What do you think is the best act of civil disobedience a person could do in New Hampshire?
----
edit:
Here's a summary of the ideas we had after the above question was posted, and some other ideas too. I'll continue updating the summary from time to time.
serve wine to underage Iraq war vet in front of an appropriate state office
operate pocket bike on a quiet public road
fish w/o license
hand out petition for redress of grievances at IRS office inside
hand out ron paul literature at IRS office inside
sell sales-taxable items without adding the tax ( i.e. sell meals in front of state house )
occupy a home or business threatened with Eminent Domain seizure, or one which has already been seized
occupy a home or business threatened with tax seizure
set up a sales kiosk on the 34 west property in keene (citizens voted to sell it in 06 but the school board won't).
do some type of licensed business w/o license
spend liberty dollars in front of fed bldg - not illegal but the Mint says it is
establish "free zone" inside a property targetted for seizure
walk up to Post Office anti gun signs ... and adding the rest of the law to one of them....the part that says you *can* carry guns into post offices
cc jail visit
melt a penney or nickel outside a fed building
Plant industrial hemp seeds in front of an appropriate bureaucracy
Light or puff a joint in front of an appropriate bureaucracy
Demonstrate inside the DEA or some other jackboot-friendly bureaucracy
Take piece of hard candy to Elaine Brown in Plainfield ( they're already getting resupplied I think but the difference in this case would be informing the authorities in advance).
Police Checkpoint civil dis - half the fun would be spreading out and finding it LOL
- could be replicated at Federal checkpoint on the interstate
FIJA disobedience (maybe enter a court with literature for the jurors or stand at entrance with "Jurors may overrule Judges" sign).
Hire a worker for below minimum wage ... in front of the appropriate government office
Hire a worker below minimum *age*...in front of the appropriate government office
Audio-record a cop (whoops looks like this is legal)
Maybe also some other kind of disobedience related to ron paul? someone suggested arrests at a democrat reps office who voted to continue the iraqupation.
parent serving small amount of wine to son or daughter who's a minor
Alter a U.S. coin: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Silver_Surfer_Coin.html
sell cold meds w/o requiring ID, or in unapproved quantities (I think four bottles would do it!)
Play poker for money, with friends, in front of relevant state bureaucracy
Get married before the state three day waiting period in front of the relevant bureaucracy.
Stage a demonstration outside a funeral (with the approval of the funeralgoers. Not sure if that would be illegal in this context)
Attempt to place a FIJA.org banner on a courthouse, or to chalk the FIJA URL on a courthouse
Attempt to chalk a V on a government building
"Structure" a financial transaction to "conceal" its amount; (buy three postal money orders at just below the minimum reporting amount)
drive with heavy window tint to right and left of driver
play a game of lawn darts....illegal now in the u.s. apparently
think of some way to violate 10 federal nanny laws in 10 minutes, in front of a fed building. can it be done?
make a fire on own property with five fire extinguishers present, but no permit
selling Polar Pure water purification kit without requiring ID, in front of DEA building
buy something with a liberty dollar
allow someone to smoke inside your business
refusal to accept Fed dollar.
pick some sort of flower from a national forest that you're not supposed to.
log in a national forest
take a lawful unloaded firearm into a national park
step across the mass border with a round of ammo in your pocket but no gun license - warning...i've heard this is a one year penalty. probably not worth it jus to trya and help that hopeless place!
drive without an ID
drive without a license plate, or with a placebo plate
selling incandescent light bulbs after the fed ban in 2012 - or sooner if the state bans them sooner (there is a bill at the state house 2008)
refusal to pay one or more taxes
give out loans at a 37% annual interest rate after Jan 1 2009 in New Hampshire (not positive this would be an arrestable offense...might just result in revocation of some license.
attempt to board an aircraft on or after may 11 using a new hampshire drivers license, without submitting to whatever rules Homeland Security begins imposing on that DL.
attempt to carry a sign or videotape near a TSA checkpoint
attempt to tag along with a controversial bureaucrat or agency for a day documenting their activities.
and...the current front runner: conduct an illegal puppet show!
idling a car for over 30 minutes when the temperature is between zero and 32 degrees. class A misdemeanor under state law apparently! One could put three homeless people, or just friends, in the car and heat them up. that way you'd be doing something constructive not just harmless. any ways you can think of to make such an act even more constructive and harmless? something that could minize any pollution that might result?
carrying an industrial hemp seed
planting an industrial hemp seed (?)
placing window tint over a certain density, on certain car windows
also...remember gandhi's dandi salt march? Where he walked from one part of india to another and made illegal salt at the ocean? i wonder if there is something like that we could do here...
ignore city attorney in nashua's order that you need permission to fix parks:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=OD3jIULO8wo
clean litter off white mountains without permit
clear seaweed off beach
pan a camera in keene courtroom:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15211.0
try to deliver, in person, a newspaper to a jail that has banned it
go to a city or town hall and put up a poster that has a mug shot of some particularly bad politicain or bureaucrat...along with the words "enemy of the people" or something along those lines
jog in manchester without wearing blaze orange
try to enter a jail with a camera
tour guiding without license
openly attempt to bring any recording device or cell phone into Federal district court in concord
openly attempt to bring a camera into hillsborough district court - into the area between the metal detector and the courtroom itself. They've told me it's not allowed, though in the courtroom you're fine given one day's notice
Ignore taxation 8)
Good question Dave.
While I applaud the individual efforts at Civil didobedience and ?the attention it has brought. ?I think mass CD would be more effective.
When the average, unenlightened individual, whose attention is what, I imagine we are trying to get, hears of an individual getting busted as a protest against an existing law, (the individual might know anything about) they, often, think: 'Nut job'!
When they hear that 3 ?or 4 hundred people were publically violating some law, they are going to ask themselves , "what is it about this law that caused this number of people to stop what they were doing and come out and protest it"
The above is probably the most important reason we need thousands of activists, not, studying legislation and testifying.
Time is short, but this would be a good opportunity for CD:
http://smokeoutamerica.ca/
In order to get to mass disobedience, someone has to begin it.
No, first you need mass.
I have alot of Mass.
The most painful thing the state does is bill us for property taxes.
Yes, but:
The state exists. It performs functions, most of which it probably shouldn't, by it's own constitution. But, its there and it need funds to do this stuff.
You can work at cutting back functions and reducing the tax burden.
You can starve the beast.
300 or so people who may all get the nerve to withold taxes will not starve the beast or even get it's attention.
20,000 wouldn't starve it, but, might get it's attention.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 28, 2005, 10:52 AM NHFTThe state exists. It performs functions, most of which it probably shouldn't, by it's own constitution. But, its there and it need funds to do this stuff.
if it needs funds ... then it has to be impaired if you withhold some :D
Quote from: russellkanning on August 28, 2005, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 28, 2005, 10:52 AM NHFTThe state exists. It performs functions, most of which it probably shouldn't, by it's own constitution. But, its there and it need funds to do this stuff.
if it needs funds ... then it has to be impaired if you withhold some :D
Yes, Russell. You've impaired it .0000000000000001%! But, I admit, you're doing your part!
Withholding taxes, like Russell, is a moral obligation for any free person, in my opinion.? The only reason I pay taxes is because my wife will leave me if I do not.
Kat's right.? Nonviolent noncooperation must usually begin with a few individuals, and it already has.
But Lloyd's probably right as well.? Maybe it's time to organize more people for the next one.? Unfortunately, there are few of us in this world educated enough about the true nature of government that are willing to do it.? We have broken through countless barriers around us and within us, and freed our own souls.? I'm not willing to sit around and wait for everyone else to figure it out.
Here are some brainstorms; what do you guys think of them:
Dressing up as Gandhi and shaving someone's head for money in front of the board of barbering? Then the person with the newly shaved head dons a Gandhi oufit themselves and goes off to break a second unjust law?
Dressing up as Gandhi and riding a pocket bike on a public street?
" " and appearing at an oppresive government office for the purpose of gently interfering with their operations?
You're definitely the creative one when it comes to press coverage. I'd do the dress up as Gandhi thing, but I prefer to be myself. Or at least I like to think so. ;) Civil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I'll gladly dress up as Gandhi some day by spinning my own thread and wearing only clothes that I have created, but I have not learned how to do this yet. I really don't see what's so strange about that - it was normal a few generations ago, and may become normal again some day soon. Creating more of what we use and saving more of what we earn is true capitalism.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 27, 2005, 06:53 PM NHFT
Time is short, but this would be a good opportunity for CD:
http://smokeoutamerica.ca/
Lloyd should show up at the Boston protest with his big Bong.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFT
You're definitely the creative one when it comes to press coverage.? ?I'd do the dress up as Gandhi thing, but I prefer to be myself.? Or at least I like to think so.? ;)? Civil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I'll gladly dress up as Gandhi some day by spinning my own thread and wearing only clothes that I have created, but I have not learned how to do this yet.? I really don't see what's so strange about that - it was normal a few generations ago, and may become normal again some day soon.? Creating more of what we use and saving more of what we earn is true capitalism.
Just remember that the time you use to "create more of what we use" is time that you take away from other activities - opportunity cost?
Yes, the ability to do these things are important for a time when the items are not available, or are too expensive to buy, but when they are available at a low cost you would probably be better off using that time on other things.
Quote from: TN-FSP on August 29, 2005, 01:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 27, 2005, 06:53 PM NHFT
Time is short, but this would be a good opportunity for CD:
http://smokeoutamerica.ca/
Lloyd should show up at the Boston protest with his big Bong.
I will be in Boston at MassCann Hempfest on September 17, with my 9 foot joint.
You haven't smoked that yet?
No, and, I have to be careful to keep it hidden from all these Jamacians that live around me.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 28, 2005, 09:06 PM NHFT
Then the person with the newly shaved head dons a Gandhi oufit themselves and goes off to break a second unjust law?
I like the chain of civil disobedience idea
especially if it benefited the next person (like a cheap haircut)
pay it forward
8)
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFTCivil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I have one problem with this list
Maybe we can do things that don't get you thrown in jail .... so more people can participate 8)
Like the manicure or haircut idea .... if it wasn't in front of their office ..... or make fun of some silly laws (like toe tapping)
Kat could continue Mike Fisher's outlaw manicure .... by giving me a $1 unlicensed haircut
I could then go sell some alcohol to a 20 year old (like JP)
.... then
We will not be hurting anyone .... instead helping them :D
I'm not so sure that Mike giving you a haircut would help you ;)
Perhaps he should practice on Ridley!
Quote from: russellkanning on August 29, 2005, 07:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFTCivil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I have one problem with this list
You sure do! ;D
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 29, 2005, 06:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: TN-FSP on August 29, 2005, 01:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 27, 2005, 06:53 PM NHFT
Time is short, but this would be a good opportunity for CD:
http://smokeoutamerica.ca/
Lloyd should show up at the Boston protest with his big joint.
I will be in Boston at MassCann Hempfest on September 17, with my 9 foot joint.
I know.? And that is why I'm saying you should be at the Sep. 10th event with your joint.? Hand out FSP matches and legalize pot flyers.
Oh I still have a bunch of those flyers, Lloyd, if you want them.
Quote from: russellkanning on August 29, 2005, 07:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFTCivil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I have one problem with this list
Fasting? Or celibacy? ;)
Well, he didn't eat for days last week while he was sick.
Quote from: katdillon on August 29, 2005, 01:39 PM NHFT
Well, he didn't eat for days last week while he was sick.
Ack! Are you okay, Russell? :-\ What happened?
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 01:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on August 29, 2005, 07:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 12:34 AM NHFTCivil disobedience, fasting, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, truth, and celibacy are fairly new concepts to me, but that's who I am now.
I have one problem with this list
Fasting? Or celibacy? ;)
I'm reminded of the parallel Heinlein drew between hunger strikes and temper tantrums.
The celibacy issue is just another extension of that -cutting off the nose to spite the face as far as I'm concerned...
d'oh!
I'm down with the Civil disobedience, noncooperation, living simply, forgiveness, and absolute truth.
He got the flu and it kicked in his athsma...he was a mess. We all wound up getting the flu.
Quote from: katdillon on August 29, 2005, 01:50 PM NHFT
He got the flu and it kicked in his athsma...he was a mess.? We all wound up getting the flu.
That's terrible! Dave sounded okay this morning. How about you?
Quote from: polyanarch on August 29, 2005, 01:48 PM NHFT
I'm reminded of the parallel Heinlein drew between hunger strikes and temper tantrums.
The celibacy issue is just another extension of that -cutting off the nose to spite the face as far as I'm concerned...
Fasting can easily be seen as a hunger strike if done incorrectly. It is meant to atone for mistakes, calm distress, reform those you love, or purify yourself to regain focus. Celibacy is a very personal decision for the purpose of self-control and conserving the strength of my will.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 27, 2005, 05:10 PM NHFT
What do you think is the best act of civil disobedience a person could do in New Hampshire?
Violate building permits!
I was just reading this weekend an article about a guy who wanted to build a tool shed in his yard but his town regulations against sheds and limited the sizes etc. So to get around the law he built the shed he wanted next to a stream going through is property and put a working water wheel and mill inside the shed so it technically was a mill and not a shed which the town did allow. Personally I think the working water wheel was WAY cool but you shouldn?t have to take such measures just to build some place to store your tools.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 03:26 PM NHFT
Fasting can easily be seen as a hunger strike if done incorrectly. It is meant to atone for mistakes, calm distress, reform those you love, or purify yourself to regain focus. Celibacy is a very personal decision for the purpose of self-control and conserving the strength of my will.
If you are fasting for your own sake, cleansing or whatever then that is one thing. The same goes for celibacy. I couldn't do it. I like to breathe, eat, drink and the other vital functions necessary to my physical and emotional health.
To each their own.
Doing it to impress a change in other's behavior is just plain silly in my opinion.
Quote from: polyanarch on August 29, 2005, 03:45 PM NHFT
If you are fasting for your own sake, cleansing or whatever then that is one thing.? The same goes for celibacy.? I couldn't do it.? I like to breathe, eat, drink and the other vital functions necessary to my physical and emotional health.?
To each their own.
Doing it to impress a change in other's behavior is just plain silly in my opinion.
Please allow me to refer you to a specific movie... ;)
Gandhi got lucky.
In that specific instance, in that specific time. He was a British Citizen. There was a million other ways things could have gone -and much worse. An exception to prove the rule not a rule in and of itself.
Good movie though.
So was Red Dawn.
Quote from: lildog on August 29, 2005, 03:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 27, 2005, 05:10 PM NHFT
What do you think is the best act of civil disobedience a person could do in New Hampshire?
Violate building permits!
so if your shed is small it is no good .... but if your wheelhouse is small then Otay ;D
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 03:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on August 29, 2005, 01:50 PM NHFT
He got the flu and it kicked in his athsma...he was a mess. We all wound up getting the flu.
That's terrible! Dave sounded okay this morning. How about you?
Dave said he didn't get it so far. He was really sweet and tried to take care of us when we were all sick.
Being sick sucks.
It is weird that everyone I know online has been sick lately -from all around the nation. There is something sinister going around.
I figured it was a government conspiracy. Even the cat was sick.
Government-released retro-virus inoculations to combat weaponized terrorist munitions.
Or maybe it is just some bad stuff going around.
Sometimes snot is just snot.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 29, 2005, 03:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: polyanarch on August 29, 2005, 01:48 PM NHFT
I'm reminded of the parallel Heinlein drew between hunger strikes and temper tantrums.
The celibacy issue is just another extension of that -cutting off the nose to spite the face as far as I'm concerned...
Fasting can easily be seen as a hunger strike if done incorrectly. It is meant to atone for mistakes, calm distress, reform those you love, or purify yourself to regain focus. Celibacy is a very personal decision for the purpose of self-control and conserving the strength of my will.
Fasting can actually be quite healthy, from a medical standpoint, if done correctly -- If you have the proper frame of mind. After three days, you actually don't notice that you're hungery anymore. A person can go for 30 days or more w/o food, and it helps to cleanse the toxins and stuff out of your body. I know people you fast out of purely self interested health reasons. They feel better afterwords. And w/o all those excito-toxins, chemicals, heavy medals, etc running around in their blood-stream they tend to think more clearly as well.
You have to make sure you drink lots of water though. Other-wise, you'll just make yourself sick.- You might make yourself sick anyway, if you're not of sound body and mind when you take it up.
I have fasted a few different times in my life, just to help sort my own life out and it was very rewarding and benificial. It's easier to think about important things that matter, if you're not worried about the normal day-to-day grind.
Of course, that was before I developed a vagus nerve disorder. I can't do it anymore.
But to call fasting silly, is a bit naive. To each his own. If Mike actually derives benifit from the excercise, then he's not cutting off his nose to spite his face. He's acting in his own self interest.
Celabacy on the other hand, well, as a Christians I believe people should be celebate untill marriage. But after you're married, it's actually wrong to NOT have sex with your spouce when your partner wants it. I'm not going to take a vow of celebacy -- even for a short time -- because that would mean breaking a greator vow that I made when I married.
As my brother puts it. "It's just as wrong to have sex before marriage as it is to not have sex with your spouse after marriage."
Tracy
<<I will be in Boston at MassCann Hempfest on September 17, with my 9 foot joint.>>
Is there a way to paint a URL on that thing?
Quote from: tracysaboe on August 29, 2005, 10:41 PM NHFT
But to call fasting silly, is a bit naive. To each his own. If Mike actually derives benifit from the excercise, then he's not cutting off his nose to spite his face. He's acting in his own self interest.
Fasting is often a method of self-suffering with no self-interest at all, purely for the benefit of others.
Quote from: tracysaboe on August 29, 2005, 10:41 PM NHFT
Celabacy on the other hand, well, as a Christians I believe people should be celebate untill marriage. But after you're married, it's actually wrong to NOT have sex with your spouce when your partner wants it. I'm not going to take a vow of celebacy -- even for a short time -- because that would mean breaking a greator vow that I made when I married.
As my brother puts it. "It's just as wrong to have sex before marriage as it is to not have sex with your spouse after marriage."
Not if your spouse voluntarily joins you in celibacy as well, as my wife has done. As a Christian, you probably believe that Jesus was celibate, so it's obviously not all bad. ;)
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on August 30, 2005, 10:40 AM NHFT
Fasting is often a method of self-suffering with no self-interest at all, purely for the benefit of others.
IF, your goal is self suffering, then in a more general sense, it is your self interest that makes you want to suffer. By the same token, when I give to charity I do it out of my own self interest of wanting that money to do the good the charity does.
Anyway, enough with semantics.
Quote
Not if your spouse voluntarily joins you in celibacy as well, as my wife has done.
I suppose, but them am I to refuse her if she's week and wants to break her vow? Which promise do I keep. Do I play tough love and say no? I honestly don't believe such a pact would be a healthy thing for a marriage. But, to each his own.
Quote
As a Christian, you probably believe that Jesus was celibate, so it's obviously not all bad. ;)
Yes. And Paul was as well. One of the gifts of the spirit is celibacy. Paul talks about those people who are capible of not casting a "way-ward eye." Those people don't get married though.
Tracy
Quote
Abstinance makes the Church grow Fondlers...
I have a deep-seated suspicion of anyone who supposedly rejects the needs of the body/spirit. Sometimes they are speaking out of one side of their mouth and picking your pocket with the other.
Anyone who truely is forsaking the needs of the body/spirit for their own good and enlightenment and gets some sort of enjoyment out of this...well, it's a free world and that is their choice but it creeps me out
I'm not into BDSM myself but that is a personal choice. Self-deprivation seems like a form of masochism to me. Whatever gets you off. I've met a few vegans who are into the self-pain of depriving themselves. If that is what it takes to make them happy then more power to them. I enjoy food too much for that. I'm a happy omnivore. I'll eat anything that can't eat me first. Or at least give it a try once.
But I'm too selfish I guess. I like my comforts. We only live once in my universe. Your mileage may vary.
Quote from: polyanarch on August 31, 2005, 10:31 AM NHFT
I have a deep-seated suspicion of anyone who supposedly rejects the needs of the body/spirit. Sometimes they are speaking out of one side of their mouth and picking your pocket with the other.
Reminds me of a chapter from The Education of Little Tree called "Trading with a Christian" :)
Quote from: katdillon on August 31, 2005, 11:04 AM NHFT
Reminds me of a chapter from The Education of Little Tree called "Trading with a Christian" :)
I have been very much influenced by "old Bob"
"I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him."
"Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent."
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, withou a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
"Always yield to temptation, It may never pass your way again."
"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them, to make a choice- if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' -- you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices...."
Robert Anson HeinleinYeah, he's had an effect on me.
Quote from: polyanarch on August 31, 2005, 10:31 AM NHFT
Self-deprivation seems like a form of masochism to me. Whatever gets you off.
Can you get off on abstinance? ;D
Quote from: KBCraig on August 31, 2005, 11:42 AM NHFT
Can you get off on abstinance? ;D
*bow*
Not
THAT is funny!
Let's see........... Yet ANOTHER post gone way off topic, accomplishing nothing!
How refreshing! ::)
JM
It's hard to plan civil disobedience for next year when we don't know what's going to become illegal yet! :o
We KNOW private property is at the whims of government now, thanks to the quinque tyrannis*.
And we know that we have 95%+ support for our fight against it.
If we don't do something related to that, we're wasting THE issue of the year.
Now what to do about it? That is the question.........
JM
* Five tyrants.
Quote from: jgmaynard on August 31, 2005, 09:32 PM NHFT
We KNOW private property is at the whims of government now, thanks to the quinque tyrannis*.
I've been called a kinky tyrant. ;D
Mike's! And the reasons should be obvious.
(I will withhold coments as to celibacy, abstinence, and other tempting topics for now.)
Quote from: KBCraig on August 31, 2005, 11:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: polyanarch on August 31, 2005, 10:31 AM NHFT
Self-deprivation seems like a form of masochism to me.? Whatever gets you off.
Can you get off on abstinance?? ;D
Nope. Not the type of abstinance I've got.
....so take back the weed and take back the cocaine baby...take back the beer and take back the wisky to... all along your love was all I was after.. and right now baby I could get off on you....
STILL NOTHING getting done or planned...........
You folks are doing EXACTLYwhat the big-government forces want........... NOTHING!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JM
Is this the Jim Maynard who showed up at Kat's Proprty tax Protest only because he bumped into me in front of Lindy's and reminded him about it?
Hey don't criticize Jim, the man who's done so many acts of civil disobedience.
Hey, I think that stuff is great........ Arguing and pontificating over useless subjects like fasting is not getting anything done.... When was the last time we did anything newsworthy? Arguing about trivalities is exactly what they want.....
Here's an idea:
We could have an "illegal business day" where people do things without a license....... Geology, manicuring, whatever.
Now...... What are the chances people will comment on that idea, or suggest new ones? Or will it all go back to a discussion of something else? Or maybe someone will be opposed to the idea and then we can spend a month talking about how the rights of the grass are being trampled on......... ::)
I'm sorry if I sound pissed, but I am. It's like this great opportunity to keep one state free is spinning its wheels over slight philosophical differences and no one being able to stay on track.
And Lloyd, Kat, I have run for office twice, we all have our ways of making a difference......
JM
:-*
LOL......... Sorry, what I should have said above was that just disccssing trivial things and getting off-topic was what was not accomplishing anything. You folks have been great.
I'll also make you folks a deal, but I'm putting it on another thread, because it's off-topic :) lol
JM
Obviously my opinion on what you all are doing (or not doing), is not worth much. However as an "outsider", I was quite disappointed to have Dada Orwell not be able to answer my recent inquiry (on the air) about what Liberty oriented things were going on in NH. We passed it off as summertime slowdown, but it still was a bummer to hear. :-\ You guys had some momentum going for a few months there...
Take that however you want, as I am not there personally to make a difference. I hope this is not percieved as a complaint. It's not. I still think you guys are doing more than any Liberty group around here, and I know your numbers are limited, but know that there are a LOT of people watching and wondering what's next.
In the arena of civil disobedience the goal is to put pressure so the oppressive regime either gives in or shows their tyrannical nature.
Right now the government is giving into us on a couple issues. They have still not thrown me in jail for blatantly not paying income taxes or reacted to our not paying school property taxes. I am just enjoying it right now. We could up the ante as we have the drive and nerve.
I have been focusing on school issues and taxes in general. Maybe we could rev up an anti-war tax resistance movement.......see how they react to people refusing to pay fed taxes because they use the money for war.
The government doesn't seem to like the LSF much .... maybe we can keep ramping up the action and see if they try to shut down our pro-liberty action.
They have not given in on the licensing issue yet .... Mike seems encouraged by the reaction that a rep has had.....so I guess we could wait and see or do something more to show how silly and rotten those rules are.
It strikes me that the gubmint is stretched thin these days. Doing something that shows their basic incompetence would be good, I would think. But what? I haven't come up with anything. If it could dramatize the idea of don't do what the gov tells you to do, your life may be in danger if yo do. Tie it in with what has happened in NO to those who followed gov orders.
Quote from: AlanM on September 04, 2005, 07:21 AM NHFTDoing something that shows their basic incompetence would be good, I would think. But what?
whip up a storm?
Maybe a protest against gov schools? Emphasize how they teach kids to do what the gov tells them to do, instead of using their own initiative.
Don't accept dollars as payment for your services. It's the paper machine that powers the system. (Sadly, I don't know how you'd be able to pay taxes either if the transactions weren't in dollars :( ;)) "Barter" using silver coins, instead of dollars.
Quote from: SteveA on September 04, 2005, 07:35 AM NHFT
Don't accept dollars as payment for your services.? It's the paper machine that powers the system.? (Sadly, I don't know how you'd be able to pay taxes either if the transactions weren't in dollars :( ;))? "Barter" using silver coins, instead of dollars.
The book
Transfer by Gerald "Jerry" Furland visited this idea. A transition to a cashless society where monetary transactions were by implanted chips. Those who did not accept the chip could not pay their taxes so lost there property.
The schools are starting up again this year. ?You could start informational pickets in front of the schools explaining the deficincies and dangers of government schools.
Quote from: russellkanning on September 04, 2005, 07:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on September 04, 2005, 07:21 AM NHFTDoing something that shows their basic incompetence would be good, I would think. But what?
whip up a storm?
Bumper sticker thought:
Shut Up!
THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST
Don't Question Anything
Don't Question
The Government
US out of
North America!
[/b]
Government Always Protects Us
Just Ask The Folks In _______
Fill in The Blank!
It's something we used to say on the old "Smith 2004-for president yahoo group"
Hmm.. I was just listening to one of my archives, where we mentioned that NHFree was planning a public social security card burning this summer. What happened to that one?
that would be fun 8)
Seems like an easy, poweful disobedience that several people could participate in.
I say we hold a public diploma burning / learning event to prove that knowledge is as free as the air. Burn high school diplomas and read out of books of vast knowledge, wisdom, and art at the same time. Books to read could be Newton, Einstein, Thoreau, Twain, Shakespeare, Plato, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus, the Bible, Kant, Aristotle, Planck, Descartes, Maynard's new book, Thomas Paine, Kepler, Pythagoras, Jefferson, Spooner, Mises, etc.
Real knowledge is free. As free as the air we breathe, the sunlight that shines, the rain that falls, and the dirt beneath our feet. Anyone can learn. ANYONE!
Government "diplomas" are only another method of control. Knowledge is not a mass-manufactured product to be rationed to foolish, ignorant people. Genius is as common as water, but it is crushed out of us under the weight of those forced learning concentration camps they call schools.
But rather than destroying government diplomas with fire, let's destroy them with water somehow. ;)
Destroy *something*! We need more stuff to talk about from NH besides this doctor being sued!
How about a protest related to forced institutionalization?
One Hundred ADAPT Activists Arrested at the White House
http://www.freeourpeople.org/aar/wdc03/rpt2a.htm
OK then, since it appears that action and activity are lacking, and since there is no consensus right now regarding a civil disobedience path:
here is what I suggest we do this month that is simple and doable and will at least give us...something to do!
A protest on September19th in front of Hampton Town Hall at 6:30 P... to remind local officials that we have not forgotten Myrtle Woodward and the town's continued persecution fo her family for the crime of having a sink in a rec room.
Their town meeting should start a half hour later that evening so even if no media shows, the town leaders and local drivers will see us.
Their hearing comes up a couple weeks later (supposedly - the city keeps asking to have the date pushed back) but why wait?
In the absence of objections I will put this on the calendar.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 05, 2005, 03:32 AM NHFT
How about a protest related to forced institutionalization?
One Hundred ADAPT Activists Arrested at the White House
http://www.freeourpeople.org/aar/wdc03/rpt2a.htm
How about consetrating on New Hampshire.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 05, 2005, 03:32 AM NHFT
How about a protest related to forced institutionalization?
One Hundred ADAPT Activists Arrested at the White House
http://www.freeourpeople.org/aar/wdc03/rpt2a.htm
I haven't read everything about it but you should read the Medicaid proposals that HHS Commissioner John Stephen has been trying to institute since being appointed by Craig Benson. See what he is proposing on keeping people at home.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on September 05, 2005, 06:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 05, 2005, 03:32 AM NHFT
How about a protest related to forced institutionalization?
One Hundred ADAPT Activists Arrested at the White House
http://www.freeourpeople.org/aar/wdc03/rpt2a.htm
How about consetrating on New Hampshire.
Is forced institutionalization a practice of the government, or of private corporations? I assume it's the government's doing. If so, is it the fed or states doing it? If not, we can still protest against the evil corporations of forced institutionalization.
Forced institutionalization includes government schools in my eyes. ;)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2005, 10:07 PM NHFT
Obviously my opinion on what you all are doing (or not doing), is not worth much.? However as an "outsider", I was quite disappointed to have Dada Orwell not be able to answer my recent inquiry (on the air) about what Liberty oriented things were going on in NH.? We passed it off as summertime slowdown, but it still was a bummer to hear.? ?:-\? You guys had some momentum going for a few months there...
Take that however you want, as I am not there personally to make a difference.? I hope this is not percieved as a complaint.? It's not.? I still think you guys are doing more than any Liberty group around here, and I know your numbers are limited, but know that there are a LOT of people watching and wondering what's next.
We have been doing a lot this year! We can only do a few civil disobedience events per year unless we want to be constantly imprisoned. :-\
This summer and fall, we've been practicing some very exciting strategies, such as directly protesting against and informing people about government schools and the alternatives, helping defend people from government tyrants, flash protests, expanded volunteerism such as adopt a highway projects, several anti-eminent domain protests, an anti-war protest, PorcFest outreach, and one of our forum members even moved into a home at the center of the Kelo decision.
Some of these strategies are successful at varying degrees, and media coverage has been completely random. We've had some failures, such as Gard's show being replaced by neocon jingoist garbage, Salty's loss in court, and several protests with no media coverage.
Now, several of us are heading out to New Orleans in a few days or weeks to volunteer for the hurricane and flood relief effort after Jim inspired me to go (I subsequently inspired my Mom to go, a prior Red Cross worker, but I don't know if she will). This will take a while. :o Others are offering their homes to the victims, at their own risk.
That's a lot of stuff! :o
I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I just want you to know what our perception was. Dave is calling in weekly again, which is good, cause he was absent for several weeks.
Surely there are newsworthy civil disobedience ideas that don't have a high risk of arrest, like the public burning of SS cards...
I can't be in Hampton on the 19th, but locals will continue to be reminded that something ROTTEN is happening in THEIR name. I'll do another FLASH soon.
YOU may not here about it: I'm just "taking it to the street."
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 06, 2005, 08:04 PM NHFT
I'm not trying to rain on your parade.? I just want you to know what our perception was.? Dave is calling in weekly again, which is good, cause he was absent for several weeks.?
Surely there are newsworthy civil disobedience ideas that don't have a high risk of arrest, like the public burning of SS cards...
But arrest is the whole point!!! :)
Quote from: John on September 06, 2005, 11:58 PM NHFT
I can't be in Hampton on the 19th, but locals will continue to be reminded that something ROTTEN is happening in THEIR name.? I'll do another FLASH soon.
YOU may not here about it: I'm just "taking it to the street."
Thank you, John. I always appreciate hearing about your activism. I need to get some stuff back to you when we meet again!
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 07, 2005, 12:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 06, 2005, 08:04 PM NHFT
I'm not trying to rain on your parade.? I just want you to know what our perception was.? Dave is calling in weekly again, which is good, cause he was absent for several weeks.?
Surely there are newsworthy civil disobedience ideas that don't have a high risk of arrest, like the public burning of SS cards...
But arrest is the whole point!!!? ?:)
No it isn't. Getting the word out is.
I have never been arrested for any of my activism.
I sometimes like to take a different (sometimes-more-subtle) aproach. People (these days) underestimate subtlety.
Some of us are building at ground-level and plan on staying at groung-level for the forseeable future.
Some of us must!
Not all of us will make it to the papers and TV, nor to Concord.
We don't have to.
Some of us aim to make Freedom as WIDE as it is Deep.
Not big on the sports talk here, but, You go deep . . . I'll go wide. We/Liberty will win!
Most of what we do is immeasurable. I would prefer that Liberty wins.
Dude, YOU GO DEEP! I'm going wide.
I can practically picture being in a football huddle with John ;D
civil disobedience has different levels ..... we have been going low-key and making friends ..... part of the fun of that is that others can join you and not risk jail ;)
we will do some bigger things when something comes up ...... I could go for a good sscard burn
I think its High Time that Mike and Russell got arrested again! ;D
John,
Regarding a planned event of civil disobedience, publicity is the goal. We've only carried out 3 acts of civil disobedience that I'm aware of, and 2 resulted in arrest.
But when it comes to any other type of activism, I agree that arrest is not the goal. ;)
While an arrest can bring extra publicity, not being arrested when blatantly violating some "law" is a major win, especially if the fact that you weren't arrested is reported in the media. That's essentially rubbing the state's face in the mud.
yea .... I would have preferred to not go to jail .... that would have been great 8)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 27, 2005, 05:10 PM NHFT
What do you think is the best act of civil disobedience a person could do in New Hampshire?
Bump
anyone got any new ideas on this ?
my fave so far is the idea of serving of alchohol to an iraq war vet under 21
what are some others?
Not getting a Real ID.
Showing a cop your FreeStateID (tentative) when he asks for ID/license. It will be supplied on completion of a drivers test equal to the one administered today, and police will be able to add points to it by giving a unique departmental code and the license number. It will be available to NH resident US citizens, with a birth certificate as the only "paper" required to get one. No electronic data stored at all, they can call in or electronically submit points on the license. You can already check for warrants/criminal history with a name and DOB, no system for that necessary.
If they don't like it, they can kiss our asses. I think it's doable.
Quote from: aries on May 04, 2006, 06:35 PM NHFT
It will be available to NH resident US citizens, with a birth certificate as the only "paper" required to get one.
Why would you need a birth certificate to get one?
All a driver's license is for is to prove that you are capable of driving, right?
How about just putting a fingerprint (or some other "foolproof" bio-metric) on it that can be compared to an actual finger as proof that the bearer is the one that passed the driving test?
Your insurance company should be the one to issue you a certificate of drving skills. They have the financial liability if you cannot drive properly.
They should also be the party that requires a safety inspection of your vehicle. They should certify garages for these inspections.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 04, 2006, 07:08 PM NHFT
Your insurance company should be the one to issue you a certificate of drving skills. They have the financial liability if you cannot drive properly.
They should also be the party that requires a safety inspection of your vehicle. They should certify garages for these inspections.
Nothing wrong with a third party liscencing body. Then the insurance company can decide if that liscencing body meets their specifications, rather than each any every insurance company reinventing the wheel.
Quote from: Ron Helwig on May 04, 2006, 07:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: aries on May 04, 2006, 06:35 PM NHFT
It will be available to NH resident US citizens, with a birth certificate as the only "paper" required to get one.
Why would you need a birth certificate to get one?
All a driver's license is for is to prove that you are capable of driving, right?
How about just putting a fingerprint (or some other "foolproof" bio-metric) on it that can be compared to an actual finger as proof that the bearer is the one that passed the driving test?
To at least somewhat appease the statists and make it look more legit. Everyone has a birth certificate (well, almost).
The fingerprint idea is good too. It isn't so much a "hey look I can drive" card as a parallel, private ID card. The driving component would be optional, and only displayed as a flag on the card.
In that case what is the point of the ID? Can't I just say "Hi officer, I'm me."
Perhaps the card could exceed the standard for licensing in the state. State issued licenses would also be transferrable to this card.
We'd need at least a few full time employees if this got big enough, so we'd need a good way for it to turn a profit. Perhaps a somewhat quick renewal cycle and a decent rate to renew. If 1000 people renewed every year at $25 per year, that would generate $25,000. Enough for equipment and time, I suppose, but not enough for employees.
I can only imagine the ads taken out in the Union Leader - "New Hampshire state police remind citizens that the counterfeit ID "FreeStateID" is not a valid identification card, and should not be accepted by retailers of tobacco or alcoholic beverages, and will not be considered a valid license by the state police."
That of course, would come before we got a bill in the house to make it recognized.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on May 04, 2006, 07:36 PM NHFT
In that case what is the point of the ID? Can't I just say "Hi officer, I'm me."
Because big brother likes papers.
And we don't mind carrying state papers, as the current licensing system shows.
So we fork the system and create a private ID card. It doesn't have to be a driving license. I just like the idea of a privatized drivers license.
A private ID is the first goal, so you can do all that fancy age-restricted stuff without showing or obtaining a RealID.
A private DL is a ways off, I think.
Burning all your government paperwork in front of the appropriate agency. :)
I don't have a birth certificate, but I could make a copy in photoshop. >:D
The gov't has the only official copies of my citizenship papers, as mine disappeared along with a lot of my records when I had a moving co. pack and deliver my household goods. Some moving companies will pack everything in the house, including stuff that you tell them not to if you don't have a person watching each of them to make sure they do things right. The co that moved me even packed my trash and perishable foods when I wasn't looking.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3638 for discussion of a different kind of ID. Not quite CD until we implement a driving test component.
Defender - you should be able to have a copy of your birth certificate mailed to you by contacting the hospital or place where you were born.
Quote from: aries on May 04, 2006, 06:35 PM NHFT
Not getting a Real ID.
It will be available to NH resident US citizens, with a birth certificate as the only "paper" required to get one.
What about us sworn Nationals of the USA? Tunga knows the definition of US citizen is derived from a constitutional ammendment that was never properly ratified. Tunga would be purjuring hisself if he were to admit to being a lowly "US citizen".
A National of the USA is one of the People mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. A "US citizen" is a government slave. Please note that whenever the word citizen is used in the Constitution (pre - 14th amendment) it is always capitalized. Not so with todays uniformed citizens. Who continue to subjugate themselves without understanding how.
Creating a different ID and taking driving tests is not my idea of civil disobedience.
Quote from: aries on May 05, 2006, 05:55 AM NHFT
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3638 for discussion of a different kind of ID. Not quite CD until we implement a driving test component.
Defender - you should be able to have a copy of your birth certificate mailed to you by contacting the hospital or place where you were born.
Some counties/parishes in Katrina/Rita ravaged Gulf Coast communities womn't be able to. Many places around the country are similar due to natural/other causes.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 05, 2006, 07:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on May 05, 2006, 05:55 AM NHFT
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3638 for discussion of a different kind of ID. Not quite CD until we implement a driving test component.
Defender - you should be able to have a copy of your birth certificate mailed to you by contacting the hospital or place where you were born.
Some counties/parishes in Katrina/Rita ravaged Gulf Coast communities womn't be able to. Many places around the country are similar due to natural/other causes.
Not an ideal solution. But birth certificates get filed with the county and with the state, at least here in NJ. NJMVC (DMV) no longer accepts hospital birth certificates (since they're not "secure" enough) so I had to get a certified copy from the Division of Health and Human Services. I'd hazard a guess to say that would be the case (copies available with the state, not that the state won't accept non-state copies) in most states.
Quote from: Tunga on May 05, 2006, 07:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: aries on May 04, 2006, 06:35 PM NHFT
Not getting a Real ID.
It will be available to NH resident US citizens, with a birth certificate as the only "paper" required to get one.
What about us sworn Nationals of the USA? Tunga knows the definition of US citizen is derived from a constitutional ammendment that was never properly ratified. Tunga would be purjuring hisself if he were to admit to being a lowly "US citizen".
A National of the USA is one of the People mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. A "US citizen" is a government slave. Please note that whenever the word citizen is used in the Constitution (pre - 14th amendment) it is always capitalized. Not so with todays uniformed citizens. Who continue to subjugate themselves without understanding how.
If your birth certificate is from a US hospital, then you get it.
I am thinking it isn't that important for US citizens, it's just that I dont know how to verify foreign birth certificates..
Birth certificates are not from hospitals; they are from state vital statistics offices. The hospitals just fill in the information and let the state know.
Many if not all of our generation, Pat, and older ones were not given state issued birth certificates at birth. The hospital issued them and informed the state. It was only down the line that we went back and requested state verifiication as state by state and department by department changed their policies on acceptable proof of identity. For me, the hospital issued one was adequate for 2 different state DMVs and for passport application and renewal and any number of other official government purposes. I finally hit the wall here in NH and had to shell out about $25 bucks to the state of TX for a verification document that is not a birth certificate.
Cathleen
OK. I knew there was a time; just thought it was longer ago.
I remember reading when folks went abroad in earlier times they took letters of introduction and letters of credit with them.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 05, 2006, 06:47 PM NHFT
OK. I knew there was a time; just thought it was longer ago.
I remember reading when folks went abroad in earlier times they took letters of introduction and letters of credit with them.
Now you are dating yourself, Pat. ;D
Quote from: aries on May 05, 2006, 05:55 AM NHFT
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3638 for discussion of a different kind of ID. Not quite CD until we implement a driving test component.
Defender - you should be able to have a copy of your birth certificate mailed to you by contacting the hospital or place where you were born.
I was born overseas to American parents, so this is not quite that easy. I can get a certificate of birth abroad of an American citizen from the US State Department, but I will have to gather a bunch of information, including certified documents, and fill out a bunch of paperwork (I hate filling out paperwork), and I will have to send them a fat check. I'm going to get it, probably this summer, but I've been too busy to find the time.
Acquire some barrels of industrial hemp seeds.Distribute them to people and plant them all over N.H...They cant arrest everyone.At least I dont think they can. :)
Ah another RUSH fan... 8)
Quote from: traveler on May 05, 2006, 10:30 PM NHFT
Acquire some barrels of industrial hemp seeds.Distribute them to people and plant them all over N.H...They cant arrest everyone.At least I dont think they can. :)
Plant them on government owned property. >:D Some courthouses have hanging plants. It probably wouldn't be too hard to drop a seed or 2 into the pots. >:D I don't know how one would get industrial hemp seeds though.
Take your barrels of industrial hemp seeds and place them in strategic hidden areas where wild birds will be your hemp amassadors. Sure some of them will not survive the birds, but the rest will be deposited all over NH and surrounding areas with sufficient fertilizer to start growing well. It has the added bonus of limiting the risk to the one time you dump the seeds. They can't arrest the birds for crapping all over the place. >:-)
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on May 05, 2006, 10:42 PM NHFT
I don't know how one would get industrial hemp seeds though.
The non-industrial variety aren't too hard to come by... ;D
Kay, this is Tungas Idea for a gadget that could fuck things up but good.
What if somebody cloned a bunch of RFID tags for all kinds of products then put them into portable concealable broadcast unit. When you passed by a pinger your fake tags would announce themselves as ready to buy. Imagine store security wanting to search U for the 5000 CDs you had hidden under your coat. :D
Maybe it could be powerfull enough to broadcast to sleazy pass. Then by cloning a bunch of other cars, each time through the toll could be charged on somebody elses chip. >:D :icon_pirat:
Quote from: traveler on May 05, 2006, 10:30 PM NHFT
Acquire some barrels of industrial hemp seeds.Distribute them to people and plant them all over N.H...They cant arrest everyone.At least I dont think they can. :)
You know marijuana used to grow wild in every state? It's a very persistent weed.
Quote from: aries on May 06, 2006, 06:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: traveler on May 05, 2006, 10:30 PM NHFT
Acquire some barrels of industrial hemp seeds.Distribute them to people and plant them all over N.H...They cant arrest everyone.At least I dont think they can. :)
You know marijuana used to grow wild in every state? It's a very persistent weed.
I didn't know that. Is hemp also persistent?
USDA info on Cannabis sativa L.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CASA3
Just have all the pot smokers save their seeds and throw them in medians and infront of police stations. I believe this is called "Operation Overgrow".
No need to plant them. If you throw enough, they will grow! (It's called weed for a reason!)
Quote from: BaRbArIaN on May 05, 2006, 10:42 PM NHFT
Take your barrels of industrial hemp seeds and place them in strategic hidden areas where wild birds will be your hemp amassadors. Sure some of them will not survive the birds, but the rest will be deposited all over NH and surrounding areas with sufficient fertilizer to start growing well. It has the added bonus of limiting the risk to the one time you dump the seeds. They can't arrest the birds for crapping all over the place. >:-)
DUDE, that's sweet!
Drop seads ALL OVER government property.
Yeah!
It's not vandalism. I have partial ownership. After all, it's public property, and I help finance it.
Tracy
Quote from: aries on May 06, 2006, 06:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: traveler on May 05, 2006, 10:30 PM NHFT
Acquire some barrels of industrial hemp seeds.Distribute them to people and plant them all over N.H...They cant arrest everyone.At least I dont think they can. :)
You know marijuana used to grow wild in every state? It's a very persistent weed.
See, that's why it's called. . . Hum . .. WEED! :)
So some little old lady is found to have hemp growing in her backyard, and the thugs throw her in prison. This idea will feel good then? How about using willing volunteers for the civil disobedience.
See, that's why I like the idea of throwing it on government property.
The way government's take care of public property around here there's plenty of time for the weeds to take root. The government properties around here have all sorts of "noxious" weeds growing on them, that I'd be fined for if I had them on my private property.
Tracy
Quote from: katdillon on May 09, 2006, 04:25 AM NHFT
So some little old lady is found to have hemp growing in her backyard, and the thugs throw her in prison. This idea will feel good then? How about using willing volunteers for the civil disobedience.
I do not understand why so many people seem to believe that civil disobedience means to break the law in irresponsible ways, then to run and hide from the truth.
It's not our fault--none of us run away from our acts of voluntary self-suffering.
Imagine if Gandhi made salt, or Jesus taught the Gospel, and they ran away from the authorities. :P
Perhaps we need to educate our activists on what makes a successful act of nonviolent noncooperation.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on May 09, 2006, 07:38 AM NHFT
Perhaps we need to educate our activists on what makes a successful act of nonviolent noncooperation.
You've done a good job in the past in educating that, right here on the forums.
:)
Quote from: katdillon on May 09, 2006, 04:25 AM NHFT
So some little old lady is found to have hemp growing in her backyard, and the thugs throw her in prison. This idea will feel good then? How about using willing volunteers for the civil disobedience.
Did someone advocate throwing them on private property?
Though, since you mention it, having little old ladies knowingly growing weed publicly would make for some great CD...
Quote from: BaRbArIaN on May 05, 2006, 10:42 PM NHFT
Take your barrels of industrial hemp seeds and place them in strategic hidden areas where wild birds will be your hemp amassadors. Sure some of them will not survive the birds, but the rest will be deposited all over NH and surrounding areas with sufficient fertilizer to start growing well. It has the added bonus of limiting the risk to the one time you dump the seeds. They can't arrest the birds for crapping all over the place. >:-)
This would be happening on private as well as public property.
Chances are no one would notice it. Maybe only the people who throw them, and only because they look for it.
It if is on a lawn that gets mowed, they will never be noticed before they get killed.
If it is in a spot that does not get moed, they will probably not be able to compete with the other plants already established. They will probably only grow a few inches tall.
The only time I have seen this work is when the seeds are put in a planter that has flowers in it, so they get watered with the flowers. This seems to be where they do best. They do have wild flower areas on hiway medians that don't get mowed....maybe they would do good there.
Anyway, it isn't as easy as throwing some seeds on the ground.......
If you buy industial hemp seed, they are sterilized......
They sell hemp seed as bird food at almost all pet stores. They digest them.
Yeah, that's why I say go with the real thing. Forget industrial hemp seeds. I used to throw my seeds in the backyard at a house I used to rent. Sure enough, they started springing up. They got to about a foot before I mowed em down. (Neighbors were a fireman who was a former weed dealer, and on the other side a guy who was growing a potted weed plant in his backyard.)
Someone planted a weed plant in bushes in front of the city-governments house in Malmo about a year back. It was there for months before it came to someons attention and they took it down ;D I guess the pot-smokers thought it was funny and didn't say anything, and other people didn't know what it was.
By the way while it is true that weed can grow anywhere, thc doesn't neccesarily develope. I'm far from an expert, but I've read stories of people here in Sweden trying to grow weed outside, and while the plant has grown, it hasn't bloomed.
The plants bloom when they get more than around 12 hours of dark, but that also depends on the strain.
The NH growing season is short, so if you are growing outdoors, you need a strain that starts to bloom early, and ripens quickly.....
steveA wrote:
<<Don't accept dollars as payment for your services. It's the paper machine that powers the system. (Sadly, I don't know how you'd be able to pay taxes either if the transactions weren't in dollars ) "Barter" using silver coins, instead of dollars.>>
Does anyone know if it is illegal and prosecutable to refuse acceptance of fed dollars? If so, maybe running a business on a sidewalk in front of a fed building, and refusing to take fed money, could successfully trigger a response. Your thoughts?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 29, 2006, 07:20 AM NHFT
steveA wrote:
<<Don't accept dollars as payment for your services. It's the paper machine that powers the system. (Sadly, I don't know how you'd be able to pay taxes either if the transactions weren't in dollars ) "Barter" using silver coins, instead of dollars.>>
Does anyone know if it is illegal and prosecutable to refuse acceptance of fed dollars? If so, maybe running a business on a sidewalk in front of a fed building, and refusing to take fed money, could successfully trigger a response. Your thoughts?
Legal tender is required to be accepted for
debts, but isn't required for other transactions.
You can specify any payment you want for sales transactions. An example is that you can refuse a $50 FRN for a $2 purchase.
If all purchases were required to accept legal tender, vending machines would have to accept $100 FRNs. >:D
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 29, 2006, 07:20 AM NHFT
steveA wrote:
<<Don't accept dollars as payment for your services. It's the paper machine that powers the system. (Sadly, I don't know how you'd be able to pay taxes either if the transactions weren't in dollars ) "Barter" using silver coins, instead of dollars.>>
Does anyone know if it is illegal and prosecutable to refuse acceptance of fed dollars? If so, maybe running a business on a sidewalk in front of a fed building, and refusing to take fed money, could successfully trigger a response. Your thoughts?
My friend Rick Celata accepts gold and silver for purchases at his web site http:www.ktordnance.com (http://www.ktordnance.com). I'm going to try to start a firearms parts business within the next year. I think I will accept gold and silver as payment, as well as possible trades. For instance, I might exchange a "made in NH" ak47 reciever for 5 oz. of silver or a case of Rocketman's sweet honey beer or something else that I want or need.
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 10, 2006, 12:04 PM NHFT
Someone planted a weed plant in bushes in front of the city-governments house in Malmo about a year back. It was there for months before it came to someons attention and they took it down ;D I guess the pot-smokers thought it was funny and didn't say anything, and other people didn't know what it was.
By the way while it is true that weed can grow anywhere, thc doesn't neccesarily develope. I'm far from an expert, but I've read stories of people here in Sweden trying to grow weed outside, and while the plant has grown, it hasn't bloomed.
Is the THC in that lumpy thing on the top of the plant, but not other parts of the plant? I've seen some video on the internet of someone's growing operation, where they were showing how big the things on top were, but I've never seen a marijuana plant up close and personal. It would be funny if it were found to be growing on property owned by DEA agents.
I think that only government offices are required to accept them for all TRANSACTIONS. Although I think there is a statute somewhere which limits how much they must take in coins. (It would be funny for someone to try to pay car licensing fees in pennies! ;D
Quote from: calibaba77 on June 02, 2006, 07:22 PM NHFT
I think that only government offices are required to accept them for all TRANSACTIONS. Although I think there is a statute somewhere which limits how much they must take in coins. (It would be funny for someone to try to pay car licensing fees in pennies! ;D
I once tried to pay part of my college bill (private) in pennies and they wouldn't take it. So I went 2-3 times with just a few dollars. But it was more a waste of my time then theirs.
I thought their was a story recently of somebody paying their property tax bill in pennies? Wheelbarows full.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 02, 2006, 10:34 PM NHFT
I thought their was a story recently of somebody paying their property tax bill in pennies? Wheelbarows full.
Tracy
Could it be the story I told of the fellow in Portsmouth who owned a restaurant and almost lost it for back taxes? He used pennies, lots of wheelbarrows full.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 02, 2006, 06:30 PM NHFT
Is the THC in that lumpy thing on the top of the plant, but not other parts of the plant? I've seen some video on the internet of someone's growing operation, where they were showing how big the things on top were, but I've never seen a marijuana plant up close and personal. It would be funny if it were found to be growing on property owned by DEA agents.
THC is a chemical (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) that is througout the entire plant, but most concentrated in the "buds" (flowers). The buds are likely what you're referring to. This is the part of the plant that people smoke.
Here is a plant growing in the wild:
(http://www.visualsunlimited.com/images/watermarked/599/59928.jpg)
Here is a plant during the harvesting process. As you can see by comparing the two photos, the pot leaves have been trimmed off, as those are not desirable to smoke.
(http://www.marijuana.org/Pictures10-6-99/CliffordsPlant.JPG)
And now you know!
As an aside, THC is not the only chemical active in marijuana. There are several strains of pot, and new ones being bred all the time. They don't always look green, either:
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/uploads/1250601-Picture%20006.jpg)
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/uploads/1252166-548960729-crystal_buds%5B1%5D.jpg)
The more "crystals" (trichomes) the merrier. They are the true concentration of THC in any pot plant. Lower grade buds have no visible trichomes. The bud you see above has more trichomes than I've ever seen.
Crystals are what they appear to be, but upon closer inspection, trichomes actually look like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Trichome-close-up.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Sp3r500w.JPG)
They don't teach you this in DARE class!
Do the leaves have any uses that you know of? Are the seeds used for anything other than making oil or growing more plants? What part(s) are used for making fabric and rope? I ordered some hemp-peppermint soap today from The Herbal Patch in Dover. My mom uses it, and I've tried it. It's pretty good stuff. I guess they use oil from hemp seeds and peppermint oil to make the soap. I was wondering what people meant by crystals when they were talking about marijuana. I wonder if pot can be bred with other plants. Anyone remember the plants that had tomatoes on top and potatoes on the bottom? Can you imagine hemppotatoes or another hybrid that combines hemp with a vegetable?
Does someone have to actually break a law to do civil disobedience, or does doing something that is very close to being illegal without breaking the law count?
I'll defer to fisher on those other pot questions, or you can just google or wiki pot and hemp.
In regards to the CD question, it would seem that if your CD would perturb the authorities that eventually they would try to arrest you. They'd likely find something to charge you with, like "disorderly conduct". In which case, you are then breaking a law. ;)
Quote from: AlanM on June 02, 2006, 10:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 02, 2006, 10:34 PM NHFT
I thought their was a story recently of somebody paying their property tax bill in pennies? Wheelbarows full.
Tracy
Could it be the story I told of the fellow in Portsmouth who owned a restaurant and almost lost it for back taxes? He used pennies, lots of wheelbarrows full.
Probably
TS
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 03, 2006, 12:08 AM NHFT
I'll defer to fisher on those other pot questions....
Sweet!
I'll defer to Jack Herer.
I put his book online, you will need a username and password.
user: timmy
pass: forfreedom
"THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES (http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/00/PCH00_03.HTM#introduction)" - by Jack Herer
If you have issues, the readme is here:
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/README.HTM
for the directory listing:
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/DirListHTML.htm
Text versions of the chaperters:
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP1.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP2.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP3.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP4.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP5.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP6.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP7.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP8.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP9.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP10.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP11.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP12.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP13.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP14.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP15.TXT
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP16.TXT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 02, 2006, 11:41 PM NHFT
Do the leaves have any uses that you know of? Are the seeds used for anything other than making oil or growing more plants? What part(s) are used for making fabric and rope?
http://timcondon.info/420/EMP/TEXT/CHAPTERS/CHAP2.TXT
Quote
Chapter 2
Ships & Sailors
Textiles & Fabrics
Paper
Rope, Twine, & Cordage
Art Canvas
Paints & Varnish
Lighting Oil
Biomass Energy
Medicine
Food Protein
Building Materials & Housing
Smoking, Leisure, & Creativity
Economic Stability, Profitability, & Free Trade
Plant Diagram
The Challenge
Footnotes
When Hemp Saved Bush
Ship Rigging
The Greenhouse Effect and the Bureaucrat
G.W. Schlichten and the Decordicator
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as the deforestation of trees for paper, construction, and agriculture, were banned from use in order to save the planet and reverse the greenhouse effect:
Then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, textiles, and food; meet all the world's transportation, industrial, and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time?
And that substance is?the same one that did it all before:
Cannabis Hemp?Marijuana!
Ninety percent* of all ships' sails (since before the Phoenicians, from at least the 5th Century B.C.E. until long after the invention and commercialization of steam ships?mid- to late-19th Century) were made from hemp. (See picture.)
* The other 10% were usually flax or minor fibers like ramie, sisal, jute, abaca.
(Abel, Ernest, Marijuana: The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, 1980; Herodotus, Histories, 5th Century B.C.E.; Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, 1972; U.S. Agricultural Index, 1916-1982; USDA film, Hemp for Victory, 1942.)
The word "canvas"1 is the Dutch pronunciation (twice removed, from French and Latin) of the Greek word "Kannabis."*
* Kannabis?of the (Hellenized) Mediterranean Basin Greek language, derived from the Persian and earlier Northern Semitics (Quanuba, Kanabosm, Cana?, Kanah?) which scholars have now traced back to the new-found dawn of the 6,000-year-old, Indo-Semitic-European language family base of the Sumerians and Accadians. The early Sumerian/Babylonian word K(a)N(a)B(a), or Q(a)N(a)B(a) is one of humanity's longest surviving root words.1 (KN means cane and B means two?two reeds or two sexes.)
1. Oxford English Dictionary; Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th edition, 1910; U.S.D.A. film, Hemp for Victory, 1942.
In addition to the canvas sails, virtually all of the rigging, anchor ropes, cargo nets, fishing nets, flags, shrouds, and oakum (the main protection for ships against salt water, used as a sealant between loose or green beams) were made from the stalk of the marijuana plant.
Even the sailors' clothing, right down to the stitching in the seamen's rope-soled and (sometimes) "canvas" shoes were crafted from cannabis.*
* An average cargo, clipper, whaler, or naval ship of the line, in the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th Centuries carried 50 to 100 tons of cannabis hemp rigging, not to mention the sails, nets, etc., and needed it all replaced every year or two, due to salt rot. (Ask the U.S. Naval Academy, or see the construction of the USS Constitution, a.k.a. "Old Ironsides," Boston Harbor.)
(Abel, Ernest, Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, 1980; Ency. Brittanica; Magoun, Alexander, The Frigate Constitution, 1928; USDA film Hemp for Victory, 1942.)
Additionally, the ships' charts, maps, logs, and Bibles were made from paper containing hemp fiber from the time of Columbus (15th Century) until the early 1900s in the Western European/American World, and by the Chinese from the First Century C.E. on. Hemp paper lasted 50 to 100 times longer than most preparations of papyrus, and was a hundred times easier and cheaper to make.
Incredibly, it cost more for a ship's hempen sails, ropes, etc. than it did to build the wooden parts.
Nor was hemp use restricted to the briny deep?
Until the 1820s in America (and until the 20th Century in most of the rest of the world), 80% of all textiles and fabrics for clothing, tents, bed sheets and linens,* rugs, drapes, quilts, towels, diapers, etc.?and even our flag, "Old Glory," were principally made from fibers of cannabis.
* The 1893-1910 editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica indicate?and in 1938, Popular Mechanics estimated?that at least half of all the material that has been called linen was not made from flax, but from cannabis. Herodotus (c. 450 B.C.E.) describes the hempen garments made by the Thracians as equal to linen in fineness and that "none but a very experienced person could tell whether they were of hemp or flax."
For hundreds, if not thousands of years (until the 1830s), Ireland made the finest linens and Italy made the world's finest cloth for clothing with hemp.
Although these facts have been almost forgotten, our forebears were well aware that hemp is softer than cotton, warmer than cotton, more water absorbent than cotton, has three times the tensile strength of cotton, and is many times more durable than cotton.
Were it not for the marijuana plant, the Continental Army would have frozen to death at Valley Forge.
In fact, when the patriotic, real-life, 1776 mothers of our present day blue-blood "Daughters of the American Revolution" (the D.A.R. of Boston and New England) organized "spinning bees" to clothe Washington's soldiers, the majority of the thread was spun from hemp fibers. Were it not for the historically forgotten (or censored) and currently disparaged marijuana plant, the Continental Army would have frozen to death at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
The common use of hemp in the economy of the early republic was important enough to occupy the time and thoughts of our first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in a Treasury notice from the 1790s, "Flax and Hemp: Manufacturers of these articles have so much affinity to each other, and they are so often blended, that they may with advantage be considered in conjunction. Sailcloth should have 10% duty.?"
(Herndon, G.M., Hemp in Colonial Virginia, 1963; D.A.R. histories; Able, Ernest, Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years; also see the 1985 film Revolution with Al Pacino.)
The covered wagons went west (to Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, and California*) covered with sturdy hemp canvas tarpaulins,2 while ships sailed around the "Horn" to San Francisco on hemp sails and ropes.
2. Oxford English Dictionary; Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 11th edition, 1910; U.S.D.A. film, Hemp for Victory, 1942.
* The original, heavy-duty, famous Levi pants were made for the California ' 49ers out of hempen sailcloth and rivets. This way the pockets wouldn't rip when filled with gold panned from the sediment.3
3. Levi-Strauss & Company of San Francisco, CA, author's personal communication with Gene McClaine, 1985.
Homespun cloth was almost always spun from fibers grown in the family hemp patch.
Homespun cloth was almost always spun, by people all over the world, from fibers grown in the "family hemp patch." In America, this tradition lasted from the Pilgrims (1620s) until hemp's prohibition in the 1930s.*
* In the 1930s, Congress was told by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that many Polish-Americans still grew pot in their backyards to make their winter "long johns" and work clothes, and greeted the agents with shotguns for stealing their next year's clothes.
The age and density of the hemp patch influences fiber quality. If a farmer wanted soft linen-quality fibers he would plant his cannabis close together.
As a rule of thumb, if you plant for medical or recreational use, you plant one seed per five square yards. When planted for seed: four to five feet apart.
(Univ. of Kentucky Agricultural Ext. leaflet, March 1943.)
One-hundred-twenty to one-hundred-eighty seeds to the square yard are planted for rough cordage or coarse cloth. Finest linen or lace is grown up to 400 plants to the square yard and harvested between 80 to 100 days.
(Farm Crop Reports, USDA international abstracts, CIBA Review 1961-62 Luigi Castellini, Milan, Italy.)
By the late 1820s, the new American hand cotton gins (invented by Eli Whitney in 1793) were largely replaced by European-made "industrial" looms and cotton gins ("gin" is just short for engine), because of Europe's primary equipment-machinery-technology (tool and die making) lead over America.
For the first time, light cotton clothing could be produced at less cost than hand retting (rotting) and hand separating hemp fibers to be handspun on spinning wheels and jennys.4
4. Ye Olde Spinning Jennys and Wheels were principally used for fiber in this order: cannabis hemp, flax, wool, cotton, and so forth.
However, because of its strength, softness, warmth, and long-lasting qualities, hemp continued to be the second most used natural fiber* until the 1930s.
* In case you're wondering, there is no THC or "high" in hemp fiber. That's right, you can't smoke your shirt! In fact, attempting to smoke hemp fabric?or any fabric, for that matter?could be fatal!
After the 1937 Marijuana Tax law, new DuPont "plastic fibers," under license since 1936 from the German company I.G. Farben (patent surrenders were part of Germany's World War I reparation payments to America), replaced natural hempen fibers. (Some 30% of I.G. Farben, under Hitler, was owned and financed by America's DuPont.) DuPont also introduced Nylon (invented in 1935) to the market after they'd patented it in 1938.
(Colby, Jerry, DuPont Dynasties, Lyle Stewart, 1984.)
Finally, it must be noted that approximately 50% of all chemicals used in American agriculture today are used in cotton growing. Hemp needs no chemicals and has few weed or insect enemies?except for the U.S. government and the DEA.
(Cavender, Jim, Professor of Botany, Ohio University, "Authorities Examine Pot Claims," Athens News, November 16, 1989.)
Until 1883, from 75-90% of all paper in the world was made with cannabis hemp fiber including paper for books, Bibles, maps, paper money, stocks and bonds, newspaper, etc. The Gutenberg Bible (15th Century); Pantagruel and the Herb Pantagruelion, Rabelais (16th Century); King James Bible (17th Century); Thomas Paine's pamphlets, "The Rights of Man," "Common Sense," "The Age of Reason" (18th Century); the works of Fitz Hugh Ludlow, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, Alexander Dumas, Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" (19th Century); and just about everything else was printed on hemp paper.
The first draft of the Declaration of Independence (June 28, 1776) was written on Dutch (hemp) paper, as was the second draft completed on July 2, 1776. This was the document actually agreed to on that day and announced and released on July 4, 1776. ?On July 19, 1776, Congress ordered the Declaration be copied and engrossed on parchment (a prepared animal skin) and this was the document actually signed by the delegates on August 2, 1776.
Colonial printing press
What we (the colonial American) and the rest of the world used to make all our paper from was the discarded sails and ropes sold by ship owners as scrap for recycling into paper.
The rest of our paper came from our worn-out clothes, sheets, diapers, curtains, and rags* sold to scrap dealers made primarily from hemp and sometimes flax.
* Hence the term "rag paper."
Our ancestors were too thrifty to just throw anything away, so, until the 1880s, any remaining scraps and clothes were mixed together and recycled into paper.
Rag paper, containing hemp fiber, is the highest quality and longest lasting paper ever made. It can be torn when wet, but returns to its full strength when dry. Barring extreme conditions, rag paper remains stable for centuries. It will almost never wear out. Many U.S. government papers were written, by law, on hempen "rag paper" until the 1920s.5
5. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of Congress; National Archives; U.S. Mint; etc.
It is generally believed by scholars that the early Chinese knowledge, or art, of hemp paper making (First Century C.E.?800 years before Islam discovered how, and 1,200 to 1,400 years before Europe) was one of the two chief reasons that Oriental knowledge and science were vastly superior to that of the West for 1,400 years. Thus, the art of long-lasting hemp papermaking allowed the Orientals' accumulated knowledge to be passed on, built upon, investigated, refined, challenged, and changed, for generation after generation (in other words, cumulative and comprehensive scholarship).
Hemp paper lasted 50 to 100 times longer than most preparations of papyrus, and was a hundred times easier and cheaper to make.
The other reason that Oriental knowledge and science sustained superiority to that of the West for 1,400 years was that the Roman Catholic Church forbade reading and writing for 95% of Europe's people; in addition, they burned, hunted down, or prohibited all foreign or domestic books?including their own Bible!? for more than 1,200 years under the penalty and often-used punishment of death. Hence, many historians term this period "The Dark Ages." (476 C.E.-1000 C.E., or even until the Renaissance). (See chapter 10 on Sociology.)
Virtually every city and town (from time out of mind) in the world had an industry making hemp rope.6 Russia, however, was the world's largest producer and best-quality manufacturer, supplying 80% of the Western world's hemp from 1740 until 1940.
6. Adams, James T., editor, Album of American History, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1944, pg. 116.
Thomas Paine outlined four essential natural resources for the new nation in Common Sense (1776): "cordage, iron, timber and tar."
Chief among these was hemp for cordage. He wrote, "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, we do not want for cordage." Then he want on to list the other essentials necessary for war with the British navy: cannons, gunpowder, etc.
From 70-90% of all rope, twine, and cordage was made from hemp until 1937. It was then replaced mostly by petrochemical fibers (owned principally by DuPont under license from Germany's I.G. Corporation patents) and by Manila (Abaca) Hemp, with steel cables often intertwined for strength?brought in from our "new" far-Western Pacific Philippines possession, seized from Spain as reparations for the Spanish American War in 1898.
"Hemp is the perfect archival medium."7
7. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of Congress; National Archives.
The paintings of Van Gogh, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, etc., were primarily painted on hemp canvas, as were practically all canvas paintings.
A strong, lustrous fiber, hemp withstands heat, mildew, insects, and is not damaged by light. Oil paintings on hemp and/or flax canvas have stayed in fine condition for centuries.
For thousands of years, virtually all good paints and varnishes were made with hemp seed oil and/or linseed oil.
For instance, in 1935 alone, 116 million pounds (58,000 tons*) of hempseed were used in America just for paint and varnish. The hemp drying oil business went principally to DuPont petro-chemicals.8
8. Sloman, Larry, Reefer Madness, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1979, pg. 72.
*National Institute of Oilseed Products congressional testimony against the 1937 Marijuana Transfer Tax Law. As a comparison, consider that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), along with all America's state and local police agencies, claim to have seized for all of 1996, 700+ tons of American-grown marijuana?seed, plant, root, dirt clump, and all (the 1988 figure was 651.5 tons ). Even the DEA itself admits that 94 to 97 percent of all marijuana/hemp plants that have been seized and destroyed since the 1960s were growing completely wild and could not have been smoked as marijuana.
(National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee, NNICC Report, 1988 DEA office release, El Paso, TX, April, 1989.)
Congress and the Treasury Department were assured through secret testimony given by DuPont in 1935-37 directly to Herman Oliphant, Chief Counsel for the Treasury Dept., that hempseed oil could be replaced with synthetic petrochemical oils made principally by DuPont.
Oliphant was solely responsible for drafting the Marijuana Tax Act that was submitted to Congress.9 (See complete story in chapter 4, "The Last Days of Legal Cannabis.")
9. Bonnie, Richard and Whitebread, Charles, The Marijuana Conviction, Univ. of Virginia Press, 1974.
Until about 1800, hempseed oil was the most consumed lighting oil in America and the world. From then until the 1870s, it was the second most consumed lighting oil, exceeded only by whale oil.
Hempseed oil lit the lamps of the legendary Aladdin, Abraham the prophet, and in real life, Abraham Lincoln. It was the brightest lamp oil.
Hempseed oil for lamps was replaced by petroleum, kerosene, etc., after the 1859 Pennsylvania oil discovery and Rockefeller's 1870-on national petroleum stewardship. (See chapter 9 on "Economics.")
In fact, the celebrated botanist Luther Burbank stated, "The seed [of cannabis] is prized in other countries for its oil, and its neglect here illustrates the same wasteful use of our agricultural resources."
(Burbank, Luther, How Plants Are Trained To Work For Man, Useful Plants, P.F. Collier & Son Co., NY, Vol. 6, pg. 48.)
In the early 1900s, Henry Ford and other futuristic, organic, engineering geniuses recognized (as their intellectual, scientific heirs still do today) an important point?that up to 90% of all fossil fuel used in the world today (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.)?should long ago have been replaced with biomass such as: cornstalks, cannabis, waste paper, and the like.
Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a fraction of the current cost of oil, coal, or nuclear energy?especially when environmental costs are factored in?and its mandated use would end acid rain, end sulfur-based smog, and reverse the Greenhouse Effect on our planet?right now!*
* Government and oil and coal companies, etc., will insist that burning biomass fuel is no better than using up our fossil fuel reserves, as far as pollution goes; but this is patently untrue.
Why? Because, unlike fossil fuel, biomass comes from living (not extinct) plants that continue to remove carbon dioxide pollution from our atmosphere as they grow, through photosynthesis. Furthermore, biomass fuels do not contain sulfur.
Quote
This can be accomplished if hemp is grown for biomass and then converted through pyrolysis (charcoalizing) or biochemical composting into fuels to replace fossil fuel energy products.*
* Remarkably, when considered on a planetwide, climate-wide, soil-wide basis, cannabis is at least four and could be many more times richer in sustainable, renewable biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals on the planet: cornstalks, surgarcane, kenaf, trees, etc.
(Solar Gas, 1980; Omni, 1983; Cornell University; Science Digest, 1983; etc.).
Also see chapter 9 on Economics.
One product of pyrolysis, methanol, is today used by most race cars and was used by American farmers and auto drivers routinely with petroleum/methanol options starting in the 1920s, through the 1930s, and even into the mid-1940s to run tens of thousands of auto, farm, and military vehicles until the end of World War II.
Methanol can even be converted to a high-octane lead-free gasoline using catalytic process developed by Georgia Tech University in conjunction with Mobil Oil Corporation.
From 1842 through the 1890s, extremely strong marijuana (then known as cannabis extractums) and hashish extracts, tinctures, and elixirs were routinely the second and third most-used medicines in American for humans (from birth, through childhood, to old age) and in veterinary medicine until the 1920s and longer. (See chapter 6 on "Medicine," and chapter 13 on the "19th Century.")
As stated earlier, for at least 3,000 years, prior to 1842, widely varying marijuana extracts (buds, leaves, roots, etc.) were the most commonly used real medicines in the world for the majority of humanity's illnesses.
However, in Western Europe, the Roman Catholic Church forbade use of cannabis or any medical treatment, except for alcohol or blood letting, for 1,200-plus years. (See chapter 10 on "Sociology.")
The U.S. Pharmacopoeia indicated cannabis should be used for treating such ailments as: fatigue, fits of coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depressions associated with menstruation. (Professor William EmBoden, Professor of Narcotic Botany, California State University, Northridge.)
Queen Victoria used cannabis resins for her menstrual cramps and PMS, and her reign (1837-1901) paralleled the enormous growth of the use of Indian cannabis medicine in the English-speaking world.
In this century, cannabis research has demonstrated therapeutic value?and complete safety?in the treatment of many health problems including asthma, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, epilepsy, infection, stress, migraines, anorexia, depression, rheumatism, arthritis, and possibly herpes. (See chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.")
See also Chapter 6: Medical Literature on Cannabis Medicine and Chapter 7: Therapeutic Use of Cannabis
Hempseed was regularly used in porridge, soups, and gruels by virtually all the peoples of the world up until this century. Monks were required to eat hempseed dishes three times a day, to weave their clothes of it, and to print their Bibles on paper made with its fiber.
(See Rubin, Dr. Vera, "Research Institute for the Study of Man;" Eastern Orthodox Church; Choen & Stillman, Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, Plenum Press, 1976; Abel, Ernest, Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, NY, 1980; Encyclopedia Brittanica.)
Hempseed can be pressed for its highly nutritious vegetable oil, which contains the highest amount of essential fatty acids in the plant kingdom. These essential oils are responsible for our immune responses and clear the arteries of cholesterol and plaque.
The byproduct of pressing the oil from the seed is the highest quality protein seed cake. It can be sprouted (malted) or ground and baked into cake, breads, and casseroles. Marijuana seed protein is one of humankind's finest, most complete, and available-to-the-body vegetable proteins. Hempseed is the most complete single food source for human nutrition. (See discussion of edistins and essential fatty acids, Chapter 8.)
Hempseed was?until the 1937 prohibition law?the world's number-one bird seed, for both wild and domestic birds. It was their favorite* of any seed food on the planet; four millions pounds of hemp seed for songbirds were sold at retail in the U.S. in 1937. Birds will pick hemp seeds out and eat them first from a pile of mixed seed. Birds in the wild live longer and breed more with hemp seed in their diet, using the oil for their feathers and their overall health. (More in chapter 8, "Hemp as a Basic World Food.")
* Congressional testimony, 1937: "Song birds won't sing without it," the bird food companies told Congress. Result: sterilized cannabis seeds continue to be imported into the U.S. from Italy, China, and other countries.
Hempseed produces no observable high for humans or birds. Only the most minute traces of THC are in the seed. Hempseed is also the favorite fish bait in Europe. Anglers buy pecks of hempseed at bait stores, then throw handfuls into rivers and ponds. Fish come thrashing for the hempseed and are caught by hook. No other chum is as effective, making hempseed generally the most desirable and most nutritious food for humans, birds, and fish. (Jack Herer's personal research in Europe.)
(Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1972)
Because one acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees,* hemp is the perfect material to replace trees for pressed board, particle board, and for concrete construction molds.
* Dewey & Merrill, Bulletin #404, United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1916.
Practical, inexpensive fire-resistant construction material, with excellent thermal and sound-insulating qualities, is made by heating and compressing plant fibers to create strong construction paneling, replacing dry wall and plywood. William B. Conde of Conde's Redwood Lumber, Inc., near Eugene, OR, in conjunction with Washington State University (1991-1993), has demonstrated the superior strength, flexibility, and economy of hemp composite building materials compared to wood fiber, even as beams.
Isochanvre, a rediscovered French building material made from hemp hurds mixed with lime, actually petrifies into a mineral state and lasts for many centuries. Archeologists have found a bridge in the south of France, from the Merovingian period (500-751 C.E.), built with this process.
(See Ch?nevotte Habitat of Ren?, France in Appendix I of the paper version of this book.)
Hemp has been used throughout history for carpet backing. Hemp fiber has potential in the manufacture of strong, rot resistant carpeting?eliminating the poisonous fumes of burning synthetic materials in a house or commercial fire, along with allergic reactions associated with new synthetic carpeting.
Plastic plumbing pipe (PVC pipes) can be manufactured using renewable hemp cellulose as the chemical feedstocks, replacing non-renewable coal or petroleum-based chemical feedstocks.
So we can envision a house of the future built, plumbed, painted, and furnished with the world's number one renewable resource?hemp.
The American Declaration of Independence recognizes the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Subsequent court decisions have inferred the rights to privacy and choice from this, the U.S. Constitution, and its Amendments.
Many artists and writers have used cannabis for creative stimulation?from the writers of the world's religious masterpieces to our most irreverent satirists. These include Lewis Carroll and his hookah-smoking caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland, plus Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington, and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy Rich, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc.
Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others.
But throughout history, various prohibition and "temperance" groups have attempted and occasionally succeeded in banning the preferred relaxational substances of others, like alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis.
Abraham Lincoln responded to this kind of repressive mentality in December, 1840, when he said:
"Prohibition ? goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.? A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
We believe that in a competitive market, with all facts known, people will rush to buy long-lasting, biodegradable "Pot Tops" or "Mary Jeans", etc., amde from a plant without pesticides or herbicides. Some of the companies who have led the way with these products are Ecolution, Hempstead, Marie Mills, Ohio Hempery, Two Star Dog, Headcase, and in Germany, HanfHaus, et al.
It's time we put capitalism to the test and let the unrestricted market of supply and demand as well as "Green" ecological consciousness decide the future of the planet.
A cotton shirt in 1776 cost $100 to $200, while a hemp shirt cost $.50 to $1. By the 1830s, cooler, lighter cotton shirts were on par in price with the warmer, heavier, hempen shirts, providing a competitive choice.
People were able to choose their garments based upon the particular qualities they wanted in a fabric. Today we have no such choice.
The role of hemp and other natural fibers should be determined by the market of supply and demand and personal tastes and values, not by the undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies, and huge tariffs that keep the natural fabrics from replacing synthetic fibers.
Sixty years of government suppression of information has resulted in virtually no public knowledge of the incredible potential of the hemp fiber or its uses.By using 100% hemp or mixing hemp with cotton, you will be able to pass on your shirts, pants, and other clothing to your grandchildren. Intelligent spending could essentially replace the use of petrochemical synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester with tougher, cheaper, cool, absorbent, breathing, biodegradable, natural fibers.
China, Italy, and Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, and Georgia currently make millions of dollars worth of sturdy hemp and hemp/cotton textiles?and could be making billions of dollars?annually.
These countries build upon their traditional farming and weaving skills, while the U.S. tries to force the extinction of this plant to prop up destructive synthetic technologies.
Even cannabis/cotton blend textiles were still not cleared for direct sale in the U.S. until 1991. The Chinese, for instance, are forced?by tacit agreement?to send us inferior ramie/cottons.
(National Import/Export Textile Company of Shanghai, Personal communication with author, April and May, 1983.)
As the 1990 edition of Emperor went to press, garments containing at least 55% cannabis hemp arrived from China and Hungry?with a huge import fee attached. It had to be first imported into Hong Kong and then re-exported to the U.S.?with quotas and a huge protective tariff to shield American synthetic fiber industries from competing with imported natural fibers such as hemp. In 1992 as we went to press, many different grades of 100% hemp fabric had arrived directly from China and Hungary. Now, in 1998, hemp fabric is in booming demand all over the world, arriving from Romania, Poland, Italy, Germany, et al. Hemp has been recognized as the hottest fabric of the 1990s by Rolling Stone, Time, Newsweek, Paper, Detour, Details, Mademoiselle, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Der Spiegel, ad infinitum. All ran major stories on industrial and nutritional hemp. More than any other plant on Earth, hemp holds the promise of a sustainable ecology and economy, as hemp rebuilds the soil.
Additionally, hemp grown for biomass could fuel a trillion-dollar per year energy industry, while improving air quality and distributing the wealth to rural areas and their surrounding communities, and away from centralized power monopolies. More than any other plant on Earth, hemp holds the promise of a sustainable ecology and economy.
We must reiterate our original premise with our challenge to the world to prove us wrong:
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as the deforestation of trees for paper and agriculture, are banned in order to save the planet, and reverse the Greenhouse Effect, and stop deforestation:
Then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, textiles, and food, meet all of the world's transportation, industrial, and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere?all at the same time?
And that substance is?the same one that did it all before?Cannabis Hemp ? Marijuana!
Footnotes:
1. Oxford English Dictionary; Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 11th edition, 1910; U.S.D.A. film, Hemp for Victory, 1942.
2. Ibid.
3. Levi-Strauss & Company of San Francisco, CA, author's personal communication with Gene McClaine, 1985.
4. Ye Old Spinning Jennys and Wheels were principally used for fiber in this order: cannabis hemp, flax, wool, cotton, and so forth.
5. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of Congress; National Archives; U.S. Mint; etc.
6. Adams, James T., editor, Album of American History, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1944, pg. 116.
7. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of Congress; National Archives.
8. Sloman, Larry, Reefer Madness, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1979, pg. 72.
9. Bonnie, Richard and Whitebread, Charles, The Marijuana Conviction, Univ. of Virginia Press, 1974.
One more example of the importance of hemp: Five years after cannabis hemp was outlawed in 1937, it was promptly re-introduced for the World War II effort in 1942.
So, when the young pilot George Bush bailed out of his burning airplane after a battle over the Pacific, little did he know:
Parts of his aircraft engine were lubricated with cannabis hempseed oil;
100% of his life-saving parachute webbing was made from U.S. grown cannabis hemp;
Virtually all the rigging and ropes of the ship that pulled him in were made of cannabis hemp;
The firehoses on the ship (as were those in the schools he had attended) were woven from cannabis hemp; and,
Finally, as young George Bush stood safely on the deck, his shoes' durable stitching was of cannabis hemp, as it is in all good leather and military shoes to this day.
Yet Bush spent a good deal of his career eradicating the cannabis plant and enforcing laws to make certain that no one will learn this information?possibly including himself.?
(USDA film, Hemp for Victory, 1942; U. of KY Agricultural Ext. Service Leaflet 25, March, 1943; Galbraith, Gatewood, Kentucky Marijuana Feasibility Study, 1977.)
The U.S.S. Constitution
"Old Ironsides"
There were at least 60 tons of Hemp
on the U.S.S. Constitution alone.
Partial list of rigging (rope) required for the 1927 restoration of the U.S.S. Constitution from "The Frigate Constitution" by F. Alexander Magoun, S.B., S.M. The Southwest Press. ?1928 by the Marine Research Society, Boston, Massachusetts, Pgs. 96, 97. Each mast (fore, mizen, main, etc.) required lifts, braces, reefs, jiggers, tackles, etc. The Constitution carried well more than four miles of hemp rope.
Standing Rigging, Hard Laid Hemp
Running Rigging, Soft Laid Hemp
Quote
In early 1989, Jack Herer and Maria Farrow put this question to Steve Rawlings, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (who was in charge of reversing the Greenhouse Effect) at the USDA world research facility in Beltsville, Maryland.
First, we introduced ourselves and told him we were writing for Green political party newspapers. Then we asked Rawlings, "If you could have any choice, what would be the ideal way to stop or reverse the Greenhouse Effect?"
He said, "Stop cutting down trees and stop using fossil fuels."
"Well, why don't we?"
"There's no viable substitute for wood for paper, or for fossil fuels."
"Why don't we use an annual plant for paper and for biomass to make fuel?"
"Well, that would be ideal," he agreed. "Unfortunately there is nothing you can use that could produce enough materials."
"Well, what would you say if there was such a plant that could substitute for all wood pulp paper, all fossil fuels, would make most of our fibers naturally, make everything from dynamite to plastic, grows in all 50 states, and that one acre of it would replace 4.1 acres of trees, and that if you used about 6% of the U.S. land to raise it as an energy crop ? even on our marginal lands, this plant would produce all 75 quadrillion BTUs needed to run America each year? Would that help save the planet?"
"That would be ideal. But there is no such plant."
"We think there is."
"Yeah? What is it?"
"Hemp."
"Hemp!" he mused for a moment. "I never would have thought of it. ? You know, I think you're right. Hemp could be the plant that could do it. Wow! That's a great idea!"
We were excited as we outlined this information and delineated the potential of hemp for paper, fiber, fuel, food, paint, etc., and how it could be applied to balance the world's ecosystems and restore the atmosphere's oxygen balance with almost no disruption of the standard of living to which most Americans have become accustomed.
In essence, Rawlings agreed that our information was probably correct and could very well work.
He said, "It's a wonderful idea, and I think it might work. But, of course, you can't use it."
"You're kidding?" we responded. "Why not?"
"Well, Mr. Herer, did you know that hemp is also marijuana?"
"Yes, of course I know, I've been writing about it for about 40 hours a week for the past 17 years."
"Well, you know marijuana's illegal, don't you? You can't use it."
"Not even to save the world?"
"No. It's illegal," he sternly informed me. "You cannot use something illegal."
"Not even to save the world?" we asked, stunned.
"No, not even to save the world. It's illegal. You can't use it. Period."
"Don't get me wrong. It's a great idea," he went on, "But they'll never let you do it."
"Why don't you go ahead and tell the Secretary of Agriculture that a crazy man from California gave you documentation that showed that hemp might be able to save the planet and that your first reaction is that he might be right and it needs some serious study? What would he say?"
"Well, I don't think I'd be here very long after I did that. After all, I'm an officer of the government."
"Well, why not call up the information on your computer at your own USDA library? That's where we got the information in the first place."
He said, "I can't sign out that information."
"Well, why not? We did."
"Mr. Herer, you're a citizen. You can sign out for anything you want. But I am an officer of the Department of Agriculture. Someone's going to want to know why I want all this information. And then I'll be gone."
Finally, we agreed to send him all the information we got from the USDA library, if he would look at it.
He said he would, but when we called back a month later, he said that he still had not opened the box that we sent him and that he would be sending it back to us unopened because he did not want to be responsible for the information, now that the Bush administration was replacing him with their own man.
We asked him if he would pass on the information to his successor, and he replied, "Absolutely not."
In May, 1989, we had virtually the same conversation and result with his cohort, Dr. Gary Evan of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Science, the man in charge of stopping the global warming trend.
In the end, he said, "If you really want to save the planet with hemp, then you (hemp/marijuana activists) would find a way to grow it without the narcotic [sic.] top ? and then you can use it."
This is the kind of frightened (and frightening) irresponsibility we're up against in our government.
In 1917, the world was battling World War I. In this country, industrialists, just beset with the minimum wage and graduated income tax, were sent into a tailspin. Progressive ideals were lost as the United States took its place on the world stage in the struggle for commercial supremacy.
It is against this backdrop that the first 20th Century hemp drama was played.
The story begins soon after the release of Bulletin 404 (see Bulletin 404). Near San Diego, California, a 50-year-old German immigrant named George Schlichten had been working on a simple yet brilliant invention. Schlichten had spent 18 years and $400,000 on the decorticator, a machine that could strip the fiber from nearly any plant, leaving the pulp behind. To build it, he had developed an encyclopedic knowledge of fibers and paper making. His desire was to stop the felling of forests for paper, which he believed to be a crime. His native Germany was well advanced in forestry and Schlichten knew that destroying forests meant destroying needed watersheds.
Henry Timken, a wealth industrialist and inventor of the roller bearing, got wind of Schlichten's invention and went to meet the inventor in February of 1917. Timken saw the decorticator as a revolutionary discovery that would improve conditions for mankind. Timken offered Schlichten to grow 100 acres of hemp on his ranch in the fertile farmlands of Imperial Valley, California, just east of San Diego, so that Schlichten could test his invention.
Shortly thereafter, Timken met with the newspaper giant E.W. Scripps, and his long-time associate Milton McRae, at Miramar, Scripps' home in San Diego. Scripps, then 63, had accumulated the largest chain of newspapers in the country. Timken hoped to interest Scripps in making newsprint from hemp hurds.
Turn-of-the-century newspaper barons needed huge amounts of paper to deliver their swelling circulations. Nearly 30 percent of the four million tons of paper manufactured in 1909 was newsprint; by 1914 the circulation of daily newspapers had increased by 17% over 1909 figures to more than 28 million copies.1
1. World Almanac, 1914, p. 235; 1917
By 1917, the price of newsprint was rapidly rising, and McRae, who had been investigating owning a paper mill since 1904,2 was concerned.
2. Forty Years in Newspaperdom, Milton McRae, 1924, Bretano's NY
In May, after further meetings with Timken, Scripps asked McRae to investigate the possibility of using the decorticator in the manufacture of newsprint.
McRae quickly became excited about the plan. He called the decorticator "a great invention?[which] will not only render great service to this country, but it will be very profitable financially?[it] may revolutionize existing conditions." On August 3rd, as harvest time neared, a meeting was arranged between Schlichten, McRae, and newspaper manager Ed Chase.
Without Schlichten's knowledge, McRae had his secretary record the three-hour meeting stenographically. The resulting document, the only record of Schlichten's voluminous knowledge found to date, is reprinted fully in Appendix I of the paper version of this book.
Schlichten had thoroughly studied many kinds of plants for paper, among them corn, cotton, yucca, and Espana baccata. Hemp seemed to be his favorite:
"The hemp hurd is a practical success and will make paper of a higher quality than ordinary news stock," he said.
His hemp paper was even better than that produced for USDA Bulletin 404, he claimed, because the decorticator eliminated the retting process, leaving behind short fibers and a natural glue that held the paper together.
At 1917 levels of hemp production Schlichten anticipated making 50,000 tons of paper yearly at a retail price of $25 a ton. This was less than 50% of the price of newsprint at the time! And every acre of hemp turned to paper, Schlichten added, would preserve five acres of forest.
McRae was very impressed by Schlichten. The man who dined with presidents and captains of industry wrote to Timken, "I was to say without equivocation that Mr. Schlichten impressed me as being a man of great intellectuality and ability; and so far as I can see, he has created and constructed a wonderful machine." He assigned Chase to spend as much time as he could with Schlichten and prepare a report.
By August, after only three months of growth, Timken's hemp crop had grown to its full height?14 feet!?and he was highly optimistic about its prospects. He hoped to travel to California to watch the crop being decorticated, seeing himself as a benefactor to mankind who would enable people to work shorter hours and have more time for "spiritual development."
Scripps, on the other hand, was not in an optimistic frame of mind. He had lost faith in a government that he believed was leading the country to financial ruin over the war, and that would take 40% of his profits in income tax. In an August 14 letter to his sister, Ellen, he said:
"When Mr. McRae was talking to me about the increase in the price of white paper that was pending, I told him I was just fool enough not to be worried about a thing of that kind." The price of paper was expected to rise 50%, costing Scripps his entire year's profit of $1,125,00! Rather than develop a new technology, he took the easy way out: The Penny Press Lord simply planned to raise the price of his papers from one cent to two cents.
On August 28, Ed Chase sent his full report to Scripps and McRae. The younger man also was taken with the process: "I have seen a wonderful, yet simple, invention. I believe it will revolutionize many of the processes of feeding, clothing, and supplying other wants of mankind."
Chase witnessed the decorticator produce seven tons of hemp hurds in two days. At full production, Schlichten anticipated each machine would produce five tons per day. Chase figured hemp could easily supply Scripps' west coast papers, with leftover pulp for side businesses. He estimated the newsprint would cost between $25 an $35 a ton, and proposed asking an east-coast paper mill to experiment for them.
An early hemp processing machine, c. 1930. Its many fluted rollers crushed the stalks separating the hemp fiber from the woody portion of the plants.
McRae, however, seems to have gotten the message that his boss was no longer very interested in making paper from hemp. His response to Chase's report is cautions: "Much will be determined as to the practicability by the cost of transportation, manufacture, etc., etc., which we cannot ascertain without due investigation." Perhaps when his ideals met with the hard work of developing them, the semi-retired McRae backed off.
By September, Timken's crop was producing one ton of fibre and four tons of hurds per acre, and he was trying to interest Scripps in opening a paper mill in San Diego. McRae and Chase traveled to Cleveland and spent two hours convincing Timken that, while hemp hurds were usable for other types of paper, they could not be made into newsprint cheaply enough. Perhaps the eastern mill at which they experimented wasn't encouraging-after all, they were set up to make wood pulp paper.
By this time Timken, too, was hurt by the wartime economy. He expected to pay 54% income tax and was trying to borrow $2 million at 10% interest to retool for war machines. The man who a few weeks earlier could not wait to get to California no longer expected to go West at all that winter. He told McRae, "I think I will be too damn busy in this section of the country looking after business."
The decorticator resurfaced in the thirties, when it was touted as the machine that would make hemp a "Billion Dollar Crop" in articles in Mechanical Engineering and Popular Mechanics.* (Until the ninth edition of The Emperor, the decorticator was believed to be a new discovery at that time.) Once again, the burgeoning hemp industry was halted, this time by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
*See article reprinted in Chapter 3.
?Ellen Komp
A full account of the story, with reproductions of the letters that reveal it,3 is in the Appendix of the paper version of this book.
3. Scripps Archives University of Ohio, Athens, OH; and Ellen Browing Scripps Archives, Denison Library, Claremont College, Claremont, CA
1. World Almanac, 1914, p. 235; 1917
2. Forty Years in Newspaperdom, Milton McRae, 1924 Bretano's NY
3. Scripps Archives University of Ohio, Athens, OH; and Ellen Browing Scripps Archives, Denison Library, Claremont College, Claremont, CA
Reprinted text of beginning of the letter:
San Diego, Calif.,
August 28, 1917
Mr. E.W. Scripps
Mr. Milton A. McRae
Gentlemen:
I have spent many hours with G. W. Schlichten, the inventor of the decorticating machine. Friday and Saturday last I spent with him at the Timken Ranch in Imperial Valley, while a portion of his first crop of hemp was run through his machine. I have seen a wonderful, yet simple, invention. I believe it will revolutionize many of the processes of feeding, clothing and supplying other wants of mankind.
Heretofore, before the fiber could be extracted from hemp, the hemp stalks had to lie on the ground for months to be "retted." The fiber is then extracted by hand of by certain crude machines. To make a long story short, the fiber from retted hemp is of poorer quality as to strength and so expensive to get into proper shape, that Kentucky hemp is quoted in the Fiber Trade Journals as 16 per lb. ($320.00 per ton). The fiber having been extracted from hemp, the residue consists chiefly of "hurds." Hemp hurds are the woody, inner portion of the hemp stalk broken into pieces in removing the fiber. The old machines, handling retted hemp, turn out only small amounts of fiber and small and scattered heaps of hurds. Only about seven thousand tons of these hurds have been available in the United
?end of extract from letter?
I heard they ban guns in natl. forests. How about the idea of taking a gun into a national forest, or doing so without the proper permits if they are required.
I think just driving up 93 will put you in the national forest. :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 19, 2006, 09:31 PM NHFT
I heard they ban guns in natl. forests.
Nope. National Parks, which are a completely different creature.
Guns are welcome in USFS lands, so long as the state is cool with it.
Kevin
do we have any natl parks in-state?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 20, 2006, 07:44 AM NHFT
do we have any natl parks in-state?
White Mountain National Forest
no parks .... yet
Is the park at Franconia Notch a state park or a national park?
Quote from: AlanM on June 20, 2006, 09:39 PM NHFT
Is the park at Franconia Notch a state park or a national park?
Franconia Notch State Park (http://www.franconianotchstatepark.com/)
Quote from: AlanM on June 20, 2006, 07:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 20, 2006, 07:44 AM NHFT
do we have any natl parks in-state?
White Mountain National Forest
National Forest (Department of Agriculture) != National Park (Department of the Interior).
Completely different beasts.
Kevin
National Park Service presence in NH:
Appalachian Trail (http://www.nps.gov/appa/)
Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site (http://www.sgnhs.org/)
Then there are what NH calls Federal Parks (http://www.nhstateparks.com/fedparks.html) - federal recreational areas on lakes and dams controlled by Army Corps of Engineers.
Corps of Engineers parks have rules against loaded firearms, but they're concerned with hunting. ACoE really doesn't care if you carry concealed (meaning: they don't know about it!)
Kevin
Don't ask, don't tell, eh?
Another idea might be dressing up like the Robert DeNiro character from the movie Brazil... the "guerilla repairman"
Fly into someone's house on a bungie cord or something and perform an unauthorized repair.
There was a guy at PorcFest who had something like that on his work truck "guerilla appliance repair" I think it said. ;D
Samurai Appliance repair.
http://fixitnow.com/
He was a nice guy. He is on the forums here very rarely. He is a sponsor of Gardner's show.
Another idea:
Making and delivering a fake i.d. openly, in front of an appropriate government building, maybe to protest real id. This could start to make the point that in today's surveillance state, fake I.D.'s are becoming potentially a good thing which harmless and likable people want, to protect their privacy. It could make the point that not everyone who wants one is an underage drinker or harmful criminal.
Think of how many times you wished you could just show someone an ID that had a fictitious person's name off of it, to keep your location and activities from being monitored and recorded.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 25, 2006, 02:18 PM NHFT
Another idea might be dressing up like the Robert DeNiro character from the movie Brazil... the "guerilla repairman"
Fly into someone's house on a bungie cord or something and perform an unauthorized repair.
I haven't seen that movie, but last week I mowed several lawns on my street one night with my (quiet, human powered) reel mower. I don't think any of the residents saw or heard me. I don't think that would qualify as CD though. For me it was just doing an anonymous kind act.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on July 26, 2006, 02:44 PM NHFT
[my (quiet, human powered) reel mower.
My wife said I am the only crazy person with a reel mower.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 26, 2006, 03:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on July 26, 2006, 02:44 PM NHFT
[my (quiet, human powered) reel mower.
My wife said I am the only crazy person with a reel mower.
Add me to the list of Reel Mower owners. I love mine. :P
see .... we all are doing it :)
My problem is that I have an acre... and when the grass gets really long it totally sucks.... That is why I now mow a portion every day. ;D
Reel Mowers of the World Unite.
My trees are what keep me from using a reel mower. I have pine cones, gumballs, and a continuous shower of small limbs still being shed from an ice storm in December 2000.
But you'll be happy to know that we use them at the prison. ;)
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2006, 02:59 AM NHFT
But you'll be happy to know that we use them at the prison. ;)
That does make me happy.
Or better yet can we free the ones who didn't commit any 'crimes' and make the other ones use scissors?
Quote from: Dreepa on July 27, 2006, 09:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2006, 02:59 AM NHFT
But you'll be happy to know that we use them at the prison. ;)
That does make me happy.
Or better yet can we free the ones who didn't commit any 'crimes' and make the other ones use scissors?
Nothing would make me happier than to set free the drug users and "illegal" immigrants, so that we could focus on having the baby rapers clean floors and toilets with toothbrushes (preferably their own), and manicure the lawns with kindergarten safety scissors.
There's one fellow who gave his five year old niece gonorrhea. Another who raped his own daughters from the age of 3 on up to 10. The cases involving step-kids or strangers are just too numerous to go into.
Keeping with the topic, I can think of a good use for those reel mowers...
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2006, 11:40 AM NHFT
There's one fellow who gave his five year old niece gonorrhea. Another who raped his own daughters from the age of 3 on up to 10. The cases involving step-kids or strangers are just too numerous to go into.
Keeping with the topic, I can think of a good use for those reel mowers...
Fuckers like that .....damn! Is it true that other prisoners beat/rape/mess with these scum?
Quote from: Dreepa on July 27, 2006, 01:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2006, 11:40 AM NHFT
There's one fellow who gave his five year old niece gonorrhea. Another who raped his own daughters from the age of 3 on up to 10. The cases involving step-kids or strangers are just too numerous to go into.
Keeping with the topic, I can think of a good use for those reel mowers...
Fuckers like that .....damn! Is it true that other prisoners beat/rape/mess with these scum?
In the state systems, yes. In the federal system, we've reached a critical mass where such scum are "just another inmate".
From a professional point of view, that's a good thing. We treat all inmates firmly, fairly, and consistently, and are responsible for their safety and wellbeing.
From a personal point of view... well, sometimes it's best we don't let our personal feelings come into play.
Kevin
Quote from: Dreepa on July 27, 2006, 12:55 AM NHFT
My problem is that I have an acre... and when the grass gets really long it totally sucks.... That is why I now mow a portion every day. ;D
Reel Mowers of the World Unite.
My first mower was gas powered, but since I had to do maintenance on it almost every time I used it, I sold it a few months later and bought the reel mower in 1998. I haven't had to do any maintenance on it since I bought it. If the grass gets too long, I use a swing blade, which is also human powered and quiet. It's easier to just cut the grass with a reel mower about once a week. I used to use scissors to trim around the edges. Now I just let it grow. The hill next to my side lawn has a lot of wildflowers growing on it, so I leave it alone. (It reminds me of the fields that used to be across the street from the farm I lived at when I was a kid.)
Well, when we finally get our property you'd better keep those things out of it. We want the wildflowers to grow thick.
Also, God is really upset about lawns:
Lawns & God
GOD: St. Francis, you know all about gardens and nature. What in the world is going on down there in the USA? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I started eons ago? I had a perfect, no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long lasting blossoms attracts butterflies, honeybees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But all I see are these green rectangles.
ST. FRANCIS: It's the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites. They started calling your flowers weeds and went to great lengths to kill them and replace them with grass.
GOD: Grass? But it's so boring. It's not colorful. It doesn't attract butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It's temperamental with temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.
GOD: The spring rains and warm weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it, sometimes twice a week.
GOD: They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?
ST. FRANCIS: Not exactly Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.
GOD: They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?
ST. FRANCIS: No, sir -- just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.
GOD: Now, let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?
ST. FRANCIS: Yes, sir.
GOD: These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back on the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the growth and saves them a lot of work.
ST. FRANCIS: You aren't going to believe this, Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.
GOD: What nonsense. At least they kept some of the trees. That was a sheer stoke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance the soil. It's a natural circle of life.
ST. FRANCIS: You'd better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and pay to have them hauled away.
GOD: No. What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the winter and to keep the soil moist and loose?
ST. FRANCIS: After throwing away the leaves, they go out and buy something which they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.
GOD: And where do they get this mulch?
ST. FRANCIS: They cut down trees and grind them up to make the mulch.
GOD: Enough! I don't want to think about this anymore. St. Catherine, you're in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?
ST. CATHERINE: Dumb and Dumber, Lord. It's a real stupid movie about ...
GOD: Never mind, I think I just heard the whole story from St. Francis.
:) Thats goes along with my theory of leaves= They have been falling on the ground for millions of years and never bothered any one, I just let them fall were they may.
Here is another civil dis idea russell inspired with his talk of figuratively breaking lauren out of jail...
How about, at some point in the future, when a freedom lover is wrongly jailed....a symbolic visit to a jail with a nail file or pliers or what not....
If they arrest you, then you make the news. If they don't, you walk in and start filing down the first set of bars you can find. :)
Caleb told me I should try to tunnel out when I was in jail. I thought that was a brilliant idea, but I didn't have the guts to do it last time. I was having too much fun reading and getting/sending letters.
If I was put in a cell with nothing to do, I would start digging at the cement. At least they would know I want out. :)
When someone gets jailed in Keene, we should ramp up the breakout stuff. I am not quite sure what I can do for Lauren yet.
On this topic, those in prisons and jails are our greatest assets. We should find a way to recruit them.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on October 03, 2006, 09:14 PM NHFT
On this topic, those in prisons and jails are our greatest assets. We should find a way to recruit them.
Please don't assume they're all innocent victims of misguided and over-reaching laws. There are a substantial number who would not be welcome in the movement.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 03, 2006, 09:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: Michael Fisher on October 03, 2006, 09:14 PM NHFT
On this topic, those in prisons and jails are our greatest assets. We should find a way to recruit them.
Please don't assume they're all innocent victims of misguided and over-reaching laws. There are a substantial number who would not be welcome in the movement.
I disagree. The vast majority of people imprisoned have victimized no one.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on October 03, 2006, 10:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on October 03, 2006, 09:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: Michael Fisher on October 03, 2006, 09:14 PM NHFT
On this topic, those in prisons and jails are our greatest assets. We should find a way to recruit them.
Please don't assume they're all innocent victims of misguided and over-reaching laws. There are a substantial number who would not be welcome in the movement.
I disagree. The vast majority of people imprisoned have victimized no one.
You're not disagreeing with what I said; I didn't say anything about those who have victimized no one (which is not a "vast majority", by any stretch).
I said there are a
substantial number of people in prison who have no place here, because they believe in initiating violence to have their way, victimizing innocents for their own pleasure, initiating fraud and theft, etc. Eliminating laws against victimless crimes would not change these men into saints.
Maybe your 15 years of experience in a correctional environment has taught you something different.
i'm with kb on this...lotta bad guys in the system. but obviously some good ones too.
ok that is a great idea actually...tunnelling...
maybe meeting outside a prison gate and starting to dig a hole would be the answer LOL
Sorry, but my (relatively little) experience is completely the opposite of yours. All I've witnessed throughout the court convictions I've watched are primarily victimless "criminals." In fact, almost all of them were victimless "criminals."
"Victimizers" are also created by the system creating black markets (which cannot nonviolently enforce contracts) in various goods and services and by its general blurring of the line between right and wrong.
I ask that you do not look at criminals as bad people. Christians should know that we are all equally evil. There is not one righteous man -- no, not even one.
Instead of making excuses for people, realize that you, too, are capable of everything each criminal has done. You will be much quicker to forgive and see them as potential strong allies and friends. Prisoners truly need friends like that, given the rampant unforgiveness in today's world, as well as the nonsensical prisoner stereotypes. ("I'm not like THAT guy... THAT guy is the scum of the Earth!")
I repeat that all prisoners are great potential allies to the cause of liberty -- perhaps much moreso than the typical person who lives in the grey area of life.
No Mike I do not consider myself evil. If you think murders are just like every one else than you are spitting on their victims. If you want to hang around with truely evil people go ahead, but don't bring them around me.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on October 04, 2006, 12:05 AM NHFT
"Victimizers" are also created by the system creating black markets (which cannot nonviolently enforce contracts) in various goods and services and by its general blurring of the line between right and wrong.
???
Aren't you a founder of the Freedom Friends Tuath? Isn't the the Tuath a "black market" tort system? Do you believe the Tuath cannot enforce contracts between members without resorting to violence? Don't you support the idea that people can survive just fine with little or no government? Don't you believe that people can settle their differences peacefully, completely outside civil law? Do you believe that illegitimate laws can
force people into initiating violence?
QuoteI ask that you do not look at criminals as bad people.
I don't look at "criminals" as bad people. You're a criminal -- the "Outlaw Manicurist". Russell is a criminal -- the "Unidentified Flying Objector". Lauren is a criminal -- the "Peacefully Reading A Book On A Porch" silent protestor. You're all good people, even though you're "criminals" in the eyes of the law. I salute you all, laws be damned.
I look at
bad people as bad people. And, like it or not, jails and prisons are full of
bad people. Many of them are sociopaths who are quite adept at manipulating the emotions of everyone with whom they come into contact. To their mothers, they're saints. To their homeys, they're the baddest asses on the compound. To the women penpals they deceive, they're righteous victims, whose legal defense fund is more important than new shoes for the women's kids. To the chapel volunteers, they're changed men who were caught in a bad situation, but Now They Know Better. :angel1:
When I said "substantial number", that's based on seeing what these men
actually did. Not the story they told someone who spent a weekend in the holding cell with them. Not what they tell the chapel volunteer, or their mothers, or the women who send them money. Quite often, there is background information in their files that is not used to convict them. Sometimes those details are plea-bargained away; sometimes there are technical problems with the case, so they are convicted of lesser charges. But, the fact remains that they did "it", whatever "it" happens to be.
Just last week, I had calls from two different unit officers, asking me to look up the charges on the same inmate. He was boasting what a baaaaadass drug dealer he was, how he ruled the streets, etc. That raised red flags for these experienced officers, so they called me for the scoop. The fellow in question had no history of drugs. He was sentenced to 270 months for producing and distributing child pornography. He didn't just film it, he participated in it, taping himself (and others) raping dozens of children under the age of 10, then selling the videos online.
But if you'd encountered him in jail while locked up over the weekend for civil disobedience, he'd have sung you a tale of woe about how he was just an entrepeneur in an unapproved industry. ::)
Are there prisoners serving absurdly long sentence for things that should not even be crimes? Absolutely! If it was up to me, I'd turn them all loose. But as I said earlier, a
substantial number of people who are convicted of "victimless crimes" are themselves victimizers, using force, fraud, and coercion.
QuoteInstead of making excuses for people, realize that you, too, are capable of everything each criminal has done. You will be much quicker to forgive and see them as potential strong allies and friends.
In a word: no. I'm not capable of most of what these men have done.
Am I capable of stealing or dealing drugs to keep my family from starving? Yes. Am I capable of raping and beating to death a 72 year old widow for the $7 in her purse? Absolutely not! (And yes, that is a real example that I've seen.) Perhaps you'd prefer the one who gave his 7 year old niece gonorrhea. Or the nursing home attendant who sexually molested and physically abused patients, some to the point of death. How about the millionaire Texas Attorney General who defrauded banks for loans, while claiming indigence to the court while under indictment for personally profiting from the "Big Tobacco" settlement? The man who just won re-election to a city council in Louisiana, after serving a prison term for using that same office to demand bribes?
Each of us, suffering from human nature, has the potential for evil. But some are just plain
evil, and unapologetic about it.
QuoteI repeat that all prisoners are great potential allies to the cause of liberty -- perhaps much moreso than the typical person who lives in the grey area of life.
That is simply silly. Having worked personally with thousands of prison inmates over the last 15 years, I will tell you that many of them are potential allies. Many are unjustly convicted of unjust laws. But "all prisoners are great potential allies to the cause of liberty"? Nonsense! The rate of sociopathy in prison populations is much higher than in the population at large; I've seen studies putting the number as high as 30%, and the lower limit is around 12%; compare that to about 3% of men in the general population. Sociopaths seek only one freedom: the freedom to do whatever they want, no matter the cost to anyone else.
I'm the farthest thing from a law-and-order hardass. But the notion that everyone behind bars is an ally of the freedom movement is just plain silly. Referring back to our discussions about pacifism and Christianity, a goodly number of them would love to encounter pacifists: easier pickings. Not unlike the killer at the Amish school.
Trust experience over wishful thinking.
Kevin
I gotta agree with Mike. I don't think I have the right to imprison other people, so I would work to set the captives free. I could truly tell everyone I met in jail that I thought they should be free. Since I want everyone to be free, I think everyone can also be part of the freedom movement.
::) great you can all sit around sing songs and when you go sleep at night they will slit your throat.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 03, 2006, 11:39 PM NHFT
ok that is a great idea actually...tunnelling...
Don't forget to whistle {greatescape.wav}
After a couple solid hours of repetitive whistling they just might help you dig to get you to shut up.
nah .... some guys sing/yell for hours at a time and all it does is make the guards mad.
Does the justice system need to be replaced with voluntary alternatives? Should restitution be more prevalent?
Yes and yes.
Are all people in prison potential allies? Hell no. I want nothing to do with violent thugs whether they be a murderer or someone who orders murders (a politician).
KBCraig is right on the money here.
Why wouldn't they be "potential allies"? They could change .... even a lawyer/poli can change. :)
If they have changed, sure they are.
Oh here's another one I like...I will let the originator of this idea claim credit if he wishes but will not out him myself:
Fishing without a license.
Dave.....you've pushed it too far with that suggestion..........you're gonna bring the world down on us
at
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4910.0
some of Gandhi's workers used the technique of fasting in front of a perpetrator's house.
This sounds like an idea with potential.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 05, 2006, 07:51 AM NHFT
Oh here's another one I like...I will let the originator of this idea claim credit if he wishes but will not out him myself:
Fishing without a license.
Russell suggests doing this at the next porcfest, which is on a stocked lake.
[Acknowleged that I have only read the first eleven pages of this thread]
Comments from a native:
Lloyd is right. Numbers matter. Right now the FSP is welcomed by some, regarded casually by others and seen as a threat to be resisted by the recent immigrant socialist defenders of the state. The last group tries to portray the FSP as people who want to take children out of the schools, give them drugs and turn them into prostitutes -- with some success. IMHO, that mindset should neither be fed nor supported. Is pot the real issue? Doesn't at least half the population already practice civil disobedience by smoking it? What's to gain by "fronting" that issue?
I think that just like random acts of kindness, random acts of civil disobedience can add up. When you have an option, don't "obey."
Also, there is a question on the November ballot for an amendment to the NH Constitution to prevent the taking of land by eminent domain for private use. Go vote for it! The numbers will be huge in support of this amendment, but your vote can make it "huger." That is a loud statement, and one in which you are accord with the natives. That vote will receive national recognition.
The FSP needs to pull in as many of the natives as it can. Pick a law that is normally ignored and get a group of people together to ignore it en masse and publicly. They won't make 200 "first arrests" for the violation. You also gain the approval of the masses because "no one obeys that stupid law."
Find laws to disobey at
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc.htm
Another thing you can do is over-obey the law. Tie them up in their own knots. Follow laws that no one bothers with and that they don't know how to deal with.
Every time some government weasel tells you you "have" to do something, demand that they cite the NH RSA (Revised Statute Annotated). If they tell you that you have to fill out a form, you don't have to unless the RSA is printed on it. Most people do what they are told, even if there is no real law requiring them to. Lots of things you are told you "have" to do are really for the convenience of the bureaucrats.
I would just caution you not to alienate potential native converts by using extreme measures that will spook them and confirm that FSPers are all nutcase wackos. Lead them to reason with baby steps. Start with automatically winning issues (like eminent domain). Show them that you are "like" them and "for" them, personally.
Quote from: Sam Adams on October 15, 2006, 10:39 AM NHFT
Is pot the real issue? Doesn't at least half the population already practice civil disobedience by smoking it? What's to gain by "fronting" that issue?
The eventual demise of the insane War on Drugs. A "war" that is against our friends and family members. A "war" that has been an excuse to destroy the 4th amendment.
Returning drugs to the free market would end most violence problems virtually overnight.
Quote from: Sam Adams on October 15, 2006, 10:39 AM NHFT
[Acknowleged that I have only read the first eleven pages of this thread]
......
Comments from a native:
Show them that you are "like" them and "for" them, personally.
Well said and welcome!!!!
Sam welcome! Much thanks for the advice. I'd especially welcome more specific ideas about how we could overobey the law; that's something we haven't explored yet. I understand canadians are doing this by turning in tons of firearms registration paperwork and flooding their gun registration system with it.
Hi dada,
Well, of course, everyone could open carry, all the time. ;-)
My favorite cause is a constitutional amendment to confirm the separation of school and state. The infamous "Claremont decisions" asked the wrong question. They asked whether local of state government was responsible for a government-funded education. The real question is "What makes anyone think there is any constitutional foundation for a government-funded education?"
The justices must be products of government-school educations because they don't understand English and found a "right" in the second part of the constitution (Form of Government) not the first part (Bill of Rights), and they didn't find it for 200+ years.
[Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of t he people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1877 prohibiting tax money from being applied to schools of religious denominations.
Amended 1903 permitting the general court to regulate trusts and monopolies restraining free trade.
The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.
The clause that justification for government funding rests upon is the "to cherish the interest," of four parallel items: literature, sciences, all seminaries, public schools. The separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights and further the section in this article, prevent funding religious schools (seminaries, and at the time the constitution was written all public schools). Neither do we fund literature and the sciences. ("Public schools" at that time were elementary schools run by churches but open to everyone. "Seminaries" were usually secondary-level institutions run by the churches that both trained people for ordination and took in regular students.) You see that the court completely ignored the section on monopolies. All towns/cities in NH are incorporated, though I don't know if school districts (distinct political bodies) are.
Certainly, the escalating mandates "to countenance and inculcate" are much stronger than "cherishing interests," but we don't fund "the principles of humanity and general benevolence."
We need good lawyers to raise the right questions.
I like Coburn's claim that he will just ignore the courts when it comes to ed funding. that sounds like something one of us would say but he's supposedly just a run of the mill republican.
Ignoring the court won't shut down the government schools. Perhaps we need to demonstrate at schools with signs that say "Free the minds of children!" "Monopolies are unconstitutional," "Government day care destroys free thought," etc.
I love civil disobedience and would like some in put. I bought 24 acres of land in canterbury on a class 6 non maintained road I recently paid a surveyor with good standings in nh to subdivide my property into 3 lots 2- 5 acre lots and 1- 13 acres .We went in front of the planning board and was rejected because i havent done enough work to the towns road(however i have spent about $30,000 in labor and materials so far). Now if i finish the road to class 5 standards they can still shoot me down. Should i take the risk of putting another $30,000 into the road in hopes they will approve of my subdivision or should i cut and run. I have put alot of time and effort into my road and would love to be able to sell a piece without towns permission. The land was subdivided so i could buy my piece. They want the land to stay as it is for wetland conservation which about five acres is wetland.Also if i want to raise or lower level of pond i need to get permits and surveys by wetland scientists and a ton of bullshit. I actually already did some civil disobedience by replacing culvert before winter so i can get home without permits but once they find out they will probably fine me which i wont pay. any input would be appreciated
Interesting. Class 6 roads can only be upgraded to class 5 by virtue of a warrant article (vote of the people). Class 5 requires town takeover of maintenance. However, selectmen can waive a "class 5 road" requirement if the applicant upgrades a class 6 road to class 5 standards and so maintains it. The argument is "public safety."
Essentially, if the town allows you to build, it is taking on liability for fire protection/police protection and ambulance services. It won't assume that liability without a commitment that the road will be maintained at the owner's expense. Different towns (even at different times) grant the waivers with varying degrees of ease. It depends if they are pro- or anti-development.
Your case is interesting in that the planning board allowed you to subdivide (I'm assuming into building lots). Check the zoning ordinances. They usually say you can't create a new lot on a class 6 road. If the planning board did so in violation of the zoning ordinance, they gave you a de facto right to build on it. That argument might encourage the selectmen to grant you a waiver for a building permit.
You may want to review all the laws here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XX-231.htm
the town shot down my subdivision plan down due to the fact that i havent pumped enough money into the road which is a half mile to my lot. What i dont understand is they let the people i bought the land from subdivide into 2 lots and my lot was purchased as a building lot and i signed a waiver stating it is my responsibility to keep road passible to my house and that their not responsible for me. And i can upgrade road to class 5 and they still will not maintain it thats what they told me its a very touchy subject which i try to avoid until i can afford a realestate lawyer with a wetland back ground their are also conservation issues that im dealing with now. I moved out here to get away from all the bullshit of society and beurocrats and now it has come to me.
I hear ya Joe...
Maybe we can help? At least we can try, keep us informed. :)
Local "land use" boards (planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment) have incredible powers under the state laws and many are overly zealous in exercising them. They get to write master plans (usually with the assistance of quasi-governmental regional planning commissions) from which all else is supposed to unfold. They also are in charge of capital improvements programs (essentially roadmaps to spending) and have authority to adopt them. CIPs are to be used as budgeting tools by the selectmen and budget committee, but are also used as justificationf or exaction fees to be paid in support of infrastructure when new construction takes place. Planning boards are also charged with writing articles for adoption of/amendments to the zoning ordinances.
The laws are incredibly complex and few people run for office because they don't have the time. That means the people who make the time make the calls on land use -- with significant authority.
jj we are trying to get enough of a force together here that we can make it politically difficult for local authorities to inflict fines and what not against folks who aren't endangering or harming others. If you're within 60 miles of manchester, or in the keene area, we can usually put together demonstrations of ten to twenty people in your support, for what that's worth. This should grow into other and bigger forms of peaceful opposition over time.
thanx for the input it all seems to come down to money for permits and wetland scientists i will play things by ear and if worse comes to worse get a loan and do things their way then maybe theyll just get the fuck out of my life thats why i moved out here in the first place. The DES is just doing there job they had to get a complaint from some assshole across town from the conservation society first if it werent for him it would all be done and noone would have been the wiser now i have to play there game. it just sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't play their game if you want to be free. But they are pretty rotten and persistent.
Back to the thread topic .... not asking for permits sounds ideal to me. :)
Every federal employee walking away from their job. Every county declaring every federal building within their jurisdicton unfit for human habitation and pulling them down. A few people in every town and city sitting on public property with signs refusing to move, ever.
thanx , i agree
other options that may end up on the table soon: releasing a baloon, driving without a seatbelt on.
Many of us don't use seatbelts.
I do, except around town
Here is a continually updated list of civil dis ideas I am collecting from you guys. All of these innocuous activities are, I believe, illegal in New Hampshire...often because of Federal law.
What are *your* favorites? What are your ides for civil dis?
------
- serve wine to underage Iraq war vet in front of an appropriate state office
- operate pocket bike on a quiet public road
- fish w/o license
- hand out petition for redress of grievances at IRS office inside
- hand out ron paul literature at IRS office inside
- sell sales-taxable items without adding the tax ( i.e. sell meals in front of state house )
- refuse to pay some other tax
- occupy a home or business threatened with Eminent Domain seizure, or one which has already been seized
- occupy a home or business threatened with tax seizure
- set up a sales kiosk on the 34 west property in keene (citizens voted to sell it in 06 but the school board won't).
- do some type of licensed business w/o license
- spend liberty dollars in front of fed bldg - not illegal but the Mint says it is
- establish "free zone" inside a property targetted for seizure
- walk up to Post Office anti gun signs ... and adding the rest of the law to one of them....the part that says you *can* carry guns into post offices
- cc jail visit
- melt a penney or nickel outside a fed building
- Plant industrial hemp seeds in front of an appropriate bureaucracy
- Light or puff a joint in front of an appropriate bureaucracy
- Demonstrate inside the DEA or some other jackboot-friendly bureaucracy
- Take piece of hard candy to Elaine Brown in Plainfield ( they're already getting resupplied I think but the difference in this case would be informing the authorities in advance).
- Police Checkpoint civil dis - half the fun would be spreading out and finding it LOL
could be replicated at Federal checkpoint on the interstate
- FIJA disobedience (maybe enter a court with literature for the jurors or stand at entrance with "Jurors may overrule Judges" sign).
- Hire a worker for below minimum wage ... in front of the appropriate government office
- Hire a worker below minimum *age*...in front of the appropriate government office
- Audio-record a cop
- Maybe also some other kind of disobedience related to ron paul? someone suggested arrests at a democrat reps office who voted to continue the iraqupation.
- parent serving small amount of wine to son or daughter who's a minor
- Alter a U.S. coin: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Silver_Surfer_Coin.html
- sell cold meds w/o requiring ID, or in unapproved quantities (I think four bottles would do it!)
- Play poker for money, with friends, in front of relevant state bureaucracy
- Get married before the state three day waiting period in front of the relevant bureaucracy.
- Stage a demonstration outside a funeral (with the approval of the funeralgoers. Not sure if that would be illegal in this context)
- Attempt to place a FIJA.org banner on a courthouse, or to chalk the FIJA URL on a courthouse
- Attempt to chalk a V on a government building
- "Structure" a financial transaction to "conceal" its amount; (buy three postal money orders at just below the minimum reporting amount)
- drive with heavy window tint to right and left of driver
- play a game of lawn darts....illegal now in the u.s. apparently
- think of some way to violate 10 federal nanny laws in 10 minutes, in front of a fed building. can it be done?
- make a fire on own property with five fire extinguishers present, but no permit
- refuse to license dog
I thaught the ballon bill was thankfully terminated in the senate with the motivation that it was a silly bill. Am I wrong?
Yeah, the balloon bill was ITL out of committee but that doesn't mean anything until the Senate adjourns for the session. They could always pick it up and choose to ignore the committee recommendation.
well it does mean the senate is more likely to ITL than it would be otherwise.
from a speech on 5/22:
"Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the State and invites possible imprisonment."
- Ron Paul
"(Patriotism) means to sin against against a government's abuse of the peoples' rights."
- Ron Paul
Does anyone have any ideas how civil dis might be timed or designed to assist Ron Paul?
the list of civil dis ideas has been updated, at the top of this thread.
getting arested for reading the constitution
Quote from: supperman15 on June 29, 2007, 11:52 AM NHFT
getting arested for reading the constitution
how does one arrange an arrest for that?
lack of permets, or noise violations. Im sure if enough people got together somehwere and started reading it there would be a problem. Ny wants to restrict videotaping in the same location for more then 30 min, so you could get arested for videotaping someone reading the constitutuin. Going through courthouse security just recite the IV amendment over and over again.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 29, 2007, 01:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: supperman15 on June 29, 2007, 11:52 AM NHFT
getting arested for reading the constitution
how does one arrange an arrest for that?
Visit NYC. Where it is currently illegal to recite the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and will soon be illegal to take photographs without a permit.
Thank goodness that two of the "major" contenders for the presidency are "from" NY; they'll export their version of freedom to the rest of the country.
Jul 1, 2007 7:04 pm US/Eastern
Police Arrest Bicycling Activist At Bicycle Rally
(CBS/AP) NEW YORK An antic activist who said he was sticking up for cyclists' rights was arrested while loudly reciting the First Amendment, according to police and the activist.
Bill Talen -- an actor and performance artist who crusades against consumerism as "Reverend Billy" -- was arrested Friday before a monthly mass bicycle ride that has spurred friction between riders and police.
Police say Talen hassled officers by following them while shouting through a bullhorn. Officers repeatedly asked Talen to stop before arresting him on harassment and disorderly conduct charges, according to police.
But Talen says he was speaking up for the riders by reciting the constitutional amendment that enshrines Americans' right to assemble for peaceful gatherings, among other freedoms.
Called Critical Mass, the group rides aim to assert cyclists' rights and protest cities' reliance on motor vehicles. The rides became big enough that police decided to crack down, leading to the arrest of more than 260 cyclists during a ride days before the Republican National Convention in August 2004. Dozens more cyclists have been arrested at subsequent rallies.
Lawyer Normal Siegel, who said he witnessed Talen's arrest near Manhattan's Union Square and planned to represent him, portrayed the arrest as paradoxical.
"Reverend Billy has a First Amendment Right to recite the First Amendment," he said.Both charges were violations, and Talen was released without bail until a court date in August.
Talen has performed a one-man show about consumerism and led a choir and street-theater troupe called the Church of Stop Shopping. He has also assailed what he sees as Manhattan's metamorphosis into a tourist-oriented mega-mall, sometimes taking his message into a Disney store at Times Square.
here are some of the newer ones, which i've added to the original list up top of this thread
---
selling cold meds w/o id requirement or in unapproved quantities
Playing poker for money, with friends, in front of the relevant state bureaucracy
Getting married before the state three day waiting period in front of the relevant bureaucracy.
Staging a demonstration outside a funeral (with the approval of the funeralgoers. Not sure if that would be illegal in this context)
Attempt to place a FIJA banner on a courthouse, or to chalk the FIJA URL on a courthouse, or hold a sign inside a jury pool area
Attempt to chalk a V on a government building
driving with heavy window tint
"structuring" a financial transaction to conceal its amount
I just saw an article on WMUR which gave me the idea for an act of civil disobedience.
They pointed out that Lawn Darts are banned in the US and have been for the past 25 years. So get a set of lawn darts and put them up for sale publicly (maybe on ebay)
http://www.wmur.com/news/13625755/detail.html
QuoteLawn darts have been banned for sale in the United States for nearly 20 years. The government said they were responsible for four deaths and 6,700 injuries over a 10-year period. In lawn darts games, opposing players score points by tossing darts at a plastic ring on the ground.
Four deaths and 6,700 injuries... anyone have the statistics for youth sports programs such as football? I would think over a ten year period a rough sport like football would be even worse.
bald eagle had thoughts on civil dis, which he posted on the free stater forum, and which i thought were worth copying here:
<< As I keep pointing out, I think that civil dis and protests need to be well thought-out and prepared if you are to properly highlight what the issue is. People misinterpret things all the damn time, so you need to spell out what you are doing and why such that a retards like the police and the reporter can understand the point. Don't forget the sheeple at home watching the bube tube or sounding out the words in the newspaper.
Quote from: Dada Orwell on July 08, 2007, 09:20:02 am
serve wine to underage Iraq war vet in front of an appropriate state office
No, have him drink wine, but don't have anyone serve it to him. Better yet, have him homebrew what he's going to drink. You want to focus on the drinking age, so don't cloud the issue by bringing other closely related issue like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, excise taxes, liquor licensing, etc.
to be fish w/o license
Be careful with this one, because even though I'm a rabid, top-of-the-Nolan-chart libertarian, there are some excellent arguments for the control of hunting and fishing. A complicating factor will be who owns the body of water, and who owns the fish. Down here in VA, the law views deer and fish as "the King's deear and fish," I don't know about NH.
People don't need a hunting license to hunt on their own land, but visitors need one even if they have the consent of the landowner. I think even the landowner must obey hunting seasons and bag limits.
What you should do is set up a man-made pond, and stock it with fish that you purchase from a shop in intrastate commerce. Then have someone other than the landowner fish without a license. Or hunt on your own property out of season. Or hunt animals that don't have a season. Goats, dairy cows, pigs, etc.
hand out petition for redress of grievances at IRS office inside
hand out ron paul literature at IRS office inside
IS the IRS "the government," or is it just an agency of the corporate US or an authorized collection agency for the govt? You have a Right to petition THE GOVERNMENT, so make sure that's what you're doing, else you don't really have a case.
sell sales-taxable items without adding the tax ( i.e. sell meals in front of state house )
Rather, highlight the unreasonable nature of a tax on an ACT. I you sell something you're supposed to pay a tax. Stand a bunch of people in a line and sell some item down the line until it gets to the end. Then have the first person in line sell the same kind of item directly to the last person in line. Same result, different amount of tax due. WHY!!!
Even more hilarious, just have the same two people "sell" the same item back and forth to each other ad infinitum.
Demonstrate inside the DEA or some other jackboot-friendly bureaucracy
FIJA disobedience (maybe enter a court with literature for the jurors or stand at entrance with "Jurors may overrule Judges" sign).
Show up for jusry duty with a FIJA t-shirt on
Hire a worker for below minimum wage ... in front of the appropriate government office
Hire them on a flat fee basis - "fix this for me for a set amount of money." Hire someone else at an hourly rate. Have them both perform the same job in the exact same amount of time.
Hire a worker below minimum *age*...in front of the appropriate government office
Tell a worker below minimum age to do the same job for FREE. Have the minor's parents tell them to do the same task as a "chore."
Audio-record a cop
Find an idiot-savant that can memorize the conversation word for word and SAY it back at will almost with the same voice. Is a man or woman "a recording device?"
parent serving small amount of wine to son or daughter who's a minor
Have the parent serve a sick child the same quantity of an alcohol-based cold medicine.
sell cold meds w/o requiring ID, or in unapproved quantities (I think four bottles would do it!)
Sell them to separate parties in legal quantities and then have them give all of the meds to someone else for free.
Play poker for money, with friends, in front of relevant state bureaucracy
Play poker for barter property, or services, or non-FRN money. If the Mint doesn't consider the Liberty Dollar to be money, then it's not gambling, IS IT?
Get married before the state three day waiting period in front of the relevant bureaucracy.
Three days after ... what? You decide to get married? You meet?
Stage a demonstration outside a funeral (with the approval of the funeralgoers. Not sure if that would be illegal in this context)
Have half of the funeral goers demonstrate outside the funeral itself. Have someone who is to die soon put it in their will that they want a demonstration held outside their funeral. Have the person being buried hold a protest sign in their open casket. Have a funeral for a pet and stage a demonstration outside of it.
drive with heavy window tint to right and left of driver
Here in VA, it is only NON-FACTORY tint that is illegal if it too dark. Have two people drive with same amount of tint, but have one come that way from the manufacturer. >>
i've gone to all the major NH forums I know of and requested feedback on our civil dis ideas. I'd like average NH folks on mainstream forums to feel they have input into whatever action we might take.
The reaction has been strangely positive but not particularly lively.
http://seacoastconnects.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3382
http://www.merrimackforum.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4204
http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?t=869
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 16, 2006, 03:01 AM NHFT
Sam welcome! Much thanks for the advice. I'd especially welcome more specific ideas about how we could overobey the law; that's something we haven't explored yet. I understand canadians are doing this by turning in tons of firearms registration paperwork and flooding their gun registration system with it.
I just mailed letters to the BATFE and State police requesting that they send me enlarged-text or poster-sized forms to comply with requests made by customers, as per the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law. You want to tie up the system? Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with. When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 20, 2007, 07:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 16, 2006, 03:01 AM NHFT
Sam welcome! Much thanks for the advice. I'd especially welcome more specific ideas about how we could overobey the law; that's something we haven't explored yet. I understand canadians are doing this by turning in tons of firearms registration paperwork and flooding their gun registration system with it.
I just mailed letters to the BATFE and State police requesting that they send me enlarged-text or poster-sized forms to comply with requests made by customers, as per the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law. You want to tie up the system? Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with. When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.
:laughing1:
Quote from: lildog on July 05, 2007, 03:48 PM NHFT
Four deaths and 6,700 injuries... anyone have the statistics for youth sports programs such as football? I would think over a ten year period a rough sport like football would be even worse.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_anyone_ever_been_killed_playing_football
Quote from: Dreepa on July 20, 2007, 07:40 PM NHFT
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_anyone_ever_been_killed_playing_football
Wow, that's just... an
insane amalgamation of conflicting answers by different unknown authors, with no links or cites. :o
But one of the answers did prompt me to google "catastrophic sports injuries", which lead me here:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/FootballInjuryData.htm
From 1931 to 2006, there were 1002 direct deaths from football injuries ("direct", meaning not heat stroke, heart attack, etc.)
The only year with zero football deaths was 1990.
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 20, 2007, 07:28 PM NHFT
It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law. You want to tie up the system? Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with. When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.
I like to send FOIA requests to government agencies, when the opportunity arises.
The last time I did this, the State Department just gave up and put the document I was looking for (http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/75635.pdf) on their Web site.
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 07:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 20, 2007, 07:28 PM NHFT
I just mailed letters to the BATFE and State police requesting that they send me enlarged-text or poster-sized forms to comply with requests made by customers, as per the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law. You want to tie up the system? Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with. When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.
:laughing1:
So I just got a call from State Police letting me know that "they were working on it."
:)
No word yet from BATFE...
The federal government is bigger. It'll take them a bit longer. After all, they're going to have to go buy a whole bunch of new equipment to print up those forms, since they can't use the equipment the government already has. It'll take two years to go through the procurement process, by which time the equipment they eventually buy will already be obsolete by the time it's delivered, but the price paid will be double what it was on the open market.
Then someone has to be hired to operate the equipment...
Yes, government really works like this.
So wait... according to the OP, I can carry a gun into a post office? Can someone link me to the law that says so?
Thanks
Quote from: Search4Lancer on August 01, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
So wait... according to the OP, I can carry a gun into a post office? Can someone link me to the law that says so?
That's one of the most widely discussed/debated issues on gun forums.
The short answer is that 18 USC 930 prohibits firearms or other weapons in federal facilities (defined as "buildings where federal employees work"). There is a list of exceptions to the prohibition, which includes a catch-all "other lawful purposes".
But, the post office is specifically exempt from 18 USC 930. Instead, they have a Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations that says no guns in post office facilities. They recently amended the Rule to say that it applies on all PO property (including parking lots), "notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation".
The upside is that the penalty is a maximum $50 fine, and a maximum of 30 days in jail.
Here's a good explanation (by a lawyer):
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=96
i've updated this some over the last few months., the list up top
Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.
The highest act of so-called "civil disobedience" is to cease thinking like a subject, and choose to live. The very term "civil" implies that you are subject to an authority not your own. Liberty is not a destination, but a path. Walk it, or don't, it's your choice.
If anyone desires liberty, the "State" must die. If the "State" is to die, it will not disappear due to your protestations, nor can you kill it with a bullet. The "State" is a concept which must be put to death in the mind, as it is in the mind that the "State" holds sway. Fear.
Choosing to actually live life is the ultimate in disobedience to authority. Live your life, and educate your family and anyone else willing to listen, to do the same.
Quote from: S.Cochrane on December 27, 2007, 01:07 PM NHFT
Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.
The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context,
state means a geographic region in addition to
the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on December 27, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: S.Cochrane on December 27, 2007, 01:07 PM NHFT
Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.
The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context, state means a geographic region in addition to the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.
Negative. Read your history. In context, "State" means precicely what it has always meant. The "
United States", if the very name of the thing doesn't sufficiently define its nature for you, is a theoretical
union of independent entities, namely "
States". Here's an utterly absurd concept for you to chew on, and that concept is "
State's Rights". Is there a reason why it would be written that individual "States" have such prerogatives?
Obfuscations, however, are irrelevant. A "Free State" is still oxymoronic, and the founder still a misguided fool. Whether or not the various "States" have, over the course of a couple of centuries, retained control of their own internal affairs, or have abdicated or been forced to give up their authority to a higher authority, is irrelevant. To have a "free region", by
your definition, would necessarily require secession and disolution of the "State" which controls that region. In the case of the "United States", it would necessarily involve the defeat of two "States", both the "State" and the illegal "contract" between the "State" and the governming body of the Union of "States".
Are you a man of vice?
Quote from: S.Cochrane on December 27, 2007, 02:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on December 27, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context, state means a geographic region in addition to the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.
Negative. Read your history. In context, "State" means precicely what it has always meant. The "United States", if the very name of the thing doesn't sufficiently define its nature for you, is a theoretical union of independent entities, namely "States".
I know exactly what
state means, historically, in the United States (or united States, as it was once called). If you read through my history of posts here, you'd know you didn't need to clarify this. :) My point was that the Free State Project is named as such because it's about concentrating liberation efforts on one of the geographical regions / political subdivisions of the United States, not trying to claim
the State could ever be "free."
Quote from: S.Cochrane on December 27, 2007, 02:22 PM NHFT
To have a "free region", by your definition, would necessarily require secession and disolution of the "State" which controls that region.
Indeed.
Quote from: S.Cochrane on December 27, 2007, 01:07 PM NHFT
...Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.
The highest act of so-called "civil disobedience" is to cease thinking like a subject, and choose to live. The very term "civil" implies that you are subject to an authority not your own. Liberty is not a destination, but a path. Walk it, or don't, it's your choice.
You bring up some valid points. The type of activism that Lauren, Russell and others (including myself) embrace, is perhaps more accurately referred to as "asserting one's sovereignty", rather than "civil disobedience".
It was obvious to me from the start that the term "Free State" was an oxymoron of the highest order, yet someone else's gaffe did not stop me from participating. So what if it the project has an irrational name? It is one of the most promising efforts to date for establishing genuine individual freedom in our lifetime.
One of the greatest challenges to this spectacular movement is the fact that humans, especially freethinkers that are attracted to this movement, tend to be skeptical. They want to see that the FSP can get their numbers up before they make a committment. This is like refusing to put wood on a fire until it demonstrates a roaring flame. If you are a friend of liberty
and are already committed to moving to New Hampshire, taking a minute of your time to sign the FSP Statement of Intent is one of the most powerful things you can do to promote liberty, because each new signature helps overcome this challenge.
Of course, the choice is yours -- yet by refusing to take such a simple, yet powerful action for liberty when you already are planning to make the move,
just because it is irrationally named, you are behaving no more rationally than the person who conceived the term "Free State".
Couldn't the term 'Free State' mean a republic that has freed itself from Federal control?
lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers :)
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms? :)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on December 30, 2007, 07:21 AM NHFT
Couldn't the term 'Free State' mean a republic that has freed itself from Federal control?
Yes. That was the original idea. The FSP was not founded by Anarchists.
Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 30, 2007, 08:11 AM NHFT
Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?
we took a vote .... and CD won
but the wording on the ballot might have been misleading
Oh! I thought it might have been a 'chad' thing
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 30, 2007, 08:08 AM NHFT
lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers :)
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms? :)
If I remember correctly...
Thoreau went off into the 'woods' to live outside society, and Ghandi refuted the use of anything British provided.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 30, 2007, 08:08 AM NHFT
lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers :)
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms? :)
Mr. Therian of the Fed Protection service seems to. He seemed to be irritated more than angry when Kat and Lauren provoked an arrest at the Keene irs office in response to Dave R. being arrested for his Outlaw Leafleteering. He knows we are not a threat to him. :) He said to the effect that he wished he could have spent time going after those who are a threat to the gov't. Maybe someone remembers his exact wording.
I think that is a good thing. Dr. King was very focused on keeping things civil, largely due to his fear that violence would create a "bitter legacy". he was keenly aware that he was a minority in a country that was hostile to minorities. We are a political minority. I try to keep that in mind.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 30, 2007, 08:11 AM NHFT
Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?
Actually, the two are inseparable. The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.
Unless, of course, your objective is to be misunderstood and/or not taken seriously.
Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).
The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong. They were successful at limiting government temporarily. Government is like a cancer, and they managed to slow its growth, even temporarily reversing it, while ultimately preserving its existence. I want to actually cure this disease for good, and it makes sense to me that using old terminology ("civil disobedience") only serves to obfuscate our (my) radical new objective of curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms.
The term "civil disobedience" does nothing to prompt people to think outside the box created by Gandhi and MLK. The term "asserting one's sovereignty", on the other hand, opens peoples' minds to the 'possibility' that each individual is sovereign, and "governmental authority" is an irrational fiction that infringes on this.
If there is ever going to be a more rational (government-free) social order, there has to be a massive paradigm shift. Combining activism with carefully chosen semantics can go a long way toward accomplishing that.
I was referring to the discussion about what is a state
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 30, 2007, 09:34 AM NHFT
I was referring to the discussion about what is a state
Ah, gotcha.
Yeah, that subject was already covered ad nauseum in another thread ;D
Quote from: srqrebel on December 30, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 30, 2007, 08:11 AM NHFT
Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?
Actually, the two are inseparable. The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.
Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).
The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong.
Sure we can separate them .... so I don't have to waste all of my time :)
civil disobedience subconsciously destroys the state :)
these activists conveyed the message to me ... so I guess it worked
if you want to use other term ... fine .... but I see no reason to change terms ... this thread is about the best possible use of the technique and term :)
Quote from: srqrebel on December 30, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 30, 2007, 08:11 AM NHFT
Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?
Actually, the two are inseparable. The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.
Unless, of course, your objective is to be misunderstood and/or not taken seriously.
Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).
The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong. They were successful at limiting government temporarily. Government is like a cancer, and they managed to slow its growth, even temporarily reversing it, while ultimately preserving its existence. I want to actually cure this disease for good, and it makes sense to me that using old terminology ("civil disobedience") only serves to obfuscate our (my) radical new objective of curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms.
The term "civil disobedience" does nothing to prompt people to think outside the box created by Gandhi and MLK. The term "asserting one's sovereignty", on the other hand, opens peoples' minds to the 'possibility' that each individual is sovereign, and "governmental authority" is an irrational fiction that infringes on this.
If there is ever going to be a more rational (government-free) social order, there has to be a massive paradigm shift. Combining activism with carefully chosen semantics can go a long way toward accomplishing that.
I actually think of Thoreau first when I encounter the term
civil disobedience, because he essentially invented it in his essay
Civil Disobedience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29). It's always important to go to the origin of a term, a belief, or similar, otherwise you run the risk of misunderstanding what it truly means. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the term:—
QuoteThe word "civil" has several definitions. The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state," and so "civil disobedience" means "disobedience to the state." Sometimes people assume that "civil" in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make "civil disobedience" something like "polite, orderly disobedience." Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word "civil," it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance. For instance, Gandhi used this interpretation to suggest an equivalence between Thoreau's civil disobedience and his own satyagraha.
Nothing in the correct definition of
civil disobedience seems to imply that one accepts the legitimacy of the State—the term means simply that one is disobeying the civil authorities. I can see, however, that if one uses the "polite, orderly disobedience" definition that originated with Gandhi and MLK, that it could confer legitimacy to the State, since by treating one's opponent with civility it implies that one, at the very least, accepts the existence, and the right to exist, of one's opponent.
exactly
you add CD and love your enemies you get
MLKings brand of disobedience
But SRQREBEL is correct. None of these men sought to secure an anarchy (maybe Ghandi)... just a fundamental shift in the State.
MLK wanted to the State to recognize in all facets the meaning of 'All men are created equal'. But didn't seek to desolve the State.
Thoreau and Ghandi sought a reduction in the State through greater individualism.
from ryan on a different thread:
<<If the May 25 event will be in Manchester, here are some local ordinances that are easy to break:
§ 111.80 No showman, tumbler, rope-dancer, ventriloquist, juggler, or other person shall for
exhibit any feats of agility, horsemanship, sleight-of-hand, rope-dancing, or feats of cards,
animals, wax figures, puppets, or other show, or shall perform or exhibit any theatrical or
dramatic representation or other exhibition, performance, or show of any kind or description
the city, unless a license therefor in writing, specifying the day and hour such person is allowed
to perform or exhibit, shall first be obtained from the office of the City Clerk....
Notice no distinction is made regarding whether it's for pay. Who knows some card tricks?
§ 130.05 No person shall jog or run on any city street without wearing appropriately colored
clothing, such as orange, so as to be clearly visible to motorists during daylight hours. No person
shall jog or run on any city street without wearing appropriately luminescent clothing, such as a
safety vest, running suit, or reflective tape so as to be clearly visible to motorists during
nighttime hours and at dawn or dusk.
Jogging around the perimeter of the park, even in daylight, is illegal if you're wearing dark colors.
§ 130.38 No person shall, without lawful permission, climb on or over any fence of any garden or
yard.
Veterans Park has nice railings for sitting on.>>
Here is a law that every restaurant in the state violates. I have never, in my 27+ years of living in this state, seen anyone comply with this law.
Nor have I ever seen it enforced. Why have a law on the books if it will not be enforced? ::)
-----------
155:43 Display Required. – All commercial eating establishments or any place other than a private residence where food is served for consumption on the premises shall have posted in such premises in a conspicuous place a graphic display of the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver. Such display shall not be less than 8 inches by 11 inches in size and shall contain at least the following:
I. A description in both words and pictures of what to look for to determine if a person is choking;
II. A description in both words and pictures of how to perform the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver on a choking victim in order to expel the object from the victim's breathing passages; and
III. Any other information necessary to adequately instruct a rescuer in the proper procedure in aid of a choking victim.
155:44 Penalty. – Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.
Quote from: highline on May 06, 2008, 05:54 PM NHFT
Here is a law that every restaurant in the state violates. I have never, in my 27+ years of living in this state, seen anyone comply with this law.
Nor have I ever seen it enforced. Why have a law on the books if it will not be enforced? ::)
-----------
155:43 Display Required. – All commercial eating establishments or any place other than a private residence where food is served for consumption on the premises shall have posted in such premises in a conspicuous place a graphic display of the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver. Such display shall not be less than 8 inches by 11 inches in size and shall contain at least the following:
I. A description in both words and pictures of what to look for to determine if a person is choking;
II. A description in both words and pictures of how to perform the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver on a choking victim in order to expel the object from the victim's breathing passages; and
III. Any other information necessary to adequately instruct a rescuer in the proper procedure in aid of a choking victim.
155:44 Penalty. – Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.
That's interesting! I think by the time I got done reading it the poor choking person would be dead though and then would I be charged with reading too slow? Only kidding about that part, partially, but that would be a good thing to have posted in restaurants. Heck, they have wash your hands signs all over. :-\
when did this thread change to pointing out all the silly laws that they don't enforce?
It is a silly law. I can see why no one complies. The only effective way would be a cartoon thingy. I don't think it would be very appetizing eating near one of these posters, or, after spotting it on the back of your menu. :P
Training the staff in Heimlich might be a good idea, but, not a law.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 07, 2008, 06:42 AM NHFT
when did this thread change to pointing out all the silly laws that they don't enforce?
It is civilly disobedient for restaurant owners to not comply with that law.
Two people standing still and shining a laser pointer at each other:—
631:3-a (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-3-a.htm) Conduct Involving Laser Pointing Devices. –
I. Any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at an occupied motor vehicle, window, or person shall be guilty of a violation and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at a law enforcement officer or law enforcement vehicle shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
III. It shall be an affirmative defense under this section if the laser pointing device was used in an organized meeting or training class by the instructor or speaker. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to limit the use of medical lasers by qualified medical personnel, or construction lasers used by construction personnel, or laser devices utilized by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official duties.
Law enforcement officer: gets special protection under the law. The rest of us don't matter as much. ::)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 07, 2008, 06:45 PM NHFT
Law enforcement officer: gets special protection under the law. The rest of us don't matter as much. ::)
Oh, it gets better. Check out the (very new) law that immediately follows this one:—
631:4-a (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-4-a.htm) Harm or Threats to Certain Government Officials. – I. A person is guilty of a class A felony if he or she causes bodily injury to, or commits any other crime against, a sitting member of the general court, an executive councilor, a past or present governor, member of the judiciary, marital master, or member of their immediate family, for the purpose of influencing such official's action or in retaliation for action taken as a part of an official's government duties.
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if he or she threatens bodily injury or threatens to commit any other crime against a sitting member of the general court, an executive councilor, a past or present governor, member of the judiciary, marital master, or member of their immediate family, for the purpose of influencing such official's action or in retaliation for action taken as a part of an official's government duties.
III. Violations of this statute shall be prosecuted by the office of the attorney general.
Source. 2006, 47:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2007.
Not long after 9/11, I was waiting for Kira's plane to come in...the flight leaving before hers was coming in was headed for DC. There was all this extra security, just to keep the DC dweeb safe. Rest of us didn't matter.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
Two people standing still and shining a laser pointer at each other:—
631:3-a (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-3-a.htm) Conduct Involving Laser Pointing Devices. –
I. Any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at an occupied motor vehicle, window, or person shall be guilty of a violation and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at a law enforcement officer or law enforcement vehicle shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
III. It shall be an affirmative defense under this section if the laser pointing device was used in an organized meeting or training class by the instructor or speaker. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to limit the use of medical lasers by qualified medical personnel, or construction lasers used by construction personnel, or laser devices utilized by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official duties.
Can't say I disagree with that law. There are laser pointers that are powerful enough to burn out eyes and burn through skin, or catch somebody's house on fire if it is shined through a window. And obviously if somebody is driving a car, shining laser pointers in their eyes can cause an accident.
Of course I don't mean to rain on your parade, I'm just sayin'...
sometimes you need a little government to solve the world's problems .... well maybe it takes a police state
Quote from: Luke S on May 08, 2008, 05:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
Two people standing still and shining a laser pointer at each other:—
631:3-a (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-3-a.htm) Conduct Involving Laser Pointing Devices. –
I. Any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at an occupied motor vehicle, window, or person shall be guilty of a violation and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at a law enforcement officer or law enforcement vehicle shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
III. It shall be an affirmative defense under this section if the laser pointing device was used in an organized meeting or training class by the instructor or speaker. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to limit the use of medical lasers by qualified medical personnel, or construction lasers used by construction personnel, or laser devices utilized by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official duties.
Can't say I disagree with that law. There are laser pointers that are powerful enough to burn out eyes and burn through skin, or catch somebody's house on fire if it is shined through a window. And obviously if somebody is driving a car, shining laser pointers in their eyes can cause an accident.
Of course I don't mean to rain on your parade, I'm just sayin'...
Read the law closely: It says nothing about shining it in people's eyes, nor anything about power requirements (the vast majority of laser pointers out there are 5mW; these can cause eye damage but couldn't burn through anything), nor does it make any exceptions for consent or somesuch. If you shine any
laser pointer at someone, period, you've violated this law, which is what makes it a good candidate as a "stupid law" to break.
"Reasonable" public safety laws aren't something we're going after—yet, at least...
has someone already mentioned giving the Nazi salute complete with remark whenever you see any Homeland Security? For instance, when your car is stopped at a checkpoint, you could get out and snap your heels and raise your hand in a salute and say "sig Heil" Also when you pay your tax bill. Or when you come into contact with any politician. (Okay, maybe not Ron Paul)
The list goes on and on: to the point, not threatening, beautifully symbolic.
ff
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 07, 2008, 06:45 PM NHFT
Law enforcement officer: gets special protection under the law. The rest of us don't matter as much. ::)
Yes. That one bugs me too. Sort of like some people are "more equal" than others...hmm.
There are many laws with law enforcement exceptions as the nature and everyday performance of policing would be hindered by application of some laws against the police.
That being said, I find it important to say that I think the laser pointer law is completely stupid. Like most of our laws.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 09, 2008, 08:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 08, 2008, 05:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
Two people standing still and shining a laser pointer at each other:—
631:3-a (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-3-a.htm) Conduct Involving Laser Pointing Devices. –
I. Any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at an occupied motor vehicle, window, or person shall be guilty of a violation and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, any person who knowingly shines the beam of a laser pointing device at a law enforcement officer or law enforcement vehicle shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and the laser pointing device shall be forfeited upon conviction.
III. It shall be an affirmative defense under this section if the laser pointing device was used in an organized meeting or training class by the instructor or speaker. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to limit the use of medical lasers by qualified medical personnel, or construction lasers used by construction personnel, or laser devices utilized by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official duties.
Can't say I disagree with that law. There are laser pointers that are powerful enough to burn out eyes and burn through skin, or catch somebody's house on fire if it is shined through a window. And obviously if somebody is driving a car, shining laser pointers in their eyes can cause an accident.
Of course I don't mean to rain on your parade, I'm just sayin'...
Read the law closely: It says nothing about shining it in people's eyes, nor anything about power requirements (the vast majority of laser pointers out there are 5mW; these can cause eye damage but couldn't burn through anything), nor does it make any exceptions for consent or somesuch. If you shine any laser pointer at someone, period, you've violated this law, which is what makes it a good candidate as a "stupid law" to break.
"Reasonable" public safety laws aren't something we're going after—yet, at least...
I doubt that that law would be used against somebody for just shining a laser pointer at somebody if they consented to having the laser pointer shined at them. I mean, yeah, theoretically it could, but most police aren't demons. Most police in my experience in MI and OH are reasonable people who would only arrest or fine people under this law (that is, if it existed in MI or OH) who shined laser pointers into people's eyes who didn't want it shined in their eyes, or who shined laser pointers at people who are driving cars, which could distract them and cause an accident. And even if there was a draconian officer who arrested someone for shining it at someone when they had consented to it, that officer would be very hard pressed to find a judge and a jury who would convict them for violating this law under that circumstance.
Personally, I wish there would have been a law like this in Michigan, because I used to go to a school with a bunch of rich kids where they were always getting all their new little "toys" for Christmas and their birthdays, and they sometimes got laser pointers, and then they would always act like "the cool kid on the block", which was fine, except as part of acting like "the cool kid on the block", they would take their laser pointer and shine it in people's eyes without any regard for whether or not people wanted it shined in their eyes or not. A law in Michigan like the law in NH could have gotten the laser pointers taken away from them, and would have saved me and a lot of other people from having laser pointers shined in our eyes all the time by all the "cool kids".
Why call the cops when you can lawfully use for self defense?
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:32 AM NHFT
Why call the cops when you can lawfully use for self defense?
I did use self defense. Eventually I got sick of what they did, and I would keep a mirror in my pocket and whenever they shined it at me I would reflect it straight back at them. But the fact that I'm able to defend myself doesn't excuse what they did. They should have had the laser pointers taken away from them, which is what the NH law provides for.
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Wait a minute, you're a cop?
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Wait a minute, you're a cop?
Yeah, and he doesn't think that pot smokers should be used as slave labor to build your wall Herr Luke. ;D
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 11, 2008, 08:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Wait a minute, you're a cop?
Yeah, and he doesn't think that pot smokers should be used as slave labor to build your wall Herr Luke. ;D
To be honest, I'll admit that I'm not getting my hopes up that any state will agree to my proposal regarding sentencing those guilty of drug possession to building the border wall. It seems like beyond the death penalty for (a few) murderers, there are really only two punishments for crimes in this country: fines and incarceration. Everything else has been declared "cruel and unusual" by all the bleeding hearts. (Of course it goes without saying that such declarations are usually a bunch of BS.) Of course there is still community service, but as far as I know that's limited to extremely easy things like picking up trash. It's a shame, really.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 11, 2008, 08:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Wait a minute, you're a cop?
Yeah, and he doesn't think that pot smokers should be used as slave labor to build your wall Herr Luke. ;D
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 09, 2008, 08:22 PM NHFT
"Reasonable" public safety laws aren't something we're going after—yet, at least...
we're not doing what?
Quote from: feralfae on May 10, 2008, 12:49 AM NHFT
has someone already mentioned giving the Nazi salute complete with remark whenever you see any Homeland Security?
some have done it .... I might have to add that one to the arsenal :)
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 11, 2008, 08:06 AM NHFT
Yeah, and he doesn't think that pot smokers should be used as slave labor to build your wall Herr Luke. ;D
Plus, he drives one of these:
(http://damox.com/cars/wallpaper/Delorean/1981_Delorean_DMC12.jpg)
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
He is against drug prohibition.
LEAP
Luke should go support McCain for president and leave the revolution to folks that have a clue. ;D
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
Except that you are making them the property of the community, hence slaves.
So let me understand Luke, if I were to get caught possessing marijuana, which in most jurisdictions is a trivial offense, you want the state to go to the incredible expense of shipping me to the southern border, paying to feed and house me there, paying to teach me and others who are not in the construction industry how to build things, so I can build a wall to restrict the free movement of people? Have you really thought this through?
First of all Luke, if you are picked up for possessing marijuana you are going to the county jail, at least here in NJ. Second, why would the receiving state want a large population of dangerous criminals, which you seem to feel drug users are, being sent to their state and endangering their citizens? This would have to be a federal program and that won't happen because the feds would much rather contract things out to their friends and cohorts than to do anything cheaply and effectively.
Question Luke, do you have nutmeg in your pantry?
George
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 11, 2008, 08:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
He is against drug prohibition.
LEAP
Oh, so he is, is he?
Officers who are part of LEAP are officers who are basically making the statement that they don't want to do their jobs, and that their jobs should be given to other people who are willing to enforce the laws and protect the community.
Quote
Luke should go support McCain for president
I wanted Ron Paul to be president, but it's pretty apparent that Paul doesn't have enough popular support, so out of the three that have enough popular support to potentially become president (McCain, Obama, Clinton), I think McCain is the lesser of the three evils.
Quote
and leave the revolution to folks that have a clue. ;D
I could say the same thing right back to you. You blame people like me for your problems, when in reality we're on the same side most of the time. 90% of the people who are screwing up America are leftist interest groups, free government money freeloaders (welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), and criminals, including druggies and dealers. People like me are trying to rein in all three of those groups of people and are working hard to restore freedom.
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 11, 2008, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
Except that you are making them the property of the community, hence slaves.
I've already explained why this is not so, George:
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:45 PM NHFT
[C]ommunity service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime.
(Oops, I meant 13th amendment, not 14th. Oh well.)Quote from: NJLibertySo let me understand Luke, if I were to get caught possessing marijuana, which in most jurisdictions is a trivial offense, you want the state to go to the incredible expense of shipping me to the southern border, paying to feed and house me there, paying to teach me and others who are not in the construction industry how to build things, so I can build a wall to restrict the free movement of people? Have you really thought this through?
First of all Luke, if you are picked up for possessing marijuana you are going to the county jail, at least here in NJ. Second, why would the receiving state want a large population of dangerous criminals, which you seem to feel drug users are, being sent to their state and endangering their citizens? This would have to be a federal program and that won't happen because the feds would much rather contract things out to their friends and cohorts than to do anything cheaply and effectively.
I've already answered that, too:
Quote from: Luke S on April 25, 2008, 01:04 PM NHFT
[A]ll marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.
Quote from: NJLiberty
Question Luke, do you have nutmeg in your pantry?
George
Is that some sort of New Hampshirism or New Jerseyism? Because I've never heard it before.
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 09:22 AM NHFT
[C]ommunity service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime.
(Oops, I meant 13th amendment, not 14th. Oh well.)
Actually that proves the point that it is slavery. If it weren't they would not have had to make an exception to provide for it in an anti-slavery amendment. Just because it is "legal" Luke, doesn't make it any less slavery. It just means you get to call it "involuntary servitude" and feel better about yourself. It is still slavery as those who crafted the amendment clearly realized.
Quote from: Luke S on April 25, 2008, 01:04 PM NHFT
[A]ll marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.
Didn't see that one, though you are going to have to raise the fines through the roof for that to work.
Quote from: NJLiberty
Question Luke, do you have nutmeg in your pantry?
George
Is that some sort of New Hampshirism or New Jerseyism? Because I've never heard it before.
[/quote]
It is actually just a question of whether or not you are in possession of a known hallucinogenic drug, which also has some rather harmless and tasty uses. If you do and it were arbitrarily made illegal next week should I have you arrested and banished to your concentration camps for illegal drug possession?
The point is Luke that there are a lot of natural drugs in the world. The fact that the feds in this country have arbitrarily decided that some of them are illegal does not suddenly make the people who use them bad people anymore than it makes the plants themselves bad plants. If the feds next week added nutmeg to their list of banned substances and you continued to eat apple pie you wouldn't be a bad person, nor would you be a bad person if you took it further and made nutmeg shakes from it and used it as a hallucinogen. You would still be Luke. The same thing applies if they ever prohibited alcohol again. Those who continued to drink wouldn't all of a sudden be any different than they were the day before. They would just be newly minted criminals according to an arbitrary system.
I ask you Luke, if you lived in the 1800's when all of these drugs were legal, would you have have still wanted to punish your neighbors for doing the drugs?
George
LEOs in LEAP are courageous and heroic for opposing bad law.
do they risk losing their jobs?
Depends on the department.
They certainly face retaliation.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on May 11, 2008, 10:36 AM NHFT
Depends on the department.
They certainly face retaliation.
Midnight shift and not much room for promotion... Especially if the chief is a dick
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 11, 2008, 10:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 09:22 AM NHFT
[C]ommunity service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime.
(Oops, I meant 13th amendment, not 14th. Oh well.)
Actually that proves the point that it is slavery. If it weren't they would not have had to make an exception to provide for it in an anti-slavery amendment. Just because it is "legal" Luke, doesn't make it any less slavery. It just means you get to call it "involuntary servitude" and feel better about yourself. It is still slavery as those who crafted the amendment clearly realized.
No, it's because it
isn't slavery, and so that activist judges couldn't use the 13th amendment to falsely claim that it is slavery and then act like a superlegislature and proscribe it against the wills of the Legislature and the People, like they've done with Roe v. Wade and the 14th amendment and abortion.
Quote from: NJLiberty
Quote from: Luke S on April 25, 2008, 01:04 PM NHFT
[A]ll marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.
Didn't see that one, though you are going to have to raise the fines through the roof for that to work.
Fine by me.
Quote from: NJLiberty
Quote from: Luke
Quote from: NJLiberty
Question Luke, do you have nutmeg in your pantry?
George
Is that some sort of New Hampshirism or New Jerseyism? Because I've never heard it before.
It is actually just a question of whether or not you are in possession of a known hallucinogenic drug, which also has some rather harmless and tasty uses. If you do and it were arbitrarily made illegal next week should I have you arrested and banished to your concentration camps for illegal drug possession?
The point is Luke that there are a lot of natural drugs in the world. The fact that the feds in this country have arbitrarily decided that some of them are illegal does not suddenly make the people who use them bad people anymore than it makes the plants themselves bad plants. If the feds next week added nutmeg to their list of banned substances and you continued to eat apple pie you wouldn't be a bad person, nor would you be a bad person if you took it further and made nutmeg shakes from it and used it as a hallucinogen. You would still be Luke. The same thing applies if they ever prohibited alcohol again. Those who continued to drink wouldn't all of a sudden be any different than they were the day before. They would just be newly minted criminals according to an arbitrary system.
I ask you Luke, if you lived in the 1800's when all of these drugs were legal, would you have have still wanted to punish your neighbors for doing the drugs?
George
George, I checked, and it turns out I don't have nutmeg in my pantry. If I did have nutmeg in my pantry now, and it were made illegal next week, I could not be taken to jail for the nutmeg I had in my pantry now, thanks to the Constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. I could only be taken to jail if I failed to get rid of it when it was made illegal (i.e., next week).
As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the government (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on May 11, 2008, 10:11 AM NHFT
LEOs in LEAP are courageous and heroic for opposing bad law.
I disagree. There is nothing heroic about becoming a police officer, and then joining a group of officers that don't want to enforce the laws that they have been called upon by their communities to enforce, especially drug laws, which are very important to enforce.
In my opinion, a police officer who joins an organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce drug laws" is only one step above an officer who joins and organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce laws against stealing". Both officers in my opinion are unworthy of their jobs, and the community should not allow them to continue to hold those jobs because how is the community supposed to know that they are still enforcing the laws that they have been called upon to enforce. How does the community know that they aren't taking their organizations' messages one step further and not enforcing those laws.
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on May 11, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.
:o
Wait a minute, you're a cop?
Yes Luke. And I can tell you that you are severely misguided on your stance on drug laws.
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 09:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 11, 2008, 08:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.
He is against drug prohibition.
LEAP
Oh, so he is, is he?
Officers who are part of LEAP are officers who are basically making the statement that they don't want to do their jobs, and that their jobs should be given to other people who are willing to enforce the laws and protect the community.
No Luke. I am basically making the statement that enforcing drug prohibition makes our communities far less safer and turns people in to criminals for doing something arbitrary. I simply cannot remember the last time that I was involved in looking into a major theft, robbery, or burglary and it was not related to someone needing money to get drugs. These people become violent because the prices of drugs are artificially inflated due to prohibition.
When is the last time you heard of beer distributors shooting it out in the streets?
I am a firm believer in small government. The only thing that I believe that the government should be doing is enforcing laws that protect people from
real crimes committed by others.
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 11:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on May 11, 2008, 10:11 AM NHFT
LEOs in LEAP are courageous and heroic for opposing bad law.
I disagree. There is nothing heroic about becoming a police officer, and then joining a group of officers that don't want to enforce the laws that they have been called upon by their communities to enforce, especially drug laws, which are very important to enforce.
In my opinion, a police officer who joins an organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce drug laws" is only one step above an officer who joins and organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce laws against stealing". Both officers in my opinion are unworthy of their jobs, and the community should not allow them to continue to hold those jobs because how is the community supposed to know that they are still enforcing the laws that they have been called upon to enforce. How does the community know that they aren't taking their organizations' messages one step further and not enforcing those laws.
Luke. I fear your moral compass is severely skewed.
Quote from: Rebel on May 11, 2008, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on May 11, 2008, 10:36 AM NHFT
Depends on the department.
They certainly face retaliation.
Midnight shift and not much room for promotion... Especially if the chief is a dick
I have been working midnights for going two years. I love working the night shift!
Luckily, I work for a police chief who is not only a good administrator... but he is just a straight up good human being. He opposes my views and made me aware of such, but he is very respect of my right to have my own opinion in this area. I know in a few years he is planning on retiring and when that happens, at this point in time, I am planning on getting out.
I am harboring a huge stash of primo nutmeg. When it is declared illegal, I will corner the black market.
I will push it hard on every street corner and soon it will lead our youth to experiment with harder spices such as pepper and they'll be quenching their thirst with Vanilla extract, the real stuff, not the imitation cheap stuff! Spice cabinets will be held under lock and key at Pharmacies.
Trash will litter the streets.
But wait, Lukes "not slaves" will be there to pick it up as pennance for committing a victimless crime.
Luke, the definition of involuntary servitude doesn't change and become "not slavery" just because they
say so. You are using the same kind of logic "they" used to declare waterboarding "enhanced interrogation". It's torture. Oh yeah, please explain how a "crime" is committed when there is no victim?
Not to get off topic Luke but you never did explain to me how the U.S. acquired Arizona in another thread. Was that acquisition a victimless crime of manifest destiny?
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 11:23 AM NHFT
As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the mafia (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.
Actually Luke, use of those drugs was rampant in the 1800's and early 1900's. Cocaine, Laudanum (an opiate), Marijuana, etc. were frequently used and some were frequently prescribed for all manner of medicinal purposes. Not all drug laws came from the 1960's Luke. Cocaine was regulated by the Harrison Act in 1914, as were opiates, as part of the Temperance Movement that ultimately led to the prohibition of alcohol as well. Marijuana laws became popular also in the early 1900's, not from a health position, but rather as a racial issue. The laws were targeted at Mexican workers living in the United States. By the 1930's the feds got involved in regulating it. LSD is one of the few drugs that was banned in the 1960s. The increase in the number of drug laws in the 1960s and 1970s and the negative connotations associated with drug use had more to do with cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington than it did with reducing crime.
You didn't answer my question though Luke, if the drugs were legal would you still think ill of your drug using neighbors and wish to send them to work camps?
George
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 11, 2008, 02:15 PM NHFT
You are using the same kind of logic "they" used to declare waterboarding "enhanced interrogation". It's torture.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but noone was waterboarded except for a few members of Al Qaeda. Just in case you've forgotten, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus I have no problem with Al Qaeda being made to feel the pain that they made those Americans feel on 9/11, who died terrified amongst the smoldering, twisting metal, and the blazing heat and fire of the falling towers, either being incinerated, crushed, vaporized, or falling to their death.
Quote from: Free LibertarianOh yeah, please explain how a "crime" is committed when there is no victim?
Because there was a law on the books and the criminal broke it, and the law was not an unjust law.
Quote from: Free LibertarianNot to get off topic Luke but you never did explain to me how the U.S. acquired Arizona in another thread. Was that acquisition a victimless crime of manifest destiny?
I explained it on a different thread:
Quote from: Luke S on May 09, 2008, 01:06 AM NHFT
The war was started because Mexico was being belligerent and was interfering with the U.S. annexation of Texas, which at that time was a free republic which had won its independence from Mexico and wanted to be annexed by the USA. Mexico brought the war upon themselves by interfering with that process in a belligerent manner.
It follows directly that since Mexico brought the war upon themselves, they also brought the loss of Arizona, which was a consequence of that war, upon themselves. As for the part of Arizona that they did not lose through that war, they sold it to the USA through the Gadsden purchase.
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 11, 2008, 06:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 11:23 AM NHFT
As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the mafia (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.
Actually Luke, use of those drugs was rampant in the 1800's and early 1900's. Cocaine, Laudanum (an opiate), Marijuana, etc. were frequently used and some were frequently prescribed for all manner of medicinal purposes. Not all drug laws came from the 1960's Luke. Cocaine was regulated by the Harrison Act in 1914, as were opiates, as part of the Temperance Movement that ultimately led to the prohibition of alcohol as well. Marijuana laws became popular also in the early 1900's, not from a health position, but rather as a racial issue. The laws were targeted at Mexican workers living in the United States. By the 1930's the feds got involved in regulating it. LSD is one of the few drugs that was banned in the 1960s.
Well George, sometimes it takes society a long time to realize that something needs to be done about a particular social problem. Apparently drug use was one of these instances. So perhaps it took them until the mid 1900's to do something about it, but the point is that at least something finally got done about it.
Quote from: GeorgeThe increase in the number of drug laws in the 1960s and 1970s and the negative connotations associated with drug use had more to do with cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington than it did with reducing crime.
What do you mean "cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington." Please elaborate.
Quote from: GeorgeYou didn't answer my question though Luke, if the drugs were legal would you still think ill of your drug using neighbors and wish to send them to work camps?
George
First of all, these are community service centers, not "work camps".
Secondly, George, I can't speak for what an 1800's version of myself would think. Most people in the 1800's simply did not realize what a big problem this was, or would become once it became more widespread. Perhaps an 1800's version of myself would be no exception, I don't know.
But if it were legalized now, yes I would still think ill of those who use heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs like that. But at that point, most of my anger would be focused upon the politicians who made it legal. I would thus be spending much, much more energy and time at that point trying to get the politicians who voted for legalization voted out of office, and to get new politicians put in there who would make it illegal once again than I would going around saying "shame on you, you should be in a community service center" to all the drug users.
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 11:23 AM NHFT
First of all, these are community service centers, not "work camps".
What a perfect example of Orwellian newspeak. ::)
I suppose with the proper words you can make anything sound less vile than it is.
Luke, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject I see no point to discussing this further as it will only lead to bad blood. At the core we disagree about what freedom means, and that is fine. You don't take it as far as I do, and I'm sure there are others who take it farther than I am comfortable doing. We'll just have to work together on the things on which we agree, and the others, well, we'll part paths on those.
If you're ever in NJ look me up and I'll gladly buy you a beer.
George
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 12, 2008, 09:15 AM NHFT
I suppose with the proper words you can make anything sound less vile than it is.
Luke, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject I see no point to discussing this further as it will only lead to bad blood. At the core we disagree about what freedom means, and that is fine. You don't take it as far as I do, and I'm sure there are others who take it farther than I am comfortable doing. We'll just have to work together on the things on which we agree, and the others, well, we'll part paths on those.
If you're ever in NJ look me up and I'll gladly buy you a beer.
George
Ok George, sounds like a good deal to me.
Quote from: Luke S on May 12, 2008, 01:35 AM NHFT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but noone was waterboarded except for a few members of Al Qaeda. Just in case you've forgotten, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus I have no problem with Al Qaeda being made to feel the pain that they made those Americans feel on 9/11, who died terrified amongst the smoldering, twisting metal, and the blazing heat and fire of the falling towers, either being incinerated, crushed, vaporized, or falling to their death.
Gladly. I'll fix it for you. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was waterboarded except for a few
alleged members of Al Qaeda, many of whom had been turned over by bounty hunters and were subsequently deemed harmless, some of whom were underage, and all of whom were denied any opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and challenge the charges against them."
Quote from: Caleb on May 12, 2008, 11:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 12, 2008, 01:35 AM NHFT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but noone was waterboarded except for a few members of Al Qaeda. Just in case you've forgotten, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus I have no problem with Al Qaeda being made to feel the pain that they made those Americans feel on 9/11, who died terrified amongst the smoldering, twisting metal, and the blazing heat and fire of the falling towers, either being incinerated, crushed, vaporized, or falling to their death.
Gladly. I'll fix it for you. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was waterboarded except for a few alleged members of Al Qaeda, many of whom had been turned over by bounty hunters and were subsequently deemed harmless, some of whom were underage, and all of whom were denied any opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and challenge the charges against them."
Alleged?? Underaged?? Denied an opportunity to defend themselves?? Caleb, Caleb, Caleb..... What I had always heard was that these were people who were members of Al Qaeda. And not underaged at all, but full-grown Al Qaeda members who were high up on the chain of command. And who were known to be such. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm)
What accounts for this discrepancy, Caleb?
So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 Luke?
Quote from: Caleb on May 12, 2008, 11:49 AM NHFT"Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was waterboarded except for a few alleged members of Al Qaeda
no al qaeda were harmed in the making of this war ... they work for the government
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 12, 2008, 03:12 PM NHFT
So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 Luke?
Why didn't the government attack them?
Luke,
I just noticed that you have "pro-freedom" in your signature.
You need to remove it, as you clearly are not.
You want to put me in a jail cell and brand me a criminal if I choose to put things in my body. Therefore, you restrict my freedom. You are not pro-freedom and that fact that you believe that you are again shows how your morals are in check.
Quote from: Luke S on May 12, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Alleged?? Underaged?? Denied an opportunity to defend themselves?? Caleb, Caleb, Caleb..... What I had always heard was that these were people who were members of Al Qaeda. And not underaged at all, but full-grown Al Qaeda members who were high up on the chain of command. And who were known to be such. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm)
What accounts for this discrepancy, Caleb?
We can't exactly say who has been waterboarded specifically, because the only thing we have to go on is the Bush Administration, which is, by definition, full of shit. But we can say that abuse of underage prisoners has gone on.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_chaplain_at_Guantanamo_tells_about_abuse_and_underage_prisoners
We can also say that most of them are completely innocent of any sort of terrorism activities and have been denied any opportunity to defend themselves
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths.htm
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
Personally, I wish there would have been a law like this in Michigan, because I used to go to a school with a bunch of rich kids where they were always getting all their new little "toys" for Christmas and their birthdays, and they sometimes got laser pointers, and then they would always act like "the cool kid on the block", which was fine, except as part of acting like "the cool kid on the block", they would take their laser pointer and shine it in people's eyes without any regard for whether or not people wanted it shined in their eyes or not. A law in Michigan like the law in NH could have gotten the laser pointers taken away from them, and would have saved me and a lot of other people from having laser pointers shined in our eyes all the time by all the "cool kids".
Did your eyes actually get damaged by this? Or do you just wish there oughtta be a law against these cool kids on the block annoying you?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 11, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 09, 2008, 08:22 PM NHFT
"Reasonable" public safety laws aren't something we're going after—yet, at least...
we're not doing what?
Well, the few ideas I've seen, like serving alcohol to minors and violating that new usury law, didn't seem to go over well, mostly due to reasons of public perception that these laws are "good laws." I'm all for getting rid of all of this nonsense, but not when it's going to cause a backlash.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 13, 2008, 01:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 11, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
Personally, I wish there would have been a law like this in Michigan, because I used to go to a school with a bunch of rich kids where they were always getting all their new little "toys" for Christmas and their birthdays, and they sometimes got laser pointers, and then they would always act like "the cool kid on the block", which was fine, except as part of acting like "the cool kid on the block", they would take their laser pointer and shine it in people's eyes without any regard for whether or not people wanted it shined in their eyes or not. A law in Michigan like the law in NH could have gotten the laser pointers taken away from them, and would have saved me and a lot of other people from having laser pointers shined in our eyes all the time by all the "cool kids".
Did your eyes actually get damaged by this? Or do you just wish there oughtta be a law against these cool kids on the block annoying you?
Jraxis, that's like saying there shouldn't be a law against against assault and battery, so long as it it only just "annoyed the person", and didn't cause injury.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 12, 2008, 03:12 PM NHFT
So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 Luke?
Why would we have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11, Free Libertarian? Was the Saudi Arabian gov't responsible for the attacks? No. Al Qaeda was.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 03:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 12, 2008, 03:12 PM NHFT
So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 Luke?
Why would we have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11, Free Libertarian? Was the Saudi Arabian gov't responsible for the attacks? No. Al Qaeda was.
Except the U.S. didn't attack Al Qaeda, they attacked Afghanistan, whom they claimed were aiding Al Qaeda. And the same claim can be made for Saudi Arabia—there's a significant faction in their go
vernment that's supportive of Al Qaeda—yet the U.S. didn't attack them.
Quote from: highline on May 12, 2008, 08:30 PM NHFT
Luke,
I just noticed that you have "pro-freedom" in your signature.
You need to remove it, as you clearly are not.
You want to put me in a jail cell and brand me a criminal if I choose to put things in my body. Therefore, you restrict my freedom. You are not pro-freedom and that fact that you believe that you are again shows how your morals are in check.
I will admit that I am not pro-freedom according to the libertarian definition of freedom. The libertarian definition of freedom means free-for-all-do-whatever-you-want. And I will never be pro-free-for-all-do-whatever-you-want.
I am pro-freedom according to the conservative definition of freedom, which is the true definition of freedom. Which is that good, law abiding citizens deserve freedom. Druggies, criminals, and terrorists do not deserve freedom. And the good, law abiding citizens have the freedom to incarcerate the druggies, criminals, and terrorists. They may either do so by their own hand, or they may enlist police officers and/or the military to do it for them, or they may do a mixture of both. (In practice, a mixture of both is the best policy.)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 13, 2008, 03:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 03:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 12, 2008, 03:12 PM NHFT
So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 Luke?
Why would we have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11, Free Libertarian? Was the Saudi Arabian gov't responsible for the attacks? No. Al Qaeda was.
Except the U.S. didn't attack Al Qaeda, they attacked Afghanistan, whom they claimed were aiding Al Qaeda. And the same claim can be made for Saudi Arabia—there's a significant faction in their government that's supportive of Al Qaeda—yet the U.S. didn't attack them.
Waging war against Al Qaeda is different and a lot harder than waging war against a nation. This is because Al Qaeda, rather than being a fixed nation in a fixed location on Earth, is a terrorist group with agents all around the globe that constantly move to different locations all around the globe. Therefore the only way to attack Al Qaeda, besides hunting down individual Al Qaeda members, is to attack those who finance Al Qaeda, like the Taliban's old regime in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein's old regime in Iraq. If the Saudi gov't also financed Al Qaeda like the Taliban regime and Saddam's regime did, then Saudi Arabia might find themselves next, in fact, if what you say is true, and if I have anything to say about it, they
will find themselves next. But as for why we aren't attacking them right now, if you haven't noticed, we're kinda busy in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. We'll get to them after we have the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq cleared up.
I suspect we stayed out of Saudi Arabia more for political and economic reasons than because we believed they didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
Afghanistan was an easy target to choose. They were politically isolated, had little to offer economically except poppies, and were relatively weak militarily, with the added bonus of pretty publicly supporting terrorism. Pakistan quickly decided to change sides and became our "ally" in order to avoid the same fate.
In spite of the fact that Saddam had been on the USA payroll for decades, he had outlived his usefulness so he was the next to go. Again, it was politically safe since everyone knew what a horrible regime he ran, and gave us the opportunity to set up a new puppet state in the oil fields since the Saudis were feeling their oats and weren't willing to lay down as much as they had in the past. Iraq also borders on Iran which makes it a convenient base for operations there.
Saudi Arabia is an unattractive target for many reasons. One, we are very heavily tied to them politically. They have been as strong an ally as we have had over there through the years, and it would be much harder to paint them out to be the bad guys than it was Saddam. Two, Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia and unless we really want a full fledged holy war, those are two areas to avoid. Three, pure simple economics. Saudi Arabia invests a lot of money propping up this screwed up economy of ours. We are feeling a little bit of that right now since they are not being as cooperative as they have in the past. If they ever decided to really squeeze we would be in a world of hurt. We stand to gain very little by invading the Saudis. It makes no sense to go there.
If this war were really about Al-Qaeda then yes, we would have had to do something about it. The Saudis are certainly involved with that organization, as are many countries including us to some degree. Osama bin Laden was on the USA payroll too for a very long time. Hell, he still could be for all we know. But this war is about things much larger than Al-Qaeda. Do you all honestly think with the technology that we have and the money we have to throw around that in seven years we honestly couldn't find bin Laden? If we really wanted him we would have him already, but this war isn't about bin Laden, or Al-Qaeda, or even 9/11.
9/11 was simply the catalyst needed to launch a whole lot of programs domestically and internationally that the feds, and I suspect other groups, wanted to launch but couldn't without "provocation, just as Oklahoma City and Columbine were the catalysts for a whole lot of programs domestically. It is much easier to pass onerous laws and get public approval for policies when the people are scared. Why do you think you never hear much about gun control until there is a school shooting or other mass public shooting?
We won't go into Saudi Arabia because it is inexpedient for us. They could be entirely responsible for 9/11 and I don't think we would go there. It just doesn't make sense from the gov't point of view.
George
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
I bet you are second generation "Just say no". The gooberment created an enviroment that made this kind of bigotry exceptable. It served the purpose to give ignorant people a group of people to blame our troubles on.
Dopers are stupid... well Carl Sagan smoked pot, you smarter than Carl Sagan?
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 13, 2008, 06:03 AM NHFT
I suspect we stayed out of Saudi Arabia more for political and economic reasons than because we believed they didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
Which doesn't mean we'll stay out of them in the future. They would have been a hard first target to wage war against. If Bush thought it would be better to go after Afganistan first than Saudi Arabia, then I support Bush's decision in that regard.
Quote from: GeorgeAfghanistan was an easy target to choose. They were politically isolated, had little to offer economically except poppies, and were relatively weak militarily, with the added bonus of pretty publicly supporting terrorism. Pakistan quickly decided to change sides and became our "ally" in order to avoid the same fate.
Which goes to show you the wisdom of a one Vietnamese general (and no, I can't remember the name off the top of my head). "If you get people by the balls, then their hearts and minds will follow."
Quote from: GeorgeIn spite of the fact that Saddam had been on the USA payroll for decades, he had outlived his usefulness so he was the next to go. Again, it was politically safe since everyone knew what a horrible regime he ran, and gave us the opportunity to set up a new puppet state in the oil fields since the Saudis were feeling their oats and weren't willing to lay down as much as they had in the past. Iraq also borders on Iran which makes it a convenient base for operations there.
I think this is totally untrue George. I've heard from crazy conspiracy theorists that Saddam was on our payroll, but from no reputable sources.
Quote from: GeorgeSaudi Arabia is an unattractive target for many reasons. One, we are very heavily tied to them politically. They have been as strong an ally as we have had over there through the years, and it would be much harder to paint them out to be the bad guys than it was Saddam. Two, Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia and unless we really want a full fledged holy war, those are two areas to avoid. Three, pure simple economics. Saudi Arabia invests a lot of money propping up this screwed up economy of ours. We are feeling a little bit of that right now since they are not being as cooperative as they have in the past. If they ever decided to really squeeze we would be in a world of hurt. We stand to gain very little by invading the Saudis. It makes no sense to go there.
If they supported Al Qaeda, then they supported Al Qaeda. No ifs, ands, or buts. If what Jraxis said was true about them sponsoring Al Qaeda in the past, then the only thing that should save them from war with the US in my mind is if they sign something saying that they honestly didn't know that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US on 9/11, they sincerely apologize for what Al Qaeda did, and they are going to help us track down Al Qaeda. If they don't do that, then the result should be war.
Quote from: GeorgeIf this war were really about Al-Qaeda then yes, we would have had to do something about it. The Saudis are certainly involved with that organization, as are many countries including us to some degree. Osama bin Laden was on the USA payroll too for a very long time. Hell, he still could be for all we know. But this war is about things much larger than Al-Qaeda. Do you all honestly think with the technology that we have and the money we have to throw around that in seven years we honestly couldn't find bin Laden? If we really wanted him we would have him already, but this war isn't about bin Laden, or Al-Qaeda, or even 9/11.
I think that the statement that bin Laden was on the USA payroll is not true. I also do not believe that the USA was involved with Al Qaeda to
any degree. I think you have been deceived by conspiracy theorists, George. I also do not think that technology is magical, and I think it is very possible that bin Laden escaped and is hiding in a cave somewhere and we don't know where he is, notwithstanding all our fancy technology.
Quote from: George9/11 was simply the catalyst needed to launch a whole lot of programs domestically and internationally that the feds, and I suspect other groups, wanted to launch but couldn't without "provocation, just as Oklahoma City and Columbine were the catalysts for a whole lot of programs domestically. It is much easier to pass onerous laws and get public approval for policies when the people are scared. Why do you think you never hear much about gun control until there is a school shooting or other mass public shooting?
We won't go into Saudi Arabia because it is inexpedient for us. They could be entirely responsible for 9/11 and I don't think we would go there. It just doesn't make sense from the gov't point of view.
George
Yes I recognize that shootings have been used as catalysts for bad gun control laws (actually, all gun control laws are bad laws). I also recognize that 9/11 was used a catalyst for some bad laws, too, such as Real ID and certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act which violate civil liberties. But that doesn't mean that every decision and every law made in response to 9/11 was a bad decision or a bad law. On the contrary, many of them were good decisions and good laws.
It's up to us the citizens to get the gov't to keep the good laws and decisions, such as the beefed up airport and airplane security, the beefed up border security (which hasn't been beefed up nearly enough, but it's a start), and the US-Mexico border wall (which hasn't had nearly enough of it constructed yet, but it's a start). And to get rid of the bad laws and decisions, such as Real ID, and those provisions of the PATRIOT Act which violate our privacy and our civil liberties.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a religion.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a race.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.
A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.
Quote from: Caleb on May 12, 2008, 08:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 12, 2008, 01:49 PM NHFT
Alleged?? Underaged?? Denied an opportunity to defend themselves?? Caleb, Caleb, Caleb..... What I had always heard was that these were people who were members of Al Qaeda. And not underaged at all, but full-grown Al Qaeda members who were high up on the chain of command. And who were known to be such. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm)
What accounts for this discrepancy, Caleb?
We can't exactly say who has been waterboarded specifically, because the only thing we have to go on is the Bush Administration, which is, by definition, full of shit. But we can say that abuse of underage prisoners has gone on.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_chaplain_at_Guantanamo_tells_about_abuse_and_underage_prisoners
We can also say that most of them are completely innocent of any sort of terrorism activities and have been denied any opportunity to defend themselves
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths.htm
Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.
So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Except druggies are not human. That means we can do anything we want to them.
Herr Luke has the final solution.
They were nationalists also. Luke goosesteps. ;D
Luke,
How old are you? I'm not being a wise ass, but you seem to forget all of the military equipment, money, aid, etc. we gave to Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranians occupied back in the day. Saddam was a good guy as far as the US was concerned up until he decided to break out of the mold and go invade Kuwait, then all of a sudden he went from friend to foe in a heart beat. Up until then you never heard word one against him. He fought the good war against the evil regime in Iran.
Osama bin Laden was the same way, except he was helping us out with the little problem we had with the Soviets invading Afghanistan, ironic isn't it? He was useful, his family was useful, and his family is still useful to the US. The list of people who we supported, funded, armed, and then turned on when they were no longer convenient is long. Hell, Fidel Castro was a good guy at one point in time. He received aid and support from us as well, before he changed course and made us look stupid.
It isn't conspiracy theory Luke. We use whomever is expedient at the time, scum or not, and then deal with them later. The Saudis are no different. Some day we may turn on them, but we won't right now because it makes no sense politically or economically. If you think this war is just about squashing a few terrorists you have a lot to learn.
George
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society.
Sorry Luke, but how does the average recreational drug user corrupt or endanger the rest of society?
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT
Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.
So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.
While I have to agree with you that the Wikipedia and Wikinews are not always reliable, neither is the Bush administration. Nothing against Bush, because every administration I have seen so far has been the same, but they all lie through their teeth. They are worse than used car salesmen. Generally Luke if you take the Bush administartion's position, and the opposition's position, and throw a dart somewhere in the middle you will be much closer to the actual truth. It is just a function of government that they tell us what they want us to believe, truth or not.
George
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 13, 2008, 10:23 AM NHFT
Luke,
How old are you?
I'm 21 years old.
QuoteI'm not being a wise ass, but you seem to forget all of the military equipment, money, aid, etc. we gave to Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranians occupied back in the day. Saddam was a good guy as far as the US was concerned up until he decided to break out of the mold and go invade Kuwait, then all of a sudden he went from friend to foe in a heart beat. Up until then you never heard word one against him. He fought the good war against the evil regime in Iran.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But that's not relevant because that was before he started supporting Al Qaeda.
QuoteOsama bin Laden was the same way, except he was helping us out with the little problem we had with the Soviets invading Afghanistan, ironic isn't it? He was useful, his family was useful, and his family is still useful to the US. The list of people who we supported, funded, armed, and then turned on when they were no longer convenient is long. Hell, Fidel Castro was a good guy at one point in time. He received aid and support from us as well, before he changed course and made us look stupid.
Again, not relevant, because we're talking about Al Qaeda here, and this was all before he formed Al Qaeda.
QuoteIt isn't conspiracy theory Luke. We use whomever is expedient at the time, scum or not, and then deal with them later. The Saudis are no different. Some day we may turn on them, but we won't right now because it makes no sense politically or economically. If you think this war is just about squashing a few terrorists you have a lot to learn.
George
Turn on the Saudis? No George, I think you've got it mixed up. They turned on us. They turned on us when they supported Al Qaeda which attacked us. Now they either sign a paper which says they didn't know that Al Qaeda was going to do this, and they're sorry for what Al Qaeda did, and they'll help us to hunt down Al Qaeda, or if they don't do that, I think we should go to war with them after we're finished with the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 13, 2008, 10:31 AM NHFTNothing against Bush, because every administration I have seen so far has been the same, but they all lie through their teeth. They are worse than used car salesmen.
No George. They are not "all the same". All throughout the 90's, I remember hearing "No, that'll never happen", when I kept asking people when the USA would finally kick Saddam out of power, and I waited and hoped and wished for the day when there would be a president who truly cared about America and who would right the wrong and kick Saddam out of power and rectify the border situation and punish the criminals and do all that sort of stuff. Bush has been like a dream come true for me, and we will never have a president like Bush again because the liberal media lied about Bush, and lied about all of Bush's achievements, and said he was responsible for wrongdoings that he was not responsible for. And now since they lied about Bush, now everybody hates Bush, so if there were another candidate for president who was just like Bush, that candidate would never get voted in because of all the lies that the Left has told about Bush and Bush-like presidential candidates.
The situation surrounding Bush just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished. Bush truly loved (and loves) America and did his absolute best to help America and right the wrongs in this country. And now everybody hates him, because the liberal media has basically brainwashed everybody to hate him.
And worst of all, when I look back on my own life, and everything I've done, I don't think I've done nearly enough to help Bush. I lived such a busy life in high school and college that I really didn't have enough time in between all my high school and college stuff for politics. Only during the election seasons, and right here at the very end of college when not much else is going on, did I have the ability to make time for politics. And of course when I did that it would leave me behind in the other stuff I had to do, and I would have to play "catch up" during other times of the year. I guess maybe this year I could make up for it by endorsing who Bush is endorsing, which is McCain. And I hope me and other people can convince "open borders" McCain to have a better stance on the border situation. Truth be told, I've always liked McCain, too, but not as much as Bush. Oh well.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 10:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Except druggies are not human. That means we can do anything we want to them.
Tom Sawyer, that wasn't a quote from me. Stop putting up fake quotes from me.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a religion.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a race.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.
A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.
Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?
Religion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert.
Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 13, 2008, 11:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a religion.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a race.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.
A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.
Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?
We'll cross that bridge when we definitively know whether it's a choice or intrinsic. Personally I've always assumed sexual orientation was intrinsic, thus attempting to force someone who's gay to magically become straight is almost like trying to force a man to magically become a woman. It's folly, and it would be a waste of tax dollars, even if the gov't did want to do it.
Quote from: J'raxisReligion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert. Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?
Nope, because that would be a breach of the Establishment clause.
There is an Establishment clause which protects people from being forced to convert to a certain religion. There is no "druggie clause" which protects people's "rights to be a druggie".
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 12:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 13, 2008, 11:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a religion.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a race.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.
A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.
Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?
We'll cross that bridge when we definitively know whether it's a choice or intrinsic. Personally I've always assumed sexual orientation was intrinsic, thus attempting to force someone who's gay to magically become straight is almost like trying to force a man to magically become a woman. It's folly, and it would be a waste of tax dollars, even if the gov't did want to do it.
Folly indeed. You mean like the sixty or so billion tax dollars they waste each year trying to stop people from doing drugs? So far that seems to be about as effective as you envision trying to force someone into a different sexual orientation.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 12:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxisReligion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert. Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?
Nope, because that would be a breach of the Establishment clause.
There is an Establishment clause which protects people from being forced to convert to a certain religion. There is no "druggie clause" which protects people's "rights to be a druggie".
Oh, right, I forgot you're basing right
vs. wrong largely on whether or not something is legal.
Regardless of the Establishment clause, do
you believe everyone ought to be forced to convert to a particular religion, if it could be done somehow? If not, why not? What makes it wrong to force someone away from their choice of religion?
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on May 13, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT
Druggies... do not deserve freedom.
Bigot >:(
Try replacing the word druggies with some others.
Jews... do not deserve freedom.
Niggers... do not deserve freedom.
Fags... do not deserve freedom.
I bet you are second generation "Just say no". The gooberment created an enviroment that made this kind of bigotry exceptable. It served the purpose to give ignorant people a group of people to blame our troubles on.
Dopers are stupid... well Carl Sagan smoked pot, you smarter than Carl Sagan?
Luke has no idea what he is talking about. He is a walking DARE poster.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT
Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.
So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.
It's simple logic. Bush=shit. Bush administration, by definition, is full of shit.
The CIA is an organization that, by its very charter, engages in misdirection, covert secret operations, propaganda, and disinformation. You need to look into the Church committee, which was a congressional investigation into the CIA which discovered, among other things, the extent that the CIA used propaganda, both at home and abroad, even holding some 400 American reporters on its payroll. And you believe the CIA? Do we really need to go line by line down the many lies of the Bush Administration? Some reports on wikinews can be edited. That one, however, has been archived and locked. And it simply reports the testimony of an American who was there and saw it with his own eyes, and who was later tortured himself. It's not the only report on the matter, just the one that happened to come up real quick when I google searched it. Do your own research on it, if you disbelieve it. Should we be torturing American servicemen, Luke? I'm sure that's ok in your worldview. Of course, he was later released and exhonerated of all charges, but hey, he should be happy to be tortured by his country, for his country. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do TO you. How does torturing American servicemen line up with your draft idea? It's ok for them to force me into the service, and then after I'm in the service they have the right to torture me? Your constant attacks on "leftists" are bigoted. Is there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie? Or is it just that since you don't like their politics, you feel free to attack someone's character? How is it that you feel free to dismiss what someone says, not as opinion, but as documented FACT, simply because they are "leftist"? You won't believe something until you hear Rush Limbaugh proclaim it? You won't even examine the evidence presented by someone who doesn't believe what you believe? It's ironic, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "leftist", but I will listen to and think about what Rush Limbaugh says. But you won't dare to open your eyes to read Noam Chomsky. You seem to be afraid of even learning facts that don't support your position. You must be very afraid that your opinions won't stand a chance when exposed to inconvenient things like "facts" and "evidence" and "morality".
Quote from: Caleb on May 13, 2008, 12:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 09:28 AM NHFT
Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.
So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.
It's simple logic. Bush=shit.
No he isn't.
Quote from: CalebBush administration, by definition, is full of shit.
No it isn't.
Quote from: CalebThe CIA is an organization that, by its very charter, engages in misdirection, covert secret operations, propaganda, and disinformation. You need to look into the Church committee, which was a congressional investigation into the CIA which discovered, among other things, the extent that the CIA used propaganda, both at home and abroad, even holding some 400 American reporters on its payroll. And you believe the CIA?
Why are we talking about the CIA now? We were talking about the Bush Administration, not the CIA. And the Bush Administration said that only 3 people were waterboarded. It wasn't the CIA that said that, it was the Bush Administration that said that.
Quote from: CalebDo we really need to go line by line down the many lies of the Bush Administration?
There have been many people who have written liberal liar books in which they have "gone line by line down the many lies of the Bush administration", and in each and every case, it has turned out that they were either liars or misinformed, and the Bush administration was telling the truth.
Quote from: CalebSome reports on wikinews can be edited. That one, however, has been archived and locked. And it simply reports the testimony of an American who was there and saw it with his own eyes, and who was later tortured himself. It's not the only report on the matter, just the one that happened to come up real quick when I google searched it. Do your own research on it, if you disbelieve it.
I disbelieve it because the story is just so fanciful. The soldier who told the story said that there were women who stripped down and rubbed themselves against the detainees, and that the detainees were made to bow down upon a pentagram and then the guards would say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". James Yee's story is a total fairy tale that is now being used by the ACLU and other leftists to discredit the military. It is obvious that this is just another leftist fairy tale used to discredit the military.
QuoteShould we be torturing American servicemen, Luke? I'm sure that's ok in your worldview. Of course, he was later released and exhonerated of all charges, but hey, he should be happy to be tortured by his country, for his country. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do TO you. How does torturing American servicemen line up with your draft idea? It's ok for them to force me into the service, and then after I'm in the service they have the right to torture me?
Again, it's obvious he lied about the torture. Just listen to his crazy, silly story. It's obviously false on it's face. The silliest part of the whole story was when he claimed that Guatanamo guards were making the Muslims bow down on a pentagram and say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". That's obviously fanciful. It's a total fairy tale.
QuoteYour constant attacks on "leftists" are bigoted.
Maybe according to the libertarian definition of bigoted, which also says you can be "bigoted" against druggies. ::)
QuoteIs there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie?
As a matter of fact, yes there is.
QuoteOr is it just that since you don't like their politics, you feel free to attack someone's character? How is it that you feel free to dismiss what someone says, not as opinion, but as documented FACT, simply because they are "leftist"?
I don't. But what James Yee said is an obvious lie.
QuoteYou won't believe something until you hear Rush Limbaugh proclaim it? You won't even examine the evidence presented by someone who doesn't believe what you believe? It's ironic, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "leftist",
I thought you were a libertarian.
Quotebut I will listen to and think about what Rush Limbaugh says. But you won't dare to open your eyes to read Noam Chomsky.
I've read Michael Moore, and he's just about as far left as you can get.
QuoteYou seem to be afraid of even learning facts that don't support your position. You must be very afraid that your opinions won't stand a chance when exposed to inconvenient things like "facts" and "evidence" and "morality".
Not true at all.
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 01:47 PM NHFT
Why are we talking about the CIA now? We were talking about the Bush Administration, not the CIA. And the Bush Administration said that only 3 people were waterboarded. It wasn't the CIA that said that, it was the Bush Administration that said that.
Do you even read what YOU post? You posted this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm The first two sentences of the very link you posted read thusly: "The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects. CIA head Michael Hayden told Congress it had only been used on three people, and not for the past five years." The CIA is an executive department, with its head nominated by the Bush Administration just like a cabinet officer. It is part of the Executive Administration.
QuoteThere have been many people who have written liberal liar books in which they have "gone line by line down the many lies of the Bush administration", and in each and every case, it has turned out that they were either liars or misinformed, and the Bush administration was telling the truth.
Where do you get your sources? Really, I'd like to know. This is just buffoonery. Let's examine just a couple of the lies of the Bush Administration, "The British mafia has learned ..." Ok, when Bush said this, his own intelligence sources had told him that it was a lie. That's why he phrased it that way, "the british mafia has learned," but he knew at the time that what he was saying was a lie, that what "the british mafia" had learned was a bunch of bunk. He used it anyway. Then George Bush said after 9/11 [my paraphrase]: "But no one in our guvmint at least, and I don't think anyone in the previous guvmint either, could have imagined terrorists flying planes into buildings, not on that scale." Blatantly false. This from CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html Foreign mafias also informed both the Clinton and Bush Administrations of this very possibility. Britain gave specific warnings in both 1999 and in August of 2001. [Times Online, 6/9/02 and Sunday Herald 5/19/02 documented these prior warnings from Britain.] Egypt gave the US a warning in July of 2001. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/60II/main524947.shtml] June of 2001, Germany gave the US warnings about planes being used to crash into buildings. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html this one even comes from your beloved Fox News, and there's more fun information in that story too!] I could go on and on. Bush LIED! He has no credibility. He lies every chance he gets. I could go on and on and on and on documenting bush's lies, but I don't need to. The information is all out there, but you won't believe anyone unless their facts coincide with your opinions.
QuoteI disbelieve it because the story is just so fanciful. The soldier who told the story said that there were women who stripped down and rubbed themselves against the detainees, and that the detainees were made to bow down upon a pentagram and then the guards would say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". James Yee's story is a total fairy tale that is now being used by the ACLU and other leftists to discredit the military. It is obvious that this is just another leftist fairy tale used to discredit the military.
You use these words, "fanciful" "fairy tale", but you don't have any evidence to back up your claim. There is a whole bunch of photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib that just such atrocities were perpetrated on Muslim people to attack their religious faith and humiliate them, so I find no reason to suspect that the information presented by the Chaplain is unlikely. Also, interestingly enough, the mafia isn't commenting on his allegations. They have "no comment" so we don't even have a mafia denial.
QuoteAgain, it's obvious he lied about the torture. Just listen to his crazy, silly story. It's obviously false on it's face. The silliest part of the whole story was when he claimed that Guatanamo guards were making the Muslims bow down on a pentagram and say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". That's obviously fanciful. It's a total fairy tale.
Again, just more "la la la, I don't wanna believe it, la la la." nonsense from you. There's nothing in what he said that is fanciful or out of the way from what we know about CIA interrogation techniques. These things are designed to break a person's psychological ability to resist by destroying whatever he is clinging to to give himself hope. Also, you should know that Muslims do not lie. It is punishable by hell in their religion. A secular Muslim, ok, I can see, you can make the case that he doesn't really believe it. But a Muslim chaplain? Sorry, I believe the Muslim chaplain.
Quote
QuoteIs there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie?
As a matter of fact, yes there is.
Evidence?
QuoteI don't. But what James Yee said is an obvious lie.
Because you choose not to believe it doesn't make it an obvious lie.
Quote
QuoteI'm a "leftist",
I thought you were a libertarian.
Depends on your perspective. I am a Christian pacifist, a la Leo Tolstoy; I consider myself a Christian (as opposed to Marxist) communist.
QuoteI've read Michael Moore, and he's just about as far left as you can get.
Michael Moore is a parody of the left. I like William Blum. Or maybe Howard Zinn. Or Noam Chomsky. People you are too terrified to read, no doubt.
At some point really soon, (after lunch maybe) I'm going to split this topic off. There's no reason for Luke's nonsense to commandeer another thread
Quote from: Caleb on May 13, 2008, 02:58 PM NHFT
At some point really soon, (after lunch maybe) I'm going to split this topic off. There's no reason for Luke's nonsense to commandeer another thread
Just for the record it wasn't me who started it. It was Tom Sawyer who started it by bringing up the topic of the community service border wall workers and referring to them as "slave labor" when they weren't slave labor.
Liberty is a culture, a way of life. You can't 'educate' culture into people. They must choose it. It is the actions and decisions that you make.
Luke, and his law and order mentality is the reason conservatives are more dangerous to freedom than the gov't worshiping liberals.
He is a walking talking authoritarian. He firmly believes he has the god given right to do anything to anyone that he believes is 'harming' themselves, or others. This is the culture that Luke chooses to live. There are millions just like him.
These kinds of people will always be with us. Ignore them. Don't respond to them, or waste time arguing with them. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but his willingness to use violence to enForce his beliefs, is dangerous. Yet he sees nothing wrong with it. Pro gun, pro family, pro homeschooling, pro 'liberty' people who worship words on paper, in otherwords, the law, are not pro liberty, they are in fact the enemy of it. Constitutionalism is a false path to liberty. It sounds good, but in the words of our Decider, (george bush) "it is a goddamn piece of paper". Inalienable rights do not come from that piece of paper.
Quote from: David on May 13, 2008, 05:24 PM NHFT
Luke, and his law and order mentality is the reason conservatives are more dangerous to freedom than the gov't worshiping liberals.
Oh you've gotta be effin' kiddin' me. Just wait till you wake up in a country like Canada or South Africa where your freedom of speech has been taken away by "hate speech laws", and all the various "victim groups", the darlings of the government, have been elevated above you in job opportunities, and in other opportunities, and there ain't nothing you can do about it. And who can sue anybody they want for "discrimination", for whatever tiny little reason, true or false, and if you're in South Africa, you the defendant are guilty until proven innocent. Oh, and your freedom to have a gun is totally gone, so you can forget about doing any more "open carry litter pickups". Try living in a country like that for awhile and come and say that to me again, David.
Awwww! Luke said effin' ;D
Hey, we have to put up with the fascists cause the communists are so bad. Nice try authority boy.
I give up. I can't find the point at which this thread went off topic. It seems like it's mostly off topic, so I'm not going to split it off, with apologies to Dada.
Luke, I'm pro freedom too. I'm pro freedom of choice. Does your idea of freedom allow for you to tolerate somebody doing something you wouldn't choose to do? Or does your idea of freedom
only permit people to do things you agree with?
Please define freedom. I believe you're wrong on many issues, but I also believe you have a right to those opinions. I believe you have a right to do anything you want to as long as you're not hurting me or anyone else. I think your understanding of freedom is inaccurate based on your comments.
Freedom means individuals will decide what is their fate, what will go in their body or not. If spaghetti were outlawed would I be a criminal for continuing to eat it? You think that's a stretch? Okay how about fatty foods? Is that my choice? How about unpasteurized milk, is that my choice?
When you begin to outline acceptable exceptions to limiting freedom you open the door to any number of
abuses. It doesn't matter whether something is made legal or illegal. That measuring stick is laughable.
It's illegal to smoke pot, but legal to drink alcohol? Isn't that just a little bit of a contradiction to you?
Murder is illegal, yet bombing and killing thousands of innocent people if you're the US government is okay? Doesn't that raise any concern with you? Don't you find it hypocritical that your favorite President is so tough talking and ready to start wars yet he has a "lost" military record and a V.P. that only shoots lawyers and not "bad guys" (or your version of bad guys) ? How can you hero worship such chicken hawks?
Okay Luke, at least now I understand you better. You grew up politically with Bush as your president, so it is natural for you to have a bit of hero worship for him. You've also spent your whole life being raised in the "just say no" culture. I was idealistic like you are now when I was your age. I still am idealistic, its just my ideals have changed.
The first election I was old enough to vote for was Bush vs. Dukakis. Like you I was a math major in college. I was a statist then, believed fully in the rule of law, believed that the Constitution was as perfect a form of gov't as could be found, and probably would have agreed with you on every point you have raised, except the ones on drugs since I already had enough first hand experience with people who did drugs to know that the gov't was full of crap where that was concerned. I supported Bush's campaign, worked in his state headquarters when he ran for re-election, and wanted to crawl in a hole and die when Bubba was elected instead.
I wasn't informed enough at the time to see through the many lies that Reagan and Bush had foisted on the people, and too young to have really understood the Carter and Nixon administrations. I remember Watergate, but didn't understand it at the time. Like many people, the Clinton administration, and the opening of the internet to the public, really opened my eyes. For the first time I could get news from outside the United States and the first thing I noticed was that it frequently was very different from the news here. For the first time I could easily talk to people all over the United States, and around the world, and discovered that there was a lot more going on than was ever reported here. And trust me, all presidential administrations lie, but the Clintons raised it to an art form and really exposed, to me anyway, how corrupt politics actually was. For the first time I was aware of how the gov't uses the law and the Constitution as a hammer to try and force people to think a different way, to act different ways, and to deny them their rights.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't wake up one morning and have an epiphany. It was a gradual process, but I slowly reached the conclusion that my freedom, and my rights, were more important to me than the laws were. I realized that every law that didn't deal with crimes against person or property, basically just restricted someone's rights, whether they were mine or someone else's. I realized that what I really wanted was to be allowed to live my life freely, so long as that wasn't harming anyone else, and obviously extending that same right to my neighbors. But part of me still clung to the idea that if the gov't could be returned to the size and scope promised to us, that if we could just go back to the beginning, and add a few more safeguards to the Constitution that things would be okay. They wouldn't be perfect, but they would be okay. And I had a small glimmer of hope, because the son of the man who I had campaigned for was running for President and he was promising to eliminate the Department of Education, and reduce the size and influence of gov't. And we all know how that turned out.
When I came to the FSP six years ago, had you asked me my political leanings I still would have told you I was a Constitutionalist Luke. Fortunately I have had the benefit through the years of meeting some people here and elsewhere who, how do I phrase this, made it safe for me to actually envision the logical conclusion of the ideas I had been thinking for so long, that the laws aren't necessary for there to be a peaceful society. Now I do not take that concept as far as some others, and perhaps I will evolve to that point someday, perhaps not.
The point of all this is that I do understand where you are coming from Luke. I don't agree with a lot of the positions that you take, simply because I no longer believe that gov't is the answer to the problem, but rather that gov't has caused most of the problems. I struggle to find examples where the gov't (I would type the word out, but it would be disrespectful to the Mafia ;)) has ever fixed a problem that the people themselves could not have fixed, or that a free market would not have fixed on its own.
You may not see it now Luke, but our gov't is a pyramid of lies, deceits, and manipulations, all under the guise of law. The concept of law, and the "protection" it offers, is a powerful thing. Unfortunately the politicians use the law for their own purposes, and will use any method to get that power. They lie to get themselves elected, lie to get their agendas legalized, and then lie about what these new laws actually mean. And then usually promise that this new law has fixed the problem, there won't need to be another after it, until the next time of course. Their intentions are not noble, nor even based on the public good. They are about power, and control, and money. I doubt you can come up with anything the Bush administration has done that has not led to the gov't having greater control and more power. Can you name any area where they have ceded control back to the people? I can't, even though he promised a reduction in the size and scope of gov't.
I'm sorry Luke, but I just don't believe the President, or the Congress, has our best interests in mind.
George
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 13, 2008, 10:15 PM NHFT
How can you hero worship such chicken hawks?
I'm going to answer this question first, because it's the first one that came to my mind.
There are 3 kinds of people in America. Chicken Chickens, Chicken Hawks, and Hawk Hawks.
Chicken Chickens are Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, and they either don't care about fighting for America, or they actively try to sabotage the war effort, which is what the Left tries to do every single war.
Now to become a Hawk Hawk, you have to fight against the military of another nation (or ,in modern times, a terrorist group) which is belligerent against the USA.
Now notice that I said "fought against an enemy military", not "fought in a war". This is because I believe that people who are on paper as having fought in a war, but in reality stood around and did nothing, or who did nothing but betray their country, do not deserve the designation of "hawk hawk". Whereas people like those Border Patrol agents who fought against the Mexican Military when the Mexican Military was trying to invade the USA, even though that was not an official "on paper" war, was still a necessary action to defend the USA against a foreign belligerent military, and thus I believe that all of those people deserve the designation of "hawk hawk".
Chicken Hawks are people who advocate war who are not Hawk Hawks. So yeah, I suppose Chicken Hawks should really try to become Hawk Hawks at some point. But Chicken Hawks are higher up on the chain than Chicken Chickens, so if you're asking me how I can hero-worship Bush and Cheney, who are Chicken Hawks, first of all I don't "hero-worship" them. As an answer to your question for why I
admire them even though they are Chicken Hawks, I just have to say that most of the big names who oppose them: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc., are Chicken Chickens. (John Kerry, who I suppose is a Hawk Chicken, is a notable exception.) And Chicken Hawks are higher up on the food chain than Chicken Chickens.
Now you might ask me, "Well Luke, how do you intend to go from being a Chicken Hawk to being a Hawk Hawk?"" And I'd answer you, "Through repelling the Mexican Military the next time it invades the USA and shoots at people, and all subsequent times it does that." The Mexican Military's little excursions into US soil are part of drug smugglers' agendas to smuggle drugs into the USA, and part of the Mexican agenda to assimilate the Southwest back into Mexico. That's why they shoot at Border Patrol whenever they encounter Border Patrol when they're on our soil. Stopping them is an even higher priority than the war in Iraq, in my opinion. Why those idiots in Washington refuse to do beans about this I will never know. But I do know that these belligerents must be stopped at all costs. Our homeland is under attack. Defending it must be our highest priority.
Quote from: Luke SChicken Chickens are Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, and they either don't care about fighting for America, or they actively try to sabotage the war effort, which is what the Left tries to do every single war.
To cripple the war-machine is a noble act. From your posts, I can see that nobility is a foreign concept to you.
Quote from: Caleb on May 13, 2008, 02:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 13, 2008, 01:47 PM NHFT
Why are we talking about the CIA now? We were talking about the Bush Administration, not the CIA. And the Bush Administration said that only 3 people were waterboarded. It wasn't the CIA that said that, it was the Bush Administration that said that.
Do you even read what YOU post? You posted this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm The first two sentences of the very link you posted read thusly: "The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects. CIA head Michael Hayden told Congress it had only been used on three people, and not for the past five years."
Oops, you're right. It did say CIA.
Quote from: CalebThe CIA is an executive department, with its head nominated by the Bush Administration just like a cabinet officer. It is part of the Executive Administration.
Oops again. I thought they were a Congressional department. Well then that raises a question. Everything else you've said about them aside, I remember Bush saying in one of his speeches, "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well we do know that the CIA was going around committing all those crimes in 1996, and they were very serious crimes, and I was talking to a couple people, and those people thought that some of those crimes might have been murders. So if they might have been murdering people all around the world, isn't that a war crime? Shouldn't it at least be further investigated? If the CIA is an executive agency, then Congress can't just step in there and stick up for them and try to protect them from punishment like they might be able to with congressional agencies. So that being said, shouldn't Bush push for them to be the first to be prosecuted and punished for what they did in 1996, since Bush was so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals, and having it be no defense to say "I was just following orders".
Anyone who can give me an even semi-satisfactory answer to this, I would appreciate it. I really am curious to know the answer.
Quote
QuoteThere have been many people who have written liberal liar books in which they have "gone line by line down the many lies of the Bush administration", and in each and every case, it has turned out that they were either liars or misinformed, and the Bush administration was telling the truth.
Where do you get your sources? Really, I'd like to know. This is just buffoonery. Let's examine just a couple of the lies of the Bush Administration, "The British mafia has learned ..." Ok, when Bush said this, his own intelligence sources had told him that it was a lie. That's why he phrased it that way, "the british mafia has learned," but he knew at the time that what he was saying was a lie, that what "the british mafia" had learned was a bunch of bunk. He used it anyway. Then George Bush said after 9/11 [my paraphrase]: "But no one in our guvmint at least, and I don't think anyone in the previous guvmint either, could have imagined terrorists flying planes into buildings, not on that scale." Blatantly false. This from CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html Foreign mafias also informed both the Clinton and Bush Administrations of this very possibility. Britain gave specific warnings in both 1999 and in August of 2001. [Times Online, 6/9/02 and Sunday Herald 5/19/02 documented these prior warnings from Britain.] Egypt gave the US a warning in July of 2001. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/60II/main524947.shtml] June of 2001, Germany gave the US warnings about planes being used to crash into buildings. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html this one even comes from your beloved Fox News, and there's more fun information in that story too!] I could go on and on. Bush LIED! He has no credibility. He lies every chance he gets. I could go on and on and on and on documenting bush's lies, but I don't need to. The information is all out there, but you won't believe anyone unless their facts coincide with your opinions.
Wow, looks like you're right that Bush lied. He should have to go on TV then and admit that he lied and say that he's sorry, just like Clinton did when Clinton lied about having sex with Monica.
Quote from: Caleb
QuoteI disbelieve it because the story is just so fanciful. The soldier who told the story said that there were women who stripped down and rubbed themselves against the detainees, and that the detainees were made to bow down upon a pentagram and then the guards would say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". James Yee's story is a total fairy tale that is now being used by the ACLU and other leftists to discredit the military. It is obvious that this is just another leftist fairy tale used to discredit the military.
You use these words, "fanciful" "fairy tale", but you don't have any evidence to back up your claim. There is a whole bunch of photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib that just such atrocities were perpetrated on Muslim people to attack their religious faith and humiliate them, so I find no reason to suspect that the information presented by the Chaplain is unlikely. Also, interestingly enough, the mafia isn't commenting on his allegations. They have "no comment" so we don't even have a mafia denial.
No, I used the words "fanciful" and "fairy tale", because that's exactly what it is, a fanciful fairy tale.
Quote from: CalebQuoteAgain, it's obvious he lied about the torture. Just listen to his crazy, silly story. It's obviously false on it's face. The silliest part of the whole story was when he claimed that Guatanamo guards were making the Muslims bow down on a pentagram and say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". That's obviously fanciful. It's a total fairy tale.
Again, just more "la la la, I don't wanna believe it, la la la." nonsense from you. There's nothing in what he said that is fanciful or out of the way from what we know about CIA interrogation techniques. These things are designed to break a person's psychological ability to resist by destroying whatever he is clinging to to give himself hope. Also, you should know that Muslims do not lie. It is punishable by hell in their religion. A secular Muslim, ok, I can see, you can make the case that he doesn't really believe it. But a Muslim chaplain? Sorry, I believe the Muslim chaplain.
Well I don't.
Quote from: Caleb
Quote
QuoteIs there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie?
As a matter of fact, yes there is.
Evidence?
My life experience with them is enough evidence for me.
Quote from: Caleb
QuoteI don't. But what James Yee said is an obvious lie.
Because you choose not to believe it doesn't make it an obvious lie.
Yeah but that's not why I said it was an obvious lie. I said it was an obvious lie because it's too fanciful to be true.
Quote from: Caleb
Quote
QuoteI'm a "leftist",
I thought you were a libertarian.
Depends on your perspective. I am a Christian pacifist, a la Leo Tolstoy; I consider myself a Christian (as opposed to Marxist) communist.
What's the difference?
Quote from: Caleb
QuoteI've read Michael Moore, and he's just about as far left as you can get.
Michael Moore is a parody of the left. I like William Blum. Or maybe Howard Zinn. Or Noam Chomsky. People you are too terrified to read, no doubt.
No he isn't a parody. He really is a big time leftist. He supported Nader in the 2000 election, who is very far to the left, he supported Kerry in the 2004 election, and he has written leftist books and made leftist documentaries. He truly gets on my nerves. I wish I could wake up one morning and have all his crap be nothing but a parody, but unfortunately that's not going to happen.
calebs right, this thread has been butchered. jeesh.
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
I remember Bush saying in one of his speeches, "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders.'"
Ok, I looked it up, and it was actually from his speech from before he went into Iraq. So he was referring to war criminals in the upcoming Iraq war. But still, if he finds it wrong for them to commit war crimes, and he thinks they need punishment, then logically you'd think that he would think possible war crimes committed by the CIA need to be investigated, and if the CIA is guilty of committing war crimes by murdering people around the globe, which sounds like a war crime to me, then those people need to be punished too. Does that sound logical to you, or did I miss something?
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
Oops again. I thought they were a Congressional department. Well then that raises a question. Everything else you've said about them aside, I remember Bush saying in one of his speeches, "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well we do know that the CIA was going around committing all those crimes in 1996, and they were very serious crimes, and I was talking to a couple people, and those people thought that some of those crimes might have been murders. So if they might have been murdering people all around the world, isn't that a war crime? Shouldn't it at least be further investigated? If the CIA is an executive agency, then Congress can't just step in there and stick up for them and try to protect them from punishment like they might be able to with congressional agencies. So that being said, shouldn't Bush push for them to be the first to be prosecuted and punished for what they did in 1996, since Bush was so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals, and having it be no defense to say "I was just following orders".
Here's the problem, Luke. Congress is impotent. Ok, let's look at it this way. There's 535 of them, so no one single congressman can do that much. Look at Ron Paul. Then, even when they do get morally outraged, there's this group mentality, because they all have to be reelected and they don't want to say something offensive. So if someone says something, even if it's true, if it's offensive the others will shout him down. Remember a few years back when Abu Ghraib came out, and poor Dick Durbin got up and said something true: "Well, golly gee, when I see these pictures it reminds me of Pol Pot's gulags. America shouldn't act like this." And who was it who shouted him down? Republicans, sure, but the loudest detractors were members of his own Democrat Party. Why? Because they are worried that even the appearance of agreeing with him would hurt their chances for reelection. So getting Congress to do anything more than a very muted investigation is not likely until the American people are outraged. Then Congressmen will be tripping over themselves to be Holier-than-thou.
As for Bush, do you seriously think that he means what he said? I mean, c'mon. Who was the WWII general who said, "I hope we win this war, cause if we don't we're going to be prosecuted for war crimes"? I can't remember, but one of them said it. The point being that war crimes are for losers. Literally. Bush never intended to investigate himself and his boys for war crimes. Those are standards we hold others to, not ourselves. Bush couldn't, anyway, because then he'd have to indict himself. There's enough evidence that he signed off on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that would implicate himself. They're all in this together. He's not going to cut off his nose to spite his face. He scratches their backs, and they scratch his.
Quote
Yeah but that's not why I said it was an obvious lie. I said it was an obvious lie because it's too fanciful to be true.
Luke, how can you look at the photos from Abu Ghraib and believe that abuse of Muslims is too fanciful to be true?
Quote from: Caleb
Depends on your perspective. I am a Christian pacifist, a la Leo Tolstoy; I consider myself a Christian (as opposed to Marxist) communist.
What's the difference?
A Marxist wants to install communism via a transitional period of totalitarian socialism. Socialism is a communist/capitalist hybrid, using the mechanisms of the capitalist state against capitalism, the theory being that once the capitalist system is destroyed, the socialist state will no longer be necessary, and will wither and die, and communism will naturally take its place. This has never happened in real life. All you get is the totalitarian socialist state, you never get to the communist end. That's why I say that Marxism isn't even communism, because it never gets there.
A Christian communist believes that the form of communism ought to be established by people working from the bottom up in a peaceful way. That is to say that if I want communism, I ought to establish a commune or join one, and use my efforts to share among others for our mutual benefit. I say "commune" but it could be a little cottage industry or a co-op factory. The point is that all in the group renounce individual ownership of the means of production and agree to share the means of production and distribute what is produced equally.
QuoteNo he isn't a parody. He really is a big time leftist. He supported Nader in the 2000 election, who is very far to the left, he supported Kerry in the 2004 election, and he has written leftist books and made leftist documentaries. He truly gets on my nerves. I wish I could wake up one morning and have all his crap be nothing but a parody, but unfortunately that's not going to happen.
I didn't say he isn't a leftist, I said he is a parody of the left. Michael Moore eschews substance, in favor of "impact", and plays loosey-goosey with the facts. He thus sets himself up as a lightning rod for justified criticism. He's the walking, talking Straw Man. I consider him irrelevant to my position.
Quote from: Caleb on May 14, 2008, 12:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
Oops again. I thought they were a Congressional department. Well then that raises a question. Everything else you've said about them aside, I remember Bush saying in one of his speeches, "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well we do know that the CIA was going around committing all those crimes in 1996, and they were very serious crimes, and I was talking to a couple people, and those people thought that some of those crimes might have been murders. So if they might have been murdering people all around the world, isn't that a war crime? Shouldn't it at least be further investigated? If the CIA is an executive agency, then Congress can't just step in there and stick up for them and try to protect them from punishment like they might be able to with congressional agencies. So that being said, shouldn't Bush push for them to be the first to be prosecuted and punished for what they did in 1996, since Bush was so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals, and having it be no defense to say "I was just following orders".
Here's the problem, Luke. Congress is impotent. Ok, let's look at it this way. There's 535 of them, so no one single congressman can do that much. Look at Ron Paul. Then, even when they do get morally outraged, there's this group mentality, because they all have to be reelected and they don't want to say something offensive. So if someone says something, even if it's true, if it's offensive the others will shout him down. Remember a few years back when Abu Ghraib came out, and poor Dick Durbin got up and said something true: "Well, golly gee, when I see these pictures it reminds me of Pol Pot's gulags. America shouldn't act like this." And who was it who shouted him down? Republicans, sure, but the loudest detractors were members of his own Democrat Party. Why? Because they are worried that even the appearance of agreeing with him would hurt their chances for reelection. So getting Congress to do anything more than a very muted investigation is not likely until the American people are outraged. Then Congressmen will be tripping over themselves to be Holier-than-thou.
As for Bush, do you seriously think that he means what he said? I mean, c'mon. Who was the WWII general who said, "I hope we win this war, cause if we don't we're going to be prosecuted for war crimes"? I can't remember, but one of them said it. The point being that war crimes are for losers. Literally. Bush never intended to investigate himself and his boys for war crimes. Those are standards we hold others to, not ourselves. Bush couldn't, anyway, because then he'd have to indict himself. There's enough evidence that he signed off on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that would implicate himself. They're all in this together. He's not going to cut off his nose to spite his face. He scratches their backs, and they scratch his.
Yeah but Caleb, I wasn't talking about investigating the Iraq War. I was talking about investigating the 1996 and pre-1996 crimes that the CIA had committed as mentioned in that 1996 Congressional report. That report said that some of those agents could face execution in foreign countries for things that they did (although the report didn't mention the specific things that they did). But if the report said that they could face execution for what they did, then they might have committed murders all around the globe along with all the other "extremely serious crimes" that they committed all around the globe. My point is that Bush was adamant that war crimes must be prosecuted and war criminals must be punished in the Iraq War, and Bush seemed to think that war crimes are very terrible things that need to be prosecuted, so wouldn't it make sense that Bush would want to take a look at that 1996 report, and do further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether these 1996 and pre-1996 crimes committed by the CIA included murders? Because if they did include murders, then going around the globe killing people for no good reason is a war crime in a lot of people's books, including mine.
Now before I kinda automatically thought that Bush
did want to do this investigation, and that the reason why he wasn't doing this investigation was that the CIA was a congressional agency, so if he did try to do that investigation, then Congress would kick up a big stink and protect its own, and then nothing good would end up coming from it. But now I just found out that the CIA is an executive agency, not a congressional agency, so obviously that doesn't apply. So my question is why is there no investigation into these 1996 and pre-1996 crimes committed by the CIA taking place, since Bush seemed so adamant about prosecuting war crimes and punishing war criminals???
The only thing I can think of is that Bush is totally oblivious to the 1996 report and doesn't even know about it. Maybe if Bush knew about it, he'd do something about it. Maybe somebody should tell him about it. But wait, if the CIA is an executive agency, then shouldn't Bush automatically know about the stuff that went on in the CIA? Or maybe they hid what they did from Bush? I'm very confused.
Luke, the CIA doesn't do these things just because. They commit these crimes because they are engaging in covert ops, designed to ensure that the government of each nation is Washington-approved. And none of this stopped in 1986. This has been going on since the end of world war II, when the OSS (which was the predecessor to the CIA) was smuggling NAZI war criminals like Klaus Barbie out of Germany and putting them to work for the CIA in Central and South America. It continues to this day. Don't for a moment think that just because something isn't on the CBS evening news that it isn't happening. The CIA continues to be doing its support work in keeping foreign regimes "friendly" to the US, often in the face of strong opposition by the local populace. Every presidential administration approves of this action because it supports the goals of the US State, which is to control resources and achieve what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" to ensure American hegemony. So Bush isn't going to challenge the CIA or hold it to account, nor will any other President for that matter, because the CIA is doing the dirty work in a mostly quiet fashion that he could never convince the American people or Congress to do openly.
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 01:30 PM NHFT
The only thing I can think of is that Bush is totally oblivious to the 1996 report and doesn't even know about it. Maybe if Bush knew about it, he'd do something about it. Maybe somebody should tell him about it. But wait, if the CIA is an executive agency, then shouldn't Bush automatically know about the stuff that went on in the CIA? Or maybe they hid what they did from Bush? I'm very confused.
The President receives a daily intelligence briefing. He is not kept in the dark regarding the activities of the Intelligence Agencies. Actually, all past presidents are also privy to the intelligence briefings. I think Carter tries to stay in the loop, as does Bush Sr. I hear that Clinton doesn't care anymore, so he doesn't receive them.
Luke there is nothing noble about killing innocent people regardless of the color of their skin or their nationality or their religion. The United States foreign policy of being world police has led to many people dying, millions over the years I'd bet. "Defending America" is not the same as policing the world. I have a son about your age, he's a marine, I fear for his life. War is not a game or just a topic for argument to me. It's very real and frightening to think under the guise of phony Patriotism we send our sons to die. I wish he were not in the active military, which is I think by definition unconstitutional, perhaps somebody can elaborate there as I'm not 100% sure of the "rules" for maintaining a standing army these days.
If our country were really invaded or occupied I believe I would defend myself and others. I believe if WE (the US) invade another country those people will behave the same way and defend themselves. So to call somebody an insurgent in their own country while we are the foreign occupiers is an interesting word twist and a bit Orwellian.
Sure I like to jerk your chain about your freedom hypocrisy and hemp, but for you to fail to see that we are aggressors is amazing. I am anti-war, but I am not "from the left".
I am not a chicken-chicken. I raise chickens and eat them. Call your adulation for Bush anything you want, but he's authorized murder, condones spying on us and is a pompous ass-ass. He isn't protecting us from anything and has put the world farther from peace. Ask a Viet Nam vet if they felt like they were defending this country, when we butted in over there. Most just wanted to come home, many did, in a flag draped casket. Ask GW about Viet Nam ...oh wait a minute he was here doing drugs, and getting DWI's uh never mind. After all was said and done what did our presence in Viet Nam accomplish Luke?
Read your history books, but don't burn the pages, most of the old books were printed on hemp paper. Of course your version of "freedom" may encourage burning some books or censoring the media huh?
Skip the parts about where American citizens of Japanese descent were incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Asian though okay? Yup we "freed" the world, but put slanty eyed Japs in jail right here while we were freeing the world...contradiction Luke?
If you grew up in the US you've probably lead a very insulated life, war is hell and to glorify it or justify it by saying we were attacked is a ploy. The Germans used it during WWII to fool their population, the Neocons used it recently. You bought it just like generations before you did. Dropping bombs on innocent people and calling their deaths "collateral damage" is a form of terrorism don't you think? How about the KURDS? Are they bad guys now Luke? We were their buddies just a while ago, now so we can keep Turkey happy we let them bomb the Kurds...must be good to be the world police and get to decide who lives and dies huh? So we fucked them over, oh well onto the next pawns.
Why do we spend so much on "defense" relative to the rest of the world? Have you ever researched who profits from war? You might check out GW's ancestor's, war was very good to them, they profited from arms deals. Do you find it just a little curious...Dick Cheney...Haliburton? Unnaccouted spending, no bid contracts? Why aren't you and Mitt Romney's boys over there defending old red eyed chickens like me Luke? You guys think we should be there, so how come you don't get your butt down to a recruiter?
Because you're afraid or because you know we aren't in any danger of being attacked by a foreign country? Don't give me that BS about finishing college either...your country needs you Luke! Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! Do you suppose JFK had just smoked a big fatty and was lounging around with one of his many girlfriends enjoying an after glow when he thought that one up? Jeez Luke how do you explain a DEMOCRAT having the balls to kick the Russian's out of this hemisphere during the Cuban missile crisis? How come that left leaning President didn't play his appointed role in Luke's world and cave in? Aren't all Democrats (except for Hillary) anti -war and all Republicans hawk-hawks? Come to think of it Roosevelt was Prez during WWII, Truman during Korea and Johnson during Viet Nam. All Democrats...jeez Luke what would Bill O'Reilly say about that?
I thought only Republicans were allowed to be hawk-hawks? What gives? This kind of stuff reminds me of the end of the book Animal Farm when you can't tell the difference between the Pigs and the humans. Repulicans? Democrats? Sometimes it's hard to know who's who?
Since this thread was originally about civil disobedience, here's something you ought to consider, question authority. Have you registered for the selective service (draft) Luke? Send them a letter saying you're pro-freedom and you've changed your mind, that when we see the Chinese navy is in the harbor you'll think about it but until then you'd prefer not to get involved in policing the world on foreign soil, you have degree to obtain.
You're free to do that aren't you, I mean this IS a free country right?
How many hours have been spent on this troll?
Can he just be banned? If not, perhaps there could be a "Troll Zone" forum wherein the trolls, once identified, can not venture outside and commence hijacking of threads.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on May 14, 2008, 02:55 PM NHFT
How many hours have been spent on this troll?
Can he just be banned? If not, perhaps there could be a "Troll Zone" forum wherein the trolls, once identified, can not venture outside and commence hijacking of threads.
Ian would you make up your mind?? First I'm a troll, then I'm not a troll, now I'm a troll again?
And second of all, I didn't hijack the thread. Tom Sawyer started bugging me about stuff I said on other threads, and that's how it got off topic. Because of Tom Sawyer. Not because of me.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 14, 2008, 02:40 PM NHFT
Luke there is nothing noble about killing innocent people regardless of the color of their skin or their nationality or their religion. The United States foreign policy of being world police has led to many people dying, millions over the years I'd bet. "Defending America" is not the same as policing the world. I have a son about your age, he's a marine, I fear for his life. War is not a game or just a topic for argument to me. It's very real and frightening to think under the guise of phony Patriotism we send our sons to die. I wish he were not in the active military, which is I think by definition unconstitutional, perhaps somebody can elaborate there as I'm not 100% sure of the "rules" for maintaining a standing army these days.
If our country were really invaded or occupied I believe I would defend myself and others. I believe if WE (the US) invade another country those people will behave the same way and defend themselves. So to call somebody an insurgent in their own country while we are the foreign occupiers is an interesting word twist and a bit Orwellian.
Sure I like to jerk your chain about your freedom hypocrisy and hemp, but for you to fail to see that we are aggressors is amazing. I am anti-war, but I am not "from the left".
I am not a chicken-chicken. I raise chickens and eat them. Call your adulation for Bush anything you want, but he's authorized murder, condones spying on us and is a pompous ass-ass. He isn't protecting us from anything and has put the world farther from peace. Ask a Viet Nam vet if they felt like they were defending this country, when we butted in over there. Most just wanted to come home, many did, in a flag draped casket. Ask GW about Viet Nam ...oh wait a minute he was here doing drugs, and getting DWI's uh never mind. After all was said and done what did our presence in Viet Nam accomplish Luke?
Read your history books, but don't burn the pages, most of the old books were printed on hemp paper. Of course your version of "freedom" may encourage burning some books or censoring the media huh?
Skip the parts about where American citizens of Japanese descent were incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Asian though okay? Yup we "freed" the world, but put slanty eyed Japs in jail right here while we were freeing the world...contradiction Luke?
If you grew up in the US you've probably lead a very insulated life, war is hell and to glorify it or justify it by saying we were attacked is a ploy. The Germans used it during WWII to fool their population, the Neocons used it recently. You bought it just like generations before you did. Dropping bombs on innocent people and calling their deaths "collateral damage" is a form of terrorism don't you think? How about the KURDS? Are they bad guys now Luke? We were their buddies just a while ago, now so we can keep Turkey happy we let them bomb the Kurds...must be good to be the world police and get to decide who lives and dies huh? So we fucked them over, oh well onto the next pawns.
Why do we spend so much on "defense" relative to the rest of the world? Have you ever researched who profits from war? You might check out GW's ancestor's, war was very good to them, they profited from arms deals. Do you find it just a little curious...Dick Cheney...Haliburton? Unnaccouted spending, no bid contracts? Why aren't you and Mitt Romney's boys over there defending old red eyed chickens like me Luke? You guys think we should be there, so how come you don't get your butt down to a recruiter?
Because you're afraid or because you know we aren't in any danger of being attacked by a foreign country? Don't give me that BS about finishing college either...your country needs you Luke! Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! Do you suppose JFK had just smoked a big fatty and was lounging around with one of his many girlfriends enjoying an after glow when he thought that one up? Jeez Luke how do you explain a DEMOCRAT having the balls to kick the Russian's out of this hemisphere during the Cuban missile crisis? How come that left leaning President didn't play his appointed role in Luke's world and cave in? Aren't all Democrats (except for Hillary) anti -war and all Republicans hawk-hawks? Come to think of it Roosevelt was Prez during WWII, Truman during Korea and Johnson during Viet Nam. All Democrats...jeez Luke what would Bill O'Reilly say about that?
I thought only Republicans were allowed to be hawk-hawks? What gives? This kind of stuff reminds me of the end of the book Animal Farm when you can't tell the difference between the Pigs and the humans. Repulicans? Democrats? Sometimes it's hard to know who's who?
Since this thread was originally about civil disobedience, here's something you ought to consider, question authority. Have you registered for the selective service (draft) Luke? Send them a letter saying you're pro-freedom and you've changed your mind, that when we see the Chinese navy is in the harbor you'll think about it but until then you'd prefer not to get involved in policing the world on foreign soil, you have degree to obtain.
You're free to do that aren't you, I mean this IS a free country right?
I don't get it, first you're telling me to go over and fight in Iraq, and then you're telling me to do "civil disobedience" and deregister from Selective Service (if that's even possible) and tell them I won't fight? That doesn't make any sense.
Free Libertarian, the object of the war is to stop Al Qaeda. And if I had any say about it, there would be another objective added on to the war, too, called "Stop the Mexican Military from Invading the Southwest". So if you or any of your other libertarian friends have a better idea for stopping Al Qaeda than Bush's war plan, I'd honestly like to hear it. And if you and your libertarian friends have a good idea for stopping the Mexican Military then I'd like to hear that, too.
Oh, and that's a liberal, leftist lie that Dick Cheney is a war profiteer. He isn't a war profiteer. He is an absolutely outstanding vice president, and I wish he could be McCain's vice president too when McCain gets into office. Now what liberals do is they point to the fact that Halliburton is getting contracts in Iraq, and Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. Well them and you calling him a war profiteer doesn't make any sense now, does it, as he was the
former CEO.
Former, Free Libertarian,
former. Not current.
Former. That means he isn't getting the money. The new guy who is now the CEO is getting the money.
Oh, and don't even try to give me that "Oh, if you don't like democrats, then you can't like JFK and FDR" line. You are much older than me, so you know full well that things were different in the days of JFK and FDR. I think that JFK and FDR were outstanding presidents, although the way that FDR increased the size of the federal government really concerns me a lot, and it continues to haunt us in a lot of ways today.
Now I have to go to dinner, but I will be back.
Oh and Ian, I forgot to say that I didn't force anybody at all to "spend hours" on me. So please don't act like I did.
Quote from: Caleb on May 14, 2008, 02:10 PM NHFT
Luke, the CIA doesn't do these things just because. They commit these crimes because they are engaging in covert ops, designed to ensure that the government of each nation is Washington-approved.
Of each nation? Of
each nation? Do you mean of each nation out of a group of certain nations, or do you mean each and every nation?
Quote from: Caleb
And none of this stopped in 1986.
I think you meant 1996.
QuoteThis has been going on since the end of world war II, when the OSS (which was the predecessor to the CIA) was smuggling NAZI war criminals like Klaus Barbie out of Germany and putting them to work for the CIA in Central and South America. It continues to this day. Don't for a moment think that just because something isn't on the CBS evening news that it isn't happening. The CIA continues to be doing its support work in keeping foreign regimes "friendly" to the US, often in the face of strong opposition by the local populace. Every presidential administration approves of this action because it supports the goals of the US State, which is to control resources and achieve what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" to ensure American hegemony. So Bush isn't going to challenge the CIA or hold it to account, nor will any other President for that matter, because the CIA is doing the dirty work in a mostly quiet fashion that he could never convince the American people or Congress to do openly.
Oh, so the CIA is doing this with Bush's knowledge, and Bush isn't doing anything about it because you say it's still going on and Bush is in on it. And Congress isn't doing anything about it because in short, they can't. And this has never, ever stopped, and is going on even to this very day in 2008.
Damn, damn, double dog damn.
So let me guess: because of this, you all have reason to believe that the Iraq War and the War on Terror have more to do with this CIA-President agenda that we're talking about now than it does with fighting terror.
Damn.
You know what. I have a friend who knows a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do.
I'm going to go away now, and I'm going to talk to my friend about this. And then I'm going to think about it for myself, too. And when I'm done talking to my friend about it and thinking about it, then I'm going to come back.
they seem to like this one
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 03:04 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer started bugging me about stuff I said on other threads, and that's how it got off topic. Because of Tom Sawyer. Not because of me.
Snitch ;D
Back on topic. Civ Dis. A bunch of us go to the statehouse, all but one carrying effigies of Luke S., the one carrying Luke. Then we burn them!
cold .... but I do have to admire the idea of burning something
Horrible, painful death...............but, by Fire!!!
Knew you would be on the fence
Geez, I'm gone for one day and now we're burning Luke?
Seriously though, burning an effigy sounds like a fine idea to me, doesn't have to be Luke though. I can think of far more deserving people than he.
George
Luke in my last post I was trying to give examples of how sometimes things aren't what we've been lead to believe. I don't have all of the answers. But I have alot of questions. Sorry if my previous message was confusing, I had just gone out to pledge allegiance and must have caught a whiff of old glory. I'll try to be more concise here.
Your version of freedom, is different from mine, your still thinking that somehow our rights are given to us
by a government or a bill of rights. The fact that our rights are taken under the guise of "legality" or to protect us changes nothing. Freedom means the right to be left alone doesn't it? Government doesn't permit freedom Luke, you just have it. So if freedom doesn't come from the government how can they take it away without it being theft? Voluntary cooperation is a good thing, edicts from somebody who knows "what's good for you" isn't freedom, no matter which flag it's wrapped in. That's a bullshit scare tactic Hitler and his cronies used to get a nation of Germans fooled. Tell them they're being attacked...works the same in any country. It worked here after 9/11, although alot of people are finally questioning some things.
You say you are pro freedom, clearly your version of freedom includes authoritarian infringments on anothers free will, you are intolerant in some areas. Being intolerant and pro freedom is contradictory isn't it? You are not consistently pro freedom, but you like to say you are.
Concerning Bush, you consistently avoid answering the contradictions about him? Why? Funny that he only got community service for his drug arrest...wonder if he'd still be in prison today if he'd also committed the crime of being black while getting high? Do you think his ancestors would have been able to profit off WWII if they'd have been Japanese Luke? Kinda hard to do that if you're a Japanese American in a prison camp in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!
Something about Bush I find funny, I heard after a night of youthful partying hard GW drove home with a, get this, "trash can" under his car...so I guess not everybody throws trash in the street when they're high, your boy picks it up...good job Georgie! I guess in retrospect I've been too hard on him.
Your style of we know what's best for you government, put U.S. citizens in jail during WWII, no trial, no choice, tough shit you're coming with us... How do you explain that happening in a pro freedom country? The irony is you were told in school we saved the free world during WWII. Yet we imprisoned our own citizens here...Hmmm. How did that happen Luke? Why?
Concerning me telling you to sign up for the military etc. I was jerking your chain. Sometimes I'm a wise ass like that...sorry. I'll be more direct. If you joined the military you would soon be counting the days until you could get out. A draft is an example of involuntary servitude isn't it? Do you support slavery?
You can't give your notice in the military Luke...Do you suppose this would work? "hey guys I got another job here's my two weeks notice"...Why can't we do that Luke? Because when you are in the military you don't have any rights. You are a tool. Does the constitution even authorize the size military we have? Or our being at war on GW's whim and not declaring it? How come one guy has brought us two wars without any just cause or uh "proper authorization"? Is he above the law? Is he the decider?
We are under no threat from an external army, the biggest threat we face is domestic and it ain't from pot smokers ...it's from the type of people you idolize.
I do find a great deal of irony that our Prez and V.P. both hid out during Viet Nam, yet you think they are John Wayne types. The only good thing Cheney has done with a gun was to shoot a lawyer. Of course that can be excused because he was drunk at the time, if he'd have been smoking pot he might have just grazed him with some trash right? Oh yeah, did he have a valid hunting license on him?
Concerning your next hero, John McCain he's a senile imbecile who couldn't remember how to spell C-A-T if you spotted him the C and the A. He was a POW...okay we got it. So that qualifies him to be President? If he'd never been a POW he'd be selling used cars to old people in Arizona. "Yes, my friends we have a special Patriots day sale today. If you'll commit your economic stimulus check as a down payment, we'll throw in this Islamo Fascist Extremist radar detector for free and give you up to a 100 years to pay this off"...At least HE knows water boarding is torture, ironically maybe the Viet Namese did beat SOME sense into him.
You have confused Patriotism with blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to the state. We could have a great country Luke, but more government control from the left or the right won't make that happen.
It's okay to leave people alone in this country and across the world, why can't you see that we are Imperialistic and have been for a long time? It's so obvious or do you consider 700 bases in 130 different
countries with a "defense" budget almost as big as the rest of the world combined a coincidence?
I've also heard our "free country" incarcerates the highest percentage of it's citizens...we have more people in jail for stupid shit than the rest of the world? Yep, we're #1 !! Still think we're the leaders of the "free world" Luke?
While we say we are bringing freedom and democracy to the world we arrest our own citizens at airports for carrying nail clippers Luke? Or we open their mail and spy on them? Or incarcerate them for smoking a plant? How many people die from alcohol or "legal drug" overdoses or government sponsored murder vs pot Luke? Do you want to touch that one? Hemp was made illegal for economic reasons Luke.
Google Hemp prohibition, be open minded do some research, be "pro freedom" learn the history you won't find in your school books. You'll learn how laws were and are made to protect financial interests. Be careful though your government could be watching your internet computer usage so be careful which hemp websites you visit... ;)
In a previous comment somebody said they'd buy you a beer. I'm a forgiving person, recant your turning in people for smoking pot, and swear off watching Bill O'Reilly for a month and I'll buy you a six pack of hemp flavored beer if you ever come to NH. We've stolen this thread long enough, let's start a new one call it arguing with Pot Heads and chicken chickens or anything you want. I'll talk to you there. My apologies to the original creator and users of this thread. Sorry for pursuing the arguing with Luke thing here. We should not have submitted you to all of the B.S. for so long. Luke, let's throw all of our trash in one neat pile and I will quit chasing you from thread to thread? Agreed?
...hey cool I just noticed that Gubermint is replaced with mafia in posts, you computer wizards are funny! ;D
Just got a complaint about that. It occurred to us that this could be construed as an insult to the Mafia that, actually, adheres to some sort of 'code of honor'.
Yeah, I don't think the replacement does justice to the Mafia. Let's not invest the guvmint with more legitimacy than they deserve.
Luke the war on terror was planned prior to 9/11. In some ways, it has been planned for years, by groups such as the Project for the New American Century, who finally achieved their power when boy Bush chose a PNAC insider as his veep and got himself elected. But those were abstract plans. Actual plans to invade, specifically Afghanistan were on his desk by June of 2001, or at the latest September 9th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
Iraq, of course, has been a major obsession of the PNAC, and they even composed a joint letter begging Clinton to depose Saddam. So of course, Iraq was next on the order of business. The 9/11 attacks just pose a convenient pretext for war. But that's all it is, a pretext.
The goals of the "war on terror" are exactly what the PNAC professes, an attempt to control the world's resources and establish US might throughout the world, so as to maintain full spectrum dominance and ensure that the US is able to enforce its agenda around the world.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on May 15, 2008, 12:38 PM NHFT
Just got a complaint about that. It occurred to us that this could be construed as an insult to the Mafia that, actually, adheres to some sort of 'code of honor'.
They all have varying codes ... some are even written down ... sometimes they follow them.
Ok, I tried to get ahold of my friend that I wrote about last time who knows a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do, but he wasn't there, so I'll just have to do my best to discern the situation here without his knowledge and expertise.
Now to recap what we've found out so far, Congress released a report in 1996 saying that the CIA committed crimes all around the globe. I saw it on their own website, so I'll buy that. And we've established that Presidents Bush Jr. and Clinton knew about these crimes that the CIA committed because both of those presidents received intelligence briefings every day, which presumably included the CIA's doings. That makes sense, so I'll buy that, too.
Now the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one.
That aside, what I will say is that it is very hypocritical that Bush said "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say 'I was just following orders'", wrt the impending Iraq War, and yet Bush did nothing about these very serious crimes that the CIA was and is committing around the globe. That doesn't mean I hate Bush now. I still like Bush. I just think it was hypocritical what he did.
Anyway, the CIA
is still committing these crimes, Caleb. You were right. And in fact, not only do they have that paragraph in that 1996 Congressional report about it, now they have an entire website about it.
https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/clandestine-service/index.html (https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/clandestine-service/index.html). It's a website which is being absolutely flaunted, with a great big graphic too, about the Clandestine Service and the clandestine things it does.
Damn, maybe all my objections to these crimes that the Clandestine Service is committing is just me being an idealist and a bleeding heart, Caleb. Maybe everybody else in America knows and accepts that the CIA Clandestine Service has to commit these crimes in order for us to have the intelligence that we need to have to be a good, strong, prosperous nation. But Caleb, there's a big part of me that knows that America is a special nation, and that wonders why we can't rise above all this clandestine bullshit and abolish this Clandestine Service.
Now that being said, even though I have now found out that the federal mafia is doing very bad things, committing these crimes and then letting themselves get away with it, this does not mean I will now turn into a liberal, a libertarian, or an America-hater. It also does not mean that terror groups like Al Qaeda are any less of a threat to America, or that the Mexican Military's invasions of the Southwest are any less of a danger to America. In fact, with criminals and Al Qaeda being on the loose, with the Mexican Military still making these invasions into the Southwest, and with the federal mafia having dropped the ball in so many ways, America needs me to be a red blooded conservative now more than ever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok now I will get on to what Free Libertarian said.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 15, 2008, 09:59 AM NHFT
Luke in my last post I was trying to give examples of how sometimes things aren't what we've been lead to believe. I don't have all of the answers. But I have alot of questions. Sorry if my previous message was confusing, I had just gone out to pledge allegiance and must have caught a whiff of old glory. I'll try to be more concise here.
Your version of freedom, is different from mine, your still thinking that somehow our rights are given to us
by a mafia or a bill of rights. The fact that our rights are taken under the guise of "legality" or to protect us changes nothing. Freedom means the right to be left alone doesn't it? mafia doesn't permit freedom Luke, you just have it. So if freedom doesn't come from the mafia how can they take it away without it being theft? Voluntary cooperation is a good thing, edicts from somebody who knows "what's good for you" isn't freedom, no matter which flag it's wrapped in. That's a bullshit scare tactic Hitler and his cronies used to get a nation of Germans fooled. Tell them they're being attacked...works the same in any country. It worked here after 9/11, although alot of people are finally questioning some things.
You say you are pro freedom, clearly your version of freedom includes authoritarian infringments on anothers free will, you are intolerant in some areas. Being intolerant and pro freedom is contradictory isn't it? You are not consistently pro freedom, but you like to say you are.
Concerning Bush, you consistently avoid answering the contradictions about him? Why? Funny that he only got community service for his drug arrest...wonder if he'd still be in prison today if he'd also committed the crime of being black while getting high? Do you think his ancestors would have been able to profit off WWII if they'd have been Japanese Luke? Kinda hard to do that if you're a Japanese American in a prison camp in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!
Something about Bush I find funny, I heard after a night of youthful partying hard GW drove home with a, get this, "trash can" under his car...so I guess not everybody throws trash in the street when they're high, your boy picks it up...good job Georgie! I guess in retrospect I've been too hard on him.
Your style of we know what's best for you mafia, put U.S. citizens in jail during WWII, no trial, no choice, tough shit you're coming with us... How do you explain that happening in a pro freedom country? The irony is you were told in school we saved the free world during WWII. Yet we imprisoned our own citizens here...Hmmm. How did that happen Luke? Why?
Concerning me telling you to sign up for the military etc. I was jerking your chain. Sometimes I'm a wise ass like that...sorry. I'll be more direct. If you joined the military you would soon be counting the days until you could get out. A draft is an example of involuntary servitude isn't it? Do you support slavery?
You can't give your notice in the military Luke...Do you suppose this would work? "hey guys I got another job here's my two weeks notice"...Why can't we do that Luke? Because when you are in the military you don't have any rights. You are a tool. Does the piece of paper even authorize the size military we have? Or our being at war on GW's whim and not declaring it? How come one guy has brought us two wars without any just cause or uh "proper authorization"? Is he above the law? Is he the decider?
We are under no threat from an external army, the biggest threat we face is domestic and it ain't from pot smokers ...it's from the type of people you idolize.
I do find a great deal of irony that our Prez and V.P. both hid out during Viet Nam, yet you think they are John Wayne types. The only good thing Cheney has done with a gun was to shoot a lawyer. Of course that can be excused because he was drunk at the time, if he'd have been smoking pot he might have just grazed him with some trash right? Oh yeah, did he have a valid hunting license on him?
Concerning your next hero, John McCain he's a senile imbecile who couldn't remember how to spell C-A-T if you spotted him the C and the A. He was a POW...okay we got it. So that qualifies him to be President? If he'd never been a POW he'd be selling used cars to old people in Arizona. "Yes, my friends we have a special Patriots day sale today. If you'll commit your economic stimulus check as a down payment, we'll throw in this Islamo Fascist Extremist radar detector for free and give you up to a 100 years to pay this off"...At least HE knows water boarding is torture, ironically maybe the Viet Namese did beat SOME sense into him.
You have confused Patriotism with blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to the state. We could have a great country Luke, but more mafia control from the left or the right won't make that happen.
It's okay to leave people alone in this country and across the world, why can't you see that we are Imperialistic and have been for a long time? It's so obvious or do you consider 700 bases in 130 different
countries with a "defense" budget almost as big as the rest of the world combined a coincidence?
I've also heard our "free country" incarcerates the highest percentage of it's citizens...we have more people in jail for stupid shit than the rest of the world? Yep, we're #1 !! Still think we're the leaders of the "free world" Luke?
While we say we are bringing freedom and democracy to the world we arrest our own citizens at airports for carrying nail clippers Luke? Or we open their mail and spy on them? Or incarcerate them for smoking a plant? How many people die from alcohol or "legal drug" overdoses or mafia sponsored murder vs pot Luke? Do you want to touch that one? Hemp was made illegal for economic reasons Luke.
Google Hemp prohibition, be open minded do some research, be "pro freedom" learn the history you won't find in your school books. You'll learn how laws were and are made to protect financial interests. Be careful though your mafia could be watching your internet computer usage so be careful which hemp websites you visit... ;)
In a previous comment somebody said they'd buy you a beer. I'm a forgiving person, recant your turning in people for smoking pot, and swear off watching Bill O'Reilly for a month and I'll buy you a six pack of hemp flavored beer if you ever come to NH. We've stolen this thread long enough, let's start a new one call it arguing with Pot Heads and chicken chickens or anything you want. I'll talk to you there. My apologies to the original creator and users of this thread. Sorry for pursuing the arguing with Luke thing here. We should not have submitted you to all of the B.S. for so long. Luke, let's throw all of our trash in one neat pile and I will quit chasing you from thread to thread? Agreed?
Free Libertarian,
First of all, I didn't just go to any old high school. I went to a very good high school in which I was indeed taught about the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Of course I totally denounce the placing of the Japanese-Americans into internment camps during that war. In fact, I think it was a tragedy. However, this does not, as you seem to imply, downplay the US's role in fighting back against Axis aggression, and in freeing occupied nations from Axis control, a role that it fulfilled very well.
Secondly, I think I indeed do have the correct view of what freedom is. Freedom is not a free-for-all. Freedom is the ability to live life as a good citizen. It often involves sacrifice for one's country (in this case, the USA), and helping to hunt down those who do break the laws of the USA and bringing them to justice. It in no way involves being a druggie, a dealer, a thief, a smuggler, a border jumper, or any other kind of lawbreaker. The only excuse there is to be a lawbreaker is if the law you are breaking is against a higher law, as I explained before.
Thirdly, your claim that President Bush didn't have authorization to go to war is not true. Nowadays we don't have "declarations of war" anymore. Formal declarations of war written down on a piece of paper are relics from a bygone era. That's not the way we do things nowadays. Nowadays instead of having the Senate declare war through a written declaration, we have the Senate give their approval to the president to commence with a war. That happened in both the Afghan war and the Iraq war. So Bush had proper authorization in both wars.
Oh, and if you're talking about the fact that he didn't have UN approval to go to war for the Iraq war, then you can just forget about that. We don't need their permission slip for anything as far as I'm concerned. We are a sovereign nation, and that is what we will stay.
Fourthly, I am not a neoconservative, so I don't believe in "spreading democracy". At all. I think that our business in Afghanistan and Iraq is limited to clearing Al Qaeda out of there. If Caleb ends up being right and Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan only because he wanted American hegemony, rather than to fight terrorism and Al Qaeda, then we'll just have to make a lemon into lemonade and clear all the Al Qaeda folks out of there that we can find anyway.
And that's all the time I have for all of you today.
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2008, 12:42 PM NHFT
Yeah, I don't think the replacement does justice to the Mafia. Let's not invest the guvmint with more legitimacy than they deserve.
Alcohol, tobacco, pornography, drugs, gambling, prostitution... yeah, the Mafia actually gives people what they want, not lock people up over it. ;D
Quote from: LukeNow the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one
Luke, I can't even begin to address your questions about why the US doesn't do more to prevent Mexican immigration without going severely off-topic. A proper consideration of the issue would involve understanding the competing domestic factions, the magnitude of the problem, and the somewhat stronger role that a President can assert in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. I can't go into all those without going severely off the topic that I'm trying to stay on.
We're now looking at the reasons for the current "war on terror". You have trouble believing my assertion that the main reason for all US foreign policy is assertion of US dominance over the rest of the world (with the codeword being "US leadership.") Here is a link to the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) Statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm This is not some rag-tag group. It is a group with significant influence over American policy, which is easy to see by looking at the bottom of the page and discovering WHO the PNAC is: men like Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. I trust these names are familiar to you as Bush insiders. If you get a chance, go to this link on the PNAC website and click on the big PDF file called Rebuilding America's defenses. It will give you a better idea of what American foreign policy is all about. http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
It doesn't do to "make lemonade out of lemons." Empire building is immoral, because it involves subjugation of other people. In addition, there is a significant cost to empire. Since you come from the right, you might want to consider a book by a conservative named Pat Buchanan. He wrote a book called "A Republic, Not an Empire" that shows just how suicidal American foreign policy is.
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 10:46 AM NHFT
... Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, ...
What duties? I don't remember signing up for any. Did you?
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 15, 2008, 08:06 AM NHFT
Geez, I'm gone for one day and now we're burning Luke?
Seriously though, burning an effigy sounds like a fine idea to me, doesn't have to be Luke though. I can think of far more deserving people than he.
George
Agreed. Luke is a true believer. A walking talking authoritarian. You can't educate liberty (amd burning effigies isn't worth it.) He's got to choose it.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 15, 2008, 10:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 14, 2008, 10:46 AM NHFT
... Americans who run away from their duties as Americans, ...
What duties? I don't remember signing up for any. Did you?
It was in the fine print of that social contract you signed. Remember? Me neither.
Okay, we didn't really "sign" that contract, they just inked the bottoms of our feet and stamped them on it in lieu of signature... ::)
A social contract is between non-entities. The original thirteen colonies when forming their confederation entered a 'social' contract in that the colonies were non-entities.
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2008, 10:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: LukeNow the next thing that Caleb was trying to say was that the reason why the presidents knew about this and didn't do anything about this is that they were in on this plan, along with the Pentagon, to create American hegemony and "full spectrum dominance" across the globe. That I'm not sure I buy, since logically the first step in American "full spectrum dominance" would be for America to dominate America. And given the situation on the southern border, that's not happening right now on the southern border. The Mexican military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border with impunity, and even smuggling drugs into America and shooting at Border Patrol with absolutely no response from the federal mafia, and illegal immigrants are crossing that border pretty much whenever they darn well please. So how can they be trying to have "full spectrum dominance" of the world when they aren't even trying to "full spectrum dominate" their own border? So no, I don't think I buy that one
Luke, I can't even begin to address your questions about why the US doesn't do more to prevent Mexican immigration without going severely off-topic. A proper consideration of the issue would involve understanding the competing domestic factions, the magnitude of the problem, and the somewhat stronger role that a President can assert in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. I can't go into all those without going severely off the topic that I'm trying to stay on.
We're now looking at the reasons for the current "war on terror". You have trouble believing my assertion that the main reason for all US foreign policy is assertion of US dominance over the rest of the world (with the codeword being "US leadership.") Here is a link to the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) Statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm This is not some rag-tag group. It is a group with significant influence over American policy, which is easy to see by looking at the bottom of the page and discovering WHO the PNAC is: men like Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. I trust these names are familiar to you as Bush insiders. If you get a chance, go to this link on the PNAC website and click on the big PDF file called Rebuilding America's defenses. It will give you a better idea of what American foreign policy is all about. http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
It doesn't do to "make lemonade out of lemons." Empire building is immoral, because it involves subjugation of other people. In addition, there is a significant cost to empire. Since you come from the right, you might want to consider a book by a conservative named Pat Buchanan. He wrote a book called "A Republic, Not an Empire" that shows just how suicidal American foreign policy is.
Ok Caleb, I don't have a whole lot of time right now, so I'm just going to say a couple things. First of all, by "make lemonade out of lemons", I didn't mean empire-build at all. What I meant is that if you are correct that the US Military was sent to Iraq on a mission of American hegemony than fighting terrorism, and the military finds that out, then the military should say "Ok guys, looks like we were tricked into going to Iraq to fight for American hegemony rather than fighting terrorism. Well we'll have to just make lemonade out of that lemon, and get rid of as many Al Qaeda as we possibly can anyway."
Secondly, the border situation is not outside of the topic of the War on Terror as you said. It might be outside the topic of what Bush sees the War on Terror as, but it is not outside the topic of the War on Terror as a whole, especially siince the Mexican Military has been going back and forth, back and forth across that border and shooting at Border Patrol. Stopping the Mexican Military from doing that definately should be part of the War on Terror as far as I'm concerned, since what the Mexican Military wants to do is to terrorize everybody away so that all those drug smugglers can smuggle drugs into America with impunity. Here Caleb. Have a look at this video which talks about how the Mexican Military was caught going back and forth into the USA 216 times.
QuoteNowadays we don't have "declarations of war" anymore.
Wow, someone should inform the Constitution of the United States... it doesn't seem to be in the loop!
Not really. Jefferson did the same thing with the Barbary War.
Seems to have set a historic precedent that American interests are the same as soil.
Luke, I'm down here near the border. I haven't seen any Mexican military, but I have no problem believing that it happens. I'm more concerned about the Mexican military's incursion into Fort Benning, Georgia than I am with their drug running. From what I've seen of Central/South American mafias, they are all knee deep in drugs.
I think you ask a good question. Why don't US federales do something about the known drug smuggling? Is it possible that Bush doesn't know? That hardly seems likely that MSNBC knows something that he doesn't know, because MSNBC only learned about it by seeing DEA reports. Presumably the DEA would report to Bush, no? And that guy in the video says he wrote the White House about it and got back a form letter. So we know that at least one person wrote Bush about it, and presumably someone in his White House watches MSNBC, so even if all other efforts failed, at least he could learn about it when you did. So no, he must know about it.
My belief is that he lets it happen because he wants it to happen. Drug running is a time honored CIA pastime too. I'd wager his boys are getting a sizeable cut. If you've got another theory to explain his negligence and incompetence, I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: Caleb on May 16, 2008, 01:51 PM NHFT
Luke, I'm down here near the border. I haven't seen any Mexican military, but I have no problem believing that it happens. I'm more concerned about the Mexican military's incursion into Fort Benning, Georgia than I am with their drug running. From what I've seen of Central/South American mafias, they are all knee deep in drugs.
I think you ask a good question. Why don't US federales do something about the known drug smuggling? Is it possible that Bush doesn't know? That hardly seems likely that MSNBC knows something that he doesn't know, because MSNBC only learned about it by seeing DEA reports. Presumably the DEA would report to Bush, no? And that guy in the video says he wrote the White House about it and got back a form letter. So we know that at least one person wrote Bush about it, and presumably someone in his White House watches MSNBC, so even if all other efforts failed, at least he could learn about it when you did. So no, he must know about it.
My belief is that he lets it happen because he wants it to happen. Drug running is a time honored CIA pastime too. I'd wager his boys are getting a sizeable cut. If you've got another theory to explain his negligence and incompetence, I'd love to hear it.
Yes as a matter of fact I do have another theory, Caleb. I have often heard that with the Iraq and Afganistan wars going on, we are literally only one conflict away from a draft. Bush and Cheney probably fear that if they did send the US Military out to fight the Mexican Military when the Mexican Military invades the US, it could be seen by Mexico City as the commencement of a formal war between the US and Mexico, so they would send even more troops, and before you know it, the US and Mexico are at war. And at that point we would
have to have a draft, because the all-volunteer military simply could not handle Afganistan, Iraq, and Mexico all at the same time. But the problem is that at this point, with all this leftist antiwar propaganda floating around, for the government to reinstate the draft would be political suicide for them. So we're stuck, and Mexico knows this, and are taking advantage of it.
Now that aside for a moment, my dad is sitting here and my dad said that he didn't know about the Mexican Military stuff, but he knows that all these other presidents and government officials knew about the drug smuggling, and it's been happening for decades, and nobody has ever done anything about it. And my dad said that he doesn't doubt that this stuff about the Mexican Military going back and forth across the border to assist drug smugglers is true.
There are some people who believe that the War on Terror is somehow "Bush's War" or "The Neocons' War. Well I think that's an absolute falsehood. I think that the duty to defend the USA is a duty that each and every person living in the USA has (except children and those too old to fight, of course), and if all the government does is send a form letter when Border Patrol is being shot at by the Mexican Military, then it becomes the duty of the citizens of the USA to defend the USA and to defend Border Patrol the next time the Mexican Military comes in here and does that.
So even though this news is true about all these presidents not doing anything about the border situation, and the government military doing nothing about the border situation and the Mexican Military, then that doesn't mean that now I'm going to be a liberal, a libertarian, an anarchist, or anything like that. It means that I'm going to be the same red blooded conservative that I have always been, and in fact even more so. What it means is that each and every American has even more of a duty to defend that border against the Mexican Military than ever before.
Luke, you speak of "duty". Doesn't the President swear to uphold the Constitution? Isn't that his sworn "duty"?
"We don't do things that way anymore" (declaring war by Congress)...YEAH no kidding! Poor excuse.
Shouldn't somebody at least amend the "g-damn" piece of paper if "we don't do things that way anymore"? What about warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prohibition, airport gestapo, etc. aren't those things unconstitutional ....doesn't any of that concern you? Can the president pick and choose which laws he'll follow? Is he special or "more equal" than you and I ?
Concerning a duty to defend this country. When was this country ever under attack by another nation?
A bunch of Saudi's crashed some planes into buildings and we have virtual lock down in this country
and an excuse for endless war. Don't think the U.S. is into world domination? Then explain why we have the Monroe doctrine in this hemisphere yet we maintain 700 bases overseas...slight contradiction? Do as we say not as we do? How many people have died in Iraq Luke? How many Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 9/11...doesn't that matter? You want to know the meaning of "terror"? Watching bombs drop from the sky on your house and being considered collateral damage as a piece of burned flesh in a war over money. That's terror. We don't belong in foreign countries, never did. You talk of the Mexican Military border jumping in Texas...how many borders does the U.S. military cross Luke? Isn't that a contradiction?
Druggies? You've been brain washed. Legal drugs kill far more people than illegal plants. In fact I defy you to produce statistics otherwise. I see you have not researched the economic reasons for Marijuana / Hemp prohibition. They were made illegal because Hemp represented a very real economic threat to entrenched powers, cotton, timber etc. Marijuana is pretty benign yet we've built a prison industry around it in this "free" country. I encourage you to do unbiased research you may learn something...You should google hemp prohibition and do some reading, seriously.
If birthday cake was suddenly made illegal Luke, would you agree with that? Hey why not ? You know damn well it's fattening, the frosting rots your teeth and all those candles create a fire hazard. I defy you to say birthday cake is good for anybody. Quick outlaw birthday cake. Or at least make it a misdemeanor to posess it without a permit. Heck tax it . Think of the tax revenue we could buy more bombs with...every year we all have a b-day with the obligatory cake, a never ending stream of revenue . Tax the cake, fuel the war machine and U.S. imperialism...brilliant. Plus birthday cake is a gateway food to ice cream too and some ice cream is made with unpasteurized milk. Criminal. Throw the offending cows in jail for producing unpasteurized milk. Besides cows eat plants, pot is a plant. It's a vicious circle Luke. Okay all kidding aside, if birthday cake were illegal would you still eat it? (serious question you'll learn why later)
Nobody is telling you to smoke pot. I'll even say it may NOT be good for you. Nobody is telling you to drink alcohol either. In a free country those are decisions individuals make for themselves. You continue to fall back on a propaganda term "druggie". Open your eyes. Prozac, Ritalin, Viagara and countless other drugs are "normalized" and sold for big profit. Are people who take prescription drugs "druggies" in your book Luke? Alcohol is the most abused drug in our society and responsible for many deaths. Are people who are addicted to caffeine "druggies"? Ever talk to anybody about caffeine withdrawal symptoms? They are real, caffeine is a drug isn't it? Is Dunkin Donuts a "caffeine dealer"? You can overdose on caffeine... why haven't we outlawed coffee? Because it's none of the gooferments business how much coffee you drink that's why!
Luke do you believe you own your body or does your gooferment own it? I'd like to think I own mine and I believe my "duty" is to leave others alone, ie not try to exert my influence over somebody who's leaving me alone. It's a simple concept, both for individuals and as a national foreign policy. What if that concept became a bit more popular, wouldn't the world be a better place?
So again, Luke, who owns your body? Can one country own the right to tell another country what to do?
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 17, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
Luke, you speak of "duty". Doesn't the President swear to uphold the piece of paper? Isn't that his sworn "duty"?
Yes it is. And I will admit that Bush has not been perfect at it, but perfection cannot be expected from any human being.
Quote"We don't do things that way anymore" (declaring war by Congress)...YEAH no kidding! Poor excuse.
Shouldn't somebody at least amend the "g-damn" piece of paper if "we don't do things that way anymore"?
Once again, we have Senatorial Approval now in the place of written declarations of war. It works procedurally in the exact same way as the formal declarations of war did. The Senate takes a vote, and if the ayes have it, then the president can go to war, and if the nays have it, then the President cannot go to war. (Unless he is using the 60 Day War Powers Act, which was a necessary piece of legislation given the fact that we are no longer living in the 18th Century, and the nature of war is different now.) Same procedure, minus the written piece of paper.
Actually you know what Free Libertarian, now that I think about it, you might be right. Because a formal declaration of war will help everybody to be on the same page as to who exactly the enemy is, and what the enemy did to deserve war. It would be the icing on the cake if a couple sentences were added in about the objectives of the war, too. Clarity about who the enemy is, and what needs to be done to defeat that enemy is the first step to winning a war. And that needs to start right with the declaration. One of the things that has always frustrated me about the War on Terror is the lack of clarity on who exactly the enemy is, and the lack of clarity on what needs to be done to defeat that enemy. It's worrysome, too, because lack of clarity on those two things can cause a war to be lost. I know that one of our enemies is Al Qaeda. There are many smaller CIA operative groups that are our enemies that I don't know the names of off the top of my head. Point being, this all needs to be put in a format where each and every citizen can pull it up on the internet, or get a hard copy, and know exactly who the enemy is, what the enemy did to deserve war, and what we are planning to do to defeat that enemy. And that is what a declaration of war is. And that is what we need.
So you're right on this one, Free Libertarian. You're right. And I'll leave it on that good note, since I'm getting really tired and need to go to sleep. I'll get to the rest of what you wrote tomorrow.
Ok Free Libertarian, I'm ready to address the rest of what you said.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 17, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
What about warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prohibition, airport gestapo, etc. aren't those things unpiece of paperal ....doesn't any of that concern you? Can the president pick and choose which laws he'll follow? Is he special or "more equal" than you and I ?
Warrentless wiretaps are a tough issue. While technically unconstitutional, it can be hard to doubt the benefit of being able to listen to terrorists when terrorists are making phone calls. It might even save us from the next Sept 11. Given the stakes involved here, frankly there's no time for a constitutional amendment right now. This has to be done immediately.
As for the Patriot Act, some provisions of the Patriot Act are Unconstitutional, whereas others are not. The part of the Patriot Act that allows "sneak and peek", where the police can search people's houses without notifying the people that they were there, is blatantly unconstitutional, and I can't really see how it will help against terrorists. Same thing with the provision which allows the government to look at your credit card payments. Terrorists can just pay cash when they find out that the government is tracking credit card payments. So that will be an ineffective measure against terrorists.
Quote from: Free LibertarianConcerning a duty to defend this country. When was this country ever under attack by another nation?
It's under attack right now by the Mexican Military who are going back and forth across the border and are shooting at Border Patrol.
QuoteA bunch of Saudi's crashed some planes into buildings and we have virtual lock down in this country
Which was the appropriate response to having planes crashed into the WTC and knocking down the WTC and killing 3,000 people.
Quoteand an excuse for endless war.
Baloney. There's no such thing as an "endless war". That's leftist propaganda. The war will end soon enough.
QuoteDon't think the U.S. is into world domination? Then explain why we have the Monroe doctrine in this hemisphere yet we maintain 700 bases overseas...slight contradiction? Do as we say not as we do?
The Monroe Doctrine forbade European colonization in the Americas. The military bases we have are military bases, not colonization bases. Our overseas military bases are not going to magically "expand" into colonies. So no, it's not a contradiction at all.
QuoteHow many people have died in Iraq Luke? How many Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 9/11...doesn't that matter? You want to know the meaning of "terror"? Watching bombs drop from the sky on your house and being considered collateral damage as a piece of burned flesh in a war over money. That's terror.
The verdict is still out whether this war is "over money". Caleb claims it is. But even if Bush sent the military to war over money, it is still possible for the military to "make lemonade out of a lemon", and get rid of as many Al Qaeda in Iraq as they can.
QuoteWe don't belong in foreign countries, never did. You talk of the Mexican Military border jumping in Texas...how many borders does the U.S. military cross Luke? Isn't that a contradiction?
Well if it is a contradiction, then too bad.
QuoteDruggies? You've been brain washed. Legal drugs kill far more people than illegal plants. In fact I defy you to produce statistics otherwise.
Why? You haven't produced any statistics in favor.
QuoteI see you have not researched the economic reasons for Marijuana / Hemp prohibition. They were made illegal because Hemp represented a very real economic threat to entrenched powers, cotton, timber etc. Marijuana is pretty benign yet we've built a prison industry around it in this "free" country. I encourage you to do unbiased research you may learn something...You should google hemp prohibition and do some reading, seriously.
That's bogus liberaltarian propaganda. Hemp was made illegal because hemp can be smoked and is a drug which is similar to marijuana, so if people figure that it's okay to smoke hemp, then people will figure that it's okay to smoke marijuana, which it's not.
QuoteIf birthday cake was suddenly made illegal Luke, would you agree with that? Hey why not ? You know damn well it's fattening, the frosting rots your teeth and all those candles create a fire hazard. I defy you to say birthday cake is good for anybody. Quick outlaw birthday cake. Or at least make it a misdemeanor to posess it without a permit. Heck tax it . Think of the tax revenue we could buy more bombs with...every year we all have a b-day with the obligatory cake, a never ending stream of revenue . Tax the cake, fuel the war machine and U.S. imperialism...brilliant. Plus birthday cake is a gateway food to ice cream too and some ice cream is made with unpasteurized milk. Criminal. Throw the offending cows in jail for producing unpasteurized milk. Besides cows eat plants, pot is a plant. It's a vicious circle Luke. Okay all kidding aside, if birthday cake were illegal would you still eat it? (serious question you'll learn why later)
What I and everybody else would probably do in that case is get around the law by having the birthday celebration on the birthday except for the cake, and having the cake at some other time of year, and calling it something else besides "birthday cake".
Quote from: Free LibertarianNobody is telling you to smoke pot. I'll even say it may NOT be good for you. Nobody is telling you to drink alcohol either. In a free country those are decisions individuals make for themselves. You continue to fall back on a propaganda term "druggie". Open your eyes. Prozac, Ritalin, Viagara and countless other drugs are "normalized" and sold for big profit. Are people who take prescription drugs "druggies" in your book Luke?
No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.
QuoteAlcohol is the most abused drug in our society and responsible for many deaths. Are people who are addicted to caffeine "druggies"? Ever talk to anybody about caffeine withdrawal symptoms? They are real, caffeine is a drug isn't it? Is Dunkin Donuts a "caffeine dealer"? You can overdose on caffeine... why haven't we outlawed coffee? Because it's none of the gooferments business how much coffee you drink that's why!
The reason why it is none of the "gooferment's" business how much caffine people drink is because drinking caffine does not have the potential to cause people to look for harder drugs, to hurt people, or to engage in other destructive behavior.
QuoteLuke do you believe you own your body or does your gooferment own it?
Irrespective of who owns your body, you have no right to be a druggie.
QuoteI'd like to think I own mine and I believe my "duty" is to leave others alone, ie not try to exert my influence over somebody who's leaving me alone. It's a simple concept, both for individuals and as a national foreign policy. What if that concept became a bit more popular, wouldn't the world be a better place?
That should be the foreign policy. In fact that was the foreign policy in the early years of the USA. Yes it would make the world a better place if that was every nation's foreign policy. But there's a reason why that policy works for only nations and not for individuals. If one nation all the other way on another hemisphere of the world is doing nasty things, where everybody is doing drugs, throwing trash on the streets, even more extreme things like pedophilia and child marriage, then that doesn't impact me because I'm all the way on the other side of the world.
Now on an individual level, this policy that you just mentioned does not work. What about politicians who accept bribes from lobbyists? That sort of thing certainly impacts me, even though I haven't directly had force used on me.
QuoteSo again, Luke, who owns your body?
I actually don't know. When I was a kid my parents always tried to tell me that they owned it because I was born from my mom's egg and my dad's sperm. What I did to get around that was go to my grandparents, who are the "owners of the owners" so to speak, who happen to have a much more open outlook on life and who permit almost anything, and then got their permission to do X, when the "owners" denied me permission to do X. I have a grandmother that is so permissive she would permit basically anything but going on a murder spree, so I usually went to her. It got to be such that whenever that when my parents said that I should do something, or not do something on account of "they own me", I would call up the "owner" of my dad, my grandmother, and she would permit whatever they denied permission for, and often also say that I didn't have to do what they said I had to do. Even if she didn't, one of the other two living grandparents that I had invariably did. So pretty soon they quit saying "Do/Don't do X: We own you", because it ceased to get them any results.
QuoteCan one country own the right to tell another country what to do?
No it can't. Which is one of the reasons why the UN is an absolutely abhorrent organization. You think the USA wants dominance? The UN is what wants dominance. I wish so bad that I could go to Burning Porcuipine Festival and see the nightly UN flag burnings. But you probably won't let me :( Conservatism is all too often solely a suit-and-tie affair, and that's why the Republicans are doing so badly with young voters. The only two conservative events that I can think of right now that had any pizazz in them were the Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day at some college I can't remember, and the Anti-Feminist Bake Sale at Bowling Green U. in Ohio. And both of those happened right now in 2008. In previous years there was practically nothing but formal suit-and-tie events. Now when I saw you guys burning those Social Security cards and burning those UN flags, I thought you were far-right conservatives that had finally gotten the message that in order to fight the UN and Social Security, there needs to be some pizazz in the act. But nope you weren't, you were libertarians.
So I guess we're back to the Antifeminist Bake Sale and the Catch An Illegal Immigrant Day being the only two things with any pizazz in them that conservatives did. Oh, and me, who lit feminist logos on fire, "diversity" logos on fire, and a picture of a social security card on fire (I was inspired by Lauren Canario). And who is planning to light other leftist things on fire any minute now.
First, Mexico is a supplier of oil.
Second, the US did something for the drug trade... this was the formation of Zeta teams.
Thirdly, the US Constitution has a provision for the suspension of Habeus Corpus, control of interstate commerce, and those that engage in it.
There is no... repeat no provision for privacy.
The only thing we believe the Administration may be guilty of voilating is treaty. Geneva Convention to be specific.
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.
Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.
George
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 18, 2008, 09:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.
Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.
George
George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. Your point about Ritalin is well noted, and in fact it is a point that I addressed earlier on this forum:
Quote from: Luke S on May 01, 2008, 07:17 AM NHFT
George, you are absolutely correct. Ritalin is essentially cocaine which they give to kids in schools to chemically force them to shut up since so many teachers nowadays have absolutely zero teaching ability. I've even heard of incidents where social workers have said to parents "If you don't give you kid ritalin, I'll have you declared a 'bad parent'", or something disgusting like that. Any social worker who does anything like that should be fired.
In fact, most social workers should be immediately fired, since most of them are nothing but a burden on society at best, and a destructive scourge at worst.
The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.
In my state doctors prescribe pot for pain, and the federal government, in defiance of the 10th amendment to their god-damned piece of paper, still attacks those who have received a prescription.
Caleb said god-dam!
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 18, 2008, 09:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.
Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.
George
George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.
But what you said Luke was that prescription drugs were proven not to lead to other destructive behaviors. That is nowhere near the truth. There are many, many prescription drugs that are much worse than what the "druggies" as you call them are taking. And yes Luke, people take prescription drugs on a whim all the time. The only difference between "druggie drugs" and prescription drugs is that the gov't has officially endorsed the prescription ones, in return for millions of dollars in fees, and condemned the others. Just remember, most of your "druggie drugs" used to be prescribed by doctors for specific legitimate medical purposes at one point in time Luke. They still would be since they are very effective, except the gov't has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be used.
George
Quote from: Caleb on May 19, 2008, 02:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.
In my state doctors prescribe pot for pain, and the federal mafia, in defiance of the 10th amendment to their god-damned piece of paper, still attacks those who have received a prescription.
I don't think that's true, Caleb. What if those people were to take that medical marijuana in California, then get addicted to marijuana, then go to another state and because they are addicted, seek out marijuana in that other state and consequently do illegal things in that other state. The federal government would have a compelling interest covered by the Constitution in stopping that from happening, now wouldn't they. Caleb, what you view as "attacking" those with a prescription is in reality a legitimate upholding of law and order within the United States.
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 19, 2008, 06:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 18, 2008, 09:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.
Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.
George
George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.
But what you said Luke was that prescription drugs were proven not to lead to other destructive behaviors. That is nowhere near the truth. There are many, many prescription drugs that are much worse than what the "druggies" as you call them are taking. And yes Luke, people take prescription drugs on a whim all the time. The only difference between "druggie drugs" and prescription drugs is that the gov't has officially endorsed the prescription ones, in return for millions of dollars in fees, and condemned the others. Just remember, most of your "druggie drugs" used to be prescribed by doctors for specific legitimate medical purposes at one point in time Luke. They still would be since they are very effective, except the gov't has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be used.
George
Once again George, I am by no means saying that the system is perfect. No system can possibly be perfect. Currently legal prescription drugs that you refer to as "much worse than what the 'druggies' as you call them are taking" should be made illegal. (Of course if somebody is infirm in the hospital and needs the drug to keep them alive, that is an obvious exception) That will solve any inconsistency in the law which you've highlighted regarding that matter.
Your statement about people taking prescription drugs on a whim, however, is false. In fact, it is tautologically false. Prescription drugs, by definition, require a doctor's prescription given for a legitimate medical reason for one to get ahold of them and start taking them. If they were obtained and taken on a whim, then they wouldn't be called prescription drugs. They would be called something else.
Luke glad we agree no country should tell another what to do. My hope is that soon you will agree that no person has the right to tell another what to do. You weren't sure if you owned your own body.
Well YOU own your body. Just because that right has been stolen bit by bit doesn't make it any less true.
You wanted stats
USA Typical year
Tobacco deaths - 400,000
Alcohol deaths 80,000
Heroin 2,000
Cocaine 2,200
Aspirin 2,000
Cannabis 0
Califano Report - Joseph Califano former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
President of CASA at time of stats
Hemp prohibition. I can see you haven't researched it and want to continue to believe what
you believe. William Randolph Hearst, Mello Bank, Dupont, Cotton Industry, Emperor Wears No Clothes
Check Hemp prohibition using wikepedia...what will it hurt?
My point about hemp is it isn't marijuana, it's a useful substance and threatens entrenched businesses, lot of them. Why is that so hard to believe. Pot is fairly benign, smoke it or don't, it's safer than alcohol but that doesn't mean it's for everybody...cool.
Concerning a base vs colonization...what's the first thing you do if you want to colonize a country? Establish a base right?
Concerning your attending Porcupine events...not my call to say whether you can or can't.
I'm a believer in freedom, come if you want to. I can't speak for you or others.
If you do go, you might find me PICKING UP trash as I'm the kind of guy that likes to make myself useful and help out.
Good post right there.
The prohibition on some substances over others is completely societal more. The country went through Prohibition of a substance that currently ranks second on your list.
As for the bases overseas... 'projection of power'. Its less necessary at the current time than when transport was very slow and limited. Currently many of those bases are desired by the host country for different reasons... mostly economics.
Luke, people do take prescription medications outside of a doctor's care. It doesn't take much effort to get a prescription, even controlled drug substances, it just requires you to shop around a bit to find a sympathetic doctor or doctors. Doctors don't only prescribe medications for "legitimate medical reasons." There are many doctors who will gladly write you a prescription just to make the money.
Aside from that, people self-medicate all the time, either taking left over medications from a previous illness, or something a friend gives them that they were given when they had something similar, or by bypassing their regular doctor and buying things online, where a doctor writes the prescription without knowing a thing about you.
In a perfect world (from some viewpoints) you would be right, and prescription medicines would only be provided and used for legitimate medical purposes. But that world doesn't exist.
Quote from: Luke S on May 19, 2008, 10:24 AM NHFT
I don't think that's true, Caleb. What if those people were to take that medical marijuana in California, then get addicted to marijuana, then go to another state and because they are addicted, seek out marijuana in that other state and consequently do illegal things in that other state. The federal mafia would have a compelling interest covered by the piece of paper in stopping that from happening, now wouldn't they. Caleb, what you view as "attacking" those with a prescription is in reality a legitimate upholding of law and order within the United States.
Luke, I guess my question is why is it the feds business what Caleb, myself, or yourself, put into our bodies? They are our bodies after all, and whether we choose to ingest marijuana, alcohol, Twinkies, or carrot sticks, I fail to see how it is any of their business.
Just because something is a law does not make it a good law, or a law we should obey, or enforce if we are sitting on a jury. For example, it is illegal in NJ for me to grow currants or gooseberries in my garden because they might be a carrier of a disease that might be transmitted to a type of pine tree that might live near my house. Now I can tell you for certain that there are none of that type of tree anywhere near my home, and yet, if I plant one here I am guilty of breaking the law and could be punished... not that I would ever do such a thing of course ;) I believe they are also illegal to have in NH, or at least to sell the plants to people in NH for those looking for something to do agriculturally as civil disobedience.
I also break the law every fall when the wild fox and concord grapes are ripe because, you better sit down for this one Luke, I actually go out and pick the grapes from the woods in the county park next to my house to supplement the ones I grow for making jellies and grape juice. And right now my father is in violation of the law because he has more then three dozen minnows in our bait tank. And the hawk feather that my daughter has on her book shelf is illegal to possess as well. Oh, and while we are at, I dug a new garden bed yesterday and did not call the state first and have someone come out to make sure it was okay for me to dig in the middle of the field, so chalk up another violation for me. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 19, 2008, 10:56 AM NHFT
You wanted stats
USA Typical year
Tobacco deaths - 400,000
Alcohol deaths 80,000
Heroin 2,000
Cocaine 2,200
Aspirin 2,000
Cannabis 0
Califano Report - Joseph Califano former Evil Empire Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
President of CASA at time of stats
I agree, an excellent post.
George
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 19, 2008, 11:43 AM NHFT
...For example, it is illegal in NJ for me to grow currants or gooseberries in my garden......I believe they are also illegal to have in NH, or at least to sell the plants to people in NH for those looking for something to do agriculturally as civil disobedience.
Now there's an idea! I know where I can get wild gooseberry bushes for that purpose, in another state... which would probably make them illegally obtained, as well ;D
Before Luke showed up this thread used to be about civil disobedience. :-[
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 19, 2008, 11:43 AM NHFT
I also break the law every fall when the wild fox and concord grapes are ripe because, you better sit down for this one Luke, I actually go out and pick the grapes from the woods in the county park next to my house to supplement the ones I grow for making jellies and grape juice. And right now my father is in violation of the law because he has more then three dozen minnows in our bait tank. And the hawk feather that my daughter has on her book shelf is illegal to possess as well. Oh, and while we are at, I dug a new garden bed yesterday and did not call the state first and have someone come out to make sure it was okay for me to dig in the middle of the field, so chalk up another violation for me.
Well it looks like we've got a regular menace to society on this message board, everyone hide their kids and old folk. 8)
His whole family are, apparently, serial criminals
New Jersey makes it far too easy to be a serial criminal. It seems like they have a law and regulation for everything except breathing.
My father is actually very pro-government. He grew up in the Depression, thinks Roosevelt was a god, and is probably closer to Luke's views than anyone else's on here. The whole thing with the bait is actually a huge step for him. We catch our own bait in traps, and he used to count them all the time to make sure he never had any more than 36 at a time. One day I asked him what possible difference it made if he had 36 or 37 at one time. He told me the difference was that it was against the law to have more than three dozen. To make a long story short, he is still uncomfortable with having more than the law allows, "they must have a good reason for the limit or they wouldn't have set it," but after a lengthy discussion over several days he did concede that it didn't really affect anything if he had a few more than 36. I suspect he still has a figure in his mind that he won't pass, that it is only acceptable to him to have 36 plus so many more, but at least he has come this far.
My daughter I am raising to have a healthy disrespect for rules that don't make sense. She is only six right now so the rest will have to come as we go along. Of course if she doesn't like one of my rules she is very quick to point out where she thinks it is deficient and why she thinks she shouldn't have to listen to me. I would much rather she be like that than the way I had to be, where you had to follow every rule because mom said so :) They made quite the fuss over her at the gun shop the other day. We went there to get her a trap so she can learn to shoot. Sadly, they don't see many 6 year old girls there, or boys for that matter, or so they tell me. I gave her my old Crosman BB gun that I got when I was 4. I was going to buy her her own, but it practically takes an act of Congress to do that down here.
As far as the currants and gooseberries go in NH, it appears that you are allowed to plant varieties that are especially resistant to blister rust, but only with the permission of the New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands. That is according to the extension at the Univ. of New Hampshire. You apparently have to apply for a permit and they will tell you what varieties they will let you grow. That is similar to NJ's laws. I can grow black currants here if I apply for a permit, pay them $75, tell them exactly where I am raising them, give them access to my property to inspect them, etc. Thankfully they are easy to propagate once you have them :)
George
I've never found such activism to hold much value, myself. Living in a state of passive disregard and disobedience seems to have a more positive effect, and so far, is proving to be far less dangerous. The ratio of cost to reward seems more equitable, and often highly profitable.
I tend to prefer passive protest (be it as simple as clothing bearing a message, or as extreme as body art, or be it a book collection, or flying an inverted flag scrawled with the phrase "Stars and Stripes of Corruption" - It is often easier to convey your message when you are confronted and questioned, rather than to be the one to confront), personal engagement with individuals (family, friends, co workers, business partners, sometimes even strangers at the bar or people I meet when out for a ride), as well as participation in black and gray markets, as the costs of activism more often than not outweigh the rewards, which if anything at all comes of it, usually consist of platitudes and placations from an authority I don't recognize and won't lower myself to engage in such a manner, along with the endorphin rush. You debase yourself, and empty your pockets for it; for supplies, to endure loss of productivity, as well as the occasional absorption of fines, court costs, and legal fees, etc. Few minds are swayed, and there seems to be no shortage of mouths filled with ridicule and spite, and an even greater number of apathetic persons.
I'm pretty much an agorist, I suppose, though I tend to identify as the more generic market anarchist. What act of civil disobedience is more profound than to simply live one's life in an ethical and productive manner, beholden to no authority but your own, and in full disregard of (and ideally also economic opposition to) the State? That's the ideal in my point of view, which admittedly I fall short of more often than I would like.
I'd say more, but I've got to stop. In extreme need of sleep here.
I agree with you, Nathan.
Um, hey guys, is it yet not obvious that Luke S, believes that he, and by extension his gov't has the god given right to control others. He is likely to desperately try to elect a repub, any repub, so that the dems are unable to use the powers of gov't that have been expanded by the repubs. The gop made the precedents, the dems just use them. Luke doesn't believe or understand this. Your debating him has clearly not changed this.
Agreed, David. He's a total troll, and has successfully derailed several threads. I'd split the off topic stuff out of this thread, but it's not my thread, so I don't feel right about it.
Quote from: Luke S on May 18, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
Ok Free Libertarian, I'm ready to address the rest of what you said.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 17, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
What about warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prohibition, airport gestapo, etc. aren't those things unpiece of paperal ....doesn't any of that concern you? Can the president pick and choose which laws he'll follow? Is he special or "more equal" than you and I ?
Warrentless wiretaps are a tough issue. While technically unconstitutional, it can be hard to doubt the benefit of being able to listen to terrorists when terrorists are making phone calls. It might even save us from the next Sept 11. Given the stakes involved here, frankly there's no time for a constitutional amendment right now. This has to be done immediately.
Have you not been arguing all along that the basis for many of your beliefs (
e.g., being opposed to religious discrimination) is that the Const
itution prohibits something? Care to explain now why you think you should use your own judgment as to the merits of Const
itutional prohibitions on this one topic?
Sounds to me like you
don't believe in blindly following the law when you believe the law is wrong. Am I wrong?
Warrantless wiretaps are not unconstitutional... the use of information gained from them for prosecution is.
more ideas added above...some are requests from u guys
idling a car for over 30 minutes when the temperature is between zero and 32 degrees. class A misdemeanor under state law apparently! One could put three homeless people, or just friends, in the car and heat them up. that way you'd be doing something constructive not just harmless. any ways you can think of to make such an act even more constructive and harmless? something that could minize any pollution that might result?
carrying an industrial hemp seed
planting an industrial hemp seed (?)
placing window tint over a certain density, on certain car windows
also...remember gandhi's dandi salt march? Where he walked from one part of india to another and made illegal salt at the ocean? i wonder if there is something like that we could do here...
Combine Johnny Appleseed, the industrial hemp idea, and the walk idea. You'd walk across the state seeding it with hemp.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on May 23, 2008, 08:22 AM NHFT
Warrantless wiretaps are not unconstitutional... the use of information gained from them for prosecution is.
John, I would have to disagree.
Wiretaps fall under the 4th.
QuoteAmendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Based on my reading of that the government would need to state upfront exactly what is being searched and what they were going to search for.
How about a small stakes (penny ante?) poker game outdoors in public? It's a way to have several people participate at once.
They did that in Keene. The Keene police ignored it, though they were right there.
They say "well we have to arrest you, it's the law" but they look they other way when it suits them.
http://www.newhampshirefreepress.com/NHFreePress/?q=node/82
Quote from: Free libertarian on June 03, 2008, 06:56 AM NHFT
How about a small stakes (penny ante?) poker game outdoors in public? It's a way to have several people participate at once.
According to a police officer, it's literally too small for the law to care about. It'd have to involve more serious amounts of money.
nothing is too small if they decide they want to hurt you
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 06, 2008, 07:15 AM NHFT
nothing is too small if they decide they want to hurt you
But that's the excuse they can use to keep ignoring stuff like this.
Actually some things are...
They continually complain that the DA refuses to prosecute... and the courts/juries refuse to find guilty certain crimes. I've even heard legislators complain that they're making laws no one intends to comply with or enforce.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 08, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT
Actually some things are...
They continually complain that the DA refuses to prosecute... and the courts/juries refuse to find guilty certain crimes. I've even heard legislators complain that they're making laws no one intends to comply with or enforce.
They're definitely making laws that I don't plan to comply with.
Quote from: William on June 08, 2008, 09:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 08, 2008, 12:25 PM NHFT
Actually some things are...
They continually complain that the DA refuses to prosecute... and the courts/juries refuse to find guilty certain crimes. I've even heard legislators complain that they're making laws no one intends to comply with or enforce.
They're definitely making laws that I don't plan to comply with.
Most of them?
I don't think the Legislature is worried about the non-compliance as much as the non-enforcement.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 03, 2008, 07:58 AM NHFT
I don't think the Legislature is worried about the non-compliance as much as the non-enforcement.
They should be worried about both. People will begin to realize how worthless more laws really are and by extension, legislators.
this guy has advise for those of us in Keene:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GNQji9JxgxI
"misuse" a milk crate
fix nashua park (see original post for link)
"askifICare (9 hours ago)
Yipes look out. The Nashua,NH city attorney has indicated that volunteers need to get the permission of the director of parks and rec to do things like this.
The city unions have written letters to the local paper saying that volunteers are not properly trained to cut grass or fix a baseball field and that it will result in a safety hazard.
If the video was shot in Nashua I am sure we would hear the cries of the union saying kids will get hung on these untrained nets. "
"misuse" a milk crate
They were giving out tickets for this in NYC.
From Australia March 23, 2005
===========================================================
Milk crates
To borrow a phrase from Ikea, milk crates make ideal storage solutions. They're also handy to sit, sleep or stand on to catch an eyeful of parades and concerts. In fact, so useful are milk crates that Dairy Farmers estimates more than 700,000 go missing in NSW every year. And they're not happy about it.
Janet Saunders, strategic consultant for corporate affairs at Dairy Farmers, says it costs $3 million a year to replace missing crates. The company's Milk Crate Recovery Program aims to "raise public awareness about the theft and misuse of our milk crates".
There's even a telephone hotline (1800 883 534) for people to report where they have seen crates.
One way of stopping people from pinching milk crates is to redesign them so they cannot be sat or stood on or used for storage. Design students at the University of Technology, Sydney, have been working on collapsible crates with tracking devices.
Don't expect change any time soon, though. "Milk crates are the most effective and environmentally friendly way to deliver our milk," Saunders says. - Andrew Taylor
WXII12.com - News - 'Blame Bloomberg': N.Y. Man Ticketed For Sitting On Milk Crate
NEW YORK—It appears the New York City budget crunch has police writing tickets for things that are moving and not moving.
A Bronx man told the Daily News that he was given a ticket for sitting on a milk crate outside the hair salon where he works on the Grand Councourse.
The ticket says "unauthorized use of a milk crate." The fine was not immediately known.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on June 06, 2008, 07:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 06, 2008, 07:15 AM NHFT
nothing is too small if they decide they want to hurt you
Shouldn't the goal then be to make the CD actions so big they can't be ignored?
How about half a dozen people playing poker with stacks of $20s & $50s on the table?
You would have to run something like a 'booking' operation...
The State's problem is with the gambling (though the statute might suggest otherwise) its with the individual making a profit with little to no risk. This is why non-profit gambling is permitted, but with tight restrictions.
bump. new ideas added at the top of the thread
another idea from ryan:
it's apparently against city ordinance in manchester to jog without a blaze orange vest or something along those lines. not sure if it's always illegal or just at night.
also there's a city ordinance that says you have to keep moving while demonstrating, and that is enforced to some extent. it may only be for groups of 3 or more
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 27, 2005, 05:10 PM NHFT
selling incandescent light bulbs after the fed ban in 2012 - or sooner if the state bans them sooner (there is a bill at the state house 2008)
refusal to pay one or more taxes
Is this really going through? This would be outragous. These types of light bulbs are necessary for the cheap, light weight, lights I use for video. I drop them sometimes while setting up, so I won't be spending $5 a piece on toxic lightbulbs where the wattage can't be changed out.
To some degree. There is an incoming federal regulation on the efficiency of lighting products. Incandescents don't seem to meet the specifications.
While holding signs yesterday I had a conversation with another sign holder standing next to me. He was an ex con holding a sign for a write-in candidate who he says wants to reform valley street jail. there are apparently abuses over there.
That got me thinking...reforming the jail using government, would cost money. But any one of us could reform a jail at no cost to taxpayers simply by spending time in there with a video camera.
Of course, they'd probably arrest you for trying. So maybe one type of civil disobedience would be to walk up to the entrance with a camera and just stand there until arrested or allowed in. if they ignored you then you could just put on one of those "report jail abuses here" signs.
ideally this would be somethign to do after a jail is back in the news. maybe one could contact them and let them know this may be what will happen if they get caught committing abuses again.
i guess this idea could apply to any area where cameras are restricted.
Sent to me via the ridley report youtube channel:
i think it's an rsa
<< CHAPTER 215
REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF GUIDES
Section 215:1
215:1 When Required. – No person shall engage in the business of guiding, until he has registered with the executive director and procured from him a license so to do.
I don't know what they mean by "guiding", but I think it means being a tour guide. So theoretically, even if you were to take somebody on a tiny little tour around Veterans' park, that would be illegal unless you had a license from this "executive director" person.>>
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 19, 2008, 11:45 AM NHFT
Sent to me via the ridley report youtube channel:
i think it's an rsa
<< CHAPTER 215
REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF GUIDES
Section 215:1
215:1 When Required. – No person shall engage in the business of guiding, until he has registered with the executive director and procured from him a license so to do.
I don't know what they mean by "guiding", but I think it means being a tour guide. So theoretically, even if you were to take somebody on a tiny little tour around Veterans' park, that would be illegal unless you had a license from this "executive director" person.>>
Applies only to hunting and fishing guides.
291-A:11 Sale or Purchase of Parts Prohibited. –
I. A person shall not knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell a part, if removal of the part occurs or is intended to occur after the death of the decedent.
II. Valuable consideration does not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transportation, or implantation of a part.
III. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and, notwithstanding RSA 651:2, upon conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both.
I hereby announce my intent to sell to Mr. David Ridley, for one ounce of silver, upon my death, the fingernail and/or toenail trimmings customarily produced by preparation of my corpse for disposal. They should be collected from the funeral director, and the silver paid to my estate.
289:22 Stone Rubbings. – No person shall make gravestone rubbings in any municipal cemetery or burial ground without first obtaining the written permission of the town selectmen or the mayor of a city or designee. Before granting such permission, the selectmen or mayor will ascertain to the best of their ability that the person making the request knows the proper precautions to be taken and the proper materials to be used for this activity. The town selectmen or city mayor or their designee shall notify the cemetery trustees of the request and its disposition. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This is a pretty easy and straightforward one. I'd make sure only to do this on marble or metal plaques rather than any granite (NH granite is relatively soft), so that you know any damage is near impossible. Also, stick to public figures on this one.
Apparently Manchester's city bus network does not allow firearms on board their buses.
The Manchester Transit Authority (http://www.mtabus.org/) is ostensibly "private" but partially owned by the city. I don't know about their funding sources, but if they're like most other public transit authorities, they probably receive well over half of their funding through tax dollars (e.g., Boston's MBTA system is funded about 75% by the State sales tax).
I don't know if it's an ideal act, but it's an idea:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15468.0