Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FSP] Re: If New Hampshire is so 'free'...

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lawless
    Other states have open primaries (such as New ... Sorry Tim one small correction. NH does not have an open primary. GOPers and UNDeclareds can vote in the
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 13, 2008
      Other states have "open primaries" (such as New
      > Hampshire), where Republicans or
      > Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate
      > on the other party's
      > ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can
      > vote in the party
      > primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim
      > Condon
      >

      Sorry Tim one small correction.
      NH does not have an open primary.
      GOPers and UNDeclareds can vote in the GOP Primary and
      Democrats cannot.
      DEMS and UNDeclareds can vote in the DEM Primary and
      Republicans cannot.

      You had to have been registered in your party (or
      Undeclared) by Oct 12, 2007 to vote in the Jan 8, 2008 primary.

      It is time for a new direction:
      www.ronpaulhq.com
      www.flytoliberty.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
    • John flynn
      Thanks to all who helped to concisely clarify the answer to my queston. So, the way I see it, the changes are going to occur at a faster and more comprehensive
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 13, 2008
        Thanks to all who helped to concisely clarify the answer to my queston. So, the way I see it, the changes are going to occur at a faster and more comprehensive rate AFTER the Nary Jane laws are changed to reflect less criminalization of "offenders". That will get us a lot closer, liberty-wise, in the ever-so-watchful eyes of the nation. Thus proving the collective us to be actually putting more of our money where are mouths are. Talk about increasing the attractiveness of a state to potential liberty-minded people. It may seem like a relatively trivial and small item to many, especially the non-smokers and those who have nobody in chronic pain whose lives are managed with a greater deal of quality due to their "abuse" of an herb, but to many other, worldly, sophisticated, and believers in true liberty, the issue is representative of forward thinking. Its the pot-heads and stoned out idiots that set such negativity about smoking marijuana, and luckily those idiots are far outweighed by the casual and nedicinal users of a more elevated intellect.
        I am very curious to see how it progresses along this term, or to see whether it "withers on the vine" so to speak, tongue in cheek. Not trying to use this as a forum, there are plenty already for that. Just trying to tie liberty, libertarianism, freedom, and intelligence together under an umbrella of sorts.
        That being said, I have to figure out where I put the lighter last time it was used.


        To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.comFrom: dreepa@...: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:42:57 -0800Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: If New Hampshire is so 'free'...




        Other states have "open primaries" (such as New> Hampshire), where Republicans or> Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate> on the other party's> ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can> vote in the party> primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim> Condon> Sorry Tim one small correction.NH does not have an open primary.GOPers and UNDeclareds can vote in the GOP Primary andDemocrats cannot.DEMS and UNDeclareds can vote in the DEM Primary andRepublicans cannot.You had to have been registered in your party (orUndeclared) by Oct 12, 2007 to vote in the Jan 8, 2008 primary.It is time for a new direction:www.ronpaulhq.comwww.flytoliberty.com__________________________________________________________Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping






        _________________________________________________________________
        Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
        http://biggestloser.msn.com/

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tim Condon
        ... This is not totally true. Although some people who move in from Mass. vote to screw up NH in the same way that Mass. is scewed up, many more of them vote
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 13, 2008
          > NH has been slowly invaded by people from Massachusetts, who wanted to

          > > get away from the Bay State, but unfortunately suffered from the
          > > delusion that supporting the same policies and types of people they
          > > did in Massachusetts would yield them different results.
          > >
          >
          > If NH is being slowly invaded by people from Mass., and they keep
          > voting for the same old stuff they were trying to escape from in Mass ....


          This is not totally true. Although "some" people who move in from Mass. vote
          to screw up NH in the same way that Mass. is scewed up, many more of them
          vote conservative Republican. Some of the most reliable Republican districts
          in the state are clustered along the Mass. border. The problem now of course
          is that Republicans don't act like Republicans, they often act like
          big-government pigs at the trough. They are known as RINO's, and must be
          expunged from the party and from political office. This is a long-term goal
          of the RLCNH.

          > ,
          > ...then will 20,000 liberty movers even be able to make a difference???


          Yes, and here's why: 20,000 honest-to-goodness political activists---that
          is, people who actually go out and hit the street and get the jobs
          done---would have a disproportionate impact in ANY state, no matter how
          large. It's difficult to underestimate the impact that real committed
          activists can have. This has shown up already in New Hampshire in various
          ways, even though a distressingly large number of incoming Freestaters get
          here, and then just sit back to enjoy the camaraderie other other
          freedom-lovers. Or, worse yet, they're a certain type of typical libertarian
          who would rather argue abstruse issues of political philosophy, or run their
          mouths about how they're gonna do this and they're gonna do that when the
          revolution comes...but wouldn't dream of actually canvassing, making phone
          calls, drafting letters, getting printing done, distributing yard signs,
          writing speeches, driving a candidate around, attending meetings and taking
          notes, doing political research, finding favorable voters, poring through
          voting lists, poring through checklists, organizing rallies, organizing
          Republican clubs, and all the other million-and-one things that must be done
          to mount any kind of reasonable campaign. This is why the Democrats are so
          much more effective than Republicans; Democratic voters feed off of tax
          money and the size of government...the bigger the better. Thus, there are
          *tons* of public employee and other union members who are directly and
          favorably impacted by increased taxes, increased spending, and increased
          employee rolls at all levels of government. That is why they can be depended
          upon at all times to do what Freestaters are supposed to be doing at all
          times (but very often don't). Finally, this is why Thomas Jefferson famously
          observed that "the natural order of things is for liberty to give way and
          for government to grow." It is just the way the world works, as explained
          above. The Free State Project is an audacious plan birthed by Jason to
          *reverse* "the natural order of things." If we can get only about 5,000
          real-to-life on-the-street political activists in this state, we will be
          able to challenge the embedded big-government special interests on their own
          turf, head-on. If the FSP plan comes to fruition, and there are 20,000
          actual "real" on-the-street political activists, freedom-lovers will be able
          to look with pride upon the state legislature, the governorship, and
          ultimately the judiciary also.


          > I mean, 20k is just a small percentage of the population of Mass, and you
          > could get that many movers easily (per year) coming in from Mass. and
          > other neighboring big government New England states.


          But the 20K that may or may not be otherwise moving in aren't actively
          working political activists. It makes a huge difference. Most people just
          want to be left alone, and political activism isn't a large part of their
          raison d'etre. Thus, they can be convinced to vote for freedom, if the right
          candidates are presented and the benefits are convincingly shown. The true
          measure of how much impact one group or another will have is how organized
          and activist they are. This is why Goldwater conservatives and
          libertarian-conservatives are more important when moving into NH than
          "purist libertarians." The latter like to talk, and not much else. The
          former like action, and results.

          >
          > I recently read an article that said that New Hampshire had the fastest
          > growth rate of any state in the New England area. With this being the
          > case, do you think that the FSP movers who are liberty friendly will be
          > able to overcome the big government types who are "deluded" into
          > believing that they can move and then vote for the same things and have
          > it turn out differently? I am not being overly critical of the FSP,
          > this is a legit question. I mean I want to join but if I am going to
          > pick up and move all the way across the country, I want to succeed at
          > it, not just move and find out its the same as AZ - AZ used to be a lot
          > more Libertarian but we have many Californians moving in and they are
          > changing this state too.


          The economic prospects of Massachusetts, and even more Vermont, are in the
          toilet because of their huge governments in relation to their population,
          their onerous taxes, their endless bureaucracies, their unending mandates
          and demands in all walks of life. The reason new Hampshire is so far
          superior, and why its population is growing so much, is because we are
          *successful*. Low taxes, small government, few restrictions, personal
          freedoms, property rights, etc. It is true that people from collectivist
          states will continue to move in and try like termites to eat away at the
          foundations of our success...they do that anywhere and everywhere in the
          world! Our job as Freestaters, and the beginning of a titanic struggle, is
          to make sure that "New Hampshire stays New Hampshire." This is why we're
          being welcomed by so many native freedom-lovers, who are far more numerous
          per capital in NH than in any other state. That is why New Hampshire was a
          good choice, and is the best place to "make our stand," and reverse
          Jefferson's lament regarding "the natural order of things." ---Tim Condon


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tim Condon
          Chris is correct below. If you re an undeclared, you can jump temporarily into registering with either political party, to vote in that party s primary; most
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 13, 2008
            Chris is correct below. If you're an undeclared, you can "jump" temporarily
            into registering with either political party, to vote in that party's
            primary; most people then immediately jump back to undeclared. Registered
            Repubs and registered Dems can vote in other other party's primary. Thanx
            for the clarification, Chris. ---Tim C.



            On Feb 13, 2008 1:42 PM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@...> wrote:

            > Other states have "open primaries" (such as New
            > > Hampshire), where Republicans or
            > > Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate
            > > on the other party's
            > > ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can
            > > vote in the party
            > > primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim
            > > Condon
            > >
            >
            > Sorry Tim one small correction.
            > NH does not have an open primary.
            > GOPers and UNDeclareds can vote in the GOP Primary and
            > Democrats cannot.
            > DEMS and UNDeclareds can vote in the DEM Primary and
            > Republicans cannot.
            >
            > You had to have been registered in your party (or
            > Undeclared) by Oct 12, 2007 to vote in the Jan 8, 2008 primary.
            >
            > It is time for a new direction:
            > www.ronpaulhq.com
            > www.flytoliberty.com
            >
            >
            >
            > ____________________________________________________________________________________
            > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
            > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
            > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • GTriest
            Jason s explanation cleared things up immeasurably for me. Now your new post has messed it up again ;-) Could you describe as succinctly as Jason? Gary T ...
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 14, 2008
              Jason's explanation cleared things up immeasurably for me.
              Now your new post has messed it up again ;-)

              Could you describe as succinctly as Jason?

              Gary T

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Tim Condon
              To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:44 PM
              Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: If New Hampshire is so 'free'...


              Jason's not quite right because of the form of the question. Both "caucuses"
              and what is referred to in the question as "primaries" are "primaries" or
              "primary elections." Caucuses are one way to hold primary elections, as
              Jason explains below; they are "primaries" which use caucuses to vote. The
              other way to hold a "primary election" is the more widely used type of
              election where all registered voters who want to vote can vote in the
              primary election. In some states the only voters allowed to vote in a GOP or
              Democratic primary are people registered as Republicans or Democrats. Other
              states have "open primaries" (such as New Hampshire), where Republicans or
              Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate on the other party's
              ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can vote in the party
              primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim Condon

              On Feb 13, 2008 11:42 AM, Jason P Sorens <jsorens@...> wrote:

              > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, John flynn <jteacher1@...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong sketch: "Hey boy, you aint
              > welcome heah. Didnt anyone ever tell ye that this caucus is for
              > caucasions?".
              > > By the way, for my nephew's sake, would someone please state in
              > SIMPLE, even overly-simplistic would do, language what the "primary"
              > (sic) distinction between a "caucus" and a "primary" really boils down
              > to? Thanks in advance for not a. suggesting I look it up myself, or b.
              > get into a long-winded treatise on the subject/ Mucho appreciado, juam
              > mcGondel.
              > >
              >
              > Caucuses work by getting everyone together in a room at a particular
              > time and voting. Primaries are more like regular elections in that
              > people can go to the polls at their own convenience, they vote
              > anonymously, and votes are tabulated after the polls close. For that
              > reason, primaries have much higher turnout than caucuses.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jason P Sorens
              I m going to go out on a limb a bit and say that Tim is wrong. :-D A primary and a caucus are different types of nominating procedures. I would not
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 14, 2008
                I'm going to go out on a limb a bit and say that Tim is wrong. :-D A
                "primary" and a "caucus" are different types of nominating procedures.
                I would not consider a "caucus," which is essentially a meeting of
                party members, like a convention, to be a type of "primary," which is
                an election open to the general public, subject (in some cases) to
                party registration.

                Tim is right about the distinction between "open" and "closed"
                primaries (NH is often called "semi-closed," since independents can
                choose which ballot to take, but Reps and Dems must take their party's
                ballot), but this distinction does not apply to caucuses, which are
                always closed.

                Here's Wikipedia's article on primary elections:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

                --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GTriest" <garyonthenet@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Jason's explanation cleared things up immeasurably for me.
                > Now your new post has messed it up again ;-)
                >
                > Could you describe as succinctly as Jason?
                >
                > Gary T
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Tim Condon
                > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:44 PM
                > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: If New Hampshire is so 'free'...
                >
                >
                > Jason's not quite right because of the form of the question. Both
                "caucuses"
                > and what is referred to in the question as "primaries" are
                "primaries" or
                > "primary elections." Caucuses are one way to hold primary
                elections, as
                > Jason explains below; they are "primaries" which use caucuses to
                vote. The
                > other way to hold a "primary election" is the more widely used type of
                > election where all registered voters who want to vote can vote in the
                > primary election. In some states the only voters allowed to vote
                in a GOP or
                > Democratic primary are people registered as Republicans or
                Democrats. Other
                > states have "open primaries" (such as New Hampshire), where
                Republicans or
                > Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate on the other
                party's
                > ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can vote in the party
                > primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim Condon
                >
                > On Feb 13, 2008 11:42 AM, Jason P Sorens <jsorens@...> wrote:
                >
                > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, John flynn <jteacher1@>
                wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong sketch: "Hey boy, you aint
                > > welcome heah. Didnt anyone ever tell ye that this caucus is for
                > > caucasions?".
                > > > By the way, for my nephew's sake, would someone please state in
                > > SIMPLE, even overly-simplistic would do, language what the "primary"
                > > (sic) distinction between a "caucus" and a "primary" really
                boils down
                > > to? Thanks in advance for not a. suggesting I look it up myself,
                or b.
                > > get into a long-winded treatise on the subject/ Mucho
                appreciado, juam
                > > mcGondel.
                > > >
                > >
                > > Caucuses work by getting everyone together in a room at a particular
                > > time and voting. Primaries are more like regular elections in that
                > > people can go to the polls at their own convenience, they vote
                > > anonymously, and votes are tabulated after the polls close. For that
                > > reason, primaries have much higher turnout than caucuses.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Tim Condon
                Heh! I think Jason is technically right with respect to caucuses being technically different from and not exactly primaries. HOWEVER...remember all the
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 14, 2008
                  Heh! I think Jason is technically right with respect to "caucuses" being
                  technically different from and not exactly "primaries." HOWEVER...remember
                  all the hoopla about "the Iowa primary"? And about the recent "Washington
                  state primary"? Both are caucus states. Thus, in the popular idiom, they're
                  *all* (both "voter" elections and "caucus" elections) "primaries." (I
                  know...it's confusing, I'll grant *anyone* that.) ---Tim


                  On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Jason P Sorens <jsorens@...> wrote:

                  > I'm going to go out on a limb a bit and say that Tim is wrong. :-D A
                  > "primary" and a "caucus" are different types of nominating procedures.
                  > I would not consider a "caucus," which is essentially a meeting of
                  > party members, like a convention, to be a type of "primary," which is
                  > an election open to the general public, subject (in some cases) to
                  > party registration.
                  >
                  > Tim is right about the distinction between "open" and "closed"
                  > primaries (NH is often called "semi-closed," since independents can
                  > choose which ballot to take, but Reps and Dems must take their party's
                  > ballot), but this distinction does not apply to caucuses, which are
                  > always closed.
                  >
                  > Here's Wikipedia's article on primary elections:
                  >
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election
                  >
                  > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GTriest" <garyonthenet@...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Jason's explanation cleared things up immeasurably for me.
                  > > Now your new post has messed it up again ;-)
                  > >
                  > > Could you describe as succinctly as Jason?
                  > >
                  > > Gary T
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: Tim Condon
                  > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:44 PM
                  > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: If New Hampshire is so 'free'...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Jason's not quite right because of the form of the question. Both
                  > "caucuses"
                  > > and what is referred to in the question as "primaries" are
                  > "primaries" or
                  > > "primary elections." Caucuses are one way to hold primary
                  > elections, as
                  > > Jason explains below; they are "primaries" which use caucuses to
                  > vote. The
                  > > other way to hold a "primary election" is the more widely used type of
                  > > election where all registered voters who want to vote can vote in the
                  > > primary election. In some states the only voters allowed to vote
                  > in a GOP or
                  > > Democratic primary are people registered as Republicans or
                  > Democrats. Other
                  > > states have "open primaries" (such as New Hampshire), where
                  > Republicans or
                  > > Democrats can "cross over" and vote for a candidate on the other
                  > party's
                  > > ballot. In Florida only registered Dems or GOPs can vote in the party
                  > > primaries. Other states have different rules. --Tim Condon
                  > >
                  > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:42 AM, Jason P Sorens <jsorens@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, John flynn <jteacher1@>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong sketch: "Hey boy, you aint
                  > > > welcome heah. Didnt anyone ever tell ye that this caucus is for
                  > > > caucasions?".
                  > > > > By the way, for my nephew's sake, would someone please state in
                  > > > SIMPLE, even overly-simplistic would do, language what the "primary"
                  > > > (sic) distinction between a "caucus" and a "primary" really
                  > boils down
                  > > > to? Thanks in advance for not a. suggesting I look it up myself,
                  > or b.
                  > > > get into a long-winded treatise on the subject/ Mucho
                  > appreciado, juam
                  > > > mcGondel.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Caucuses work by getting everyone together in a room at a particular
                  > > > time and voting. Primaries are more like regular elections in that
                  > > > people can go to the polls at their own convenience, they vote
                  > > > anonymously, and votes are tabulated after the polls close. For that
                  > > > reason, primaries have much higher turnout than caucuses.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David Lubkin
                  ... Parenthetically, I ve been wearing a Goldwater in 1964 button on my lapel since just after the 2004 election. It s been very effective as an outreach
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 19, 2008
                    Tim Condon wrote:

                    >This is why Goldwater conservatives and libertarian-conservatives
                    >are more important when moving into NH than "purist libertarians."
                    >The latter like to talk, and not much else. The former like action,
                    >and results.

                    Parenthetically, I've been wearing a "Goldwater in 1964" button on my
                    lapel since just after the 2004 election.

                    It's been very effective as an outreach tool. He is remembered very
                    favorably by all political stripes. The button usually sparks a
                    conversation about principle, integrity, personal responsibility, and
                    limited government.


                    -- David.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.