the issue anymore. The only reason why I opened my mouth on the issue again was to correct a wrong claim that I had gotten someone put in jail over pot. Now that that has been sorted out, I decided that it's best if I just shut my mouth on this issue for now on.
I had no idea that all these people would get mad at me, (and at each other), since usually this is an open-and-shut issue where I come from, not a divisive, hot-button issue which starts arguments and gets people mad at each other. Anyway, I'll say no more.
:clap: Nice job driving yet another activist off of the forum, and what looks like scaring Luke S away from discussing the topic further. So what exactly did all of that accomplish?
And Lloyd, what the hell happened to "trying to get along with everyone"?
he was an activist?? Actively working to jail pot smokers and naked people?
Quote from: Sapphire on April 07, 2008, 11:40 PM NHFT
he was an activist?? Actively working to jail pot smokers and naked people?
Denis.
Luke S:—Please ignore the intolerance, bigotry, and close-mindedness displayed by some users on this forum. Such people seem to run in every crowd, even those who purport to be freedom-minded individuals. There's an "ignore" button you can use rather than let them offend you.
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 06, 2008, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 06, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 01:14 PM NHFT
Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.
Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.
And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?
If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.
Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot.
No. If they don't want to go to jail at that point, then they will be taken to jail by force, just as is done with other lawbreakers who don't want to go to jail, but who have to go to jail.
And what happens if they resist such force when someone comes to take them to jail?
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 03:58 PM NHFT
First of all, I don't support violence in this situation. Fining them is not violence. Sentencing them to community service is not violence.
It sure sounds like you do, just indirectly.
Now, when those people whom you helped catch for using pot got fined, and paid their fine, why do you think they did so? Clearly they believed the law against using pot was wrong in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't've broken it. So, for what reason do you think they acquiesced to the punishment instead of trying to ignore or resist it?
Chill out 'raxis. Denis left the forum in a huff. What if we all left everytime someone on the forum said something we didn't like? There wouldn't be anyone on the forum. Except me, cause I agree with everything everyone says.
Last time I checked, Luke is still hanging around, and hopefully will reconsider talking about it sometime. It's not like Denis decided to check out of the liberty movement and go work for Haliburton. Everything is cool.
Looks like you and Denis need your daily dose of the herb.
Quote from: Bill Grennon on April 07, 2008, 11:51 PM NHFT
Chill out 'raxis. Denis left the forum in a huff. What if we all left everytime someone on the forum said something we didn't like? There wouldn't be anyone on the forum. Except me, cause I agree with everything everyone says.
Denis isn't the only one to be driven off by the behavior of some people on this forum, and I'm sure he won't be the last. There seems to be a concerted effort by the holier-than-thou anti-political types to do this to the exclusively political activists.
Quote from: Bill Grennon on April 07, 2008, 11:51 PM NHFT
Last time I checked, Luke is still hanging around, and hopefully will reconsider talking about it sometime. It's not like Denis decided to check out of the liberty movement and go work for Haliburton. Everything is cool.
I know Lloyd well enough in person to know he's just
acting like a jackass, but the newbies don't—and the bullshit Facilitator posted to Denis is way out of line no matter how you slice it.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 07, 2008, 11:34 PM NHFT
:clap: Nice job driving yet another activist off of the forum, and what looks like scaring Luke S away from discussing the topic further. So what exactly did all of that accomplish?
And Lloyd, what the hell happened to "trying to get along with everyone?
Luke S isn't scared. Dennis proved himself to be a Republican.
No one can get along with a narc, they'd sooner kill ya as look at ya... amoral fucks.
It's time for people to make hay or get off the farm.
In other words, decide if you want to be a slave or if you want to be a free man.
All of the words have been said.
From John Locke to Ayn Rand and everyone who has used their ideas, it's all been said.
Decide... are you a free man? Yes or No?
No further ideas need to be written. No excuses or compromises need to be offered.
Are you a free man?
If you are, then you will come to Keene and help free men.
If not, no other word needs to be offered.
I don't think it's fair to say that Luke is an asshole. What he did, I can't condone. But he's also, (no offense, Luke) but he's a child. I doubt he has read Locke or Rand or Tolstoy or too many other people, for that matter. Yes, it's all been said. But not everyone has heard it.
Come to Keene? C'mon. You live south of keene yourself. russell and kat are an hour and fifteen minutes from there. tommy is in an undisclosed location, but it sure ain't keene. You guys have a great community, but it's not like everyone who lives somewhere else is a slave. Jesus lived in Nazareth. Gandhi in India. Thoreau at Walden Pond, and Tolstoy in Russia. A person can be free wherever they are. You and your wife did some tolerably free work in the slave state of Connecticut. :)
As for what you said, Jeremy, it's just not true that I can see. Aside from Powerchuter, there has been no concerted effort to get anyone to leave. A person's beliefs, as always, will be criticized, but that's not to get them to leave the forum. If anything, the gun cleaners have been less welcome than the politicos. If you want to air dirty laundry or something, then name names. Who, specifically, has been chased away? That's not even fair to say of Denis. There was no concerted effort to see Denis leave. I, for one, am sad to see him go. It's not like there was this giant huddle and whispering back and forth to see how he could be made to leave. Gimme a break!
Yes you are slaves.
Russell is in Westmoreland, Kat is in Keene, Tom and I are 20 minutes away.... Jesus, Gandhi, Thoreau and Tolstoy aren't coming, they didn't say why.
"Your wife did some tolerably free work in the slave state of Connecticut..." We are friends, but that's insulting.
Calling Luke a child is insulting.
Luke is a fucking asshole for being a narc.
Your assumption of what Luke has read or if he can read is completely unfounded.
We have a group of people in Keene who are dedicated to their own Freedom.
Come back and make a difference.
Quote from: Caleb on April 08, 2008, 12:44 AM NHFT
As for what you said, Jeremy, it's just not true that I can see. Aside from Powerchuter, there has been no concerted effort to get anyone to leave. A person's beliefs, as always, will be criticized, but that's not to get them to leave the forum. If anything, the gun cleaners have been less welcome than the politicos. If you want to air dirty laundry or something, then name names. Who, specifically, has been chased away? That's not even fair to say of Denis. There was no concerted effort to see Denis leave. I, for one, am sad to see him go. It's not like there was this giant huddle and whispering back and forth to see how he could be made to leave. Gimme a break!
People I know of who've left or been driven off due to treatment by others on this forum:—
- Bald Eagle (asked to leave for same reasons as Powerchuter, if I heard right)
- Braddog
- CNHT (and many others I forget, who left when the political boards were closed)
- d_goddard
- malcolm
- RattyDog
By "concerted effort" I don't mean a coördinated conspiracy, or an actual request or demand to leave, I simply mean people going out of their way to be assholes to someone until they leave of their own accord. And I would hardly call the language going back and forth in this thread mere "criticism" of one's beliefs.
Jim, I wasn't trying to insult you. I respect highly what you and your wife did in New London. I brag to anyone who will listen that I know Lauren Canario.
I was trying to point out that what's important is that, wherever a person is, that they live their life in a way where they don't cooperate with evil and try to build a community of people who care about each other. You are doing that in Keene. I applaud that. But if someone has to be in Keene (or nearby) to live free then over 6 billion people are in a lot of trouble.
Yes, it was condescending to call Luke a child. Sorry, but that's how I see it. When I was his age, I don't think I would have been to fond of me. I would have considered myself a religious zealot who thought he knew everything but had only read stuff put out by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Ok, I'm still a wise guy who thinks he knows everything. But at least now I've read a few more books by a few more people. :) What was your life like when you were 20, Jim? Were you at where you are at now? Was it condescending to call him a child? Sure. Sorry. But just cause it's condescending doesn't mean it is false.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 08, 2008, 12:33 AM NHFT
Are you a free man?
If you are, then you will come to Keene and help free men.
If not, no other word needs to be offered.
Your definition of
freedom seems to be to engage in activism exactly as you see fit, and live exactly where you see fit.
Over 6 billion people are in a lot of trouble.
And I've seen other freedom movements.
This is the place and these are the people.
And if anyone wants to be a part of it, this the time.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 08, 2008, 01:44 AM NHFT
Over 6 billion people are in a lot of trouble.
And I've seen other freedom movements.
This is the place and these are the people.
And if anyone wants to be a part of it, this the time.
I believe the entire State of New Hampshire is "the place" and the activists all over New Hampshire are "the people"—including political activists such as Denis, other "Republicans" (such as what we're doing in Manchester), and so on. Concentrating in certain towns is certainly a good idea, but I don't see any reason it has to be just one.
And besides, the Grafton guys had that idea long before you did. ;)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 08, 2008, 01:22 AM NHFT
People I know of who've left or been driven off due to treatment by others on this forum:—
- Bald Eagle (asked to leave for same reasons as Powerchuter, if I heard right)
- Braddog
- CNHT (and many others I forget, who left when the political boards were closed)
- d_goddard
- malcolm
- RattyDog
I left for a long time.... came back eventually... even worked behind the scenes to keep it up and running...
Denis has been slowly wiggin' out for a while.
I think the 12 hour workdays, NHLA stuff and thinking he can herd this group of cats has worn him down. And most probably trying to run a "big tent".
The common thread I see is the (using Denis's own word) "collectivist" view... ie. that this "forum" is intolerant. When someone tried to lump politicians as a group, Denis said that it was "collectivist" thinking. Then he groups everyone on this forum in the same category.
This is the underground...
Not the FSP, not a "big tent".
This is a place for our friends to hangout. Most of the rest of the world is open to the folks that think it's ok to put potheads in slave labor camps, not here.
The problem as I see it is this is the most active forum and that bothers some folks that feel their efforts are more valid. Well, lead by example.
Oh, I hadn't been reading this thread. I guess this is why Denis left?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 08, 2008, 01:22 AM NHFT
People I know of who've left or been driven off due to treatment by others on this forum:—
- Bald Eagle (asked to leave for same reasons as Powerchuter, if I heard right)
- Braddog
- CNHT (and many others I forget, who left when the political boards were closed)
- d_goddard
- malcolm
- RattyDog
By "concerted effort" I don't mean a coördinated conspiracy, or an actual request or demand to leave, I simply mean people going out of their way to be assholes to someone until they leave of their own accord. And I would hardly call the language going back and forth in this thread mere "criticism" of one's beliefs.
Personally, I think Jim, Lloyd, and Denis all over-reacted and I'm not going to over-react myself by lashing out at them for it. I just think it was a moment of tactlessness. I was honest with Luke. He most definitely is an asshole. But I added that I don't mind him sticking around and chatting because people can change and I would certainly hope that we might be able to show him how he's being an asshole so he can stop.
The Kannings wanted this forum to stop being the place for political activism. I liked their decision. They repeatedly expressed support for people starting other boards where people could continue that activism. They didn't want political
activists gone. They just wanted them to take that type of activism planning elsewhere. I don't want Denis and others political types gone. Most of them are friends of mine, yourself included. :) Aren't there plenty of other things we can all talk about here? Taproom Tuesdays? Halloween parties? Whatever? That people got upset and left was their own choice. If anything, I felt like the Kannings were overly tolerant, leaving up political planning posts when they had clearly expressed that this board was not for that. It's spraying graffiti on their home. I was slightly annoyed at that, honestly, knowing there are about six other boards where you can do that and that people are here specifically to discuss, well just about anything, but not that. It's like spam. I mean, why do spammers mis-spell "viagra" so it gets past my filters when the reason that word is in my filter is because I'm not interested in those products?? That's poorly targeted marketing! What a waste of bandwidth.
So anyway, I don't want to end off topic. The point was no one was driven off. Jim and Lloyd used some over strong language and then Denis came back with even stronger language to chastise them. It all seemed intolerant to me. *shrug*
I know you don't like Vitruvian's thread and that's probably what's looming in your mind. I still contend that his approach was tactless and didn't take into account that he was putting people on the defensive, but he was not trying to drive anyone off. He feels very strongly about the subject and he brought it up not to guilt-trip people, but because he thought he could persuade others to his point of view using logic and reason. Vitruvian is like Spock. I guarantee his goal was not to stir up emotions or drive people off. I think others joined the conversation and tried to just argue points, but there was a sort of collectivist thing that happened as Caleb described whereby anyone who shared Vitruvian's point of view tended to get associated with that tactlessness.
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
QuoteVitruvian is like Spock.
From the Ridleo, he kind of reminded me of Christian Bale, though I'm not sure which movie(s) most influence that impression.
Is there a preference in my account where I can opt out of drama? :)
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 08, 2008, 12:33 AM NHFT
Are you a free man?
If you are, then you will come to Keene and help free men.
If not, no other word needs to be offered.
Sod off. Residency in Keene does not determine my freedom. Not every free man is interested in joining your clique.
i may have stared it by pointing out that the new guy was a Nazi :blush:
Some want to educate the Nazis... I wish them luck. Some of us are not going to wear our yellow star.
I couldn't help myself when the little Snot mentioned, matter of factly, how he aided in the arrest of people for smoking Pot
I was active on her forum when she accused me of taking a particular stand on a subject I knew nothing about, much less would have an opinion on. When I asked for proof, as usual, she could not provide it.
As far as the 'sexy' stuff goes.....I don't get it :P
Quote from: Sapphire on April 07, 2008, 11:40 PM NHFT
he was an activist?? Actively working to jail pot smokers and naked people?
Quote from: Lllloyd Danforth on April 08, 2008, 09:14 AM NHFT
I couldn't help myself when the little Snot mentioned, matter of factly, how he aided in the arrest of people for smoking Pot
Once again to clarify, none of the pot smokers that I turned in were jailed or even arrested. They were given citations, which included fines that they had to pay, their pot was confiscated, they were given stern warnings never to do it again, and that was it.
Here, I'll rewrite what I wrote again, since I think certain people didn't see my clarification the first time:
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 09:57 PM NHFT
I wasn't going to discuss this issue again, but for the sake of clarification, I didn't get anyone jailed or arrested at all.
As far as I recall, they were fined, the weed was confiscated, and that was it, since it was a first offense for both of them. They weren't even so much as arrested.
Under Ohio law (they might have changed it now since 3 years have passed), if you have less than 100g, which is what they had, then all you get is a fine, along with a very stern warning from police that you'd better never ever do it again. Anyway, after that, they stopped smoking marijuana as far as I know. Because I used to often see both of them walking around the dorm with marijuana cigarettes, and I used to smell marijuana coming from their rooms, and then once they got their fine/warning, that stopped.
Also for the record, I have never called the police on a naked person (as Sapphire insinuated), since we didn't and don't have a naked person problem in our community.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 07:31 PM NHFT
When I was his age, I was handing out Watchtowers and trying to induct people into a mind-controlling religious cult.
But now you hand out
Catholic Worker and... um, well, I'm sure everything has changed. ;)
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 10:50 AM NHFT
Once again to clarify, none of the pot smokers that I turned in were jailed or even arrested. They were given citations, which included fines that they had to pay, their pot was confiscated, they were given stern warnings never to do it again, and that was it.
So you didn't enable enslavement, only theft and extortion. So we should canonize you now?
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 10:50 AM NHFT
Once again to clarify, none of the pot smokers that I turned in were jailed or even arrested. They were given citations, which included fines that they had to pay, their pot was confiscated, they were given stern warnings never to do it again, and that was it.
Here, I'll rewrite what I wrote again, since I think certain people didn't see my clarification the first time:
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 09:57 PM NHFT
I wasn't going to discuss this issue again, but for the sake of clarification, I didn't get anyone jailed or arrested at all.
As far as I recall, they were fined, the weed was confiscated, and that was it, since it was a first offense for both of them. They weren't even so much as arrested.
Under Ohio law (they might have changed it now since 3 years have passed), if you have less than 100g, which is what they had, then all you get is a fine, along with a very stern warning from police that you'd better never ever do it again. Anyway, after that, they stopped smoking marijuana as far as I know. Because I used to often see both of them walking around the dorm with marijuana cigarettes, and I used to smell marijuana coming from their rooms, and then once they got their fine/warning, that stopped.
Did you know it was going to be a first offense? Did you know they had less than 100g?
Your phone call could very well have resulted in them going to prison for years, all because you were annoyed that they smoked pot.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2008, 11:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 10:50 AM NHFT
Once again to clarify, none of the pot smokers that I turned in were jailed or even arrested. They were given citations, which included fines that they had to pay, their pot was confiscated, they were given stern warnings never to do it again, and that was it.
Here, I'll rewrite what I wrote again, since I think certain people didn't see my clarification the first time:
Quote from: Luke S on April 07, 2008, 09:57 PM NHFT
I wasn't going to discuss this issue again, but for the sake of clarification, I didn't get anyone jailed or arrested at all.
As far as I recall, they were fined, the weed was confiscated, and that was it, since it was a first offense for both of them. They weren't even so much as arrested.
Under Ohio law (they might have changed it now since 3 years have passed), if you have less than 100g, which is what they had, then all you get is a fine, along with a very stern warning from police that you'd better never ever do it again. Anyway, after that, they stopped smoking marijuana as far as I know. Because I used to often see both of them walking around the dorm with marijuana cigarettes, and I used to smell marijuana coming from their rooms, and then once they got their fine/warning, that stopped.
Did you know it was going to be a first offense? Did you know they had less than 100g?
Your phone call could very well have resulted in them going to prison for years, all because you were annoyed that they smoked pot.
KBCraig, first of all, you're one of my favorite people on here. I just luvvvvvvvv that cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute little porcupine.
Secondly, I think I should clarify that I wasn't the only one who decided that they were going to start keeping an eye open for all the pot violations that were going on, and report them. There were many people within the community that had decided that enough was enough, and that the community was no longer going to tolerate marijuana usage. So my efforts were part of a larger police & community decision, not just something that I up and decided as a result of my individual annoyance with the situation. And by the way, it worked. We got the pot cleaned out of the community, and now everybody keeps an eye on everybody else, so the same situation that had been taking place up until 3 years ago has never and will never take place again.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2008, 07:31 PM NHFT
When I was his age, I was handing out Watchtowers and trying to induct people into a mind-controlling religious cult.
I know what cult he's talking about, too. My own mother, as well as several other people I know, are part of it. They constantly try to get me to join, and I know I can't disrespect my mother, so what I learned to do is to take the original Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek along with whatever Hebrew to English and Greek to English translation aids I can possibly find, and every time they say "The NWT Bible says you have to believe this", or "the Watchtower says you have to believe this", I pull out the original Hebrew/Greek Bible along with the translation aids and say, "no I don't". So that's how I'm able to not disrespect my mother, while at the same time remaining free of the cult.
Luke Schnergenberger
Evolving is what intelligent people do... you have a ways to go, just don't dig your heals in.
Wow....so uh what happened to Sophia Loren anyway? Did she run off with Denis and why are my palms growing hair? :blush:
Luke, I guess the point is whether the Pot people got jail or fines...alot of us didn't think that was a cool thing to do. You see imho the underlying thing that alot of us share is live and let live, if somebody has
a different lifestyle as long as they're not hurting you, overlook it. There are alot of things to correct in this world and many of us would rather focus on advancing freedom, than running another's life.
You run your life, decide what to do with YOUR money and don't hurt anyone, it's a pretty easy concept.
When we start "protecting people from themselves" we open up the door to Pandora's box.
People come to "freedom" at different times. As you've seen by reading the previous comments there are people at different places in their lives, both figureatively and literally when it comes to advancing freedom. Not everybody is in agreement with the methods, that's cool, what is important is that each of us steps back and thinks about how we want our life to be and we are free to pursue that and allow others to do the same. Turning people in for having a different take on Pot than you could lead to a society where YOU or I are oppressed because we worship the wrong god or flag. On second thought...we're already there!
Also, I'm sorry to hear you don't have a naked person problem in your town...Anyway consider spinning one up, finding a naked hippie chick and telling the people you turned in you're sorry, maybe they'll forgive you.
Also I've been jerking your chain a little bit, because that's what I do sometimes, but you really ought to consider a live and let live life. Really. In the long run you may come to that, I hope so, good luck.
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
I refuse to be in the same room with Luke S.
Narcs like Luke are one notch above rapists. Scum.
Ok first of all, what is a "narc". Is that some kind of New Hampshire slang or something.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 08, 2008, 01:44 AM NHFT
This is the place and these are the people.
And if anyone wants to be a part of it, this the time.
Here, here!
More of us will gather in this place and live free. Eventually, trash like Luke will be ostracized until they get a clue, or leave.
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 12:34 PM NHFT
Ok first of all, what is a "narc". Is that some kind of New Hampshire slang or something.
Snitch, rat, informer.
The lowest of scum.
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 12:34 PM NHFT
Ok first of all, what is a "narc". Is that some kind of New Hampshire slang or something.
A narc, also spelled nark (not a contraction of "narcotic agent", but the word predates the criminalization of narcotics), is a term for a narcotics agent or police informant who provides information to the police about drug offenders. It is more often used to refer to undercover agents than police officers. Some drug offenders, once caught, turn into informants as part of an agreement with the police to avoid charges.
wikipedia
Luke, you tell on people for their consensual choices. You aid in destroying people's freedom without a care. Worse, you think you're doing the "right" thing.
Karma will get you in the end.
I also vote Luke S. be banned for being a narc, asshole, and troll.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 08, 2008, 12:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
I refuse to be in the same room with Luke S.
I said earlier I won't ally myself with someone I can't trust, though I don't mind chatting and don't want to kick him off the boards. I was talking about the political porcs like Denis and teh apolitical porcs; not Luke. There's a big difference between fighting for liberty using methods I don't believe in and advocating violence against innocent people.
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 01:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 08, 2008, 12:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
I refuse to be in the same room with Luke S.
I said earlier I won't ally myself with someone I can't trust, though I don't mind chatting and don't want to kick him off the boards.
Thank you.
QuoteI was talking about the political porcs like Denis and teh apolitical porcs; not Luke. There's a big difference between fighting for liberty using methods I don't believe in and advocating violence against innocent people.
What's the difference between a political porc and an apolitical porc. I mean, what did Denis do to be political, whereas others of you are apolitical. I thought that all of you were activists for political change.
The political and apolitical phrase is based on the type of activism that the individuals here and on the other forums do. A similar phrase is 'in the system' and 'out of the system'. Some here believe that the best way to end harmful behavior of gov't is to reform it from within, by using the political system. They are the political in the system porcs. Others including myself believe the gov't is far too corrupt to ever be reformed from within. We use unusual creative methods, and civil disobediance to various degrees depending on the individual to effect change.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 08, 2008, 06:29 AM NHFT
Denis has been slowly wiggin' out for a while.
I think the 12 hour workdays, NHLA stuff and thinking he can herd this group of cats has worn him down. And most probably trying to run a "big tent".
The common thread I see is the (using Denis's own word) "collectivist" view... ie. that this "forum" is intolerant. When someone tried to lump politicians as a group, Denis said that it was "collectivist" thinking. Then he groups everyone on this forum in the same category.
This is the underground...
Not the FSP, not a "big tent".
This is a place for our friends to hangout. Most of the rest of the world is open to the folks that think it's ok to put potheads in slave labor camps, not here.
The problem as I see it is this is the most active forum and that bothers some folks that feel their efforts are more valid. Well, lead by example.
Agreed.
This is not a big tent movement. It is clear to me there are people that want to use the police and law to hurt me, or to steal from me.
I don't like being lumped in as intolerant. I try hard to be very respectful of other people. I don't kiss butt. But I do treat all with respect.
Quote from: Lllloyd Danforth on April 08, 2008, 10:09 AM NHFT
I was active on her forum when she accused me of taking a particular stand on a subject I knew nothing about, much less would have an opinion on. When I asked for proof, as usual, she could not provide it.
As far as the 'sexy' stuff goes.....I don't get it :P
Lloyd, here is the problem...
I did not ACCUSE you of anything! How you could have perceived that is beyond me and everyone else that was involved in that discussion.
It was not something that could have ever been misconstrued as an accusation in either tone or content.
I simply was porting over the subject we'd started talking about here, that you expressed interest in, namely, your question being what was it I thought was so bad about 'foundations'? I was going to continue the subject and explain how I feel that foundations in the US are a great part of the push toward the socialist agenda in the schools, etc. and I even showed you the post it came from. However, I have no idea why you thought it was by any STRETCH of the imagination an 'accusation'...
You had asked a question and I was going to answer it because it is a common one and I simply mentioned you as the asker of the question.
If you did not want the question repeated, I would gladly removed your name from the thread. All you had to do was ask! I have removed it (after you called me names) because your reaction suggests you were accused of saying 'something' wrong , when in fact NO ONE SAID YOU DID!
I wasn't sure what 'proof' you wanted or why you were so angry because there was nothing to 'prove' because there was no 'accusation' even though I did link to the discussion that had started on this forum originally.
It made absolutely NO sense that you thought you were being 'accused' of something. I think you just read something very fast and assumed something totally wrong just because you saw your name.So I suggest you take a chill pill and really READ what is being said FIRST, not READ INTO what is being said and not be having such knee jerk reactions.
:dontknow:
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 08, 2008, 09:03 AM NHFT
Some want to educate the Nazis... I wish them luck. Some of us are not going to wear our yellow star.
Not everyone is born to libertarian ideas. If you're not interested in advancing the message... fine -- but your analogy fails. Education is not equivalent to complicity with oppression.
Expecting people to have "Road to Damascus" instant-conversions to libertarian ideas is unrealistic. Some people need to carefully re-evaluate their beliefs over time.
10 years ago, I supported state prohibition of drugs and abortion. Fortunately, the libertarians I argued with didn't throw rocks. They weren't blinded by moral superiority.
Quote from: picaro on April 08, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 08, 2008, 09:03 AM NHFT
Some want to educate the Nazis... I wish them luck. Some of us are not going to wear our yellow star.
Not everyone is born to libertarian ideas. If you're not interested in advancing the message... fine -- but your analogy fails. Education is not equivalent to complicity with oppression.
Expecting people to have "Road to Damascus" instant-conversions to libertarian ideas is unrealistic. Some people need to carefully re-evaluate their beliefs over time.
10 years ago, I supported state prohibition of drugs and abortion. Fortunately, the libertarians I argued with didn't throw rocks. They weren't blinded by moral superiority.
I like you from what I have read on the forum...
I am not saying that folks should not try to educate people, even the people that go along with fascism/socialism... I and others here are just way past that, my case 'burnout'...
The folks that want to do that I thank them, support them.
Quote from: lawofattraction on April 08, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 08, 2008, 01:22 AM NHFT
People I know of who've left or been driven off due to treatment by others on this forum:—
- Bald Eagle (asked to leave for same reasons as Powerchuter, if I heard right)
- Braddog
- CNHT (and many others I forget, who left when the political boards were closed)
- d_goddard
- malcolm
- RattyDog
This forum took a turn for the worse the day CNHT left. Although her conservatism was every bit as stifling as Luke's, she somehow, when push came to shove, always managed to cloak herself in a phony veneer of libertarianism. I could never count how many times her posts here made me want to scream. :hopmad:
And yet, through it all, I still find her to be an incredibly sexy woman. Go figure... :blush:
That's interesting Law. I have never turned anyone in for smoking pot, or anything else nor would I ever. So I don't see how I am compared to someone who did. On the other hand, I have had situations where the ABCs have taken notice of me as someone to watch thanks to the vindictiveness of immature parties on this forum. No matter how much I disagreed with someone, I would never do that either. It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of being something then turn around and use that very thing on them...which is what it amounts to.
If you remember, I was probably one of the few people who did not say peep when Kat said no more politics. I simply respected her right to do that since she owns this forum, and continued on my own space. I am still friends with Kat and often email her privately.
However, the problem was with others who have other axes to grind -- they will find an excuse to trash people whether they deserve it or not, for example after someone has asked an innocent question that has NOTHING to do with politics or a position on an issue. Apparently only certain people are allowed to ask 'how is your cold this week' and such. After all, those types of questions certainly must have some hidden agenda!
;)
I understand. Activism is often draining.
Seeing you guys build Mark's house was pretty sweet. (observing enviously, while I sort out my employment situation)
Accomplishment through non-political volunteering energizes me.
I like picaro :)
Hey's it's CNHT :)
I unbanned Ethan Allen a while back after I ran into him at Panera and he explained how what he'd done was meant as a joke. He was having real-life problems, though :-\
Quote from: lawofattraction on April 08, 2008, 03:57 PM NHFT
Hey, nice to see you again, CNHT! :D
Now if we could somehow bring Ethan Allen back this forum would be fun again.
Well let's not open THAT can of worms. After all, if people on here can't even agree what libertarianism means, I'm not worried about not being called one. The same could be said for liberals who think somehow they are libertarians. Anyone can call themselves that. It's not definable apparently.
As for the accusation that I'm 'conservative', I can find you equal amounts of conservatives that think I'm liberal. Baffling isn't it? I guess it's because I would not agree that FSPers were 'attacking' Republicans by picking up signs on a mailing list I'm on. I said that this accusation was ludicrious and that I was sure they were merely doing the good deed cleaning up the highway long after the signs were supposed to be taken down by their owners. Wasn't I right? I guess I'm not knee jerk enough.
Like many people here, I used to be apathetic too. But then I realized the truth in the saying that says if you don't participate you will be doomed to be ruled by those you don't agree with or something like that.
That said, you Law, can walk naked down the street smoking a joint and I'm certainly not going to be the one turn you in.
(Oh, but I might laugh my head off at what I see, and that might be a worse embarrassment, but nevertheless I would never turn you in as having broken any laws... LOL)
So, hope everyone is healthy and well and getting enough to eat...etc.
;D
Quote from: picaro on April 08, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
10 years ago, I supported state prohibition of drugs and abortion. Fortunately, the libertarians I argued with didn't throw rocks. They weren't blinded by moral superiority.
Were you a snitch like Luke at the time, or just someone who supported prohibition by default? The difference is vast.
Quote from: CNHT on April 08, 2008, 02:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lllloyd Danforth on April 08, 2008, 10:09 AM NHFT
I was active on her forum when she accused me of taking a particular stand on a subject I knew nothing about, much less would have an opinion on. When I asked for proof, as usual, she could not provide it.
As far as the 'sexy' stuff goes.....I don't get it :P
Lloyd, here is the problem...
I did not ACCUSE you of anything! How you could have perceived that is beyond me and everyone else that was involved in that discussion.
It was not something that could have ever been misconstrued as an accusation in either tone or content.
I simply was porting over the subject we'd started talking about here, that you expressed interest in, namely, your question being what was it I thought was so bad about 'foundations'? I was going to continue the subject and explain how I feel that foundations in the US are a great part of the push toward the socialist agenda in the schools, etc. and I even showed you the post it came from. However, I have no idea why you thought it was by any STRETCH of the imagination an 'accusation'...
You had asked a question and I was going to answer it because it is a common one and I simply mentioned you as the asker of the question.
If you did not want the question repeated, I would gladly removed your name from the thread. All you had to do was ask! I have removed it (after you called me names) because your reaction suggests you were accused of saying 'something' wrong , when in fact NO ONE SAID YOU DID!
I wasn't sure what 'proof' you wanted or why you were so angry because there was nothing to 'prove' because there was no 'accusation' even though I did link to the discussion that had started on this forum originally. It made absolutely NO sense that you thought you were being 'accused' of something. I think you just read something very fast and assumed something totally wrong just because you saw your name.
So I suggest you take a chill pill and really READ what is being said FIRST, not READ INTO what is being said and not be having such knee jerk reactions.
:dontknow:
Jane. In some damn thread about foundations, you claimed, out of the blue, that I, in some way, supported, I think it was The Ford Foundation. I know nothing about the FF. I've never commented about it or any other foundation. You either imagined it or, made it up. So, either you made it up, or, you're crazy. I'm thinking crazy and I would guess I am not alone. Go back to your own forum if it still exists.
I must say I found the drama here to be most amusing. When people make use of their freedom of speech there will eventually be strife. One cares not for the others speak and is angered because of it. In the end I am reminded of a quote from a great man.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson
Quote from: Lllloyd Danforth on April 08, 2008, 08:04 PM NHFT
Jane. In some damn thread about foundations, you claimed, out of the blue, that I, in some way, supported, I think it was The Ford Foundation. I know nothing about the FF. I've never commented about it or any other foundation. You either imagined it or, made it up. So, either you made it up, or, you're crazy. I'm thinking crazy and I would guess I am not alone. Go back to your own forum if it still exists.
I think you miscontstrued that.
Just before the politics was banned I had been talking about foundations and one of your posts was an honest question something along the lines of what about it and as you said, you know little about the subject. But I hadn't had a chance to answer.
So I merely indicated that Lloyd asked me what was bad about foundations. I never said or even thought that you 'supported' them...how could I have thought that when you clearly stated you didn't know? I was merely tring to make a connection to the previous converstaion where it had been cut off.
Most people who don't know about the role foundations play, would read their description and think it sounds perfectly humanitarian and then have the same question you asked, which was something along the lines of 'what's so bad about foundations'. Well I was going to tell you what I thought and why I don't like them.
There was NEVER an 'accusation' on my part because there was nothing to accuse you of. I'm sorry you construed it that way. And when you went into your snit and started callling me names, I was frankly, baffled as to why.
I deleted the post because it seemed you were upset that I brought up the subject at all. Really, I am not lying awake nights thinking of ways to piss off Lloyd Danforth. I'm too busy for that.. honestly.
Quote from: lawofattraction on April 08, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on April 08, 2008, 04:09 PM NHFTSo, hope everyone is healthy and well and getting enough to eat...etc. ;D
And I hope you won't be such a stranger around here. Even if you are a little crazy. ;)
F you sweetie. :-)
I wish I were a 'just a little' crazy... then I would be more exciting right? (Or at least I'd fit in here better...since according to you I'm too conservative. )
I save the crazy for my personal life.
Quote from: jjschless on April 08, 2008, 08:28 PM NHFT
I must say I found the drama here to be most amusing.
Ohhhh... so you find us amusing?!
(In my best mob hitman voice)
;D
Quote from: d_goddard on April 06, 2008, 03:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 02:30 PM NHFT
Quotemarijuana "criminals"
Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.
The same way that people who own guns & sell guns in Washington, DC are "gun criminals"
The same way that legislators who pass unconstitutional laws are political criminals.
i am a brandy criminal
and a pipe tobacco criminal.
oh wait..those drugs are "legalized."
btw Luke?
things always go full circle buddy... theres no other way. :)
Kola
Quote from: CNHT on April 08, 2008, 09:24 PM NHFT
Really, I am not lying awake nights thinking of ways to piss off Lloyd Danforth.
Boy I am. Pissing off Llllloyd is what I live for!
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 08, 2008, 06:29 AM NHFT
The common thread I see is the (using Denis's own word) "collectivist" view... ie. that this "forum" is intolerant. When someone tried to lump politicians as a group, Denis said that it was "collectivist" thinking. Then he groups everyone on this forum in the same category.
Everyone seems to fall into this trap from time to time.
And, even though it's not accurate, collectively is how a lot of people view things, and we have no control over that. A couple people behaving intolerantly on the forum makes "the forum" appear intolerant to most ordinary people out there, and it makes all of us look bad.
Quote from: SethCohn on April 08, 2008, 05:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 08, 2008, 01:22 AM NHFT
People I know of who've left or been driven off due to treatment by others on this forum:—
- Bald Eagle (asked to leave for same reasons as Powerchuter, if I heard right)
- Braddog
- CNHT (and many others I forget, who left when the political boards were closed)
- d_goddard
- malcolm
- RattyDog
I left for a long time.... came back eventually... even worked behind the scenes to keep it up and running...
Seems to be a few other people who've done that—I notice there's a deleted account belonging to Friday, but she's posting again, so apparently she came back. I myself usually just stop posting for a few days when things get too stupid around here.
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
I felt like the Kannings were overly tolerant, leaving up political planning posts when they had clearly expressed that this board was not for that. It's spraying graffiti on their home. I was slightly annoyed at that, honestly, knowing there are about six other boards where you can do that and that people are here specifically to discuss, well just about anything, but not that. It's like spam. I mean, why do spammers mis-spell "viagra" so it gets past my filters when the reason that word is in my filter is because I'm not interested in those products?? That's poorly targeted marketing! What a waste of bandwidth.
The rationale of such spam is that in many cases
ISPs install filters, that their customers didn't request or even know about. So, it's pretty easy for someone who thinks they're selling a great product to conclude that all those potential customers really
do want to know about it, and that the ISP is standing in their way.
I wonder if the rationale for some of the political posts on this board was similar—that the board admins don't speak for every user on the forum, and some users certainly
would like to see, or at least don't mind, the political posts.
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
I know you don't like Vitruvian's thread and that's probably what's looming in your mind. I still contend that his approach was tactless and didn't take into account that he was putting people on the defensive, but he was not trying to drive anyone off. He feels very strongly about the subject and he brought it up not to guilt-trip people, but because he thought he could persuade others to his point of view using logic and reason. Vitruvian is like Spock. I guarantee his goal was not to stir up emotions or drive people off. I think others joined the conversation and tried to just argue points, but there was a sort of collectivist thing that happened as Caleb described whereby anyone who shared Vitruvian's point of view tended to get associated with that tactlessness.
I was thinking of that thread, yes—not that Vitruvian himself wanted to drive people off, but it certainly energized those who
do want to cajole and coerce the political activists to go elsewhere. That thread
did, if I recall correctly, play a part in the Kannings' decision to close and then delete the political boards, too.
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
You always have to be so reasonable whenever these dramas break out, don't you? ;)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 09, 2008, 10:24 PM NHFT
That thread did, if I recall correctly, play a part in the Kannings' decision to close and then delete the political boards, too.
It may, in fact, be the best decision made in the history of this forum. :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 11:28 AM NHFT
Secondly, I think I should clarify that I wasn't the only one who decided that they were going to start keeping an eye open for all the pot violations that were going on, and report them. There were many people within the community that had decided that enough was enough, and that the community was no longer going to tolerate marijuana usage. So my efforts were part of a larger police & community decision, not just something that I up and decided as a result of my individual annoyance with the situation. And by the way, it worked. We got the pot cleaned out of the community, and now everybody keeps an eye on everybody else, so the same situation that had been taking place up until 3 years ago has never and will never take place again.
Do you believe this somehow minimizes or obviates your own responsibility?
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 11:28 AM NHFT
the community was no longer going to tolerate marijuana usage.
He sounds like a communist.
QuoteWe got the pot cleaned out of the community, and now everybody keeps an eye on everybody else, so the same situation that had been taking place up until 3 years ago has never and will never take place again.
Living in fantasy land. You and your govt thugs will never stop the drug business. :biglaugh:
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 09, 2008, 10:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 11:28 AM NHFT
We got the pot cleaned out of the community, and now everybody keeps an eye on everybody else, so the same situation that had been taking place up until 3 years ago has never and will never take place again.
Living in fantasy land. You and your govt thugs will never stop the drug business. :biglaugh:
Sounds to me like they just did a nice job of driving it further underground. "Keep an eye on everybody" and people just learn to do it where they're not watched.
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 04:53 AM NHFT
And in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam, where it's legal and where I've been, it along with heroin causes people to throw bottles and other garbage all over the streets, so the streets are nothing but a great big mess of bottles and garbage. I saw it with my own eyes.
I don't want the streets of every city in the USA (including my own!) to be a mess of bottles and garbage, and I don't want to have a horde of people that go around hitting other people (including me!). So that is why I, along with what is apparently the majority of Americans, oppose legalization of pot and other illegal drugs.
ummm. luke? Did you go to the same Amsterdam that I went to? You couldn't have because the Amsterdam that I went to happened to not have heaps and heaps of bottles/garbage in the streets. Hmmm.. I was there in Mar07 and pot was still legal(trust me I know). Nor did I commit any crimes, violent or not, and have not for the majority of 4 years that I have smoked pot. I have been clear minded and I have also learned much in the past 4 years. Including having a steady income and being able to purchase the pot without theft. The people who are commiting crimes while on pot are likely to commit the same crimes when sober or when drinking alcohol. Your claims are completely ludicris. Luke I hope that in the future you think before you type. Oh maybe you should just try pot and then you will find out that it isn't "warping" your mind beyond repair. Dumba,,
It's hard to believe someone could live in that fantasy. I say he's a troll.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 09, 2008, 10:24 PM NHFT
I was thinking of that thread, yes—not that Vitruvian himself wanted to drive people off, but it certainly energized those who do want to cajole and coerce the political activists to go elsewhere. That thread did, if I recall correctly, play a part in the Kannings' decision to close and then delete the political boards, too.
But that's exactly my point. I don't believe for a moment that the intent was to drive anyone away. The intent was to have political organizing take place elsewhere. Some people reacted to that Cartman-style. "I'm taking my ball and going home!" They didn't have to do that. I think it was a sort of boycott, an acceptable market action to a decision that they didn't like, but come on. Do you really think we don't LIKE those people despite not wanting to personally support certain specific actions? Do you really think the Kannings or myself or any particular group of people (collectivism again) didn't want to associate with all those people who left? All those people we had lots of friendly conversations with on this board? Have we been looking down our noses at them at public events? I just don't get that impression at all. It seems so far fetched to me that the intent was to actually drive them away. I think the intent was to agree to disagree and get on with things.
I was one of the first to say that political activity is immoral, but I don't think like a Christian, i.e. all sins are equal in the eyes of God. I think I'm being immoral when I pay taxes but I have my justifications. People engaged in political activity have their justifications. I used to be there. I know where they're coming from. I'd like to change their minds someday and I think I might but not if I drive them away. Luke is an asshole for supporting the violence of prohibition but I don't think politically active libertarians are assholes. I still feel like they are good people and trustworthy and worth befriending and having dealings with. I do not feel that way about Luke and will not unless he changes a lot about who he is. See? If I don't like you, I WILL tell you! All sins are not equal.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 09, 2008, 10:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on April 08, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
As the self-proclaimed Ambassador of the Schism, I humbly ask that everyone relax a little bit and join in a group hug.
You always have to be so reasonable whenever these dramas break out, don't you? ;)
I'm a bastard like that. ;D
most of the folks who "do drugs" are contributing members of society, they work full time, make good money. Most of the hard core drugs I have seen (not used myself) in use, was at a Doctors convention. Smart, over educated people. Not naked bums like Luke is talking about.
Even a stoned out heroin junkie is a lot less of a problem when maintaining his jones is a few bucks a day verses the hundreds of dollars due to it being illegal.
Quote from: Luke S on April 08, 2008, 12:34 PM NHFT
Ok first of all, what is a "narc". Is that some kind of New Hampshire slang or something.
If you're Christian, it means that you're the equivalent of Judas selling/forsaking Jesus to the Romans (re: the government).
Quote from: dalebert on April 10, 2008, 10:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 09, 2008, 10:24 PM NHFT
I was thinking of that thread, yes—not that Vitruvian himself wanted to drive people off, but it certainly energized those who do want to cajole and coerce the political activists to go elsewhere. That thread did, if I recall correctly, play a part in the Kannings' decision to close and then delete the political boards, too.
But that's exactly my point. I don't believe for a moment that the intent was to drive anyone away. The intent was to have political organizing take place elsewhere. Some people reacted to that Cartman-style. "I'm taking my ball and going home!" They didn't have to do that. I think it was a sort of boycott, an acceptable market action to a decision that they didn't like, but come on. Do you really think we don't LIKE those people despite not wanting to personally support certain specific actions? Do you really think the Kannings or myself or any particular group of people (collectivism again) didn't want to associate with all those people who left? All those people we had lots of friendly conversations with on this board? Have we been looking down our noses at them at public events? I just don't get that impression at all. It seems so far fetched to me that the intent was to actually drive them away. I think the intent was to agree to disagree and get on with things.
If I recall correctly, a lot of the people who reacted strongly, especially those who left, were people who thought
closing the political boards was ungrateful. Whether or not it was the original intention of the site admins,
NH Free had been treated as a sort of "one-stop shop" for the New Hampshire liberty movement. We had political stuff, apolitical stuff, and anti-political stuff, and people who didn't want to participate in any of those simply ignored the appropriate boards. (I seem to remember Russell even had the entire politics board on ignore.) All of the activists, political and anti-political alike, had done a lot of work to make
NH Free as popular as it is... and then the politicos get told by the forum owner to take their work elsewhere. That pissed an awful lot of people off.
Quote from: dalebert on April 10, 2008, 10:06 AM NHFT
Luke is an asshole for supporting the violence of prohibition but I don't think politically active libertarians are assholes.
Luke is starting to sound like an incoherent troll. Either that or Dave Ridley randomly took a trip to Ohio to scope out Luke's house... ::)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 10, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
Luke is starting to sound like an incoherent troll. Either that or Dave Ridley randomly took a trip to Ohio to scope out Luke's house... ::)
No I'm not an incoherent troll. And in fact I found out exactly who owns that car I was talking about earlier. And no, it's not Dave Ridley. The car is owned by a man named Tyler Stearns. Here is his blog: http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com (http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com). Here is a photograph of him standing next to his car, and you can clearly see the license plate that says "NHFREE": http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-strafford-straw-poll.html (http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-strafford-straw-poll.html)
Who's that guy standing next to Tyler? (http://brainyspace.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!6A026149804CFED3!462.entry)
Quote from: Luke S on April 10, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 10, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
Luke is starting to sound like an incoherent troll. Either that or Dave Ridley randomly took a trip to Ohio to scope out Luke's house... ::)
No I'm not an incoherent troll. And in fact I found out exactly who owns that car I was talking about earlier. And no, it's not Dave Ridley. The car is owned by a man named Tyler Stearns. Here is his blog: http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com (http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com). Here is a photograph of him standing next to his car, and you can clearly see the license plate that says "NHFREE": http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-strafford-straw-poll.html (http://tylerstearns.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-strafford-straw-poll.html)
Ah. I think Ridley might be NH-FREE, then. Denis has FREE-NH. I'm sure other combinations are out there.
So perhaps Tyler can tell us if that community of yours really is as drug-free as you think it is, and if all the people out there really do obsessively poke their nose into everyone else's doings.
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 10, 2008, 11:10 PM NHFT
Who's that guy standing next to Tyler? (http://brainyspace.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!6A026149804CFED3!462.entry)
;D
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 10, 2008, 11:44 PM NHFT
So perhaps Tyler can tell us if that community of yours really is as drug-free as you think it is, and if all the people out there really do obsessively poke their nose into everyone else's doings.
I think Luke's mom is Mrs. Kravitz from Bewitched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJVydy8b8
most DMV's have a good online website where you can check to see if a vanity plate is available. anyone actually check if this plate is real, or issued to someone? I find it hard to believe that a NHFree ohio plate was in front of him.
This kid seems to know how to push most of our buttons, and know exactly how to communicate to us, to get us all fighting.. Interesting..
Maybe its because I don't, and have never smoked... but I don't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana other than who makes the profit.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 11, 2008, 10:04 AM NHFT
Maybe its because I don't, and have never smoked... but I don't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana other than who makes the profit.
When pot gets legalized and is in the non black/gray market (just a matter of time) and big companies start making money on it, I guarantee liberals will start campaigning against it with all the vigor they're currently pouring into cigarettes.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 11, 2008, 10:04 AM NHFT
Maybe its because I don't, and have never smoked... but I don't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana other than who makes the profit.
one of them causes lung disease.
Quote from: mackler on April 11, 2008, 11:52 AM NHFT
one of them causes lung disease.
And that's just one thing. Tobacco is so much more harmful than pot in so many ways. It's way more addictive and time-consuming for one thing. As an employer, I'd not mind at all if an employee smoked pot in his off time but if someone smokes cigs, I can't help but imagine how often they're going to take breaks from the job to go smoke. Ugh. ::) I sure don't want cig smoke lingering where I work. That shit gets into everything. Maybe it's just from the sheer volume of smoking since most cigs smokers seem to need them all day long, but pot smoke doesn't seem to get into everything and linger forever like cig smoke does.
Quote from: d_goddard on April 07, 2008, 09:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on April 07, 2008, 07:25 PM NHFT
He is an asshole. As a matter of fact he is a Fucking Asshole.
I care about you and what you say less, because I know you less.
You are the kind of intolerant asswipe that judges people less "NAP holy" than yourself and gives them no opportunity to progress along the path.
I expect that kind of behavior from you.
From Lloyd, who is generally a laid-back kind of guy, and who I know at least slightly, I expect more.
Quote from: Sophia Loren on April 07, 2008, 07:53 PM NHFT
Nah! And if you think someone can be bullied in print, there is something wrong with your thinking.
If you think shit you type on the internet doesn't get read by real live human beings, you're more fucked up than I thought.
I don't know Luke from Adam. By his own admission, he's done a really asshole, bullshit thing by turning somebody in. But he stayed here and was (is?) willing to question his outlook on the world. And just as he gets close to the revelation that you take for granted... you attack him. In print. And Facilitator comes and joins in. Like the sniveling side-kick that seems to accompany any bully.
It's one thing to attack someone out of ignorance.
It's another thing to attack someone out of pure spite.
What kind of sick satisfaction does it give you?
Fuck you, Lloyd.
Fuck you, Facilitator.
I'm out of here. I don't want to associate with abusive people.
GOOD FUCKING BYE.
Wow...
I sure do hope Denis rethinks his position and returns to the forum. I have always considered him a valuable member of the forum, and will miss having him on here. Not only that, but I know very well from personal experience how easy it is to lose one's composure and leave this forum in a huff... only to regret it after the heat of the moment has passed.
The point he was trying to make was certainly valid -- in fact, it is
crucial to getting our message across to outsiders effectively. Calling other people names -- or any other method of bullying --
is counterproductive to the extreme. Empathy (but not necessarily agreement) is
absolutely critical to successfully communicating the rational paradigm.
The best way to relay that fact is through verbal expression
combined with active demonstration. Actions always speak louder than words, and when one's behavior is at odds with one's message, the behavior will always drown out the message.
Unfortunately, Denis used the
exact same behavior on Lloyd and Jim as they used on Luke -- if not worse -- thus his
message to them is naturally every bit as ineffective as their message to Luke. Talk about a greater indiscretion
by far! Lloyd and Jim never claimed to have any superior understanding of how to effectively engage others. Denis, on the other hand,
does make that claim (implicitly), by calling them on it -- yet engages them in the
exact manner that he verbally refutes.
I trust that is merely the result of acting in the heat of the moment, which is an easy trap to fall into and entirely understandable. Everyone does it at some point, regardless of how well they understand the importance of guarding against it.
I look forward to having Denis back soon, this time actually
demonstrating the all-too-valid principles he expressed! :)
Quote from: dalebert on April 11, 2008, 10:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 11, 2008, 10:04 AM NHFT
Maybe its because I don't, and have never smoked... but I don't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana other than who makes the profit.
When pot gets legalized and is in the non black/gray market (just a matter of time) and big companies start making money on it, I guarantee liberals will start campaigning against it with all the vigor they're currently pouring into cigarettes.
I don't know about that. I think the campaign against tobacco is because the authoritarians—specifically the busybody types who feel the absolute compulsion to control people's personal lives—see the writing on the wall with regards to the future of marijuana prohibition, so now they need a new target. Enter tobacco.
In ten years, we'll have legal marijuana but the exact same drug war will continue, against tobacco.
I am a tobacco pipe smoker and not very happy with the nanny bullshit regarding smoking laws.
especially for business owners..they have the right to run business as they see fit.
i do not like smoke when i am eating but there is no reason why a business owner should be able to accommodate whatever group of clientels he/she wishes.
i smoke my pipe in my office and if people do not like it they are free to go elsewhere. its pretty simple.
otoh, i smoke "aromatic" tobaccos like cherry, raspberry, maple, butternut etc and most people actually make nice compliments about the smell.
kola
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 10, 2008, 01:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 04:53 AM NHFT
And in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam, where it's legal and where I've been, it along with heroin causes people to throw bottles and other garbage all over the streets, so the streets are nothing but a great big mess of bottles and garbage. I saw it with my own eyes.
ummm. luke? Did you go to the same Amsterdam that I went to? You couldn't have because the Amsterdam that I went to happened to not have heaps and heaps of bottles/garbage in the streets.
I was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false. Furthermore the red light district there is artificially popular due to the swarms of Brits and American tourists who travel for vice. If you visit any city or village apart from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, or The Hague, you'll find the same menu of services, but the patrons are much better behaved.
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 10, 2008, 01:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 06, 2008, 04:53 AM NHFT
And in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam, where it's legal and where I've been, it along with heroin causes people to throw bottles and other garbage all over the streets, so the streets are nothing but a great big mess of bottles and garbage. I saw it with my own eyes.
ummm. luke? Did you go to the same Amsterdam that I went to? You couldn't have because the Amsterdam that I went to happened to not have heaps and heaps of bottles/garbage in the streets.
I was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false. Furthermore the red light district there is artificially popular due to the swarms of Brits and American tourists who travel for vice. If you visit any city or village apart from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, or The Hague, you'll find the same menu of services, but the patrons are much better behaved.
So in other words, it's people coming from oppressive societies (the one Luke S helps create), and pushing things to excess because of their newfound, albeit brief, freedom. And if we ever established such a free society here, people would behave just fine once they got used to it.
This is what people mean when they say the government is its own worst enemy, Luke. Remember how the Iraqis looted the whole country the moment Saddam was overthrown? Creating an oppressive society just makes people go nuts when they're exposed to freedom.
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
What you, or your supposed 'family'(for all we know you could be making multiple signins), says will not displace my own personal experience of what I personally saw while I was in amsterdam. So save the effort and don't even bother.
Quote from: Luke SI saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
Whether your version of events is accurate is irrelevant. The fact that a person acts violently after having used drugs incriminates
him, not the drug, and certainly not my freedom to choose. That you,
Luke S, are also an advocate of "border security" comes as little surprise to me: the basest conceit of the statist is his claim to know what is best for other people. Until such time as you dispense with that arrogance, you are an enemy of liberty.
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 12, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
What you, or your supposed 'family'(for all we know you could be making multiple signins), says will not displace my own personal experience of what I personally saw while I was in amsterdam. So save the effort and don't even bother.
I could say the same thing back to you.
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 12, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
What you, or your supposed 'family'(for all we know you could be making multiple signins), says will not displace my own personal experience of what I personally saw while I was in amsterdam. So save the effort and don't even bother.
I could say the same thing back to you.
However I have had personal, and financial interactions with peoples on these boards which should give my account more legitimacy than yours. You are a yellow bellied troll.
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 12, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
What you, or your supposed 'family'(for all we know you could be making multiple signins), says will not displace my own personal experience of what I personally saw while I was in amsterdam. So save the effort and don't even bother.
I could say the same thing back to you.
That's right, Luke, we're
all the same person... all 1805 usernames...
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 12, 2008, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 12, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
What you, or your supposed 'family'(for all we know you could be making multiple signins), says will not displace my own personal experience of what I personally saw while I was in amsterdam. So save the effort and don't even bother.
I could say the same thing back to you.
That's right, Luke, we're all the same person... all 1805 usernames...
I meant about what he saw in Amsterdam not displacing what I saw there.
Quote from: Luke S on April 12, 2008, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Morey on April 12, 2008, 02:18 PM NHFTI was a resident of Amsterdam from '99 through '01. I can also attest that allegations of drug use leading to dumpster avoidance is totally false.
I saw it with my own two eyes, and I can have my family sign up and come onto the board and attest to it. We all saw it.
I visited Rome in the very early 90s on a Sunday and it was the most filthy city in Europe I had ever been to. Trash everywhere. It never occured to me to blame drug addicts for that . . .