ACTION ITEM: HB 312, Police Transparency
Under current NH law, audio recording a police officer is explicitly illegal, except with their consent. This means that NH police officers currently have the law on their side when they order an individual to shut off their video camera. Of course police officers are permitted to, and routinely do, video and audio record the public without any consent. The law clearly is not written to protect the people, but rather government bureaucrats who do not want the public to see what they are actually doing and how they are treating people.
House Bill 312 would give the public the right to audio record a police officer while they are carrying out their official duties. Joel Winters, who is the primary sponsor of this bill, crafted the language of this piece of legislation to give the power back to the people.
“AN ACT permitting a person to record a law enforcement officer in the course of such officer’s official duties.”
This piece of legislation has passed the NH House and is currently awaiting a vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee. These committee members, as well as your senator, need to hear from from you. Contact your senator today as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote in favor of this vital piece of legislation.
The government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. There should not be any laws on the books that give preferential treatment to government officials or police officers. “On the job, on the record.” Police officers who have nothing to hide should be in favor of their official duties being documented. Officers who have something to hide need to be exposed and replaced.
Read the entirety of HB 312.
Comments
68 Comments on ACTION ITEM: HB 312, Police Transparency
Er, approach fail? Why not just make the act rescind all other provisions of NH law that restrict the liberty, instead of adding it as if it’s a new right?
If I have informed them they are being recorded and they remain in my vicinity, they have consented. I see no use for this bill beyond encouraging those who are scared to record the cops. They’ve never arrested me for it.
I think that encouraging those who are scared is a good thing. There have been cases where individuals have been charged with a felony for recording the police. Although most of the time the cops leave people alone, the current law deters people from recording the police, and we need as many people armed with video cameras as possible.
I think it’s a great bill — one way or another, it’s definitely a bill that should be passed. Let’s get ‘er done.
I’m with Mike and Ian on this, rather then create positive rights, let us instead retain the negative rights we already have.
Repeal the law the says that it is illegal, rather then modify the law to say it is legal.
Sure, cyberdoo, but this is better than nothing. We can always get the old law repealed later.
If I have informed them they are being recorded and they remain in my vicinity, they have consented.
To play Devil’s Advocate here, Ian, isn’t this the same argument statists use to justify government’s control over your person and property?
“If we have informed you of The Law and you remain in our geographical vicinity, you have consented to our rules. Now pay our outrageous taxes, get rid of that couch, drop that piece of weed, stop gardening without our permission, get a permit for your parties and give us your legal name.”
I perceive this not as a matter of gaining consent from a private individual, but rather holding accountable a person who has been given a monopoly on force ostensibly to “protect us”.
That our consent for their protection is not required shines the light of truth on the whole situation: “We don’t need your consent, but you need ours because we are your masters.”
But even if you accept that some government is necessary for the protection of life, liberty and property, one must recognize that those who wield its power must be held accountable for their actions.
This lack of accountability is the greatest flaw of the Constitution. Despite being meant “to bind down men from mischief”, the Founding Fathers forgot to give it any teeth to bite those who violate it.
“It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power.” — John Adams, 1788
“Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it or the lights go out.” — Wayne LaPierre
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine
Does the current law explicitly ban audio recordings alone? What if I videotaped them with the microphone muted? What then??
Having reviewed the entire ACT recording a police officer is indeed illegal unless consent is given, of course this applies to everyone else as well, not just police officers.
So then what you will have done is added a total of 13 different exemptions to this ‘ACT’ there by making the ‘law’ harder to understand, which is already hard to understand.
To me it would have better just to strike the whole of RSA 570-A since you don’t have a right to privacy and that placing devices on equipment that you don’t own is a violation of property rights already.
Agreed cyberdoo, but effectively eliminating part of this act is a worthy intermediate goal. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or, more accurately, we shouldn’t oppose taking the first step because it does not itself climb the whole mountain. Passing this act would have the effect of increasing people’s freedom, and quite likely reducing police abuse.
I’ll take the government giving up power where I can get it. Yes, this is not a perfect bill, but it’s better to do something than nothing.
Toby, the government choosing to add yet another law is not the government giving up power, it’s the government claiming power to grant you permission to do something.
Particularly when that “something” is to hold government accountable to “The People” as the Constitution had intended (but failed) to do.
Well, they already claimed power to prohibit you from doing it, so I think that ship has sailed jeff … there’s going to be a law on the books on this one way or another … would you rather have it say people are permitted to do so or prohibited from it?
I know a lot of people here are skeptical of the political process, but this bill clearly improves the situation. A second law which negates the first may not be as good as repeal, but it’s sure as heck better than continuing to throw people in jail.
This bill is opposed by the worst statists … does that tell you something?
Suppose there were a law proposed which would state, “The property tax in NH will be reduced to zero”. Would you oppose it because it was a new law, rather than a repeal? So, while we wait for the more perfect bill, people would continue to have their property stolen from them? This kind of thinking really is cutting of your nose to spite your face.
@Ian: *you* have not personally been formally charged with felony wiretapping under the current law, but many other people in NH certainly have.
@Cyberdoo (& others): FYI, the Senators that want to KILL this bill are saying that the whole RSA needs to be examined… so, they need a study committee… and they’ll have a look at the law over the next few years… and quietly kill the bill. That’s how they kill bills that they think are not being watched by the public.
If you want to stop the police from using the current law as a club to beat people with, and stop them NOW, call or email your Senator, plus the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them they need to support HB312
If you want the police to keep abusing their power… then don’t contact the Senate.
Actually Paul, what I’d like to see is the current law stricken/repealed from the record.
As for the hypothetical example you cite, I appreciate the argument you make as practical in the current paradigm as accepted by individuals at large. However, in my opinion moving forward towards true liberty requires a shift the manner in which we individually see things. I choose to see any the endorsement of even one more law, regardless of it’s purpose, as an endorsement of the authority of government.
Jeff, yes, I also would like to see the current law stricken from the books, we’d established that. The point is, that’s not on the table right now. What we have right now is a choice between the government claiming it’s their business and it will be prohibited and the government claiming it’s their business and it’s permitted. We can strike the old law from the books later.
If a violent gang were abusing people’s rights, it would be a good thing for them to pass a resoltion preventing them from doing so in the future. If they want to believe they’re granting people privledges, fine, at least they’re not abusing anyone. We can cure them of their delusion later.
Or, consider another analogy. Suppose a slaveholders association were considering a resolution to let the slaves work every other day, instead of every day. If one cares about slaves, one must support that measure, even as one works to end slavery entirely. It is not enough to hate slavery, one must care about the slaves also.
I agree with working against the endorsement of government power. This law does not prevent that. The fact is, however, people are being hurt by government right now, and if we care about people being free, getting government to restrain itself is a good thing.
Are you saying that in my hypothetical example you would not support reducing taxes to zero? The point is to prevent theft from occuring. The NAP, remember? The best way to get there likely involves a number of different efforts and approaches working simultaneously. To me, it is foolish to allow people to remain under greater tyranny because the approach being used in a particular instance to mitigate that tyranny is not your most preferred one.
I think that it is very likely that an outside the system approach will ultimately be the one that strikes the final blow for liberty. Until that day, do you want people to live under greater tyranny, as greater slaves?
Jeff, You seem confused. NH has the best privacy laws in the nation. Unfortunately, the law is so broad that most think it includes the inability to audio record police during traffic stops and such. This bill is to eliminate that part of the law. So this bill creates an exemption or in theory, actually reduces the possible enforcement of a law. If removing bad laws sounds good to you, then get on board because that is what this bill does.
Paul,
As I stated, I think your approach is pragmatic today. However, if I simply agreed with you that one more ‘good’ law won’t hurt, where would the forward looking thinking be? Please consider me liberty’s advocate here on this one. 
Keith,
I’m not confused. Privacy laws ought not apply to public servants engaged in public service. As I stated above in response to Paul and in my prior posts, I am simply voicing my opinion that what we ought to be striving for is the elimination of bad laws, not the addition of ‘good’ laws to counteract the bad ones. Adding more words to existing statutes instead of replacing them with the word ‘Stricken’ isn’t removing anything. It’s the state continuing to claim jurisdiction over something.
I agree that you want liberty Jeff, and I absolutely consider you an ally, but I think your position is counterproductive here.
I agree with you that the best thing would be to remove jurisdiction from the government entirely. However, a law effectively neutering a bad law is good.
1. The best thing would be no jurisdiction on recording — recognizing a right.
2. The next best thing is a law permitting recording — allowing a privilege.
3. The worst thing of all is a law prohibiting recording — prohibition.
It’s unwise to oppose going from 3 to 2, because we’re not making it all the way to 1 right now.
Besides, in their imaginary government world they may think they’re granting us a privilege, but we know it’s a right. What the law happens to be doesn’t change reality — the important thing is that they would not be infringing on this right any more.
I think that it is very likely that an outside the system approach will ultimately be the one that strikes the final blow for liberty.
Indeed. A reformulation of my original comment way up above here is this: If someone wants to stick a gun in your face for sticking a camera in his, just shoot him.
I disagree Mike. Violence begets violence, especially violence against government.
By outside the system I meant peaceful civil disobedience, as well as educational efforts.
Violence begets violence, especially violence against government.By outside the system I meant peaceful civil disobedience, as well as educational efforts.
the assertion that violence begets violence is easily controverted coward-speak, raised here for the very reason you invoke the dastardly sick term “civil disobedience”: you accept and encourage a double standard, relying upon the absurdity that under “normal” conditions the state is to be “obeyed”. you are routinely an apologist for and defender of the state.
shooting a lethal aggressor in the face is peaceful. until you get that straight, abandon the language overtly, for you have already abandoned it in attempted secret.
Praise for Charley from my corner.
Something I wrote yesterday:
So, there’s this guy who comes around and rapes me twice a week for the past year…
And one day I notice he hasn’t been around for a few months.
What do I do now? Send him a fucking fruit basket?
See also: Being a Criminal, by Larken Rose.
‘the assertion that violence begets violence is easily controverted coward-speak, raised here for the very reason you invoke the dastardly sick term “civil disobedience”: you accept and encourage a double standard, relying upon the absurdity that under “normal” conditions the state is to be “obeyed”. you are routinely an apologist for and defender of the state.’
I like this, Charley. What does it mean? ‘Ignore the state and kill them when they mess with you?’
Good way for a lot of people to get dead
‘Ignore the state and kill them when they mess with you?’
Good way for a lot of people to get dead
Historically, it’s also the way a lot of revolutions happen.
I like this, Charley. What does it mean? ‘Ignore the state and kill them when they mess with you?’
Good way for a lot of people to get dead
next time you’re asking someone what something he said means, indicate your sincerity by not supplying the “answer”.
there’s a reason it’s called straw man fallacy; its strawiness is the reason you employ it.
Just about every revolution had a new government on the hind end of it.
I’m ready for something different. I’m ready to talk them out of it. If 300 million people thought the same way I do, Only Libertarian types would be elected to office and spendthrifts would be quickly booted back home with a firm rebuke. We quit being like that as a society a long time ago.
Go wake the people up, and whether the bums say they’re in charge or not, free people trading and traveling freely would ignore them, and juries of free men would quickly toss out cases without merit.
Instead we have this. Ugh
The reason it’s fun is the smarminess of it, I think.
I’ll watch it
If 300 million people thought the same way I do, Only Libertarian types would be elected to office [...]
not much of a way to think. of course, you have it backward — the “state as friend” routine that suckered most of the RP fanatics (RP the 2008$3M bandit of peace).
I like Ron, he’s principled much more so than most others. We have a Libertarian City Council guy here, lots of folk would love it if he moved. We aren’t going to incentivize people who are trying to make a difference for people as Libertarians if we don’t back them up. Lord knows the mainstream will do enough sniping at them, we need to stand behind men of principle even if they choose to operate in that arena so despised. Men like that could be our salvation. I’ll be backing them up
@lvpiper:
So when the Libertarian politician sends some armed goons around to shut down another libertarian resident’s business because they refused to pay taxes, whose side will you be on then?
I like Ron, he’s principled much more so than most others.
ron paul’s prime claim to fame is his willingness to abandon his supposed principle (non-aggression) for statism. he’s a career statist. that he’s the best of the worst in DC is nearly meaningless. he’s treated as a celebrity in supposed liberty circles for advocating and embodying an impossible contradiction. those 2008$3M didn’t come from nowhere.
We aren’t going to incentivize people who are trying to make a difference for people as Libertarians if we don’t back them up.
backing up statists in the name of liberty is too silly to bother refuting. your confusion comes from assuming a statist isn’t a statist if he decries statism… while pining for enrollment in the state.
, we need to stand behind men of principle even if they choose to operate in that arena so despised.
would be funny were it not evidence of deep mental degradation/infancy.
there is no hope via the state. learn it. know it. live it. the problem is not that the “right guys” haven’t reached the helm of that colossal sickness.
Um, OK dude, but all’s I’m sayin is PEACE and LOVE, man. Peace and Love. Love your fellow man enough to leave him alone, and there will be peace.
Of course, we could just stay away from politics and let a band of howling statists elect a gang of suited hoods and put them in command of the world’s most powerful weapons without so much as a peep against it, OK, Charley, we can do that too, since you can’t even get behind Ron Paul for Chrissake.
@lvpiper having the ability to choose one slavemaster over another is cold comfort if freedom is your objective.
‘So when the Libertarian politician sends some armed goons around to shut down another libertarian resident’s business because they refused to pay taxes, whose side will you be on then?’
That’s a great point. The Libertarian politician is probably voting against all this crudola, so beyond that, what can he really do? Are you asking what I would do if the Chief Executive enforced the tax laws? I oppose it now, and would oppose it then. But does the possibility that a Libertarian politician might enforce tax laws make it totally unworthwhile to try to get Libertarian types elected? I know the Republocrats will enforce them anyway. What do you suggest?
Well, “opposing” them in spirit is rather different from opposing their eventual armed confrontation with the peaceful person who refuses to pay taxes.
Defending liberty ought to be more than sitting around saying “oh noes” when peaceful innocent people get kidnapped and thrown into steel and iron cages.
‘@lvpiper having the ability to choose one slavemaster over another is cold comfort if freedom is your objective.’
To an extent I understand your point; however, I will say that when I think of Ron Paul, I don’t think ‘slavemaster’. I think ‘Grandpa’ and ‘Austrian Free Market Economics’ and I think Ron would move people toward that with his stands AGAINST gubment action.
Ron Paul is the best thing that’s happened to Liberty in our lifetime. Hopefully soon, FSP and Free Talk Live and Gard and everybody else will leave Ron in the dust and create a societal bent all their own that will garner popular respect for its hands-off lack of approach.
I think people can really get behind the idea of being left alone. I think things will improve as more people realize the consequences of gubment meddling.
And, of course, the old people will be dying, taking Social Security votes with them (sorry, old people)
‘Defending liberty ought to be more than sitting around saying “oh noes” when peaceful innocent people get kidnapped and thrown into steel and iron cages.’
I totally agree with this sentiment. In the current paradigm, what do you think are some good defenses to be used for liberty? I lean toward video cameras and streaming video technologies, the better to capture as many abuses of police ‘power’ as possible, and thus shift the popular opinion of statism and its institutions.
Are you thinking of something more direct? What actions do you think have the best long term up-side as far as staying alive and maintaining a good reputation?
Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism (that is, consistently-applied libertarianism in practice).
In a market anarchist society, law and security would be provided by market actors instead of political institutions. Agorists recognize that situation can not develop through political reform. Instead, it will arise as a result of market processes.
As the state is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of the criminal state by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets.
The “New Libertarian Manifesto” there is required reading, solid Rothbardian libertarianism, and also has the benefit of being quite short.
hmmm. Twice my reponse has been swallowed.
The short answer is “agorism”.
Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.
In a market anarchist society, law and security would be provided by market actors instead of political institutions. Agorists recognize that situation can not develop through political reform. Instead, it will arise as a result of market processes.
As the state is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of the criminal state by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets.
Yes. I see. I hope to do things like that in the near future, but for now I have a corporate job and a family to feed and that’s the way it is.
I love agorism. It’s a manifestation of truth and logic. At least it is the way I understand it. I can see that some would villify it for being outside the government ‘box’ and that’s one of the fronts on the philosophical battle for peace.
Right now, the box we’re in, an economy of high levels of specialization, a medium of exchange controlled and diluted by crimiinals who call themselves ‘leaders’, with armies of men in costumes who think that ‘the law’ and ‘morality’ are the samew thing (with guns, too), We’re in a pretty good nut vise. What will be the impetus for growth in the counter economy? Hyperinflation?
Have you read the New Libertarian Manifesto? Or Alongside Night? There are models there for things you can start doing right now outside the box, in relative safety.
hyperinflation would set up revolutionary conditions, certainly. the broader view is that a crisis isn’t needed to achieve an agorist transformation of society. agorists just need to get together and start building competing institutions to supplant the state, hopefully freeing themselves and banking big profits along the way
Of course, we could just stay away from politics and let a band of howling statists elect a gang of suited hoods and put them in command of the world’s most powerful weapons without so much as a peep against it, OK, Charley, we can do that too, since you can’t even get behind Ron Paul for Chrissake.
your usual straw man dreck, in the usual combo with false dilemma. have you no shame? are you that stupid?
Ron Paul is the best thing that’s happened to Liberty in our lifetime.
ludicrous. you obviously love the state deeply.
best liberty asset in the last 50 years: internet. nothing nor no one else close.
‘best liberty asset in the last 50 years: internet. nothing nor no one else close.’
True. Let me amend my statement to say Ron’s the best public voice for Liberty in our lifetime. Or don’t , ill amend it anyway lol.
‘your usual straw man dreck, in the usual combo with false dilemma. have you no shame? are you that stupid?’
YES, I am that stupid, because I don’t know what you mean by that fully. I would never aggress against you, though. I’m smart enough not to initiate force on others. Beyond that, I am still learning, and expressing how I feel about what I know and what I think could be helpful. Saying i obviously love the state deeply seems like a simple insult, because I simply don’t love the state. What made you think that?
Mike, I will be checking out the materials you referenced above.
‘To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position’
I am struggling to see how this concept applies to the comments I have been making. If this is true from your perspective, then my position of peaceful evolution of societal structures is false, and I am cognitively dissonant? This is difficult to accept without strong evidence to the opposite. You see?
If a violent gang were ruling the neighborhood, with the approval of much of the populace, would I try to educate people as to it’s immorality? Yes. If a person tried to gain leadership of the gang who would greatly reduce its violence, would I vote for them? Yes. Can some of the education be accomplished by people seeking to obtain leadership of the gang in order to reduce or eliminate its violence? Yes.
I know many, including myself, who were moved towards partial or full rejection of the state by Paul’s campaign.
We need rejection of coersive government by the people, and we also need people working to reduce and eliminate coersive government from the inside.
By the way, if a “libertarian” is going around forcibly collecting taxes, they’re in the wrong, and there’s no question that my sympathies lay with the victim. Any liberty minded person should be doing everything they can to eliminate the initiation of force against peaceful people.
So how does this relate to the case of Sam D? He had audio recording running along with video recording in the courthouse hallway. Should they have told him to disconnect the microphone?
Let me amend my statement to say Ron’s the best public voice for Liberty in our lifetime.
nonsense. the only reasons he’s on your radar are 1) he’s a traitor to his alleged principle (nonaggression), and 2) most of the american “liberty” movement — you included — is enthralled by celebrity hero-worship of fedgoon politicians. thousands are far better spoken than ron paul and don’t have the fatal flaw of making a career of personal aggression. again, i name the 2008$3M amount. it isn’t going away; you ignore it, for it puts ron paul, correctly, in the gutter with the rest of the fedgoon filth. he’s a career statist and pussified plunderer of wealth created by his betters — a traitor to his espoused principle of non-aggression. he’s at heart just another nuremberg defense scumbag, and you’re one of his fans.
YES, I am that stupid, because I don’t know what you mean by that fully.
your problem. on 19 may i accused you on this site of executing straw man fallacy. you said then that you didn’t get it, and apparently did nothing to change that. now, you quote some vague mostly inapplicable tertiary crap (‘To accuse people of attacking a straw man [...]’) then do your innocent “just trying, dude” routine. to hell with you.
Saying i obviously love the state deeply seems like a simple insult, because I simply don’t love the state. What made you think that?
your mindless over-the-top adoration for a career criminal statist. ron paul is the best of the worst of the fedgoons, eclipsed by many thousands of intellectual and moral superiors.
, and we also need people working to reduce and eliminate coersive government from the inside.
laughable non sequitur from yet another state slurper posing at freekeene.com. there is only one moral and practical position in this regard: rejection of the state.
Charley, is it absolutely necessary in your defense of liberty to be a total dick?
I understand that being violated over a lifetime by statist policies is enough to emotionally scar anyone but maybe you could focus your rage on your direct oppressors instead of spewing forth a relentless barrage of ad hominem attacks on indoctrinated cogs who’ve just taken their first dip in the liberty pool?
You have a few flaws of your own you might want to work on before bludgeoning others with stones of invective, particularly your inability to control your negative emotions, an inefficiency at prioritizing the targets of your ire, inadequate communication skills and some sort of superiority complex over anyone who hasn’t yet reached your vision of liberty.
is it absolutely necessary in your defense of liberty to be a total dick?
says the biggest dick on this site.
barrage of ad hominem attacks
state explicitly and honestly (if possible) why you use the term “ad hominem” there.
says the biggest dick on this site.
I’m afraid you have me confused with yourself. Or perhaps you’d like to back up your assertion with proof? I may be an opinionated loudmouth at times but I do try to keep an open mind should any arguments I hear ring true. You, however, have been entirely confrontational and vindictive since you first appeared on this site.
state explicitly and honestly (if possible) why you use the term “ad hominem” there.
Thanks for the dig at my honesty. I appreciate that attack as well because, hell, who could possibly be honest these days besides yourself, right?
I use the term “ad hominem” because it means to “attack the man and not the argument” which you do aplenty.
Labeling LPViper a coward:
the assertion that violence begets violence is easily controverted coward-speak
Insulting LPViper’s mental faculties:
would be funny were it not evidence of deep mental degradation/infancy.
Insulting LPViper’s mental faculties:
are you that stupid?
Labeling LPViper a state-lover:
you obviously love the state deeply.
Labeling LPViper a scumbag-by-association:
he’s at heart just another nuremberg defense scumbag, and you’re one of his fans.
Etc.
to hell with you.
state-slurper
That explicit enough for you?
At all times, LPViper has attempted a bit of levity in his discussion with you, appeared open-minded and you have returned the favor by viciously bludgeoning him over the head with a rock nearly every time.
If this is the way you educate others, I hope you never do it for a living. I can only imagine there’d be an abnormal amount of children in your region with scarred psyches before you were fired in disgrace.
“Mr. Hardman called me a coward, a retard and scumbag because I got the answer wrong, Mommy! I’m never going back there! He’s mean!”, Little Johnny cried.
And let me be very clear on this: I don’t favor many of LPViper’s statements or arguments anymore than you do but the guy was asking some legitimate questions you completely ignored. He stated he’s new to the concepts of liberty and you’ve done nothing but attempt to humiliate and destroy him with your savage retorts.
Browbeating him isn’t going to teach him anything about liberty. There can be no understanding between two parties when one acts toward the other with such a cold, malevolent attitude.
Is it really so much to ask that you engage in civil discussion on this site with healthy debate?
but I do try to keep an open mind should any arguments I hear ring true
baloney. you’re a disingenuous ass.
I use the term “ad hominem” because it means to “attack the man and not the argument”
classic lemming buffoonery, with the context knocking it into la-la land.
I didn’t think you’d actually address my legitimate criticisms, Charley.
As for your diversionary “context” retort, I figured you’d play that card sooner or later and you didn’t disappoint me, thus revealing your own disingenuous nature.
To clarify: I haven’t attacked your character, Charley. I’ve merely made objective observations about your negative attitude and your disparaging comments, supplied evidence of such and called you on it.
As I suspected, you have no explanation (let alone a defense) for your brutish behavior.
Charley could write these one-liners on index cards and bind em up and make a fortune
You have to study it to understand the full degree to which you are being insulted
It’s interesting
To clarify: I haven’t attacked your character, Charley. I’ve merely made objective observations about your negative attitude and your disparaging comments, supplied evidence of such and called you on it.
As I suspected, you have no explanation (let alone a defense) for your brutish behavior.
two brief paragraphs so riddled, contextually, with logical errors that i could write at least a huge kickass article about it.
never argue from ignorance.
‘riddled, contextually, with logical errors’
name three
There you go again making claims with no supporting evidence, Charley.
Instead of making empty claims, why don’t you point out with specificity what logical errors those two paragraphs have? You can’t possibly be afraid I’ll successfully refute your claims, can you? Of course not, not you. You’re morally and intellectually superior. You hinted at such earlier.
How is “calling out your objectionable behavior with objective observations supported by evidence” the same as “attacking your character and ignoring your argument”? I’m all agog for the answer to this mystery.
I’m the comic relief
three of em Charley…go
I learnt that from Dane Cook
“Serendipitous” and “Valkyrie” are also cool.
Does it really matter what laws they enact?They will just ignore them anyway.Take the constitution as example.The most revered laws of the US are ignored most of the time.Go ahead an change their laws .It means nothing.Ignore these overlords and be free 
Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. If those services were worthy of their value people would willingly pay for them.
Arguing and debating over their laws, handbooks, tactics etc. gives the liars, thieves and murders an air of legitimacy.
They seek legitimacy as their primary need. For if they primarily sought control they skip the paper terrorism and dog & pony courtroom shows and just pull out their guns and make us all do what they tell us to do.
They’re not bureaucrats. They’re terrocrats. That word strikes at the heart of their supposed legitimacy.
If the terrocrats with their paper terrorism want a real war on terror they need look no further than themselves.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 9, 2012
- Re: What I wrote to the Chief of Police in town of Weare February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012