Chris,
I think it would be appropriate for you to moderate these posts.
I also think it would be useful for Bruce and TJ to come to an LPSF meeting and say hello in person. This could go a long way toward developing a more harmonious feeling with fellow freedom lovers.
(The idea is to hate the state, not each other!) You're both welcome to join us for dinner on Wed.
Best, Michael
Not quite sure why I was copied on this, but Bruce is
unlikely to attend SF meetings, being based in
Washington DC, and TJ is a board member of the Santa
Clara County (San Jose) LP.
Cheers,
Brian
--- dredelstein@... wrote:
Chris,
I think it would be appropriate for you to moderate
these posts.I also think it would be useful for Bruce and TJ to
come to an LPSF meeting and say hello in person.
This could go a long way toward developing a more
harmonious feeling with fellow freedom lovers.
(The idea is to hate the state, not each other!)
You're both welcome to join us for dinner on Wed.Best, Michael
From: Francoise Fielding
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
Attorney: Stop dragging feet -- Produce the RecordsUntil 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?"
> > > >
=== message truncated ===