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

Re: [FSP] Re: [fspcrackerbarrel] Re: FSP--a question of policy

Expand Messages
  • Bob Compton
    Hmmm... Just a thought. What if, AFTER the 20,000 is reached and they ve actually moved into a state, those not willing (or able) to move to that state start
    Message 1 of 37 , Dec 30, 2002
      Hmmm... Just a thought. What if, AFTER the 20,000 is reached and they've
      actually moved into a state, those not willing (or able) to move to that
      state start afresh for ANOTHER state? They won't be taking membership from
      the original state as they'll be people either not willing or able to move
      to that state. Anyone coming along later wanting to move into the already
      settled state can be referred to that group. Those left over won't be left
      out in the cold AND they'll attract people willing or able to move to
      another state. I think parallel efforts that do not detract from the
      original goal are a good thing...

      I understand having a "target state", wherever that may be. However, in the
      grand scheme of things, 20,000 people is such a SMALL number. Why not
      target 5 states and shoot for 100,000 people? I think an ongoing effort
      should be one that will not quit until all 50 states are free.

      Just my $0.02...

      BC.

      > On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Kevin Tuma wrote:
      >
      >> What timetable do you mean by 'after this one is completed'? Do you
      >> mean after the state has been chosen, after the 20,000 have been
      >> reached, or after the 20,000 have actually settled in the Free State?
      >
      > Definitely after we reach 20,000, preferably after 20,000 have already
      > settled, because we'll actually continue our outreach efforts until 5
      > years after we reach 20,000, to try to get more than 20,000 moving in
      > (or making up for last-minute attrition).
      >
      >
      ___________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu -
      > <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>
      >
      > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your
      > lifetime?
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Kevin Tuma
      The all-or-nothing mentality here is a problem. Those who split can still be allies with those from whom they have split. I call for COALITION in the freedom
      Message 37 of 37 , Jan 6, 2003
        The all-or-nothing mentality here is a problem. Those who split can still be
        allies
        with those from whom they have split. I call for COALITION in the freedom
        movement.

        This all reminds me of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian
        Party--competing with each other. "I don't like those people," some
        libertarians will grumble, "they want to create a Theocratic society". "I
        don't like Libertarians," some Constitution Party folk will gripe, "they
        support abortion and licentiousness."

        Both are basically true charges--about social issue platforms that are as
        unlikely as a snowball in hell of ever being politically implemented! Yet
        both parties are made up of patriots who believe in Freedom, who want to see
        this country returned to the Constitution of our forefathers.

        Neither party can get 1% of the vote--why do they bother having a
        competitive attitude with each other? Their only real competition exists in
        the form of the Republicans and the Democrats. And their competition in that
        context is sadly lacking--because both parties are poor and ineffectual when
        it comes to public relations.

        We need more unity out here in the constitutional hinterlands. We must
        establish alliances, despite group differences, and move ahead toward a
        common cause.

        --Kevin Tuma


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Shonda Ponder" <ponderaa1@...>
        To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: [fspcrackerbarrel] Re: FSP--a question of policy


        > I hate to say this, but I agree with Jason, too. Yes, there are going to
        be those that "split off"...but that doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) that
        they can no longer take part in FSP activity. Personally, I think it would
        be a good idea to encourage that. It's the only way that the FSP can truly
        be "onward going" and build it's members.
        >
        > Not everyone is going to agree with Jason or Jeff. And, I don't believe
        that Jason is the "dictator type" who will "micromanage" this project.
        However, after saying that, I think that no matter what happens, the FSP
        should not slow down its efforts or change the method it has chosen to make
        this "dream" a reality.
        >
        > Someone once told me that, in spite of all the bad slander, publicity, or
        whatever comes of your work toward your vision, that you should always
        "focus. Keep walking. Hold your course." In other words, don't let a few
        bumps in the road keep you from driving on it. Sometimes the speed limit is
        15. And sometimes it's 75. But sooner or later you will get where you are
        going if you just keep going.
        >
        > Shonda
        > Shonda M. Ponder
        > Independent Sales Representative
        > To buy Avon, join my Avon list:
        > shondasavon-subscribe@...
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.