LTE in Suncook Valley Sun

[MaineShark]

The big picture is that Barnes is a dedicated anti-freedom nutjob.  Some of us are looking at the big picture, not the single issue of taxes.

Well all things being relative I would hardly call him that.

What freedoms, precisely, doesn't he oppose?  We know he supports taxation, just (possibly) not an income tax.  We know he thinks that centralized economic planning by the Feds is a good thing (doesn't even want the state to do it; thinks the Feds are jsut dandy).  Thinks that "papers, citizen" is a great notion.  Opposes free speech.  Want me to keep going?

Once you lose NH to an income tax, there goes your freedom as it's based on who controls the money.

Yeah, because an income tax is the only way the State gets money.  I forgot that it was run by voluntary donations right now, and this is a sudden notion of taxing the populace...

The fact that they take money is important.  Whether they do it by taxing income, by taxing property, by taxing air, or by mugging people on the street is not really that big of a deal.  Actually, the last option would be a big deal, because at least it would be honest.

In the fight against an income tax, which almost passed in 2001, Barnes was the driving force.

You've said this how many times?  Prove it or stop saying it.

The income tax is our next big fight and if we lose it, the NH advantage is gone forever...and property taxes will stay right where they are.

Yeah, because the lack of an income tax is the sole advantage that New Hampshire has.  Everything else about the state sucks and we'd all leave if there was an income tax!:

To me the two most important things are Money and Money. The third one is 2nd amendment. Lose those, and you've lost everything and the power to fight anything else.

Actually, the first thing is the RKBA.  The second thing is the RKBA.  The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth things are also the RKBA.  Free speech and assembly come after that.  Money probably next.

As long as the people hold the power, we always retain the option to wheel a cannon up to the governor's mansion again, if need be.  And the ruling powers had all the money the last time we did that, too.  We still kicked them out, now didn't we?

Truth be told, they really don't have the money, anyway.  They have scrip.  I bet there's more actual money in the hands of Porcupines in this state, than any other group.

Joe

[tracysaboe]

State Senator John S. Barnes Jr. wrote a letter that appeared in the August 23 issue of the Suncook Valley Sun:

I am frustrated and disgusted.  Yesterday, August 13, 2006, the Irving gas station, Blue Canoe, on Route 4 in Northwood, was selling gas at 2.959 a gallon.  Approximately fifteen miles away, the Irving station, Blue Canoe, in Raymond, was selling gas for 3.02 a gallon.

I imagine the same truck delivers to both stations.  I am not picking on Irving because this is happening in other gas stations in our state as well.  I just want to compare apples to oranges.

It seems to me that the Irving station in Raymond is making 0.07 a gallon more than the one in Northwood.  Is this price gouging?  According to Webster's Dictionary; Extortion.

I wish we could do something about this in our New Hampshire Legislature, but I think it has to happen in Washington.  I am sending a copy of this to Irving Oil; perhaps they can give us an explanation.  Enough is enough!

Sincerely,
Senator John. S. Barnes, Jr.
District 17

Now, needless to say, I wasn't going to leave that alone, and they printed my letter in the September 6th issue...

I am writing in response to Senator John S. Barnes Junior's letter in the August 23 edition of the Sun.  Senator Barnes' website says that he has been a small business owner, which leaves me somewhat puzzled as to how he could have missed learning of the concept of supply and demand.  The price charged at a particular station will reflect the demand for its product.  Want the Raymond Irving station to charge less for gasoline?  Stop buying there.  If people won't buy at the price they ask, they'll lower the price.  As long as people are buying at a level that makes that price a profitable one, then that's the price the store will charge.

And can we please be spared the melodrama?  Extortion?  Until the manager of the Raymond Irving station shows up on my doorstep slapping a baseball bat into his hand and demanding I buy from him, I wouldn't call that extortion.

Maybe Senator Barnes is just worried that people will think too hard on the fact that the Federal government makes 18.2 cents and the State of New Hampshire charges 20.6 cents.  The government gets 38.8 cents, and the station is averaging 8 cents.  Who, precisely, is profiteering?  The profits made by the companies that refine, transport, market, and sell the gasoline to consumers are small in comparison to what the overseas producers and the government make.

If Senator Barnes really wishes that the Legislature could offer a solution to high gasoline prices, I suggest that he look to the real culprits.  If we chopped our state gasoline tax by 3.7 cents, we would drop past Oklahoma and be second-lowest in the nation.  If that wouldn't help our small businesses and attract more, I don't know what would!

Joe Brown
Northwood, NH

So, seeing as it's Wednesday again, I'll check the mail later and see if he has any response...

Me, I was thinking he needed to be replaced, just based on this nonsense, and then I was doing some catch-up reading today, and found his name as one of the anti-anti-Real ID cowards, so I guess that just confirms me opinion...

Joe

Are you in New Hampshire now Maine? I thought you were still in Maine.

Tracy

[CNHT]

In the fight against an income tax, which almost passed in 2001, Barnes was the driving force.

You've said this how many times?  Prove it or stop saying it.

Joe I'll say it as many times as it takes to get it through your head. I've been at this a lot longer than you have even been alive so I don't have to prove anything. It's just a fact that this is what happened. Just because you are mad at Barnes for other things does not change the things he has done in the past. You are obviously so angry and hate-filled that you can't stand that one of the targets of your rancor has anything good to be said about him. The fact that you can't weigh the good with the bad, quite frankly, has me worried.

The income tax is our next big fight and if we lose it, the NH advantage is gone forever...and property taxes will stay right where they are.

Yeah, because the lack of an income tax is the sole advantage that New Hampshire has.  Everything else about the state sucks and we'd all leave if there was an income tax!:

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

[MaineShark]

Are you in New Hampshire now Maine? I thought you were still in Maine.

Northwood, like the letter says

Closed on the house in June, but I was here (well, Nashua) much of the time for several months prior.

Joe I'll say it as many times as it takes to get it through your head.

If it's a fact, there's evidence to support it.  You've provided none.  Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.  If it's actually true, then provide some evidence to support it.

I've been at this a lot longer than you have even been alive so I don't have to prove anything.

Been at what, precisely?  Obviously not acquiring anything approaching common sense, or maturity.  No one is exempt from the need to prove his or her statements.  That is a characteristic reserved solely for dieties.  You don't have the requisite metaphisical properties to speak ex cathedra.

You can exist on the face of the planet for a year or a couple centuries, and you won't escape that.  And the minute you claim that the simple act of surviving gives you authority, anyone with sense knows you just lost all credibility.

It's just a fact that this is what happened. Just because you are mad at Barnes for other things does not change the things he has done in the past. You are obviously so angry and hate-filled that you can't stand that one of the targets of your rancor has anything good to be said about him. The fact that you can't weigh the good with the bad, quite frankly, has me worried.

Let's see if you can get this through your silly little head: it's not a fact unless you prove it.  If it's proved, I'm perfectly sanguine to accept it, as I've said numerous times.  Until then, it's an unsubstantiated claim.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

I ain't going anywhere.  I chose NH long before the FSP existed, and I intend to be here for a good century more.  Unlike you, I see great potential in this place, and don't think that greatness could be laid to waste by a single setback.

Joe

[Pat K]

When you 2 get married I hope I'M invited.

[CNHT]

If it's a fact, there's evidence to support it.  You've provided none.  Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.  If it's actually true, then provide some evidence to support it.

Well this would be like saying that Joel didn't organize and rally the groups for the Real ID issue, when he did, because we were there and saw him.

You were not here in 2001 to see what was done then.

But Jack Barnes headed up the organized effort to squash the income tax, plain and simple.
And hundreds of other people know it.

I don't need to 'prove' anything else to you, because everyone else knows it. You don't because you weren't here. Your argument is ridiculous.

And at this point I don't really care if you don't know it because it doesn't matter.

[CNHT]

When you 2 get married I hope I'M invited.

I could never marry someone who carries on ludicrous arguments for whatever purposes. It's like arguing with a 2 year old.

[tracysaboe]

When you 2 get married I hope I'M invited.

They do make a cute couple don't they. 

Tracy

[FTL_Ian]

Do you mean as in 'no' representation?

Jane, do you really believe you are represented now?  If you think so, what about everyone else in your area?  How can one person represent the interests of so many people?

Govt "representatives" are quite inefficient.  You see, they don't get market signals but once every two years.  Even then, it's a questionable signal, as only a % votes, and only a % of them actually contact their "representatives".

Are you familiar with market signals?  They are as described by Maineshark earlier, for instance, if you don't like the gas station, go somewhere else.  This is a signal, and it's given to businesspeople daily by a variety of individuals.  They can make changes and tweak their business as often as they like, or they risk going out of business.

A politician only has to grease enough palms to get reelected.

This is one reason Free Marketeers don't want government around.  At worst, it's a tyrannical evil.  At best it's a clumsy, dangerous oaf that is insulated from market signals.  Either way, it has to go.

[FTL_Ian]

I've been at this a lot longer than you have even been alive so I don't have to prove anything.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem and shifting the burden of proof in one sentence, Jane! 

The fact that you can't weigh the good with the bad, quite frankly, has me worried.

Luckily, I don't spend time worrying, especially about you. 

I'm excited that Joe is in NH and that he's so talented at writing LTEs.  Joe, you decimated Barnes in that, good job!   

[FTL_Ian]

Been at what, precisely?  Obviously not acquiring anything approaching common sense, or maturity.  No one is exempt from the need to prove his or her statements.  That is a characteristic reserved solely for dieties.  You don't have the requisite metaphisical properties to speak ex cathedra.

You can exist on the face of the planet for a year or a couple centuries, and you won't escape that.  And the minute you claim that the simple act of surviving gives you authority, anyone with sense knows you just lost all credibility.

  That was lost a long time ago.  She used the same fallacy on me in this thread earlier this year.

[error]

Oh wow, Ian's been studying logical fallacies! 

[CNHT]

As Denis coined the phrase in another thread, 'libertopia' is not going to exist. So to do nothing until it does is to do nothing.

The argument is whether Barnes helped defeat an income tax in 2001, which he did.

I have no reason to lie about that.

It doesn't absolve him of anything else he might have done that we don't like but the fact that someone would get so upset and emotional over not wanting to hear that fact makes me wonder about their mental stability and maturity level.

It's like saying you hate eggs because they can make you itch if you are allergic (true) but object to hearing that they are also full of vitamins and protein. (also true)

So what!  Too funny.   

[MaineShark]

Well this would be like saying that Joel didn't organize and rally the groups for the Real ID issue, when he did, because we were there and saw him.

You were not here in 2001 to see what was done then.

But Jack Barnes headed up the organized effort to squash the income tax, plain and simple.
And hundreds of other people know it.

And yet, despite saying that you would, you didn?t provide even one reference?

I don't need to 'prove' anything else to you, because everyone else knows it. You don't because you weren't here. Your argument is ridiculous.

And at this point I don't really care if you don't know it because it doesn't matter.

Just like Al Gore invented the Internet.  And how is it that, all of a sudden, you were there?  Back on the 13th, I was going to need to talk to someone else to get the details.  Now, all of a sudden, you were there and actually know them?  Do share...

I've been at this a lot longer than you have even been alive so I don't have to prove anything.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem and shifting the burden of proof in one sentence, Jane! 

The fact that you can't weigh the good with the bad, quite frankly, has me worried.

Luckily, I don't spend time worrying, especially about you. 

I'm excited that Joe is in NH and that he's so talented at writing LTEs.  Joe, you decimated Barnes in that, good job!   

Thanks, Ian.  It?s nice to be appreciated.  You know, I sent the letters to a Canadian I know, and even with the crazy government they have up there, he still thinks Barnes is extraordinary in his levels of idiocy.  I don?t know if I?ll choose to abstain on that question, or to actually vote for his opponent.  Corbin isn?t any better than Barnes, but at least he has a poor attendance record... that counts for something...

Been at what, precisely?  Obviously not acquiring anything approaching common sense, or maturity.  No one is exempt from the need to prove his or her statements.  That is a characteristic reserved solely for dieties.  You don't have the requisite metaphisical properties to speak ex cathedra.

You can exist on the face of the planet for a year or a couple centuries, and you won't escape that.  And the minute you claim that the simple act of surviving gives you authority, anyone with sense knows you just lost all credibility.

  That was lost a long time ago.  She used the same fallacy on me in this thread earlier this year.

Indeed.  Facts are facts, and they stand on their own.  Heck, I?ve had apprentices in the past who were more than twice my age.  If I ask my apprentice how he would solve a particular problem, and the answer he gives is incorrect, should I just say, ?oh, I must be mistaken because he?s older than me??  That?s just plain silly.  There?s a difference between age, experience, and wisdom.  The first is occasionally useful, and only when dealing with bigots, whereas the last two are always of use.

As Denis coined the phrase in another thread, 'libertopia' is not going to exist. So to do nothing until it does is to do nothing.

Um, weren?t you complaining because I want Barnes out, which would be doing something?

The argument is whether Barnes helped defeat an income tax in 2001, which he did.

I have no reason to lie about that.

Well, in a previous post, you mention CS Porter.  Why is that?

I?m somewhat curious if you even know what race we?re discussing...

It doesn't absolve him of anything else he might have done that we don't like but the fact that someone would get so upset and emotional over not wanting to hear that fact makes me wonder about their mental stability and maturity level.

A) I?m not upset or emotional about Barnes.  He?s a run-of-the mill nutjob.

B) At this point, I don?t wonder about either your stability of maturity.  You have provided more than enough evidence to evaluate both.

It's like saying you hate eggs because they can make you itch if you are allergic (true) but object to hearing that they are also full of vitamins and protein. (also true)

So what!  Too funny.   

No, it?s more along the lines of someone who dislikes candy because it has little nutritional value and may be detrimental.  And then someone comes along and says, ?but candy cures you of this dread disease!?  So the first person asks for some proof, and the second person agrees to provide it, but then says, ?no, I just know that candy cures that disease, and I don?t have to prove it, because you should just believe me, because I?m super-special that way, and everyone should believe me, no matter what I say.?  And the first person goes to the store and buys some apples and shares them with his friends while they all laugh at how ridiculous the second person sounds, claiming that candy cures diseases and that she doesn?t have to prove it, either.

Joe

[CNHT]

You know, I think your temper tantrums over my pointing out Barnes' anti-tax record arise from the fact that somehow you think just because Barnes is an anti-income tax crusader it invalidates your complaint  letter about the gasoline prices.

IT DOESN'T!!!

It's just something I thought I would mention.

I'm sure that as a multi-millionaire business man it would not make sense that Barnes would be in favor of an income tax.
It also makes sense that he can pay for gas even if it's $5 per gallon so it doesn't even really affect him.

I'm sure his knee-jerk reaction was due to being humanly concerned for those of us less wealthy and unable to pay $5 per gallon, and that he did not consider what his implied solution (if he offered one - did he?) really meant.

So what was his response to your letter? I hope you sent it directly to him to find out just what he was thinking.
It is not productive to be wasting energy arguing about it here while speculating just what it is he is thinking/advocating.

If I had a question/complaint, that's what I would do. Write him an email or pick up the phone and call him.

This is NH, after all..