Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of J’raxis 270145
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - J’raxis 270145

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
General / Re: What happend to NHA10?
« on: July 22, 2009, 08:18:22 PM »
Rob’s back posting on my forum, NH Tea Party, now.

2
General / Re: Extreme libertarian...
« on: July 16, 2009, 11:52:03 PM »
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.” — Joseph Sobran

3
General / Re: Next 1000?
« on: July 16, 2009, 12:45:19 AM »
Signers should be asked (not required) to pledge one dollar (or as much as they wish) via PayPal as a show of their commitment, it would keep the fakes away.  Upon reaching the 1000, one signer would be drawn from a lottery and awarded the $1,000.  This could be awarded upon moving to help defer expenses, or returned to the organization as the winner sees fit, to bring the pot of the following 1000 to $2,000.  It'd be a good way to keep people interested in the tally.  

If you use PayPal, it’d be less than $700 in the pot at the end, not $1,000, considering their fees (30¢ + 2.9% for each transaction).

4
The Polling Pit / Re: Fetal "right to free exit"
« on: July 16, 2009, 12:06:42 AM »
Is pulling out considered murder?

Yahweh doesn’t like it about as much. Onan.

5
General / Re: Cocksmoking Liberals are taxing DIRT now...
« on: July 15, 2009, 07:38:09 PM »
Heh, dirt tax. Amusingly, New Hampshire has long had an excavation tax. Dirt is apparently worth 2¢/yd³ around here.

6
General / Re: my sexual fantasy
« on: July 15, 2009, 07:36:32 PM »
I think it's a spammer...

But I've never seen spam like this.   :?

Most likely—posting from a server in Germany that looks like an open proxy.

7
General / Re: What happend to NHA10?
« on: July 08, 2009, 02:24:13 AM »
He stopped posting on the forum I run, too, around the same time.

8
General / Re: The pro-life trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.
« on: July 08, 2009, 02:22:24 AM »
I'm a states rights guy but there are a few times I'm glad the feds came in and set the states straight.  One other area would be regulation.  Sure, I prefer a free market, but if, say, a phone company is going to be regulated, better to have one set of universal rules than 50 sets that are constantly changing and can be altered for political means.

So why not let the U.N. step in and regulate everything? Better to have one set of universal rules than up to 195, no?

9
General / Re: The pro-life trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.
« on: June 19, 2009, 02:36:46 AM »
To the original poster, once the pro-lifers have enough people on the Supreme Court, they just wait for a case to come up in order to allow them to revisit the issue. There is of course the distinct possibility that there’s already a planned “test case” in the works to do just that.

The Court has indeed revisited issues and reversed themselves in the past. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a good example; this case reversed the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which had upheld State sodomy laws. Lawrence subsequently overturned these laws all over the nation.

There’s no rule that the Supreme Court can’t reverse themselves. Lower courts are bound by decisions by higher courts, but the highest court in the land doesn’t bind itself.

Not sure on specifics but yes.  The original ruling was incorrect anyway, it's not specifically enumerated therefore the decision reverts to the states.  The court made up language in the Constitution to fit their ruling, had they actually read the Constitution they'd realize there isn't anything specific about abortion so therefore it goes to the states.

They danced around and used the “penumbra” argument that the right exists based on shadows of a right to privacy in the enumerated rights. They could’ve pointed to the Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) to justify the right to privacy, but that would have opened such a can of worms that they didn’t want to go anywhere near it. The government has for far too long tried to interpret the Bill of Rights as if these are the only rights that people have. The Ninth, just like the Tenth, may as well not exist.

As for whether or not the entitlement to regulate abortion reverts to the States, that would be based on the Fourteenth Amendment and whether or not the right to privacy should be “incorporated” into the States. The Court has been wholly inconsistent on incorporation—they’ve incorporated parts of the First and Fourth, but refuse to do so with the Second, for example.

Of course, I’m a voluntaryist so this is all largely academic to me. I don’t really care how they come up with protecting people’s right to privacy so long as they actually do so.

10
General / Re: Freestater Tim Logsdon
« on: June 17, 2009, 08:54:09 PM »
From what I know, these allegations only came out months after his wife left him. She also got a restraining order against him—well after she left New Hampshire, with the children—which is what led to the police stealing all his firearms.

Obviously, it could all be true, but the timeline of events leads me to believe that this is bullshit she’s making up in order to tilt the divorce proceedings in her favor. Claiming that one “fears for one’s safety” against one’s ex is almost automatic in divorce proceedings nowadays, and is usually recommended by sleazy divorce lawyers in order to move things along favorably. Allegations of child abuse come in second as the quickest way to streamline things.

11
General / Re: Question for my fellow voluntaryists.
« on: June 09, 2009, 12:25:31 AM »
Is there a level of support of government that one can have and still be considered a good advocate for liberty?  In other words, is a person who advocates for even a tiny state to be placed in the same category as one who advocates for a huge one?

Yes and no. On a moral level, advocating for any amount of aggression is wrong. But on a practical level, with the exception of a few hotbutton issues, I can get along fine with anyone advocating that we merely reduce the massive amount of aggression that’s currently going on. We can argue about anarchism vs. minarchism when we get close to true minarchism.

There’s also the question of, does a person merely support the specific examples of status quo aggression, or do they want to create new ones (even while reducing others)? This was a big problem with Ron Paul for a lot of people: On the whole, he wanted to massively downsize the government, but on a few minor issues, such as “illegal” immigration, he wanted to increase it.

12
General / Re: NH10 needs to stop spamming voyeurweb.com
« on: June 03, 2009, 12:52:56 AM »
what do you care where the tits and ass come from?

Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that. You getting paid to post all of those links/photos?

13
General / Re: Freedom of Press Still Alive in Dover District Court
« on: May 25, 2009, 01:32:28 AM »
Nice.

14
I just think that the main purpose of CD right now is to get more activists to move to NH. 
Well that's funny, because that very fact is what is holding a lot of people back, from moving to NH.

Some people act like you shit in their milk if you point out that being hauled off to jail actually hurts the FSP in any way: "If they don't like it, then we didn't need those people!"

So, I just shrug and enjoy the entertainment, M$-style.

My issue is and has been not the tactic of CD as such, but rather the specific ways it's been used. Aside from 1-2 extremely good examples (eg., Outlaw Manicure), most of the CD has been counterproductive, because it has alienated the populace. Case in point: the fact that the soup kitchen would prefer less volunteers, than to deal with the FreeKeene crowd.

Have you talked to the people in Keene about the recent town council meeting about Pedraza’s (the yellow restaurant with the yellow façade)? One of the councillors was upset when the gaggle of activists left. Seems he would’ve appreciated we stick around for another agenda item—where the planning board was also trying to zone his own building out from under him. Naturally, the owner of Pedraza’s is pleased with having the activists around. The movement has also picked up many other locals and several KSC students. (And this is just what I learnt from my single most recent visit out there. I don’t follow nearly everything going on in Keene.)

There are always going to be failures among victories. But anyone can point to just the failures if that’s all they’re looking for to prove a point.

15
Yes. First of all, the system is going to collapse all on its own, because it is evil and broken. While CD can have some effect, speeding up the natural process of entropy on the sly is a far better method when outnumbered, because you're not losing your people in the process. Bleeding the beast, nonviolent monkeywrenching, nonviolent "sabotage" (Both physical and systemic), participating in the underground marketplace (Of both people and products), etc.

All of this is going on here, too. Instead of bitching about what you think won’t work, how about you just do something you think will?

And no one is “losing” anyone, either. Sam will be out of jail eventually, just like Lauren, Kat, Russell, Dave Ridley, Ian, and all the other people who have done these kinds of things. And he’ll probably inspire at least two or three more people to move here on account of what he’s done.

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 31 queries.