georgism broken record ad nausium

[CNHT]

You're wrong there. That was not his personal hummer.

Craig and his wife drove matching his and her hummers.

it wasn't owned by the state.

Again and your point is? We're talking about state owned vehicles that were used by staff, which he cut by TWO THIRDS from the former Democrat governor.

What he has for his own vehicle is none of our business.

[FrankChodorov]

You're wrong there. That was not his personal hummer.

Craig and his wife drove matching his and her hummers.

it wasn't owned by the state.

Again and your point is? We're talking about state owned vehicles that were used by staff, which he cut by TWO THIRDS from the former Democrat governor.

What he has for his own vehicle is none of our business.

so you at least admit that I am right about something?

that the hummer that he drove was his own not the state's?

[CNHT]

You're wrong there. That was not his personal hummer.

Craig and his wife drove matching his and her hummers.

it wasn't owned by the state.

Again and your point is? We're talking about state owned vehicles that were used by staff, which he cut by TWO THIRDS from the former Democrat governor.

What he has for his own vehicle is none of our business.

so you at least admit that I am right about something?

that the hummer that he drove was his own not the state's?

It doesn't matter what he drove. I'm sure he owned personal vehicles and probably had more than one, but this is not what is at issue, or whether it fit in the space or not. (It did fit, I saw it there)

His personal vehicles are not of interest here.

The facts are that he got RID OF two vehicles he felt were not necessary for the STATE OF NH to pay for and replaced them with ONE official vehicle.

As usual, liberals are a bunch of whiners and think people who have money are somehow 'selfish' even if they've helped saved the taxpayer money.
Remember this bit of idiocy?

Group protests Benson?s support of Free Staters

06/26/04 - PLYMOUTH - Holding signs reading "Gov. Hummer is a bummer" and "Government is not the Problem, Selfish People are the Problem," about 30 people lined the walk outside a Plymouth State University building Friday to protest Gov. Craig Benson?s relationship with the Free State Project.
###

So I guess according to this, we need a law against 'selfish people'.

[FrankChodorov]

it is very simple Jane...

you said:

"Benson got rid of Shaheen's 3 SUVs that she had bought on the State's dime and got himself ONE. He chose a Hummer and saved the people about $80 grande."

I pointed out that this was not true - that it was his own hummer not the state's.

now you are back tracking.

it just shows that you won't admit it when you are wrong.

[FrankChodorov]

Benson on Education:


"The state constitution says we should cherish education, but I don't think there is a legal responsibility to fund education."

"We have a law that allows us to establish charter schools here in this state. We ought to get going on it."

"I don't think"

"I don't know"

or

"There isn't"

if King Craig didn't "think" there was then why didn't he push an amendment when they had the numbers on their side?

I guaranteee you the numbers for Republicans will be worse after the election in the fall.

[CNHT]

Benson on Education:


"The state constitution says we should cherish education, but I don't think there is a legal responsibility to fund education."

"We have a law that allows us to establish charter schools here in this state. We ought to get going on it."

"I don't think"

"I don't know"

or

"There isn't"

if King Craig didn't "think" there was then why didn't he push an amendment when they had the numbers on their side?

I guaranteee you the numbers for Republicans will be worse after the election in the fall.

There is only so much one can do in the first two years. At the time no one was bringing up income tax because it had just been defeated.
Hopefully any Democrats that get elected are ones that do not believe in an income tax. There are a few on our side.

Why you would argue for one beats me. It will only hurt people who are retired like myself. Lot you care.

[CNHT]

it is very simple Jane...

you said:

"Benson got rid of Shaheen's 3 SUVs that she had bought on the State's dime and got himself ONE. He chose a Hummer and saved the people about $80 grande."

I pointed out that this was not true - that it was his own hummer not the state's.

now you are back tracking.

it just shows that you won't admit it when you are wrong.

I am not back tracking, I am saying that he knocked the State vehicles down from 3 to 1.
I don't even know what kind of personal vehicle he had.

You are the one who said he had a hummer that would not fit in the space.

WHO THE HELL CARES about that even? Geesh.

[d_goddard]

Jane, surely you realize, Fank's opposition to something you say makes everyone else on the board AGREE with you more

[FrankChodorov]

I don't even know what kind of personal vehicle he had.

no - you don't know what state vehicle he drove...

[FrankChodorov]

My sister has repeatedly stated that because I know I will be taxed, if I work somewhere, then it's not stealing.  It's wierd logic.

It's called legal positivism. And it's a rampant mindset that pretty much everybody has.

It's not logically any different from saying that. "Well, if you move into a neighborhood where you know the maffia is extorting money from people and they've been doing it for years, then the maffia isn't really stealing form you."

But convincing people of the paralells between the two statements is pulling teeth.

and why you and others can't see that if all lands are legally claimed there is no practical difference between a landowner and a state is beyond me as they both have a monopoly on force over a specific territory.

[FrankChodorov]

As with Russell the most prevalent is "failure to obey the state"

I believe the underlying principle is that Russell has no freedom of speech rights in a collectively owned building that would disrupt the business being transacted.

I understand that Russell does not acknowledge collectively owned property or the rules that apply to them...but many others do and the point is that he is willing to suffer the consequences of the disagreement.

They also charged her with criminal trespass. So she was illegally on stolen property?

did the owner of the property invite her on?

was the former owner compensated for the taking?

technically the land was stolen from the original inhabitants - no?

She may or may not be guilty of criminal trespass

under what conditions in your opinion would she be guilty of criminal trespass?

once she was removed from the property she was no longer doing that.  I fail to see in the video how she interfered with police

did she willingly leave under her own power when asked by the police?

[JonM]

Frank, if your belief system allows you to accept the brutality of the state in what they are doing to Lauren as acceptable, I have no desire to be part of that belief system.

If they simply wanted her off that property they could have done a classic catch and release.  They decided to hold her over the weekend instead.  Because Lauren refused to play along with them, they are confused.  Now they decide that because someone wishes to invoke their constitutional right to remain silent, they must be crazy and have sent her off for mental evaluation.  Do you think this is right?

[FrankChodorov]

If they simply wanted her off that property they could have done a classic catch and release.

I am sure they told her she is going to have to move or else they are going to have to arrest her otherwise what would have prevented her from simply walking back onto the property like Russell did at the IRS?

Now they decide that because someone wishes to invoke their constitutional right to remain silent, they must be crazy and have sent her off for mental evaluation.  Do you think this is right?

every court has to determine whether a person is competent to be tried...how can a judge do that if the person does not communicate?

you know like asking: "do you understand the charges against you", miranda rights, etc.

[JonM]

every court has to determine whether a person is competent to be tried...how can a judge do that if the person does not communicate?

you know like asking: "do you understand the charges against you", miranda rights, etc.

If you have committed a crime against someone perhaps.  What crime worthy of prosecution has Lauren committed?  She engaged in an act of civil disobedience.  She is a political prisoner in every sense of the word.  The state illustrates her point by its actions against her.  Moreover, who was being harmed while she read a book on that porch?  Perhaps to you the state is justified in stealing a person's property at the point of a gun, but this does not sit well with some of us.  That she has the courage to even at the end stand up for what is right is something we should be proud of.

[Follow]

I'm just curious if you actually understand what "liberalism" means, Frank.  You seem to claim that Libertarians are deceptive in the claim that they are advocates of "Classic Liberalism" (which should now be 1800s Conservatism anyway), and I absolutely disagree with you.

Comparing the "Democrat" that Thomas Jefferson was to the ones today is like comparing Everest to an anthill.  There just aren't any similarities at all.




Follow