[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
non-working time in a single area that is where you
live, others look at where you reside, vote, shop,
etc.... what is on your license, I don't know. My
point was there are better ways to fight what you feel
as wrong without looking crazy "to the voters". Do I
think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand why you
would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't and the
press (even if they "get it") will make you laughable
to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get it and
thus you can never win elected office then or in the
future. The best way to fight it is wear a suit, live
in a house, look as regular as your precinct or
district deems (in SF you could be more relaxed than
say Texas or Rhode Island). As you are looking the
part of a leader talk about how you don't feel someone
should be forced to live anywhere but still represent
a district. I personally feel someone should spend 75
percent of their total year in the area they claim to
represent, whether that be working or play or living.
I guess look up the election rules yourself and see
what they use to describe residency.
-TJ
--- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
This chatroom is becoming a person to person attack
room.Being thick
skinned I don't mind being referred to as a nut. I
take it as a honor to
be in such free thinkers company. My point with the
Jew residency
invasion is stay out of people's bedroom.He spent
enough time in his
district to garner the most votes and his voter's
registration address is
enough. The fact that he has a Burlingame get away
is nobody's business
and should not put him out of office. If there's a
question of
qualification then recall him, allowing the district
to decide. Not the
city attorney. Please quote the rule verbatim. Also,
defend what you mean
by live there. Does the rules say you must sleep and
shower and shi...
there. In three decades I've never seen it know it
to be clearly defined.
But then what do I know, being nuts and all, I'll
join him in rioting if
his freedom of movement continues to be attacked. :-
)From: "Tim Campbell"
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
Attorney: Stop
dragging feet -- Produce the Records
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT)Running for office like that I hope you don't call
yourself a libertarian as that will make the LP
look
even more eccentric and futile. It's crazy ideas
like
this that scare mainstream voters into casting a
vote
for a libertarian cause they think we are all
nuts.I don't know much about Ed Jew or the SF council,
but
if you are to be living in the district you are
representing that follow the rules. Sometimes
that's
just what you have to do. This rule sucks, but
it's
not like the rule forcing me to not smoke pot and
such.-TJ
--- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:> Brian you correct!Also, Jew is not one to play
> (their) ball. So he's the
> first politician I've ever heard of to have
their
> privatcy violated by
> having his water bill checked. You have to have
> water to serve???Did you
> know that you can be homeless and vote and run
for
> office. When I run
> again I will do so as homeless ans as required
only
> state the cross
> streets...
>
> From: "Brian Miller"
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
> Attorney: Stop
> dragging feet -- Produce the Records
> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
> It strikes me that "residency" laws are
> increasingly
> absurd.
>
> We live in a global economy now -- one where an
> individual can move at the drop of a hat to
> anywhere
> in the world. The luddites in San Francisco who
> have
> lived there for 40 years and complain about
> "carpetbaggers" likely describe themselves as
> "progressive," but they have no clue about
> progress
> (as usual).
>
> The reality is that many people are more
invested
> in
> the community in which they work than the one in
> which
> they live. Further, that community is often more
> static than where one lives for some people --
for
> instance, I will hub from San Francisco in my
> current
> job on many projects even if my residency was to
> change to San Jose, St. Louis or Sao Paolo.
>
> If someone who spends a lot of time out of
> district
> can vote via absentee ballot, why can't he run
for
> office in the district within which he votes?
>
> And finally, a lot of the partisan hacks going
> after
> Jew are shouting the "he should follow the law!
He
> shouldn't challenge it by potentially breaking
> it."
> They should tread carefully, since many of them
> also
> break unjust laws regularly -- including the ban
> on
> illegal drug use and the ban on assisting
illegal
> immigrants -- and should hope that their words
> don't
> come back to haunt them in a courtroom.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
>
> > Jew is registered to vote here.Where he sleeps
> (like
> > who he sleeps with)
> > ain't nobody's damn business.Refer the FEC
(Fair
> > Elections Commission).This
> > anti freedom City Attorney is getting on my
> nerves.
> >
> > From: Starchild
> > To: "LPSF Discussion List"
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
> > Attorney: Stop dragging
> > feet -- Produce the Records
> > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:58:56 -0700
> >
> > Doug Comstock is kind of a political maverick,
> and
> > it seems hard to
> > predict where he will stand from one issue to
> the
> > next. But in the
> > current controversy over Supervisor Jew, he
> seems
> > for whatever reason
> > to have come down squarely on Jew's side, and
> > recently had a letter
> > published in the Guardian of all places
> defending
> > him. Of course the
> > Guardian has been hesitant to go after Jew the
> way
> > they would if he
> > was caucasian and/or the mayor wasn't legally
> > empowered to pick the
> > replacement for the seat, but I have little
> doubt
> > that Tim Redmond
> > would prefer to see him gone, and that he
> > published the letter mostly
> > as a courtesy to Comstock, a sometimes-ally.
> > Love & Liberty,<<< starchild >>>
> >
> > dougcoms@...: July 21, 2007
> > 3:54:56 PM PDTTo: Han467@...,
> > CYLOUIECPA@...,
> > jbusterd@..., brian@...,
> > h@..., espanolajackson@...,
> > susanhall@...,
> samkwong-arcus@...,
> > sfthall@...,
> > dlap@..., dorice19@...,
> > rbasf@...,
> > editor@...,
timlouie@...,
> > battime@...,
> > ewilson981@..., rleesfd4@...,
> > christianlbrown@...,
> > joelynn114@...,
> > jsutton@...,
> DerekonVanNess@...,
> > rleesfd4@..., frandacosta@...,
=== message truncated ===
Tim:
You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is very
popular in his constituency, and the residency
requirement was certainly met.
*Lots* of people have two homes and commute between
them. Residency laws are intended to shut folks who
are busy, mobile professionals out of society by
restricting where we can live, work and vote.
For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
California, California law requires one to have a CA
driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the DMV
often cannot provide a license quickly enough to
accommodate people under the law, it also assumes that
everyone who has a workplace in California is also
going to be living all or most of their time in
California -- a dubious proposition in the case of
many. I have an apartment in this city and an
apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in this city,
and a car in Philadelphia.
Where is my "residency?"
What if I spend most of my time on the road working --
as I do -- and not much time in either this city or
Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident" of?
(BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert that I'm
a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation I'm
letting my accountant and lawyer work out).
My moral theory of residency is simple -- if the city
deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then I am a
resident. As long as I don't vote in two different
districts in the same election, that's all that
matters.
I initially believed that Jew had been caught
red-handed, but the more I read about this, the more I
am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the SF
political machine. Seriously, for the pols in SF City
Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all the
scandals that have broken in the last six months is
hilarious. They're using their power to try and whisk
Jew out of his seat because he was pointing out some
inconvenient truths about their governance.
Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he probably
doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the justice
system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I find
the DA's assertion that his evidence "proving his
innocence" is "inadequate" to be laughable. It's not
Jew's job to prove he's innocent, it's the DA's job to
prove his guilt.
In short, if San Francisco voters took the tack you're
suggesting, and rolled over for PR's sake whenever
local pols go on the warpath, SF politics would be
even more of a disaster than they already are. It's
the fact that certain elements of SF will fight back
that keeps things from going completely off the rails.
Cheers,
Brian
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
non-working time in a single area that is where you
live, others look at where you reside, vote, shop,
etc.... what is on your license, I don't know. My
point was there are better ways to fight what you
feel
as wrong without looking crazy "to the voters". Do I
think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand why you
would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't and
the
press (even if they "get it") will make you
laughable
to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get it and
thus you can never win elected office then or in the
future. The best way to fight it is wear a suit,
live
in a house, look as regular as your precinct or
district deems (in SF you could be more relaxed than
say Texas or Rhode Island). As you are looking the
part of a leader talk about how you don't feel
someone
should be forced to live anywhere but still
represent
a district. I personally feel someone should spend
75
percent of their total year in the area they claim
to
represent, whether that be working or play or
living.
I guess look up the election rules yourself and see
what they use to describe residency.-TJ
--- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:> This chatroom is becoming a person to person
attack
> room.Being thick
> skinned I don't mind being referred to as a nut. I
> take it as a honor to
> be in such free thinkers company. My point with
the
> Jew residency
> invasion is stay out of people's bedroom.He spent
> enough time in his
> district to garner the most votes and his voter's
> registration address is
> enough. The fact that he has a Burlingame get away
> is nobody's business
> and should not put him out of office. If there's a
> question of
> qualification then recall him, allowing the
district
> to decide. Not the
> city attorney. Please quote the rule verbatim.
Also,
> defend what you mean
> by live there. Does the rules say you must sleep
and
> shower and shi...
> there. In three decades I've never seen it know it
> to be clearly defined.
> But then what do I know, being nuts and all, I'll
> join him in rioting if
> his freedom of movement continues to be attacked.
:-
> )
>
> From: "Tim Campbell"
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
> Attorney: Stop
> dragging feet -- Produce the Records
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Running for office like that I hope you don't
call
> yourself a libertarian as that will make the LP
> look
> even more eccentric and futile. It's crazy ideas
> like
> this that scare mainstream voters into casting a
> vote
> for a libertarian cause they think we are all
> nuts.
>
> I don't know much about Ed Jew or the SF
council,
> but
> if you are to be living in the district you are
> representing that follow the rules. Sometimes
> that's
> just what you have to do. This rule sucks, but
> it's
> not like the rule forcing me to not smoke pot
and
> such.
>
> -TJ
> --- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
>
> > Brian you correct!Also, Jew is not one to play
> > (their) ball. So he's the
> > first politician I've ever heard of to have
> their
> > privatcy violated by
> > having his water bill checked. You have to
have
> > water to serve???Did you
> > know that you can be homeless and vote and run
> for
> > office. When I run
> > again I will do so as homeless ans as required
> only
> > state the cross
> > streets...
> >
> > From: "Brian Miller"
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to
City
> > Attorney: Stop
> > dragging feet -- Produce the Records
> > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > It strikes me that "residency" laws are
> > increasingly
> > absurd.
> >
> > We live in a global economy now -- one where
an
> > individual can move at the drop of a hat to
> > anywhere
> > in the world. The luddites in San Francisco
who
> > have
> > lived there for 40 years and complain about
> > "carpetbaggers" likely describe themselves as
> > "progressive," but they have no clue about
> > progress
> > (as usual).
> >
> > The reality is that many people are more
> invested
> > in
> > the community in which they work than the one
in
> > which
> > they live. Further, that community is often
more
> > static than where one lives for some people --
> for
> > instance, I will hub from San Francisco in my
> > current
> > job on many projects even if my residency was
to
> > change to San Jose, St. Louis or Sao Paolo.
> >
> > If someone who spends a lot of time out of
> > district
> > can vote via absentee ballot, why can't he run
> for
> > office in the district within which he votes?
> >
> > And finally, a lot of the partisan hacks going
> > after
> > Jew are shouting the "he should follow the
law!
> He
> > shouldn't challenge it by potentially breaking
> > it."
> > They should tread carefully, since many of
them
> > also
> > break unjust laws regularly -- including the
ban
> > on
> > illegal drug use and the ban on assisting
> illegal
> > immigrants -- and should hope that their words
> > don't
> > come back to haunt them in a courtroom.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...>
wrote:
> >
> > > Jew is registered to vote here.Where he
sleeps
> > (like
> > > who he sleeps with)
> > > ain't nobody's damn business.Refer the FEC
> (Fair
> > > Elections Commission).This
> > > anti freedom City Attorney is getting on my
> > nerves.
=== message truncated ===
TJ,
The point as I see it with Ed Jew is that it looks like a politically motivated hit. The residency charges against him were fueled by someone(s) at the Public Utilities Commission leaking water and power usage records for his house on 28th Avenue to the press, showing little activity. I suspect this was an illegal violation of his privacy, and political payback for his past opposition to water rate increases. So far the media do not seem to have looked at that angle, that I have seen.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Well I would say you are a resident in both philly in
California, but due to one person one vote you have to
decide where to register, and I would support your
right to be in either place. But not both. If you were
in both I would be on the side of your vote not
counting for one of those places, if you voted in both
districts. There are usually rules of percentage of
living, working etc on the books that can tell you
legally how much of a resident you are and where you
are allowed to vote, you just have to get off the
internet and read some legal books once in awhile, I
know it's hard.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Tim:
You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is very
popular in his constituency, and the residency
requirement was certainly met.*Lots* of people have two homes and commute between
them. Residency laws are intended to shut folks who
are busy, mobile professionals out of society by
restricting where we can live, work and vote.For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
California, California law requires one to have a CA
driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the DMV
often cannot provide a license quickly enough to
accommodate people under the law, it also assumes
that
everyone who has a workplace in California is also
going to be living all or most of their time in
California -- a dubious proposition in the case of
many. I have an apartment in this city and an
apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in this
city,
and a car in Philadelphia.Where is my "residency?"
What if I spend most of my time on the road working
--
as I do -- and not much time in either this city or
Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident" of?(BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert that
I'm
a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation I'm
letting my accountant and lawyer work out).My moral theory of residency is simple -- if the
city
deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then I am a
resident. As long as I don't vote in two different
districts in the same election, that's all that
matters.I initially believed that Jew had been caught
red-handed, but the more I read about this, the more
I
am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the SF
political machine. Seriously, for the pols in SF
City
Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all the
scandals that have broken in the last six months is
hilarious. They're using their power to try and
whisk
Jew out of his seat because he was pointing out some
inconvenient truths about their governance.Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he
probably
doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the justice
system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I find
the DA's assertion that his evidence "proving his
innocence" is "inadequate" to be laughable. It's
not
Jew's job to prove he's innocent, it's the DA's job
to
prove his guilt.In short, if San Francisco voters took the tack
you're
suggesting, and rolled over for PR's sake whenever
local pols go on the warpath, SF politics would be
even more of a disaster than they already are. It's
the fact that certain elements of SF will fight back
that keeps things from going completely off the
rails.Cheers,
Brian
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
wrote:> Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
> non-working time in a single area that is where
you
> live, others look at where you reside, vote, shop,
> etc.... what is on your license, I don't know. My
> point was there are better ways to fight what you
> feel
> as wrong without looking crazy "to the voters". Do
I
> think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand why
you
> would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't and
> the
> press (even if they "get it") will make you
> laughable
> to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get it
and
> thus you can never win elected office then or in
the
> future. The best way to fight it is wear a suit,
> live
> in a house, look as regular as your precinct or
> district deems (in SF you could be more relaxed
than
> say Texas or Rhode Island). As you are looking the
> part of a leader talk about how you don't feel
> someone
> should be forced to live anywhere but still
> represent
> a district. I personally feel someone should spend
> 75
> percent of their total year in the area they claim
> to
> represent, whether that be working or play or
> living.
> I guess look up the election rules yourself and
see
> what they use to describe residency.
>
> -TJ
> --- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
>
> > This chatroom is becoming a person to person
> attack
> > room.Being thick
> > skinned I don't mind being referred to as a nut.
I
> > take it as a honor to
> > be in such free thinkers company. My point with
> the
> > Jew residency
> > invasion is stay out of people's bedroom.He
spent
> > enough time in his
> > district to garner the most votes and his
voter's
> > registration address is
> > enough. The fact that he has a Burlingame get
away
> > is nobody's business
> > and should not put him out of office. If there's
a
> > question of
> > qualification then recall him, allowing the
> district
> > to decide. Not the
> > city attorney. Please quote the rule verbatim.
> Also,
> > defend what you mean
> > by live there. Does the rules say you must sleep
> and
> > shower and shi...
> > there. In three decades I've never seen it know
it
> > to be clearly defined.
> > But then what do I know, being nuts and all,
I'll
> > join him in rioting if
> > his freedom of movement continues to be
attacked.
> :-
> > )
> >
> > From: "Tim Campbell"
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to
City
> > Attorney: Stop
> > dragging feet -- Produce the Records
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Running for office like that I hope you don't
> call
> > yourself a libertarian as that will make the
LP
> > look
> > even more eccentric and futile. It's crazy
ideas
> > like
> > this that scare mainstream voters into casting
a
> > vote
> > for a libertarian cause they think we are all
> > nuts.
> >
> > I don't know much about Ed Jew or the SF
> council,
> > but
> > if you are to be living in the district you
are
> > representing that follow the rules. Sometimes
> > that's
> > just what you have to do. This rule sucks, but
> > it's
> > not like the rule forcing me to not smoke pot
> and
=== message truncated ===
Tim:
I think I'm starting to understand our ideological
gulf.
You support Ron Paul, I don't.
You believe that everyday citizens should focus on
100-pound legal tomes and regulations written in
9-point type to determine their place in society,
whereas I believe people should be able to determine
their own place in society based on their own efforts
and common sense.
I suspect that given this fundamental disagreement --
your faithful adherence to the importance of the
regulations of the bureaucrats, versus my desire to
see the regulations repealed -- we're rarely going to
see eye to eye on most political issues.
Cheers,
Brian
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Well I would say you are a resident in both philly
in
California, but due to one person one vote you have
to
decide where to register, and I would support your
right to be in either place. But not both. If you
were
in both I would be on the side of your vote not
counting for one of those places, if you voted in
both
districts. There are usually rules of percentage of
living, working etc on the books that can tell you
legally how much of a resident you are and where you
are allowed to vote, you just have to get off the
internet and read some legal books once in awhile, I
know it's hard.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> Tim:
>
> You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is very
> popular in his constituency, and the residency
> requirement was certainly met.
>
> *Lots* of people have two homes and commute
between
> them. Residency laws are intended to shut folks
who
> are busy, mobile professionals out of society by
> restricting where we can live, work and vote.
>
> For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
> California, California law requires one to have a
CA
> driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the DMV
> often cannot provide a license quickly enough to
> accommodate people under the law, it also assumes
> that
> everyone who has a workplace in California is also
> going to be living all or most of their time in
> California -- a dubious proposition in the case of
> many. I have an apartment in this city and an
> apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in this
> city,
> and a car in Philadelphia.
>
> Where is my "residency?"
>
> What if I spend most of my time on the road
working
> --
> as I do -- and not much time in either this city
or
> Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident" of?
>
> (BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert that
> I'm
> a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation I'm
> letting my accountant and lawyer work out).
>
> My moral theory of residency is simple -- if the
> city
> deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then I am
a
> resident. As long as I don't vote in two
different
> districts in the same election, that's all that
> matters.
>
> I initially believed that Jew had been caught
> red-handed, but the more I read about this, the
more
> I
> am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the SF
> political machine. Seriously, for the pols in SF
> City
> Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all the
> scandals that have broken in the last six months
is
> hilarious. They're using their power to try and
> whisk
> Jew out of his seat because he was pointing out
some
> inconvenient truths about their governance.
>
> Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he
> probably
> doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the
justice
> system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I
find
> the DA's assertion that his evidence "proving his
> innocence" is "inadequate" to be laughable. It's
> not
> Jew's job to prove he's innocent, it's the DA's
job
> to
> prove his guilt.
>
> In short, if San Francisco voters took the tack
> you're
> suggesting, and rolled over for PR's sake whenever
> local pols go on the warpath, SF politics would be
> even more of a disaster than they already are.
It's
> the fact that certain elements of SF will fight
back
> that keeps things from going completely off the
> rails.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
> > non-working time in a single area that is where
> you
> > live, others look at where you reside, vote,
shop,
> > etc.... what is on your license, I don't know.
My
> > point was there are better ways to fight what
you
> > feel
> > as wrong without looking crazy "to the voters".
Do
> I
> > think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand why
> you
> > would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't
and
> > the
> > press (even if they "get it") will make you
> > laughable
> > to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get it
> and
> > thus you can never win elected office then or in
> the
> > future. The best way to fight it is wear a suit,
> > live
> > in a house, look as regular as your precinct or
> > district deems (in SF you could be more relaxed
> than
> > say Texas or Rhode Island). As you are looking
the
> > part of a leader talk about how you don't feel
> > someone
> > should be forced to live anywhere but still
> > represent
> > a district. I personally feel someone should
spend
> > 75
> > percent of their total year in the area they
claim
> > to
> > represent, whether that be working or play or
> > living.
> > I guess look up the election rules yourself and
> see
> > what they use to describe residency.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
> >
> > > This chatroom is becoming a person to person
> > attack
> > > room.Being thick
> > > skinned I don't mind being referred to as a
nut.
> I
> > > take it as a honor to
> > > be in such free thinkers company. My point
with
> > the
> > > Jew residency
> > > invasion is stay out of people's bedroom.He
> spent
> > > enough time in his
> > > district to garner the most votes and his
> voter's
> > > registration address is
> > > enough. The fact that he has a Burlingame get
> away
> > > is nobody's business
> > > and should not put him out of office. If
there's
> a
> > > question of
> > > qualification then recall him, allowing the
> > district
> > > to decide. Not the
> > > city attorney. Please quote the rule verbatim.
> > Also,
> > > defend what you mean
> > > by live there. Does the rules say you must
sleep
=== message truncated ===
Brian,
You are such an ignorant little pest(actually I wanted
to say something else). You don't read what people
type, you don't know facts and I bet you don't listen
very well in person, definitely things that won't help
you political career.
Ron Paul is all about repealing regulation. I am all
about it too or I wouldn't be a libertarian. You just
don't like him, because he is not for gay marriage.
Well Brian, wake up call dude! "Real" Libertarians
(i.e. most LP members) aren't for gay marriage either,
as we don't feel that: A. government should support
marriage and; B. there should be no special rights
granted to any particular group. Individuals SHOULD be
able to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as
no harm via force is done to someone else, for
instance, getting married, but government shouldn't
sponsor it.
My name's TJ btw, I don't know how to change the "Tim
Campbell wrote" line.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Tim:
I think I'm starting to understand our ideological
gulf.You support Ron Paul, I don't.
You believe that everyday citizens should focus on
100-pound legal tomes and regulations written in
9-point type to determine their place in society,
whereas I believe people should be able to determine
their own place in society based on their own
efforts
and common sense.I suspect that given this fundamental disagreement
--
your faithful adherence to the importance of the
regulations of the bureaucrats, versus my desire to
see the regulations repealed -- we're rarely going
to
see eye to eye on most political issues.Cheers,
Brian
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
wrote:> Well I would say you are a resident in both philly
> in
> California, but due to one person one vote you
have
> to
> decide where to register, and I would support your
> right to be in either place. But not both. If you
> were
> in both I would be on the side of your vote not
> counting for one of those places, if you voted in
> both
> districts. There are usually rules of percentage
of
> living, working etc on the books that can tell you
> legally how much of a resident you are and where
you
> are allowed to vote, you just have to get off the
> internet and read some legal books once in awhile,
I
> know it's hard.
>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
>
> > Tim:
> >
> > You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is
very
> > popular in his constituency, and the residency
> > requirement was certainly met.
> >
> > *Lots* of people have two homes and commute
> between
> > them. Residency laws are intended to shut folks
> who
> > are busy, mobile professionals out of society by
> > restricting where we can live, work and vote.
> >
> > For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
> > California, California law requires one to have
a
> CA
> > driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the
DMV
> > often cannot provide a license quickly enough to
> > accommodate people under the law, it also
assumes
> > that
> > everyone who has a workplace in California is
also
> > going to be living all or most of their time in
> > California -- a dubious proposition in the case
of
> > many. I have an apartment in this city and an
> > apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in this
> > city,
> > and a car in Philadelphia.
> >
> > Where is my "residency?"
> >
> > What if I spend most of my time on the road
> working
> > --
> > as I do -- and not much time in either this city
> or
> > Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident" of?
> >
> > (BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert
that
> > I'm
> > a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation
I'm
> > letting my accountant and lawyer work out).
> >
> > My moral theory of residency is simple -- if the
> > city
> > deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then I
am
> a
> > resident. As long as I don't vote in two
> different
> > districts in the same election, that's all that
> > matters.
> >
> > I initially believed that Jew had been caught
> > red-handed, but the more I read about this, the
> more
> > I
> > am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the
SF
> > political machine. Seriously, for the pols in
SF
> > City
> > Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all
the
> > scandals that have broken in the last six months
> is
> > hilarious. They're using their power to try and
> > whisk
> > Jew out of his seat because he was pointing out
> some
> > inconvenient truths about their governance.
> >
> > Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he
> > probably
> > doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the
> justice
> > system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I
> find
> > the DA's assertion that his evidence "proving
his
> > innocence" is "inadequate" to be laughable.
It's
> > not
> > Jew's job to prove he's innocent, it's the DA's
> job
> > to
> > prove his guilt.
> >
> > In short, if San Francisco voters took the tack
> > you're
> > suggesting, and rolled over for PR's sake
whenever
> > local pols go on the warpath, SF politics would
be
> > even more of a disaster than they already are.
> It's
> > the fact that certain elements of SF will fight
> back
> > that keeps things from going completely off the
> > rails.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
> > > non-working time in a single area that is
where
> > you
> > > live, others look at where you reside, vote,
> shop,
> > > etc.... what is on your license, I don't know.
> My
> > > point was there are better ways to fight what
> you
> > > feel
> > > as wrong without looking crazy "to the
voters".
> Do
> > I
> > > think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand
why
> > you
> > > would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't
> and
> > > the
> > > press (even if they "get it") will make you
> > > laughable
> > > to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get
it
> > and
> > > thus you can never win elected office then or
in
> > the
> > > future. The best way to fight it is wear a
suit,
> > > live
=== message truncated ===
Until the last two weeks, when TJ and Bruce started
posting, we never had these ad hominem attacks and the
tone of even the most violent disagreements was civil.
Most of us like it that way. Please stop it, you two
or I will ask that your posts be moderated.
Thanks you,
Francoise
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Brian,
You are such an ignorant little pest(actually I
wanted
to say something else). You don't read what people
type, you don't know facts and I bet you don't
listen
very well in person, definitely things that won't
help
you political career.Ron Paul is all about repealing regulation. I am all
about it too or I wouldn't be a libertarian. You
just
don't like him, because he is not for gay marriage.
Well Brian, wake up call dude! "Real" Libertarians
(i.e. most LP members) aren't for gay marriage
either,
as we don't feel that: A. government should support
marriage and; B. there should be no special rights
granted to any particular group. Individuals SHOULD
be
able to do pretty much whatever they want, as long
as
no harm via force is done to someone else, for
instance, getting married, but government shouldn't
sponsor it.My name's TJ btw, I don't know how to change the
"Tim
Campbell wrote" line.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> Tim:
>
> I think I'm starting to understand our ideological
> gulf.
>
> You support Ron Paul, I don't.
>
> You believe that everyday citizens should focus on
> 100-pound legal tomes and regulations written in
> 9-point type to determine their place in society,
> whereas I believe people should be able to
determine
> their own place in society based on their own
> efforts
> and common sense.
>
> I suspect that given this fundamental disagreement
> --
> your faithful adherence to the importance of the
> regulations of the bureaucrats, versus my desire
to
> see the regulations repealed -- we're rarely going
> to
> see eye to eye on most political issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Well I would say you are a resident in both
philly
> > in
> > California, but due to one person one vote you
> have
> > to
> > decide where to register, and I would support
your
> > right to be in either place. But not both. If
you
> > were
> > in both I would be on the side of your vote not
> > counting for one of those places, if you voted
in
> > both
> > districts. There are usually rules of percentage
> of
> > living, working etc on the books that can tell
you
> > legally how much of a resident you are and where
> you
> > are allowed to vote, you just have to get off
the
> > internet and read some legal books once in
awhile,
> I
> > know it's hard.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
wrote:
> >
> > > Tim:
> > >
> > > You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is
> very
> > > popular in his constituency, and the residency
> > > requirement was certainly met.
> > >
> > > *Lots* of people have two homes and commute
> > between
> > > them. Residency laws are intended to shut
folks
> > who
> > > are busy, mobile professionals out of society
by
> > > restricting where we can live, work and vote.
> > >
> > > For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
> > > California, California law requires one to
have
> a
> > CA
> > > driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the
> DMV
> > > often cannot provide a license quickly enough
to
> > > accommodate people under the law, it also
> assumes
> > > that
> > > everyone who has a workplace in California is
> also
> > > going to be living all or most of their time
in
> > > California -- a dubious proposition in the
case
> of
> > > many. I have an apartment in this city and an
> > > apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in
this
> > > city,
> > > and a car in Philadelphia.
> > >
> > > Where is my "residency?"
> > >
> > > What if I spend most of my time on the road
> > working
> > > --
> > > as I do -- and not much time in either this
city
> > or
> > > Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident"
of?
> > >
> > > (BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert
> that
> > > I'm
> > > a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation
> I'm
> > > letting my accountant and lawyer work out).
> > >
> > > My moral theory of residency is simple -- if
the
> > > city
> > > deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then
I
> am
> > a
> > > resident. As long as I don't vote in two
> > different
> > > districts in the same election, that's all
that
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > I initially believed that Jew had been caught
> > > red-handed, but the more I read about this,
the
> > more
> > > I
> > > am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the
> SF
> > > political machine. Seriously, for the pols in
> SF
> > > City
> > > Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all
> the
> > > scandals that have broken in the last six
months
> > is
> > > hilarious. They're using their power to try
and
> > > whisk
> > > Jew out of his seat because he was pointing
out
> > some
> > > inconvenient truths about their governance.
> > >
> > > Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he
> > > probably
> > > doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the
> > justice
> > > system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I
=== message truncated ===
Francoise Fielding
820 Stanyan Street,#5
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-386-8643