Tuesday evening, I had the pleasure of being able to speak for up to ten minutes in front of the first New Hampshire gubernatorial debate. There will be no democrat debate, since both of the other democrat candidates refused to respond to the invitation from Franklin Pierce University. I’m grateful to the organizers at FPU for the opportunity to speak despite the other candidates’ absence.
It’s kind of surreal to watch a voluntarist (me) speak truth to power about the criminal state while standing in front of that very state’s flag (gang insignia), yet, it actually happened:
(And only possible in New Hampshire.)
Here’s the speech in written form:
I’m Ian Freeman and I’m one of the chairs of the New Hampshire Liberty Party, running as a Democrat in the primary against Maggie Hassan. I’m here at the republican debate with the privilege talking to you today because Maggie Hassan refused to debate me.
Politicians are a cowardly, cruel bunch, aren’t they? Maggie Hassan for instance, refused to sign the medical cannabis legislation until home grow provisions were removed. Because of her, sick people who grow plants are considered criminals in New Hampshire and can be imprisoned for years. To me, Maggie Hassan and the others who support prohibition are the criminals.
Maybe that’s one reason why she doesn’t want to debate. It’s probably pretty embarrassing to be called out as a criminal in public, when it’s your job to make gang activity look legitimate.
Isn’t that ultimately what “the state” is? Now, I’m not talking about the land, mountains, lakes, forests, and good people of NH. I’m talking about the people calling themselves the government – they’re really just a criminal gang. You will do as you are told, or else they will hurt you, put you in a cage, or possibly kill you. Some of them claim that there is a “social contract” that excuses their behavior, but I don’t recall signing anything like that, do you?
Not only did you not sign this alleged “social contract”, but even if you did, what would be the terms? The definition of “citizen” is one who owes a duty of allegiance in return for an obligation of protection. Well, what if I told you the government, at all levels, has no obligation to protect you?
Don’t take my word for it – take the word of the supreme court – in case after case. Just take a moment to google “no obligation to protect” and you’ll find Warren Vs. DC and other cases where it’s made pretty clear that no government at any level has an obligation to provide you with protection or any other services.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying your local police wouldn’t do their best to help you if you were in danger – many of them are good people. It’s just that there’s no obligation for them to do anything at all and there’s also next to no liability when they do something wrong. Of course, the higher up you go from local government, the less humane and empathetic they become.
In fact, even if I were elected to governor, I wouldn’t be able to swear the oath of office. The oath requires I swear allegiance to the United States government – the biggest criminal gang known to mankind. As a lover of liberty, I couldn’t swear such an oath. I could swear an oath to working to advance freedom, which is the opposite of what the government generally does.
Ideally, New Hampshire should declare independence from the United States Federal Government. The feds don’t do anything for us but steal from you, control you, and create terrorism by slaughtering people around the world. It’s time for the good people of New Hampshire to withdraw from the Federal Government. I recommend visiting the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence to learn more about how we can peacefully declare independence. Their website is nhindependence.org,
Politicians all have some vision for society that they want to force upon you whether you want it or not. For many democrats AND republican politicians, that means they want more government intrusion into your life. I think that’s the wrong way to go. Freedom is the answer, to any question. That’s why I’m one of the founders of the New Hampshire Liberty Party. You may ask why I’m running as a democrat, if I am part of the New Hampshire Liberty Party.
The primary reason is that it’s highly difficult for third parties to run for office in New Hampshire. The republicans and democrats have created ballot access requirements that unfairly restrict third parties like the Libertarians, Greens, and the New Hampshire Liberty Party from getting our candidates on the ballot. For instance, had I wanted to run under the New Hampshire Liberty Party, I’d have to have gotten 3,000 petition signatures statewide. Petitioning is hard work and if you want it done well, you have to pay people – usually one dollar per petition. Now the people at the elections office will attempt to disqualify as many petitions as possible, so you’ll probably need to collect 5,000 just to be safe. That’s $5,000 just to file for governor.. However, I could instead simply pay $100 to the secretary of state, as I did, and run as either a republican or a democrat. No signatures required.
The election system is discriminatory and unfair, so I chose to align myself with a major party for my run. I chose democrat so I could challenge Maggie Hassan and call her out on her lack of compassion toward cannabis users and encourage you, dear listener to seriously consider the idea of New Hampshire declaring independence.
Thanks for your attention and consideration.
Again, I’m Ian Freeman and I’m the pro-liberty candidate running for governor in the democrat primary. If you’d like to learn more about me and the New Hampshire Liberty Party, please visit nhliberty.info, that’s nhliberty.info
Nice Job Ian. I’m amazed the haters haven’t blown this thread up yet. Is you just you and queen coward on the ballot? Does Free Keene work the NH libertarians at all on ballot access?
Hey … when are you moving your kiddie porn business to Keene? We want to know when so we can give the police the heads-up.
Bernard is just another freetard loser that listens to other freetard losers who tell him how “wonderful” he is. Hassan won’t give this know-nothing twit the time of day, because then he’ll just use it to claim that he’s a candidate taken “seriously” by his opponents.
The only thing this asswipe is serious about is shagging young girls.
I’ve met his girlfriend several times. She’s definitely a woman rather than a girl, and even according to the statute books that you jerk off to (being the mentally retarded statist loser that you are), Ian’s relationship with her is legal.
I figured that had to be the case when he made such a big deal out of it last time I ran into the douche on youtube.
There you went and invited the vampire into the house.
“Politicians all have some vision for society that they want to force upon you whether you want it or not.”
OMG … too funny. You freetards have your own vision for society that you wish to force upon all of us whether we want it or not. Get a fucking clue, you loser.
The absence of force doesn’t entail forcing anything on anyone, imbecile.
actually bane does have a point about forcing their views upon others. by running for governor and stating that NH should withdraw, he is voicing his opinion. by being elected and trying to do away with certain laws and sending the federal government anything that has to do with withdrawing, they are forcing their ideals of society upon others. running is the first step to using this force. you need to step back and look at the whole picture with a clear mind. I have seen FSP and FK members claiming that when the military goes and “invades” another land… Read more »
Wrong, you can still practice statism in a libertarian society. As long as your members aren’t forced into joining and contributing to your state.
However you cant be a practicing libertarian in a Statist society, they force you to be a financial contributor and follower of their state.
Leave and find another country, then – no one is stopping you. I’m sure with all the STD’s you’re probably incubating right now we would all be better off.
Better idea: why don’t /you/ leave, rather than trying to ruin this one? Plenty of other countries that operate on your ridiculous theories. Why not go there? Why try and destroy America?
I like this country just the way it is … you freetards don’t. There are so many more voters like me than freetards like you. Game over – I win.
“statism” would actually not be allowed in a libertarian society. from most of what i read libertarians are against ANY form of state or government. so your idea of statism in a libertarian society is flawed
Voluntary statism would be compatible in a libertarian society. That is if you wanted to live under a communist regime that’s your business, you just cant force others to.
That’s voluntary government, not Statism. Chad is (for once) correct: Statism, by definition, is imposed upon the unwilling.
Of course, it’s completely clear what you meant, so his complaint was pedantic.
In a voluntary society, some group of consenting adults can decide to live in any manner they choose, including submitting to totalitarian control. So long as every participant is there of his/her own free will, that’s entirely acceptable.
Well, Ian doesn’t plan to be elected, and I believe he stated something about not taking office if he were. Nevertheless, the logic you use is the same logic by which I don’t vote for politicians (I vote for initiatives and referenda in my state which I feel obviously reduce government force and vote against those which I feel obviously increase it.) A lot of the time, I don’t even vote on those, because the outcome is unclear.
that is because you have biased blinders on. according to voluntaryists, an-caps, and a lot of libertarians, voting is force. the force of the majority upon the minority. does voting involve guns? not at all.
if elected and successful in withdrawing from the us as a whole, force is being used against those who didn’t wish to withdraw. they didn’t vote to withdraw but they are being forced to by others.
No, I think you’re being a jerk. se where I carefully drew my lines. I’m not voting for politicians, thus, I’m not using force. You could argue it is those who vote to elect a politician for me who are using force. The next time you accuse someone of having “biased blinders on,” consider being considerate.
Well said Kenneth, I think he should take step back and take a look at the whole picture with a clear mind.
hallie i have stepped back and thats why i can see the need for some kind of system with a society as large as ours. sorry a person may be good natured and kind hearted but people in a group are not.
You clearly have not step back far enough because you can’t see that this system you want is ran by a violent group of people.
One needs not step back at all to reach the obvious conclusion that you are clearly a fucking moron, Jason. Now be a good boy and run along to find something else to do. I’m sure your supreme leader Bernard needs his balls washed and his ass kissed by one of his acolytes… it might as well be you.
Bane, please keep me out of your weird sexual fantasies you have, thank you.
The only thing weird is why you would touch Bernard that way.
Jason, I’m curious: what do you do for a living? You do work, right?
Bane, I asked you politely to keep me out of your sexual fantasies and yet from your comment you apparently still have me in them, I ask you again to please ethier take me out of them or stop letting me know that I’m in them, it’s weird. Second it is none of your business how I make a living, but yes I do work, part time at a warehouse while going to college, now where do you work? You do have some kind of job that prevents you from calling people “sluts” and “freetards” right? And unless you’re a… Read more »
who is violent and how so?
I was going by what you said, you desire a system because “a person may be good natured and kind hearted but people in a group are not.” So I assume from that statement that you believe groups of people could be violent (am I wrong? ) now this system you want will require a group to run it, yes? But you just said that people in a group are not kind hearted and could be violent. Now if this is the case you answered your own question, the people who are violent are the people who you want to… Read more »
did i say a group should run it or do we actually vote for individuals? trying to twist my words show your dishonesty in this thread. this could be considered a strawman fallacy. you can assume away but that doesn’t make your assumptions right. just makes an ass of you.
You want the majority to decide the leader of the minority? but the majority is a group of people which you stated was violent, so violent people are still running the system you want
welcome to life where not everyone is happy with everything
also again an individual is different then a group, way to show your lack of reading skills.
Where did I say they were the same? I said that the majority was a group of people which you claim could be violent. You should also know that the majority already showed that we don’t want a leader to force onto others.
Would you provide some evidence of that?
I will give the 2012 presidential election as an example. According to (http://www.abc15.com/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says) the voter turnout for was 57.5% of eligible voters, Obama won by 51% of those voters and 49% voted for someone else or registered and didn’t vote. Doing some math the people who voted for Obama made up only 29.325% of people, where as 42.5% of people decide not to force their leader onto anyone else making them the majority.
i didn’t vote but was that the reason?
all you have is speculation on this
I never gave a reason why people decided not to vote, I just stated that 42.5% of people did not try to force their leader on anyone else through voting. Most of them could have been die hard Obama or Romney fans for all I know, but they did not try to force that leader onto anyone else.
the problem is you keep stating they “did not try to force”, as you see “voting” as forcing a view. yet here is FK trying to get involved in the voting practice. you keep claiming it is force but do you have a better way to gather the opinions of the masses? HINT~~~ i know this will blow your mind, but not everyone in the world will be happy with everything. sorry this isn’t a fairytale life we live.
I believe that voting is an attempt to force (that is why I used the word “try”). I also gave no opinion about Ian trying to become governor. I really don’t understand the last question, all I can really say for sure is as long as the public opinion is not forced upon anyone else I really don’t care what it is. Lastly what does blow my mind is how you have such devotion to voting is that: you don’t vote, you can’t accept majority rule when it doesn’t want to force it’s will onto a another, you think it’s… Read more »
was 100 % of eligible people given the chance to vote? if only a certain percentage did, why should they be called out for doing so? i get it, you don’t agree with any form of government but can give no real solution for a society as large as ours to function peacefully with out some form of structure. so you choose to complain about the current government, call others “trolls” when discussing something peacefully and calmly (used to that from an-caps and vols), and also completely over-look the obvious violation of NAP as you believe it some how furthers… Read more »
The study was out of eligible voters even if they didn’t get chance to vote it should show that other things have a priority over trying to show force. I called you a troll because you continued to talk down to me and called me an ass when I had been nothing but polite you. My “political agenda” is not to rule over others and let people live their lives as long they don’t use force on anyone else. You can poke holes in all philosophical beliefs so I don’t what say. To be a Republican or a Democrat all… Read more »
it’s not MY job to come up with solutions for YOUR new system. i never said “it never happen so it never will”, what i did say is the solutions presented to me for several things have actually happened before and were failures and that was with a smaller population.
Don’t you think your time could be better spent trying to solve the problems that you come up with instead of coming off with an attitude “that it will never work because of this”. What solutions? Here is a solution that stop
i am not the one who wants to fix these “problems” as you say. that would be your group. i have seen some just stupid fixes to these problems that all go to a “what if” ideal that everyone is peaceful.
First off I’m not in a group, second you seem believe that if there’s a problem the only way to fix it is government instead of critically thinking to find a better more peaceful way to handle it. Lastly did you give “what if” questions so you shouldn’t be surprised when someone response is a “what if”.
i didn’t give a what if question, i gave a how question. different style. as far as a group, i would like you to describe you and your closest friends. i never claimed the government is the only way, but most times seems the best way.
I describe my friends, as my friends. Again you can’t think of a peaceful way so you turn to government solve it. You also went on a big rant on how an-caps don’t give you solutions you like, since we don’t have an-cap type of system I thought you would be asking what if questions.
well lets hear your solutions
Please give the problems you have and I will do my best to solve them.
security,school,health care,infrastucture repairs, wronging of others,technological advancements to start.
I can’t speak for the collective but I can give you educated guesses on how thing will run Security/ others not violating others rights- A private security force would keep the security this is already working today watch this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqlVL26jrCA School- Education will happen through a more localize and more privatize education system where each school will be able to teach different courses based on the towns collective will it will not require children to go unless it was the parents will that they go. Any child would be able to go to any school and it will not… Read more »
i did watch that video you posted, however, i did notice that the security company in question is geared more towards the people that can and do pay. they even state that. so when it comes down to a paying customer over a nonpaying customer, good business sense will say to protect the paying customer. that is also on a small scale. Schools. some interesting points brought up. some would be astounding is they could be put into place. you still run into the problem of poorer areas getting a limited budget to work with and i do know that… Read more »
Thank you for keeping an open mind when reading this. You should probably watch the whole video they still protect people who don’t pay and give out a lot of services for free and I can’t be sure if they have priorities to help people who pay or not but I really doubt it since the whole idea is to make the whole city safer, but I don’t see this as small scale I’m suggesting only one to protect the u.s but many for each town and city. For schools I forgot to mention one could home school if had… Read more »
I also forgot to point out that police already protect the rich more than the poor so at worst the security system would be at par where these police are at
interestingly enough you admit to not understanding on how to get the opinion of citizens yet claim there is a better way for everyone to live
No, I said I don’t understand the question you asked you could be asking me how to survey peoples opinions for public interest for all I know, and the last time I assumed what you were asking you called me an “ass” so…
i think it was kinda self explaining
No, you never gave a reason why I would need to get the public opinion and I can’t see a reason why I would need to do so especially since people are individuals and not numbers in a group.
your right about people being individuals, who must learn to co-exist in a society or community. to do so wouldn’t you need some input from these individuals?
You realize a person can (if needed) become self reliant, right?
yes, one can be self reliant, however, if one wishes not to live in a cabin in the woods by themselves, one must be able to live in a society
To bad when Thoreau did that he was arrested for tax evasion.
If this country ever fell and anarchy reigned, the freetards would be among the first to be rolled up and destroyed, simply because their “peaceful people” shtick doesn’t work when a group of armed people decide to make what’s yours theirs and there is no government to stop them.
So, your argument is that because humans are corruptible and may do harm to others if they have power… we should give power to corruptible humans, so they can harm others?
How does /that/ make sense?
Where did i say anything close to that? or did i actually point out the difference between an individual and a group.
Ergo (since you like that word) your attempt to twist my words invalidated anything you just tried to say as you committed a Strawman. way to go
this op is about voting and politicians. did i claim anywhere that you vote?
as far as furthering the discussion, your childish name calling does less then anything i posted.
I said you were being a jerk, which is not name-calling. It was a remark about your behavior. You claimed that voting was using force. I vote, and I don’t use force, because I don’t vote for politicians. Reading is fundamental.
LoL … STFU – you are such a clueless douchebag.
Dance, puppet, dance!
I think the viewpoint some people take (not me) is that by voting you are legitimizing the state by acknowledging that you support the outcome of the election you are participating in. So to say that Voting is force would be jumping past that idea. I think most people on here would agree voting isn’t force, however some people may perceive participating in a violent system that works on behalf of the voters as force. However that’s a minority of the libertarians and we’ve already established you don’t care about minorities.
strawman argument aside from you hallie, i have met plenty of voluntaryists, an-caps and libs that believe voting in of itself is force so i am just echoing their viewpoints. however, no where did i say that included everyone. you should read more carefully.
geezuz… shutup you stupid slut – seriously. no one cares what you and the rest of the freetards think. You all are never going to obtain any political power of any kind. whine and bitch all you want about “the state”… it’s not going anywhere.
Using the “force of voting” in self-defense is acceptable.
And if someone wishes to assist someone else in mugging me, then pardon me for not worrying too much that they won’t like it if I defend myself by voting against the violence they do to me.
There’s nothing unacceptable about “using force” by voting; the question, as with any use of force, relates to whether one is /initiating/ force, or /defending/ against someone else’s initiation of force.
shark it all comes down to the situation. however the whole mugging argument has been over used and out played. the initiation of force is a perception issue
You can insert any other form of violence in place of “mugging.” The point is that those who are doing violence are hardly in a position to claim that it’s unfair when someone uses a /very/ minimal sort of defense against their attacks. /Initiation/ of force is used as a standard precisely because it is utterly objective. No “perception” is involved. Someone /did/ initiate force in any violent situation. That’s an objective fact. We may not always be able to determine who that was, because the world is an imperfect place, but that issue applies to /all/ human interactions, regardless… Read more »
so i live in government, U.S.A, you come from Maineshark, U.S.A. ~ simple so far?
I live with in a democratic government and like it just fine. you come and try to dissolve that democratic government. who is using force against who here?
So stopping people from using force on us and claiming ownership over us, constitutes us riding roughshod over others?
The m a j o r i t y of us like the way things are, so you and the other freetards automatically lose. We have laws, and you must obey them. If you don’t – we put you in jail. That’s not “ownership” – that’s how a civil society operates. I know you’re too stupid at a genetic level to understand what I’m writing, but there it is nonetheless. You don’t like it – then leave. Bye-bye.
No, actually, a mob operates by majority rule – it doesn’t take a society to manage majority rule, because that can happen automatically. A civil society is one in which the majority is /not/ permitted to forcefully control the minority. That’s what the civil society does, which makes it worthy of note: it restrains the majority, who otherwise would be free to oppress the minority. If you claim to be part of the majority, then you are, by definition, claiming to be precisely whom the civil society needs to restrain.
Spoken like a true oligarch.
Yet again, you lack any comprehension of English and/or logic. Oligarchy is rule by a few. Arguing against majority rule does not equate to arguing for rule by a few. A voluntary society is based upon individuals controlling their own lives. I rule 100% of those under my power, and those over whom I have that control consists of: me, and only me. Oligarchy would be one way that majority rule could not be the case. But there are dozens, hundreds, or thoudsands of alternatives that also do not rely upon majority rule. It’s illogical to claim that arguing against… Read more »
If MaineShark believes that I lack any comprehension of English, then the fact that he just addressed me in English proves that he lacks any comprehension of logic.
Actually, no, it does not. Again, you demonstrate that you cannot grasp basic logic. Sure, if you could demonstrate that I acutally /cared/ whether you understood me, and if I claimed to know that you did not understand English (which I did not – I gave another alternative), then you could argue that it would be illogical for me to address you in English. But if I cared, and you were just illogical, then addressing you in English makes perfect sense. And if I don’t care at all whether you understand, because I’m writing for the benefit of the audience,… Read more »
…I don’t care at all whether you understand, because I’m writing for the benefit of the audience… Dear MaineShark’s Audience: As MaineShark says here, he is writing for your benefit. As members of the MaineShark audience, you may be surprised to know that there are actually people who deny that you exist, or deny that you benefit from MaineShark’s posts. I am calling on you right now to prove to the world that you exist, and that MaineShark is correct is his belief that his posts that refer in the second person to someone he claims cannot understand what he… Read more »
I notice that you have failed to address your total failures of logic and/or reading. And no, my self-esteem is not even slightly at risk from your nonsense. You would have to be some sort of peer for me to value your opinion. A child calling me a booger-head does not upset me. And your nonsense upsets me even less, if that’s possible, given that most children I know are your intellectual superiors. I mean, seriously, you’ve been batting zero, here. You make ridiculous claims, phrased as if you’ve “won” some major battle with a cunning stroke of genius… and… Read more »
Notice how MaineShark has failed to address his total failure of both logic and reading. You can see from his emotional irrationality that his self-esteem has been been severely damaged by my objective argumentation. At least he acknowledges that my intellectual prowess so far exceeds his own as to disqualify him from being my peer, which is saying a lot considering that many children are my intellectual superior. Seriously, MaineShark is batting zero here. He’s makes claims that are so ridiculous, all I have to do is quote him, and it makes it seem as if I’ve won a major… Read more »
Majority rule always hurts the m i n o r i t i e s.
Like two wolf and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
Ah yes … that tired old chestnut. I will tell you what, slut: find another country, because this one is already spoken for.
In the end, you and your ilk will be eradicated for being the disgusting plague that you are.
did the citizens of keene ask these people to come there and free them? or did FK and FSP come unasked and decide that the citizens needed freeing? if it is the second choice, yes force is being used against peaceful citizens.
Really? Which “peaceful citizens” are having force used against them? Some “most definitely nothing like peaceful citizens” might be able to claim that force is being used against them. But I can’t imagine that any peaceful individual is going to complain about someone who shows up and promises to leave them alone. Do you even think before posting this nonsense? No one associated with Free Keene, to the best of my knowledge, has argued that you should not be able to have whatever sort of government you want to rule over /you/. All they’ve said is that you should not… Read more »
“It’s literally impossible for a peaceful person to be opposed to a voluntary society.” ~ this is a fallacy. a voluntary society would be one that is forced upon others already in a organized society. let’s break this down for you, Group B (FSP, FK, others like them) come into an area, Group A (citizens of this area, example Keene, NH natives) already have a system in place for society ( government at various levels). now group B wants to do away with group A’s system for society and tells Group A they will bring in reinforcements to help them… Read more »
“Group A,” in your example, is composed of violent, not peaceful individuals.
Ergo, your entire claim is fallacious.
As the old saying goes: beware libertarians! they want to take over the world… and leave you alone!
~”Group A,” in your example, is composed of violent, not peaceful individuals.
Ergo, your entire claim is fallacious.~ i would love for you to actually explain this one
“As the old saying goes: beware libertarians! they want to take over the world… and leave you alone” even if you’re fondling four-year-old kids.
Hey, shit-for-brains, contrary to what xenophobic New England dumbfucks claim, they do not own the private property of political dissidents in their area, nor do they have the right to stop said political dissidents from using public property in their area.
where in the hell did i say anything close to that? more and more it seems free keene supporters are becoming increasingly dishonest in their arguments. this isn’t a step forward for your political movements.
My reply should be directed at Bane, unless there’s something wrong with Discus.
came as directed towards me on my notifications
I thought that I was replying to him.
no it showed up to me
simple mistake
also the childish tactics of name calling is one thing most people have come to expect from voluntaryist, an-caps, and others that wish to distance themselves from the state. however when giving the logical advice about starting your own society, it seems all groups shy away with some bullshit answer, so what is yours?
Give me an example of a bullshit answer that you’ve been given.
something along the lines of why the wont go start their own society somewhere else
they feel it is their duty to free others and be a pain in the ass
Remember, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Is it just me or does Bane really seem to have a thing for little kids?
Is it just me or does Bane really seem to have a thing for little kids and child pornography?
Oh yeah. When he ran the failed martial arts center in Keene, he had access to lots of them, too. Now he’s groping old ladies and what not down in Florida.
LoL … wow – you really have no clue who I am, douchebag. Not even close.
Dance pussy puppet! Dance!
Holy jesus, did you see how defensive he just got? You really must have hit a nerve there. I wonder what that’s all about.
He’s bent because I know who he is, and I’ve demonstrated it. There’s that, and his obsession with pedophilia has made it obvious that he’s a pedophile. The label he once thought was cute to tag on others comes far too close to home when redirected at him.
makes sense, hopefully nobody loans him any more money to build a new front to prey on kids.
No … but I guess a slut like you would think that.
Back to name calling, put it on the table. H.J. Miller, more than a cute pic, wins.
Forgive Bane, he knows not what he does.
You’re such a violent bitch Hallie. Go troll somewhere else.
I’m soooooo violent.
Ian should be jailed for talking such nonsense!
Jail for ideology. Who’z teh terrist? LMFAO!
Serious measures must be taken. “Free Staters” are terrorists and there’s only one way to deal with terrorists.
All inhabitants of Keene hate Ian and Free Keene. That’s the truth and the Freak Staters should stop denying that.
Screw Republicans and establishment Democrats. We deserve better. Vote Ian Freeman for Governor in the Democratic primary! Jobs, not bombs! Liberty, not tyranny! NH, not Washington!