NHexit.com discussion

[Dave Ridley]

Copy-pastes of my recent posts from the NHexit Facebook discussion group (so I can find them in the future)

' Should John Best be banned from the NHexit discussion forum? If at least 2/3rs of the people voting "yes" or "no" ...cast a yes vote by roughly aug 16, then the following will happen. I will comply with the will of the supermajority, and ban him. I will abstain from the voting. Only yes and no votes count...my preference would be that you don't add more options to this particular poll even though you probably have the power.


+24

Yes

+10

No


Dave Ridley created a poll.
21 hrs
As indicated in the "should we ban John Best" poll... Best lost on Aug 16....18 votes to 8. I complied and banned. But...now I'd like to know on a scale of 1 to 5 how you feel about my handling of that issue. And what do you think should be done differently next time we have calls to block someone?


Enemies/trolls/detractors should have as much free speech on this discussion board as we can give practically give them. My instinct would be to run it like my YouTube channel (which means they get MORE free speech than is practical). But this is different since all of you have preferences. Some people trigger overwhelming demands for their removal, and failing to listen to those demands means losing good participants. Several of you have indicated a desire to see John Best banned from this discussion group. There's no written policy or anything regarding when to do that. Why don't each of you, including you John, lay out your case why you think he should stay or be kicked out? I'm thinking after that we'd have a vote, requiring a 2/3 majority of respondents required to dump him. I'd also welcome feedback regarding this approach to "trolls"....do you think it's appropriate? Too tolerant? To controlling?


Dave Ridley
August 13 at 10:21pm
What if we were to get a friendly state rep to submit a CACR which would simply remove roughly the second half of [Art.] 7.from the NH Constitution? The last word of that article is currently "assemble" and the amendment would make it so that it ends instead at "pertaining thereto." I've been hearing arguments that voting in favor of such a change might violate the oath which reps take to the U.S. Constitution...could someone explain which part of that Constitution (if any) they might be violating if they they voted in favor of the CACR I'm describing?
Here's how [Art.] 7. is currently worded "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."  '

[Erroneous_Logic]

I bet it will be fun.
It will also connect the faithful and leave out the trolls, by meeting together

I can't wait to hear how someone painted themselves blue and showed up naked, screaming "THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOOOOOOOOM!!!"

[Dave Ridley]

I asked Joël Valenzuela for suggestions on what elements he thinks we need, to move forward.  He sent this and authorized me to publicize it for him.  It seems like a sound suggestion.

"In order to achieve results, you need a results-driven campaign. This means long-, mid-, and short-term goals, with clearly leadership roles
In short, this will need a lot of work, and most people currently showing up don't want to work, just make some noise and feel special

If you want it to be successful, once you've identified your goals and leadership positions, you'll need to put in the work to identify all your supporters, collect their info in an easily accessible database (including which events they've helped out with and which ones they've skipped), and keep growing that list as you individually reach out to each and every person you expect to show up at any given rally"

[Tom Sawyer]

I bet it will be fun.
It will also connect the faithful and leave out the trolls, by meeting together

I can't wait to hear how someone painted themselves blue and showed up naked, screaming "THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOOOOOOOOM!!!"

That will get press coverage!

[Tom Sawyer]

I asked Joël Valenzuela for suggestions on what elements he thinks we need, to move forward.  He sent this and authorized me to publicize it for him.  It seems like a sound suggestion.

"In order to achieve results, you need a results-driven campaign. This means long-, mid-, and short-term goals, with clearly leadership roles
In short, this will need a lot of work, and most people currently showing up don't want to work, just make some noise and feel special

If you want it to be successful, once you've identified your goals and leadership positions, you'll need to put in the work to identify all your supporters, collect their info in an easily accessible database (including which events they've helped out with and which ones they've skipped), and keep growing that list as you individually reach out to each and every person you expect to show up at any given rally"

I like Joel, however this is like the early days of the Abolitionist's efforts. First steps are for people to realize the possibilities. 

[Russell Kanning]

agreed

[Erroneous_Logic]

I asked Joël Valenzuela for suggestions on what elements he thinks we need, to move forward.  He sent this and authorized me to publicize it for him.  It seems like a sound suggestion.

"In order to achieve results, you need a results-driven campaign. This means long-, mid-, and short-term goals, with clearly leadership roles
In short, this will need a lot of work, and most people currently showing up don't want to work, just make some noise and feel special

If you want it to be successful, once you've identified your goals and leadership positions, you'll need to put in the work to identify all your supporters, collect their info in an easily accessible database (including which events they've helped out with and which ones they've skipped), and keep growing that list as you individually reach out to each and every person you expect to show up at any given rally"

I like Joel, however this is like the early days of the Abolitionist's efforts. First steps are for people to realize the possibilities.

Yes, but just because a crowd is small and uncertain doesn't mean you can't try to organize them a bit.

[Tom Sawyer]

I asked Joël Valenzuela for suggestions on what elements he thinks we need, to move forward.  He sent this and authorized me to publicize it for him.  It seems like a sound suggestion.

"In order to achieve results, you need a results-driven campaign. This means long-, mid-, and short-term goals, with clearly leadership roles
In short, this will need a lot of work, and most people currently showing up don't want to work, just make some noise and feel special

If you want it to be successful, once you've identified your goals and leadership positions, you'll need to put in the work to identify all your supporters, collect their info in an easily accessible database (including which events they've helped out with and which ones they've skipped), and keep growing that list as you individually reach out to each and every person you expect to show up at any given rally"

I like Joel, however this is like the early days of the Abolitionist's efforts. First steps are for people to realize the possibilities.

Yes, but just because a crowd is small and uncertain doesn't mean you can't try to organize them a bit.

In the words of Russell... "You should do that."

My view is that instead of telling folks that they need to model their effort like the big boys do, the way I have seen work the best is to lead from the front. Say, "I'm going to do those and so." Others will then decide if they want to follow or maybe they will initiate actions themselves. Out of this spontaneous order leadership is demonstrated. As opposited to the quagmire of artificially creating a leadership hierarchy. Also avoiding the danger of "Who is the leader here." Which is what the cops are always doing to hang responsibility on one person for others actions.

[Free libertarian]

Copy-pastes of my recent posts from the NHexit Facebook discussion group (so I can find them in the future)

' Should John Best be banned from the NHexit discussion forum? If at least 2/3rs of the people voting "yes" or "no" ...cast a yes vote by roughly aug 16, then the following will happen. I will comply with the will of the supermajority, and ban him. I will abstain from the voting. Only yes and no votes count...my preference would be that you don't add more options to this particular poll even though you probably have the power.


+24

Yes

+10

No


Dave Ridley created a poll.
21 hrs
As indicated in the "should we ban John Best" poll... Best lost on Aug 16....18 votes to 8. I complied and banned. But...now I'd like to know on a scale of 1 to 5 how you feel about my handling of that issue. And what do you think should be done differently next time we have calls to block someone?


Enemies/trolls/detractors should have as much free speech on this discussion board as we can give practically give them. My instinct would be to run it like my YouTube channel (which means they get MORE free speech than is practical). But this is different since all of you have preferences. Some people trigger overwhelming demands for their removal, and failing to listen to those demands means losing good participants. Several of you have indicated a desire to see John Best banned from this discussion group. There's no written policy or anything regarding when to do that. Why don't each of you, including you John, lay out your case why you think he should stay or be kicked out? I'm thinking after that we'd have a vote, requiring a 2/3 majority of respondents required to dump him. I'd also welcome feedback regarding this approach to "trolls"....do you think it's appropriate? Too tolerant? To controlling?


Dave Ridley
August 13 at 10:21pm
What if we were to get a friendly state rep to submit a CACR which would simply remove roughly the second half of [Art.] 7.from the NH Constitution? The last word of that article is currently "assemble" and the amendment would make it so that it ends instead at "pertaining thereto." I've been hearing arguments that voting in favor of such a change might violate the oath which reps take to the U.S. Constitution...could someone explain which part of that Constitution (if any) they might be violating if they they voted in favor of the CACR I'm describing?
Here's how [Art.] 7. is currently worded "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."  '

Regarding article 7 changes etc.



When it reads this, it will be closer to being philosophically correct,  "the INDIVIDUAL people of this state have the sole and exclusive right, etc. "

Until that right is known and established as normal, we're sort of flailing in the branches. 

[Russell Kanning]

and that is what Ridley is doing with NHexit .... some of us can follow. If others don't like the way he works .... they can work on another secession project.
getting a bunch of secessionist to work together seems even harder than libertarians

[Free libertarian]

and that is what Ridley is doing with NHexit .... some of us can follow. If others don't like the way he works .... they can work on another secession project.
getting a bunch of secessionist to work together seems even harder than libertarians

If secessionists secede from other secessionists it provides evidence they are committed to their cause(s).  (smiley emoticon)

[Erroneous_Logic]

and that is what Ridley is doing with NHexit .... some of us can follow. If others don't like the way he works .... they can work on another secession project.
getting a bunch of secessionist to work together seems even harder than libertarians

If secessionists secede from other secessionists it provides evidence they are committed to their cause(s).  (smiley emoticon)

You're not a True Secessionist unless you live by yourself in the woods and never talk to anyone except to tell them to stop oppressing you. 

[Tom Sawyer]

and that is what Ridley is doing with NHexit .... some of us can follow. If others don't like the way he works .... they can work on another secession project.
getting a bunch of secessionist to work together seems even harder than libertarians

If secessionists secede from other secessionists it provides evidence they are committed to their cause(s).  (smiley emoticon)

You're not a True Secessionist unless you live by yourself in the woods and never talk to anyone except to tell them to stop oppressing you. 

Hey, that's almost me. 

[Erroneous_Logic]

and that is what Ridley is doing with NHexit .... some of us can follow. If others don't like the way he works .... they can work on another secession project.
getting a bunch of secessionist to work together seems even harder than libertarians

If secessionists secede from other secessionists it provides evidence they are committed to their cause(s).  (smiley emoticon)

You're not a True Secessionist unless you live by yourself in the woods and never talk to anyone except to tell them to stop oppressing you. 

Hey, that's almost me. 

You're almost a True Secessionist!

[Russell Kanning]

see ... if you say that ... Tom assumes you have been watching him