That's hardly the issue. No one is being denied freedom of association, or any other freedom. To the contrary, the Free State Project looked at a number of states, and decided that they, as a group (en masse) could most likely have an influence on the politics of NH, which they regarded as the state most likely to warmly greet their arrival. They hoped to establish a "Libertopia" in NH. What they didn't take into consideration was the stubborn Yankee strain in NH and New England that dislikes hypocrisy-- the kind of covert, even sneaky behavior that typifies Libertarians--as exemplified by those who ran for office as Republicans but then revealed themselves to be nothing but far-right extremists--which is what most, though not all "libertarians" seem to be. One only has to spend some time on Granite Grok to be repulsed by the smug sureness of the ideologues who contribute to that site-- "dominating the political bandwidth" indeed. Libertarianism isn't coercive? That must be why so many of them have a gun fetish, and have as their motto: "Come and take it". In the real world, the effects one can have on another are often subtle and far-reaching; as the NH Constitutes states (paraphrasing here): we surrender a little bit of our personal liberty for the sake of living in harmony with the larger society. Libertarians missed that concept the rest of us were taught in kindergarden. Individually they're just annoying; en masse, such thinking is a recipe for chaos. ...(full comment)
In case you weren't joking and art serious, you could start withnthe first amendment. Then - "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."" But seriously you did already know this. ...(full comment)
Bunny, I have goggled Rep. Marilinda Garcia and have only found one articles accusing one irritating democrat as having started this firestorm of fake outrage. Even the State Democratic Party has asked for an apology. Being compared to Palin, O'Brien and Kardashian is truly an insult, I wouldn't even use those 3 in am sling against Sail. So why the general condemnation over one persons mTwits, yes I know? Look at the negative ads that the GOP was preparing in Virginia when they thought Ashley Judd would throw her hat in the election there. Negative campaigning is not a democratic monopoly. So again I ask, just what is the big deal, Peter Sullivan is not a stranger to rogue behavior. ...(full comment)
Are you aware FOF who uses the ERS? It might surprise you to find out the % of folks who use it. Only 20% of folks who are uninsured use the ER. The other users are divided between Medicaid and Medicare users. Those privately insured use the ER the least, at about 15%. The use of the ER is predicted to grow with folks getting insurance under the ACA.
The high volume of use at ERS is for non emergency issues like colds, flus and even things like diaper rash. ...(full comment)
I have to agree with you, but what Sail has mistakenly referred to as the low information voter he got wrong. The "low information" voter in reality is the one regardless of party who votes based on the R or D and not the person. I fear he may be speaking of a lot of the far right with his comment. As for Free Stater's, we have done just fine without them since the 60's. More of a snake in the grass movement. Why now????? ...(full comment)
Yes, the left's daily assault on our freedom and liberty... like the way the don't want gays to marry each other, and they don't want anyone to acknowlege a December holiday other than Christmas, and they want employers to be able to deny their employees reproductive rights based on their own religions.... yeah, I totally get what you're saying. ...(full comment)
'cuz like race and sexual identiy, no one has a choice about whether to be a Free Stater. They're just born that way, and asking them to change is like asking them to change the color of their skins. ...(full comment)
Your low information comment brings someone else to mind as well as the attitude. No need for being insulting here. On new construction, rule compliance is much easier but not without challenges especially in small towns. Her mistake was relying on a Realtor and thinking she was safe. It is unfortunate they have experienced these problems but sometimes the "dream" gets in the way. In the case of short sales or foreclosures you have to realize you are on your own and the sellers just want to unload it. As far as your stocks don't expect me to generate a tear, stock is a gamble but home ownership shouldn't be. ...(full comment)
Itsa - you've been doing this for years. Everytime someone without insurance has gone to the ER or been admitted for life-saving care but hasn't been able to pay, the costs have been passed on to those with insurance, in the form of higher premiums. The question is, do you want this to continue, in hiding, or do you want do you want it all out in the open where spending can be accounted for? The bigger benefit of having it out in the open is that more people will get preventive care, or address issues while they are easily treated, so that those who are "getting a free ride" as you put it, will end up costing the rest of us a whole lot less than they have in the past. The alternative? "Let 'em die." Is that what you want?
Hunter - I think she was saying you don't often see police officers & game officers teaming up to rescue wildlife. It's the police officer's role in this that's unusual, not the game officer's. ...(full comment)
There are many contributors leading to the predicament facing NHDOT. Much of it is inflation, asphalt prices are up 110 percent since 2003, I could not find data to 1991. Read Clements' article from a few days ago and he gingerly side steps another major cause of funding woes, which is the NH department of safety. They siphon off a huge share of the federal dollars we receive to purchase planes, helicopters and other perceived necessities. How much has NHDOS budget increased in real dollars and as a percent of federal dollars consumed since 1991? Anyone ? ...(full comment)