Lady Keeniacs to Destroy the Liberty Movement!

Are there any Americans in this group who are concerned about their COUNTRY? What's this "in my backyard" crap? This country is in serious trouble, get with it , folks.

I don't recall mentioning anything at all about Ian.

If you have EVER objected to laws forcing women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to wear burqas, then you have ZERO right to object to women going topless in the US, and are a hypocrite.

The two laws, forcing women to cover specific body parts men need not, are identical in effect and repressiveness.

This "protest" would be a huge win-win for all concerned:

For FreeKeeners, it would draw attention to themselves without accomplishing anything substantial; very familiar and satisfying ground to tread upon.

For those who consider FreeKeeners to be a blight on a community that would be better off without them, this action (which would be reminiscent of a KSC Frat stunt) would make the effort to successfully portray FreeKeeners as childish losers even easier.

You've GOT to do this.

I am shocked, shocked, that women have nipples. Please, God, say it is not so!

For the past three weeks I have been attempting, from my leftist vantage point, to wrap my mind around your positions, with marginal success. Thank God I have finally found an issue with some meat on it, so to speak. To wit: Boobs.

Well, female boobs that is. When fat dudes like me go around topless showing off ours people simply look away in disgust. You get used to it.

Anyway, when women do the same thing everyone freaks out; but they do look. Hell, I look too. Big time. So, if you're not generating enough controversy wearing handguns in public, nudity should do it for you. Of course the real problem is convincing the women to actually walk around shirtless and probably get arrested.

On a serious note, topless protests have been traditionally the provenance of the radical feminist left. Their message has been the desexualization of the female breast (in which they have been singularly unsuccessful). "Boob walks" have taken place in Northampton, Ma. among other venues and always draw a crowd. Of course, with upwards of a hundred participants, there is no police intervention.

Perhaps it would be wise to clarify in advance whether that (desexualization) is your position; or do you feel that topless women should be allowed to frequent bars thereby attracting vast numbers of elligable males away from their more modest (and more sensible) sisters.

Just a thought.

here's a thought for you liberty-loving-ladies: Do a "human statue" demonstration topless. Call it ART. (Places like NYC, Austin TX, etc., have a large enough population to support this.) You mimic the pose, etc. of some famous statue, like a greek/roman venus, aphrodite, etc. Just stand there in pose. Maybe w/, w/out body paint…could work better than the past forms of protest/expression. As for me personally, well, I'm a heterosexual man, & I'll look at bare breasts, if they are there to see. No, I'm not gonna get all excited, or go out of my way, just to see bare breasts. Now, touch/taste/fondle bare breasts? That's different. It's also illegal to do that in public, under NH RSA's…c'est la vie! VIVA LA DIFFERENCE!…*grin*…

This is not responsible blogging. Common decency calls for having a warning notice on the main part of the blog and the almost topless women after the jump. You have broken standard, voluntary common decency.

This has set the Free Keene blog back more than any other story that has ever been covered here.

===

as if anyone could tell me what the common anything is. If so, show me your polls. I did one myself. Guys like boobies. I bet my poll wins. Stories do not set blogsites back, only holding in stories you feel are important and could bring more people to your cause. I feel this is most responsible and honest blogging instead of the usual FSP spinster pragmatic crap bloggers are used to.

People willing to trade their boobies for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

If you are a true Liberty Lover, then you will always support any people trying to live free, regardless of what floats their boobies, err, boat.

asserting the "public" ownership of stolen property is not people trying to live free. when these demonstrations are proposed on private property, or with respect to the owners of relevant stolen "public" property, full speed ahead to the difficult subject of visual/aural infringement across property lines. until then, these are nitwits generally making things worse, with an overflow load of jackass sanctimony and the usual FK performance-fartist shtick.

As long as someone isn’t intiating physical force and/or fraud against another, then there should be no foul.

"public property" is the initiation of force.

This potential story is exactly the type the Press loves [...]

that alone should give major pause. then there's the genesis of this proposal, which was fully up the ass of what "law" allows.

this proposal is founded upon strengthening the dual fictions of "public property" and "law", intentions of the proposers notwithstanding.

Charley, re: your "public property is the initiation of force" comment). The sky is blue and I also know that publc property is the initiation of force. So I see it as stolen property, as our Master's property, because they are ones who get to say what we can and can't do with it (if you recognize it's stolen, why do you care what people do on it anyway?).

Your private property idea is a good point as it will be a lot easier for people to understand (Fliers could be passed out to drive by a certain house at a certain time to see boobies), but doing it on stolen land is also OK by me.

And all this concern and worry that this will somehow damage the movement for life I find absurd. If that's all we got, then we deserve to die.

I wish everyone would stop worrying so much about the exact proper "image" (I think people are watching too much TV) and just get on with the business of doing what you can to bring more people to NH so the movement can keep growing.

The bottomline is, most poeple are not even going to hear about this and the ones that do, who don't invesitgate further, aren't worth our time either. But the ones who DO investigate and check us out in depth……why that's the gold standard of Liberty Activist that we're mining for my friend.

—

In earlier comments, people have mentioned Americans fear of nudity vs Europe…makes me wonder…

Do Americans fear Mammory Glands more than they do the Government?

Why are there no males volunteering to walk the streets naked (i.e. "bottomless")? The principle is the same, correct? Strange how that obvious option has never been mentioned…..

(if you recognize it’s stolen, why do you care what people do on it anyway?).

why do i care when stolen property's used by other than the owners? you really asked me that?

, but doing it on stolen land is also OK by me.

you then either 1) presume non-owner rights to the property (false), or 2) don't give a shit about rights.

And all this concern and worry that this will somehow damage the movement for life I find absurd.

why you're telling me that, i don't know. not a position i hold.

I wish everyone would stop worrying so much about the exact proper “image” (I think people are watching too much TV) and just get on with the business of doing what you can to bring more people to NH so the movement can keep growing.

when such action contradicts the supposed principle of "the movement" (property rights)… good plan!

But the ones who DO investigate and check us out in depth……

…will find that people supposedly committed to property rights piss on them indiscriminately, for the purpose of PETA-style wanking.

how blind must one be to not see that the proposed demonstration supports "law" (i.e., property-violating edicts from official crime syndicates) and "public" property (i.e., confiscation of property for the mob)?

for most everyone it's probably impossible to live without trampling property confiscated for the mob. however, moving from this regular sickness to trumpeting the treatment of that same property as owned by individual mob members (in this case the tits-akimbo club)… WTF. how that leads to liberty is a mystery. only by accident/misunderstanding.

So I dont understand you tieing property rights to the use of public property as if some individual owners’ private property rights are being trampled.(?)

the state cannot own property. therefore, the question with all such "public" property is who owns it. when a group ostensibly based in property rights asserts a right to go topless on this property, ownership should be addressed. far from a right to go topless, non-owners don't have a right to even be there.

if a topless practitioner considers these truths and wants to proceed topless, that is conditionally defensible (i.e., as defensible as even being on "public" property) on grounds that only the property owner or his representative may rightfully thwart the action. the protest, if it's to reach the ignorant, should emphasize the fiction of public property and stress that only the owner may prevent benign action.

the protest proposed here, however, was founded in cutesy adherence to unlawful "law", with an indignant — not apologetic — use of property not that of the protester nor expressly permitted the protester by the owner (owners who in many cases are dead or otherwise disconnected). it was based in the usual "what can we do to get attention" smarm trash of FK.

life would be nearly impossible without treading on the vaporous land called "public property". however, i do not assert a right to be on such stolen property, and any voluntarist protest on it should be done with full awareness of the shakiness of the ground, and merely an "in your face, hypocrite" stance with regard to "law". haven't seen anything near that proposed here. what was proposed here has "snot-nose" written across it.

generally, i oppose artificial clashes with the badged criminals. if you want to do a thing, do it. if you foresee trouble, have witnesses, video, etc.

IMO, stunts on "public" property such as holding pot in your hand and telling the cops about it, digging up earth and trying to plant tomatoes, or walking topless when you don't really care to beyond making some point, suck. they smell false, and even most stupid people are still aware enough to combine the obvious with their biases and give off — wait for it — the opposite of the desired reaction.

I still think this whole thing is much abo about nothing. I've copied our Porcupine Realator's words from a similar thread on the FSP as I think he said it best:

"Someone is worried about the poor children seeing nekkid breasts. The horror! What about the fact that I'm FORCED, ultimately at the point of a gun, to FEED AND SCHOOL THOSE SAME CHILDREN against my consent? As a childless taxpayer, I find that utterly unjust and bordering on tyrannical. I'd take public nudity over public education every time."

Porcupine Realator

I’ve copied our Porcupine Realator’s words from a similar thread on the FSP as I think he said it best:

the sick retardation evinced by that quote is eclipsed by you passing it along as a bon mot. okay, so you don't see the usual disease of false dilemma fallacy (i.e., "you may choose an unprincipled stand for tits, or a gun to your head to pay for the kids of the tit opposers; what's it gonna be?"). that's an ailment common to the fools who post here. you should at least note that the quoted "argument" is by extension against protesting anything less egregious than the worse "evil" he invokes. that's almost good for a belly laugh; his argument disintegrates not only within sentences, but across them. and you, proud dumbass, think that rocks.

ron paul!

After blowing up the picture to full size (I research all issues carefully) I noticed that kid in the background has bigger hooters than the chicklets. Fortunately he's not part of the movement and kept his shirt on. We need to be very, very careful where we draw the line folks.