MPP is hiring an organizer in NH

[d_goddard]

I am NOT going to trade rights for another huge state bureaucracy, whether it's for gay marriage, liquor sales, gambling or marijuana. Make it legal PERIOD and then LEAVE IT ALONE.

By God, you'd make a damn fine legislator, Jane.

[CNHT]

I am NOT going to trade rights for another huge state bureaucracy, whether it's for gay marriage, liquor sales, gambling or marijuana. Make it legal PERIOD and then LEAVE IT ALONE.

By God, you'd make a damn fine legislator, Jane.

Thanks.

[b1ueemu]

You were responding to my statement that we'd eventually have to choose a candidate who isn't Paul.

I SAID THAT? I am not sure, since if I would write him in, I would not be choosing any of the others. That's just me -- other republicans may vote for whoever the nominee is, but I won't. I'd like to see the place where I said that..

I was saying that Giuliani may be the most fiscally conservative mainstream candidate, but he's since proven himself useless. As have all of the top three.

But Giuliani is NOT fiscally conservative, making sure ILLEGALS get all sorts of welfare and other benefits.. He is indistinguishable from the 'moderate' Hillary...(meaning, when she makes out to be moderate in order to pander)

Again, you didn't say that MPP is incrementalist. You said that helping anyone but Paul is incrementalist, specifically:

"Wow you must be kidding! Giuliani doesn't come CLOSE to
Paul...but...if you accept incrementalism, I guess you accept Rudy's
limited gun control ideas. I DON'T.

OK what I meant was, Rudy's incremental GUN CONTROL legislation, in other words, it's only for this or that type of gun or this or that type of person.
I did not say you or anyone would or should vote for him, let alone me!

"I have met Dr. Paul and I am VERY impressed. This is why the up close
meeting of candidates is so important to those of us who live in NH."

I did write a response to this, but never sent it. Here it is:

"I didn't say that Giuliani came close to Ron Paul. I said that after Dr. Paul, Giuliani seems to be the best candidate.

And I'll say again that he isn't. I don't know who at this point is, but I know it's not Rudy! And I know I never said I even had a second choice at this point.

I assume that you, also, have a second choice, and I'd be happy to hear who it is, and why.

I don't. NONE of the Democrats would EVER be acceptable because they ascribe to big government. And the current other Rs are phonies and too involved with the NWO, especially Rudy.

Frankly, I'm not entirely confident that Giuliani is better than McCain or Obama. They're all 20% candidates, to me, none of them have significantly impressed me. But these recent comments by Giuliani, mixed with some of his past ones, give him at least a slight lead.

They gave him a definite 'never' for me..don't know what Rudy could have said that would make him have a lead with ANYONE.

There will come a point where we'll need to choose between three candidates rather than the current field, and we can push toward the better of them, or not. Especially if there is a contrast, for example, Giuliani versus Clinton, I would be interested in contributing to their campaign. I don't agree with this sort of absolutism, so in a different way, perhaps I do agree in incrementalism. (I am a moral absolutist, an idealist.) Rome wasn't built... Incremental steps toward the ideal are at least steps. Contributing to a campaign does not define your beliefs in lockstep with the candidate, nor does it even necessitate public endorsement.

Meeting candidates is vital to every concerned citizen, no matter their residency. I'm from Maine, and many other people involved in the FSP are from other areas of the country -- this doesn't mean they don't also desire to meet the candidates they support. I do look forward to meeting him, and I'm glad you like him, it bolsters my faith."

James

I hope you mean Ron -- because I totally DESPISE Rudy...

As for MPP, I am NOT going to trade rights for another huge state bureaucracy, whether it's for gay marriage, liquor sales, gambling or marijuana. Make it legal PERIOD and then LEAVE IT ALONE. It's an excuse to tax. I've already been fingered by the gambling thugocracy. Men with pinky rings. You want that in control of our state house? Here come the Sopranos (and I know what that's like.....)

This entire conversation has been filled with misunderstandings, including this recent post. I tried to clear it up, but at this point, we have misconception on top of misconception, and none of it really matters. To be clear: you did -not- say that. I agree with you on almost every point. Ron Paul is the best candidate, and I'm very happy to see him picking up steam. I'm hoping to be in New Hampshire soon to be able to contribute more. I'm also interested in finding a slate of state legislators to include in any fundraising efforts I make for Ron Paul, but I'll talk to you more about this later.

Giuliani is a poor candidate, though when I made that original post, I wasn't sure. His statement about fiscal conservatism appealed to me, but many other things have overwhelmed that. Frankly, I don't know if -any- of the other candidates are remotely fiscally conservative, which is the most significant issue for the presidency, to me. Foreign policy is probably number two.

I never meant to suggest that tax/regulate is the right choice, I was trying to explain why they might be doing what they are. I may not even be correct, but the legal question is one that has to be asked. Having the Courts make rulings against Commerce Clause power is one significant way to get the Federal goverment out of the economy. That clause is being abused, and as I said, there were several encouraging rulings under the Rehnquist court. We can hope that the Roberts court will continue on this path.

James

[CNHT]

OK let's see if I can clear up what I think go confused.

Ron is my only choice and I will write him in even if he doesn't win the primary.

In my opinion Rudy is NOT fiscally conservative and is in 'incrementalist' with gun control. Voting for him, the annointed candidate according to the talking heads on TV tonight, will get you incrementally closer to socialism and the police state, not incrementally toward freedom.

Some people accept gun control incrementalism but being the wife of a very big firearms collector, I DO NOT and will not accept any gun control incrementalism. So that is what I was talking about...

Plus Rudy is up to his neck in NAU dealings, CFR and everything else bad for the USA. This is how all the annointed candidates they are pushing are, and to them it doesn't matter who wins, R or D. Anyone not part of the 'club' will have to be attacked. Even Jim Gilmore is a CFR member. They are not out to do any good for the USA. They figure, they'll not be around when we are under world control...so what do they care? No conscience.

"Yes we have no bananas, we have no bananas today."

There IS no second choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

By the way, MPP is a lobbying group just like those dirty scums that contacted all the candidates to promote gambling. They want to regulate and tax. NO THANKS. I'll take my MJ with no strings attached.

[Henry]

I don't trust the MPP Foundation. It's P.O. Box is on Capital Hill, and they throw Playboy Mansion parties with hundreds of huge liberal celebrities (look, I'm not dissing Playboy nor liberals, nor celebrities - just hear me out). To me it looks very much like a state/corporate launched campaign that's in the guise of a grass-roots movement. This happens ALL the time, and the money virtually always leads back to DC and a "foundation" of some sort. Whether it's Democracy Now! radio, or the Sierra Club it's always the same, and that's what MPP looks like to me. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and their goals of taxation and regulation can only have been originated by The Man. I can definitely see how many would want to jump on board with them, but I think it's understood that pot will eventually become legal in some fashion and they want the bills and mechanisms in place to hand it over to the state when the time comes. People want to smoke if they want to, and they don't want it taxed either.

I feel the same way about alternate fuels. I'm trying to get involved with waste vegetable oil as a fuel, and I hear people and organization trying hard to get the government to accept it officially as a "fuel." That would entirely suck, and close off much of alternate energy's potential because once they do that the state will step in and start squeezing out the small folk.

[Rocketman]

I don't think you will find the words "tax and regulate" anywhere on any of these websites:

http://nhcommonsense.org
http://sendtherightmessage.com/
http://reschedulecannabis.org/

[CNHT]

What Henry said. :-)


"The power to tax is the power to destroy".

[CNHT]

I don't think you will find the words "tax and regulate" anywhere on any of these websites:

http://nhcommonsense.org
http://sendtherightmessage.com/
http://reschedulecannabis.org/

THOSE are grassroots groups -- MPP are lobbyists. Beware.

[error]

I don't trust MPP in part because they bought my name and address from another organization (which I no longer trust with my name and address) and started filling my mailbox with solicitations.

[CNHT]

I don't trust MPP in part because they bought my name and address from another organization (which I no longer trust with my name and address) and started filling my mailbox with solicitations.

Yup people = YES, lobbyists = NO

By the way, CNHT does not give out or sell any of their members information.

[d_goddard]

CNHT does not give out or sell any of their members information.

NHLA's bylaws specifically prohibit any such information sharing.

Competition among liberty activism groups for best privacy policy... god I love this state...

[CNHT]

CNHT does not give out or sell any of their members information.

NHLA's bylaws specifically prohibit any such information sharing.

Competition among liberty activism groups for best privacy policy... god I love this state...

I did not for one minute think it was NHLA who gave out error's info, would be curious to know which?
Don't think we aren't asked or begged for the list often! There are lots of people who would like to get the list of names of the biggest org in NH.

[error]

It's that four-letter think tank in DC who has something against Ron Paul that gave out my personal information.

[Fragilityh14]

two things I would like to mention

A) MPP undeniably gets results, and I love their support for local "lowest priority" legislation, and as a medical marijuana patient I find their support immensely important.

The thing is, as it stands it being taxed would suck but is nothing compared to how it is now. And, the thing is it seems unrealistic for anything to happen to people who grow marijuana after it is already legal.

As it stands, that war on marijuana costs tax payers billions. i want it to have the same legal status as coffee. Also, as anti-tax as I am, it is at least a legitimate way to collect a tax based on someone's voluntary action.

The thing is, the term "decriminalized" often means it is an infraction, just not something you go to jail for.






the best way to explain it is like Ron Paul's stance on the Fair Tax, it doesn't fix the problem but he'll do whatever he can to get rid of the IRS. While there certainly shouldn't be a national sales tax, it seems most tax protesters would prefer working within a system where there isn't a heavily bureaucracy

actively seeking to harm them.


Believe me, as soon as there is a tax on marijuana I will surely be working to lower it.


Also, MPP is working to decriminalize in MA, which isnt legalization and regulation, but simply a very serious reduction in penalties, and Massachussets is an insanely harsh prohibitionist state.


Also, list 5 prominent conservative pundits, celebrities, or politicians (besides Ron Paul who has worked very closely with MPP, and Bob Barr who doesnt count because he was a harsh prohibitionist and now supports just MM) who have supported marijuana reform. And conservative "medical marijuana supporters" have voted in favor of states rights at a federal level, and did it just for that reason (it is of course a noble reason) generally did it for just that reason and havn't supported anything besides letting the states make the decision for example, I dont know that Tom Tancredo actually supports marijuana reform at a state level, I think he just supports the states being able to make their own decision).

MPP has money and they quite simply get results. The #1 thing is to reduce legal harm associated with marijuana use more or less however is possible.

They might not be able to be as effective in New Hampshire as other places, but I bet local organizations in New Hampshire can get a fat grant from them.

[Russell Kanning]

By God, you'd make a damn fine legislator, Jane.

that is one mean insult my friend