Ivy arrested 2009.06.04, approx. 19:45

[ny2nh]

Friday, I wasn't talking about the grandparents. I was talking about certain people on this board who use any mention of Ivy to publicly announce their inability to move beyond incidents that happened in the past. Note to those people: your life will be better if you just let it go. Trust me.

What incidents am I, or anyone else, not moving past, Brian? Just because some people choose to look at the big picture and take all of the actions of an individual into account when assessing a situation doesn't mean that those people "just won't let it go". I didn't this all into the limelight - Ivy and Bill did. Ivy with her actions - which I will reiterate are not really all that shocking - and Bill for choosing to post all of it on the internet. Had Bill confronted Nick directly, most of us wouldn't know that Ivy and Nick "spent time together". It probably is just easier to blame those of us following the threads instead. Maybe you've just been hanging with Jeremy too much - 'cause you're starting to sound like him. 

[ny2nh]

ny2nh .... are you involved in bill/ivy/peter's lives? do you want to be?

No, Russell, just a spectator of sorts. Much like the others who are doing the exact same thing I am....they just aren't posting any comments. 

[Lactivist]

NY2NH is not using anything as a pawn.  Sorry, the child needs to be in a loving and safe environment.  With Bill being either at the restaurant or jail or researching the law, Peter needs to have some focus on Peter.  I'm glad the grandparents are caring for him, and he is not in state care.

J'raxis does seem to take any possibly negative comment about Sharon personally, I'm not sure why.  When you put the situation on the internet, I agree with Russell that you have to accept that people will comment (good, bad, indifferent).

My 2 cents, I do lose respect for people who use other people's money to raise their children (as I believe in the personal responsibility it takes to have a child, if you can not then you should take precautions or give them to someone who can...I realize this is a hard predicament, and believe in charity...not forced raising of children through welfare).  I have even less respect for someone who abuses the system and takes MORE money out of the tax payers hands.  This situation for me is so different from libertarian or civil disobedience suits.  I applaud those who take a stand against the silly laws, I support them, I protest for them...those who are jailed for taking other people's money I am not going to support.  I don't think this should be supported as an FSP or libertarian problem, just those who are personally involved.

[stanford]

Maybe you've just been hanging with Jeremy too much - 'cause you're starting to sound like him. 

Who is Jeremy?

[J’raxis 270145]

It is a little peculiar though as to why her alleged thievery is somehow pro-liberty. Oh - but I guess anything Ivy does is pro-liberty and anything I do must be anti-liberty....because that fits into your view of things better.

I don't remember posting anything defending Ivy if the allegations from R.I. are true.

However, I do happen to agree with—I think it was Stephan Molyneux who's spoken about this idea?—the idea that a person is perfectly entitled to get back from the State the amount of money that the State has stolen from them. I understand that a lot of libertarians will refuse State funding for anything, on principle and to set an example, but it's perfectly morally acceptable, to me, to steal back what was stolen from you. I personally don't do this, but I have no problem with others who do.

There's also another school of thought, which seems to be what a lot of the Keene activism is about, and what NH-CLOG is most certainly about, and that's to cost the State as much as possible when they go after us. Someone that I was discussing this very topic with last night described it as, stealing the gun from a man threatening to kill you. The State takes money from people to enable its aggression; taking that money away from them—in any amount—is simple self-defense. Now, I prefer to do this by making them waste their money themselves, not taking it from them for my own personal emolument, but the end result is the same.

I don't think either of these philosophies apply in Ivy's situation, since whatever happened in Rhode Island was long before Ivy became a freestater and started moving in this libertarian direction, but there's my complete take on "theft" from the State.

As for things you do that are anti-liberty: Stick to the tax and spending cap stuff and I'm fine with you. But I still haven't forgotten about your trying to sell pro–police state, pro–drug war Guinta to us. (By the way, sleazebag statist Sen. Gatsas is running for mayor now—any plans to bring him to MVP?) Or the dog park silliness and that sovereign immunity bill therefor. Or the increasingly probable theory that you're some sort of infiltrator/disruptor.

J'raxis does seem to take any possibly negative comment about Sharon personally, I'm not sure why.  When you put the situation on the internet, I agree with Russell that you have to accept that people will comment (good, bad, indifferent).

Most of it I ignore. See above why I tend to go after Tammy when she gets involved in these threads, and look at her posting history here and on the other forums to see how she obsesses over this stuff. In particular see this thread and what Tammy's obsessive friends turned it into. That is why I get so pissed at these people.

[ny2nh]

Maybe you've just been hanging with Jeremy too much - 'cause you're starting to sound like him. 

Who is Jeremy?

You know - Jeremy - who you were at the Russell's with Peter with the other day. Trying to make it like you don't know Jeremy? Seriously?

[sandm000]

Maybe you've just been hanging with Jeremy too much - 'cause you're starting to sound like him. 

Who is Jeremy?

You know - Jeremy - who you were at the Russell's with Peter with the other day. Trying to make it like you don't know Jeremy? Seriously?

Are Jeremy and J'Raxis the same person? I only know some of the people on the forum by their handle. For Instance I only Know Russell Kanning as Russell Kanning, and Many people know me only as SandM000 and don't know my real name is Brian. Maybe that is the confusion here.

[stanford]

Maybe you've just been hanging with Jeremy too much - 'cause you're starting to sound like him. 

Who is Jeremy?

You know - Jeremy - who you were at the Russell's with Peter with the other day. Trying to make it like you don't know Jeremy? Seriously?

Oh, him! I like Jeremy. We moved his ambulance to Grafton and had a nice lunch with a bunch of great people. Freedom fighters. Jeremy is a non-violent sort of guy, working hard to make the world a better place for all of us

Sort of like the J'raxis fella who posts here.

I thought a common courtesy of the boards is that you don't use a person's real name unless it is their screen name. I guess if I was looking for common couresy I should stay off the forums. 

[sandm000]

Most of it I ignore. See above why I tend to go after Tammy when she gets involved in these threads, and look at her posting history here and on the other forums to see how she obsesses over this stuff. In particular see this thread and what Tammy's obsessive friends turned it into. That is why I get so pissed at these people.

Tammy didn't post in that thread? So Tammy is in control of all of those people who are posting anti-Ivy sentiment? Or have some of us been opposed to her since DAY 1?http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10057.0 Just in case you forgot, she was trying keep her RI benefits (like you could forget). Why have you been trumpeting her cause from the beginning?

[ny2nh]

I understand that a lot of libertarians will refuse State funding for anything, on principle and to set an example, but it's perfectly morally acceptable, to me, to steal back what was stolen from you. I personally don't do this, but I have no problem with others who do.

Sorry - I see stealing - in any form - as wrong. Two wrongs don;t make a right.

I don't think either of these philosophies apply in Ivy's situation, since whatever happened in Rhode Island was long before Ivy became a freestater and started moving in this libertarian direction, but there's my complete take on "theft" from the State.

Actually, that's far from the truth. Go back to the post where Beth was asking for help for Sharon.....she was right in the middle of the RI mess when she moved here. Or look at Sharon's various posts and she claims to have found her libertarian ways at the same time she was sucking of the government. Please = let's not try and make this out to be an incident from long, long ago! Sharon moved here in '07 and the RI stuff will likely unfold to have been in '07.

And isn't it amazing that she hasn't been here even 2 years?

As for things you do that are anti-liberty: Stick to the tax and spending cap stuff and I'm fine with you. But I still haven't forgotten about your trying to sell pro–police state, pro–drug war Guinta to us. (By the way, sleazebag statist Sen. Gatsas is running for mayor now—any plans to bring him to MVP?) Or the dog park silliness and that sovereign immunity bill therefor. Or the increasingly probable theory that you're some sort of infiltrator/disruptor.

Phew, as long as Jeremy is OK with me working on the spending cap, then I guess I'm OK. I was really worried about that! (George - that was sarcasm.  )

I work to achieve more liberty than we have - but I also work to better my neighborhood and my community. The silly dog park is one of those things. If you can't wrap your head around why it would be good in a real, live place, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you would rather see city owned land sit idle and become more and more blighted than to clean it up and make it a usable place for a large sector of the community.

And you're still stuck on Guinta coming to the MVP meeting and not endorsing RP, or what? He came, he answered your questions, and for that he did what wrong? And, no, I won't be bringing Gatsas (who by the way for those who don't know, got an A+ rating from the NHLA in '08, and the highest grade of an A (84%) in '07) to any MVP meeting anytime soon....there's nothing positive to come from it.

And that whole infiltrator/disruptor thing.....it's fun and all, but I would think you would have tired of looking so silly by now.

J'raxis does seem to take any possibly negative comment about Sharon personally, I'm not sure why.  When you put the situation on the internet, I agree with Russell that you have to accept that people will comment (good, bad, indifferent).

Most of it I ignore. See above why I tend to go after Tammy when she gets involved in these threads, and look at her posting history here and on the other forums to see how she obsesses over this stuff. In particular see this thread and what Tammy's obsessive friends turned it into. That is why I get so pissed at these people.

I obsess of this? I do jump into the discussion, but if anyone obsesses my dear, that would have to be you. You, more than anyone else, posts all the drama in forum after forum after forum. That is far more obsessive than my responses or comments IMO.

About the thread you posted.....just to clarify to anyone who was not there and has only heard the Jeremy version of events. Sharon showed up, a bunch of people left. There was no storming out, there was no scene. I had made the decision that I had no desire to be in the same place as she was long before that night. Others felt the same way. When she arrived, we finished our drinks, paid our bills, tipped the servers generously since they ultimately were losing tips by us leaving, and left and went someplace else. No big scene like Jeremy would like people to believe. The next week, the whole gang of us went back because that is what we did on Tuesdays - went out for dinner and drinks - and we knew that if she showed up again, we would just leave again. We were not trying to make a statement, we just decided we really didn't need to be in the same place as her and made the principled decision to leave. Kind of like shunning, isn't it?

[ny2nh]

I thought a common courtesy of the boards is that you don't use a person's real name unless it is their screen name. I guess if I was looking for common couresy I should stay off the forums.  

Maybe, but then Jeremy would need to stop calling me Tammy. Of course, I don't have a problem with anyone knowing my real identity - because anything I say on the forums, I would say in real life.

Gee - sandm000 - I didn't know you were Brian.   Is that why you have his picture as your avatar? (oops, I guess that's on a different forum!)

[Lactivist]

I also have no problem with getting back taxes you paid (thus get as much back from the IRS). HOWEVER, Sharon was VERY public with the fact that she didn't pay taxes....so again she was knowingly and willingly taking from other people.

[Lactivist]

There's also another school of thought, which seems to be what a lot of the Keene activism is about, and what NH-CLOG is most certainly about, and that's to cost the State as much as possible when they go after us.

Yes, if they are going after "one of us" for doing some liberty related thing!  Not making them spend MORE money on someone who already stole money from people.

[stanford]

I also have no problem with getting back taxes you paid (thus get as much back from the IRS). HOWEVER, Sharon was VERY public with the fact that she didn't pay taxes....so again she was knowingly and willingly taking from other people.

That'd be quite a trick, paying no taxes. If only it were possible.

The sad fact is, when you pay rent, you are paying property taxes. When you buy a loaf of bread, you are paying the employer's matching taxes of the driver who delivered the bread to the store, plus the gas tax from the truck, the road tarriffs on the tires, and a million other taxes in the supply chain. The end consumer ends up paying all taxes.

I'm not sure where I stand on the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right vs. get-what-you-can battle, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that anyone is exempt from taxes.

[sandm000]

but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that anyone is exempt from taxes.

a very salient point.

I also have no problem with getting back taxes you paid (thus get as much back from the IRS). HOWEVER, Sharon was VERY public with the fact that she didn't pay federal taxes....so again she was knowingly and willingly taking from other people.

Is that what you meant?

or this one?

so again she was knowingly and willingly taking from other people's taxes without the stated purpose of doing it as political activism.

/I thought there was some serious lag between my posting and any responses, it's because the Kannings are on Nifty (NHFT - New Hampshire Free Time) D'oh