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

Re: (WAS):Re: Montana(Part 3)

Expand Messages
  • tyloxtim
    Bobby, Thanks for the URL. I`ve never heard of it and will definately check it out. You are right, of course, it will be easier to reclaim a State
    Message 1 of 2221 , Dec 20, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Bobby,<br> Thanks for the URL. I`ve never heard
      of it and<br>will definately check it out. You are
      right, of<br>course, it will be easier to reclaim a
      State than<br>start a new one. I`ve always been of the
      "shoot<br>for the moon and you`ll at least make it over the
      hedges" school of thought, but not being 20 years<br>old
      anymore is causing me to re-assess wether it`s<br>better
      to shoot for higher likelyhood of *some*<br>freedom
      in a relatively short amount of time, rather than
      strive for an increasingly out-of-reach goal(especially
      time-frame-wise)of starting<br>a new country somewhere. <br> I agree
      with much of what you said, but I still think we need
      to keep 2 potential factors<br>in
      mind:<br><br>1)Uncle Sam has grown into a huge, bloated beast<br>with
      an ego to match. I am not so sure the feds<br>will
      simply sit by and wish us well if and when we move to
      secede. Another poster here said the<br>federal gov`t
      would never try to use force to <br>stop a state from
      seceding due to the international spotlight of the world
      watching. The<br>federal gov`t has become increasingly
      paranoid schizophrenic to the point where it`s reaction
      to<br>a state`s attempted seccession may be
      unpredicta-<br>ble, and may in fact resort to sending in
      armed<br>forces exactly *because* the world is watching,<br>and
      it doesn`t want to "appear weak" to
      other<br>countries. The federal gov`t has taken on a life<br>of it`s
      own with it`s own sense of self-preservation
      completely unrelated to the citizens,<br>and the possibility
      that the federal gov`t will<br>simply refuse to honor
      and obey any laws or legal<br>processees that don`t
      further it`s own interest is<br>one that cannot be
      discounted. Will our actions<br>be viewed as an insurrection?
      an uprising? a reb-<br>ellion? Or a revolution? Will
      we be seen as a<br>pathogen by the host
      organism...one that needs to<br>be eliminated? The answers to
      these questions will be greatly influenced by whatever
      administration is in office at the time. In these<br>days of
      dubya and ashcroft, I wouldn`t put ANYTHING past the
      feds.<br><br>2)The other possible factor, is all those 10s or 100s
      of thousands of residents into whos` State<br>we`ve
      chosen to relocate. We may have control of<br>the State
      gov`t, but can these people do anything<br>to get in the
      way of secession if they aren`t so<br>inclined? In a
      sense, we`ll have (legally;)"hijacked" their ship and
      commandeered<br>the helm, but what do we do about the
      reluctant<br>passengers stuck aboard who greatly fear secession? They
      may, by their very pressence,<br>hinder our leverage
      for dealing with the feds in<br>an effort to avoid
      secession in the first place,<br>and may find a way to
      hinder efforts to secede<br>if negotiations fail. Also
      keep in mind, the US<br>federal gov`t track-record on
      keeping it`s word<br>as far as treaties and the like, is
      dismal at best. What *appears* to be a concession,
      may<br>merely be a bid for more time to amass the troops.
    • Gold Standard Press
      If we start out at the Town or County level, it will be pretty easy to soon find out whether our favorite candidates turn out to be True to their Word. c. ...
      Message 2221 of 2221 , Jan 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        If we start out at the Town or County level, it will be pretty easy to soon find out whether our favorite candidates turn out to be True to their Word.

        c.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jake Witmer
        To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:25 AM
        Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: after we move/ but before we realize we can't convince anybody


        Sure, most of the below argument is true. The problem that I have, is that
        the other partys' platforms are 100% vague and noncommittal. We'd have to
        run people from the Free State's Libertarian Party to make sure they were
        telling the truth. We could never trust anyone from the Republican Party,
        unless we knew his past, in detail. Ron Paul is one of a very select few
        exceptions. He was our LP Pres candidate, after all. We knew he was cool.
        We had EVIDENCE of his coolness.

        With any influx of free-staters, we'd have to be very wary of politicians
        that are simply lying when they promise to vote our way.

        We'd also have to be wary of candidates that lack intelligence or guts,
        because both will be necessary for the job. What I mean when I say this,
        is: WE CAN'T AFFORD TO REPEAT LEADVILLE.

        I almost feel the need to apologize for stating something this obvious, but
        one never can be too sure...

        -Jake

        on 1/12/03 7:37 PM, Jeffrey A. Robertson at jeffr@... wrote:

        The article on our website about the Bi-Partisan League is a case in
        point. You don't have to join the party to run on the party ticket.
        The "Porcupine endorsement" would be the key to who gets the vote,
        regardless of party. Each voting district selects the party that would
        most likely win an election in that district, and the "Porcupine" runs
        on that ticket.

        Jeff R.

        motie_d wrote:

        > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald G Wittig"
        > <groverw@c...> wrote:
        > > Motie,
        > > C.L. Butch Otter Rep 1st Dist Idaho. Talked with him Wed. He and
        > Ron are
        > > busy comparing notes. Butch and Ron along with an Independent
        > Congressman
        > > were the only ones to vote against the Patriot Act. When I ran
        > against him
        > > in 2000, many media types asked me why a Libertarian would run
        > against Butch
        > > as he is considered libertarian by them. Butch hasn't bought the
        > whole ball
        > > of wax yet. He has serious reservations about our stand on sex,
        > drugs, and
        > > gambling to varing degrees.
        >
        > Are they personal reservations, or a concern as to his electabilty if
        > he were to make it a public position?
        >
        > > Hates the alphbet soup. Has been fined several
        > > times by EPA for making changes on his property. Butch is not your
        > tipical
        > > Republican, then again neither is Ron.
        > > By the way, I worked on behalf of Ron in 1988 when he ran as the
        > Libertarian
        > > Presidential candidate.
        > > Ron
        >
        > That follows along witht he point I was trying to make. We don't
        > necessarily have to start a new Party from scratch, if we can get the
        > existing Parties and their infrastructure to come our way.
        > I am against Partisan Politics. I support the ideas based on their
        > Merits, not by which Party to proponent is from. If a Democrat were
        > to propose a Bill to repeal all UnConstitutional Laws ever enacted, I
        > would support him all the way.
        >
        > Motie
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT


        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
        var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] =
        "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=219695.2850578.4203976.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050603
        75:HM/id=flashurl/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;5046279;7790548;y?http://ww
        w.ameritrade.com/o.cgi?a=cjx=roc=/offer/25.html"; var
        link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)"; var lrec_flashfile =
        'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameritrade/120402_am_ban_bc_x31_x_30
        0x250_3.swf?clickTAG='+link+''; var lrec_altURL =
        "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=219695.2850578.4203976.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050603
        75:HM/id=altimgurl/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;5046279;7790548;y?http://w
        ww.ameritrade.com/o.cgi?a=cjx=roc=/offer/25.html"; var lrec_altimg =
        "http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameritrade/120402_am_ban_off_x82_x_3
        00x250_6.gif"; var lrec_width = 300; var lrec_height = 250;
        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.