There are p411s coming in that they are voting against it?!
Press conference at 4pm - please anyone who can go get there as soon as possible
Press conference is at the statehouse at the LOB Lobby!
Not a lot of time to act on this one but this bill needs to survive!!!!!!
Thanks for the updates. I'm at work with no sound and I'm seeing the Porc 411 calls coming in.
It kind of sucks that they're killing it but then again... passage of it wouldn't have changed much anyway.
It's a good indicator of how the early movers have been drumming up support for at least some of the principles of liberty. It just shows there's more to be done, and more people needed.
How many other states proposed a bill as strongly worded?
How many didn't propose anything at all?
Quote from: Kevin Dean on February 12, 2009, 02:45 PM NHFT
Thanks for the updates. I'm at work with no sound and I'm seeing the Porc 411 calls coming in.
It kind of sucks that they're killing it but then again... passage of it wouldn't have changed much anyway.
It's a good indicator of how the early movers have been drumming up support for at least some of the principles of liberty. It just shows there's more to be done, and more people needed.
Depending on your service plan you may be able to get audio text messages to your cell. As far as I know, you only need to have the ability to text. Maybe a speaker phone as well; not sure.
I am not 100% on the politico stuff at this juncture in my evolution but I sure feel compelled to go and bitch at the state house... too bad I'm stuck out of state for now. I sure hope to hear some good news about this. I do think that simply the fact that this was presented speaks volumes. What will truly speak of New Hampshire's legacy is it passing.
QuoteDepending on your service plan you may be able to get audio text messages to your cell. As far as I know, you only need to have the ability to text. Maybe a speaker phone as well; not sure.
I don't exactly have "a plan". I use pre-paid Tracfones. I could probably have them sent there, but sometimes the Porc411 volume greatly exceeds what I want to pay for, especially being out of state and unable to assist with anything.
That might change once I move. For the next month or so, I need to save the money.
I figured the committee would ITL this resolution. If not the committee, I figured the state house would vote it down. I think most people following this issue closely feel the same way.
A committee vote of ITL is not the same as killing a bill. Every bill in NH gets voted on on the floor, most of them on the "consent calendar", where the full house votes to accept the committees' recommendations of ITL or OTP.
But, any rep can demand a particular bill be pulled off the consent calendar and voted on directly. Many ITL bill have passed this way, and many OTP bills have failed.
Especially if Neal Kurk is taking sides. ;)
Does this bill assume that politicians have any clue who Jefferson is and what his principles were?
Poli's aren't so bright you know.
Quote from: Puke on February 13, 2009, 05:23 AM NHFT
Does this bill assume that politicians have any clue who Jefferson is and what his principles were?
Many of Jefferson's principles were contradictory.
Example - he was against slavery but had slaves.
Quote from: Puke on February 13, 2009, 05:23 AM NHFT
Does this bill assume that politicians have any clue who Jefferson is and what his principles were?
Poli's aren't so bright you know.
Like Lincoln, it's a good name to drop,to get their attention.
Quote from: BillKauffman on February 13, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Many of Jefferson's principles were contradictory.
Example - he was against slavery but had slaves.
That was probably just his idea of working through the system.
Quote from: Puke on February 13, 2009, 05:23 AM NHFT
Does this bill assume that politicians have any clue who Jefferson is and what his principles were?
Poli's aren't so bright you know.
They know what it means.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 13, 2009, 11:53 AM NHFT
Quote from: Puke on February 13, 2009, 05:23 AM NHFT
Does this bill assume that politicians have any clue who Jefferson is and what his principles were?
Poli's aren't so bright you know.
They know what it means.
If they vote for the bill does that mean that they get to move on up? That will ensure it's passing.
Quote
Well we're movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
Fish don't fry in the kitchen;
Beans don't burn on the grill.
Took a whole lotta tryin'
Just to get up that hill.
Now we're up in the big leagues
Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me baby
There ain't nothin wrong with that.
Well we're movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
Wrong jefferson?
If the sponsors of this bill had had the courage to introduce it during the Bush administration's abuses it would have had a chance of passing and wouldn't appear to be obvious partisan politics.
Some how the new communist is the line in the sand, where the old fascist's crimes weren't.
Quote from: sandm000 on February 12, 2009, 02:53 PM NHFT
How many other states proposed a bill as strongly worded?
How many didn't propose anything at all?
I saw on Glen Beck tonight a NH State Rep that said initially there were 8 other states besides NH with proposed legislation, and then another 12 new states in the past week ;D
They have a map on one of the sites... but in many cases if they passed the bill the federal government would just remove their statehood and return them to territorial status.
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
Alex Jones interview before Dan goes in to Glen Beck.
This sure seems to be reaching across the nation... the Second Shot Heard 'round the World?
http://www.youtube.com/v/DORXF1c3jGU&hl
http://www.youtube.com/v/zFl0dkCS9KA&hl
I heard 22 states were introducing similar resolutions. BTW, Dan Itse was on Alex Jones yesterday talking about this.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on February 13, 2009, 04:32 PM NHFT
If the sponsors of this bill had had the courage to introduce it during the Bush administration's abuses it would have had a chance of passing and wouldn't appear to be obvious partisan politics.
Some how the new communist is the line in the sand, where the old fascist's crimes weren't.
Excellent point. Alot of politics is timing.
Quote from: BillKauffman on February 13, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Many of Jefferson's principles were contradictory.
Example - he was against slavery but had slaves.
Well, it's not so simple as that. He had slaves because he inherited them from his mother-in-law. Freeing slaves in those days was like making one walk the plank. Rather than dump them out in the world, he treated them well. And he freed those who wanted to be free and who demonstrated that they were capable of taking care of themselves.
Robert E. Lee was also self-contradictory in this regard. As executor of his father's estate, he inherited control of almost 200 slaves, which he called an "unpleasant legacy". The will called for manumission no later than 5 years after the father's death, but Lee, with no experience managing a plantation, used many of the slaves for the full five years, effecting their manumission in 1862.
Lee welcomed free black soldiers in his army, but he also held the prevailing view of it being the "white man's burden" to improve the lot of the black man.
Jefferson sucked as president.
Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on February 14, 2009, 08:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on February 13, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Many of Jefferson's principles were contradictory.
Example - he was against slavery but had slaves.
Well, it's not so simple as that. He had slaves because he inherited them from his mother-in-law. Freeing slaves in those days was like making one walk the plank. Rather than dump them out in the world, he treated them well. And he freed those who wanted to be free and who demonstrated that they were capable of taking care of themselves.
I agree. He also didn't want to trade them to get out of debt because he knew that they would just be sold again.
Quote from: Ogre on February 14, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ogre on February 14, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
With the way things are in the economy, I don't think companies will want to lose a customer.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ogre on February 14, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
Not if we establish a good relationship with the Canadians. Buy land in Pittsburg, NH while you still can! ;D
Quote from: JJ on February 16, 2009, 02:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ogre on February 14, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
With the way things are in the economy, I don't think companies will want to lose a customer.
They wouldn't have a choice...
Even if they were allowed to import goods into NH... without a way for NH to make payment, it would be a matter of months before internal collapse.
Quote from: Free libertarian on February 16, 2009, 08:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ogre on February 14, 2009, 12:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2009, 01:30 AM NHFT
Same with NH, its free to leave... but then has no travel nor trade policy with the US.
Nor with any other country for that matter.
Um... Yay!
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
Not if we establish a good relationship with the Canadians. Buy land in Pittsburg, NH while you still can! ;D
Pretty hard to do. Ottawa supports the British Crown, which supports the United States through several trade and security agreements. Quebec has several political parties... most have a great deal of disapproval for anglophones and the American lifestyle.
The hypotheticals which are running here about the effect of our no longer being within the union are, IMO, somewhat overblown. Goodness knows, I hope that nullification of the union, secession, what have you, does not happen any time soon. But if it were to, I think you would have to contemplate a scenario in which several states, not just NH, are threatening to do this or have done this.
The feds would be weak and might well not want to upset all of the individuals in those states, even if they wanted to wreak revenge and havoc on the state governments, why would they seek to reduce the number of citizens?
Our neighbors would want to continue to have their businesses function, and receive their income taxes. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by restricting trade, freedom of movement, employment, whatever?
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
It means if you travel or work outside NH you'll be arrested as an illegal alien.
This is nonsense. Most people in NH are also US citizens, and it would be incredibly complicated for the US to determine which of the people in NH, if any, have renounced their citizenship. Nullification of the compact between the states does not cause one's US passport to burst into flames. And even if there were controls on non-citizens, that would really only be tantamount to moving the existing border patrol out of NH and into the surrounding states. They already may operate within impugnity near our Canadian border and near the coast... most of the state, in fact. I will grant you, that it might be jolly convenient to have remembered to actually acquire a passport before this would have happened, since I do realize some folks don't routinely possess one.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2009, 12:26 AM NHFT
It also means that things like food, gasoline, etc can be shut off from NH.
Sure. So could communications (phone/internet/etc.), electricity, and so on and so forth. There could be tariffs, currency controls, all kinds of restrictions. They could treat us as Cuba. The question is, are any of these things likely?
I submit that they are not.
In some ways, cutting these things off would be more disruptive to them than to us. Food, fuel, financial assets and communications would definitely be issues.
If the tariffs were small enough that they were simply designed to counterbalance their losses, then we could live with it as and until we had grown our economy, which we would be likely to do given our lower debt burden and lower tax structure. If the controls and tariffs were designed to prevent all flows of funds out of the US, then either it would be specifically for flows into NH or would be general. If general, the rest of the states and the rest of the world would be up in arms about it. If specifically NH, it might be more painful, and some of our residents might initially leave the state in search of a better economic environment elsewhere in the US, but I bet that although we might not like the initial effects, we would survive, even if we needed to make unwelcome allegiances and treaties with foreign nations and take loans from international bodies. It's worth noting, too, that the US might be so keen on ensuring that we didn't make certain concessions to certain foreign nations that they wouldn't want to force us to such a position.
Even if they had a justification for doing so, I can't believe that they would seriously try and lock down our borders against all trade. They are way too porous. Even if they did, smuggling would still be successful, it would effectively turn it into a big tariff, except one that was paid not to the US treasury, but to the highly lucrative smuggling operations which would bring yet more employment to New Hampshire.
Communications... our present connectivity is largely reliant on infrastructure and entities elsewhere in the US. I submit that attempting to cut off or restrict communications would result in hugely unwelcome international sanction, and alternative infrastructure could be built within a year or two.
And so on and so forth. It's an interesting fantasy to contemplate that the US would try to create Darfur out of New Hampshire simply for our insistence on constitutional principles, but I just don't buy it. As screwed up as it is, the federal government has at least two attributes which would moderate its response here -- first, there are a reasonable number of moral and freedom-loving folks hidden in its midst, and secondly, and far more importantly, its self-interest would not be served by seeking to prove how stubborn the New Hampshire population could be, especially once those less stubborn have already fled the state.
It seems far more likely to contemplate that the US, in reaction to such a nullification, would seek to carry on with business more or less as usual, still attempting to collect its taxes (since taxes are due on income, even if earned outside of the US), but dropping the funding it provides to NH and would chip away at our privileges here and there, with the intent being to convince us to "voluntarily" rejoin the union, perhaps with some concessions, perhaps not. As a strategy, it has way more chance of "working" (i.e. avoiding its own dissolution and possible formation of a new union). Or, in the alternate, enough states will rebel and refuse to allow federal enforcement actions on their soil that the union fails by going bankrupt, and we get to start over with a clean balance sheet. In the event that the latter should happen, I would sooner see us out of the union, and having reclaimed the "federal" land within NH unto ourselves, than see it paid over to the foreign creditors of the US.
But again, hopefully this is all absurd hypothesis and conjecture.
The problem is that even in your conjecture... things aren't that great.
And I believe the 'problems' tend to appear long before the 'solutions'... change is just that way.
But does the NH Legislature wish to end the 'veil of collusion'... the mandatory seatbelt bill makes me think NO.
I can't think of a single State on the list that would willfully give up federal government money flowing into their State... or federal contracts to their manufacturers/producers.
Since the federal government is really nothing more than ambassadors from the fifty States (equal in the US Senate)... its doubtful that the federal government has done anything without the collusion of a majority of the fifty States.