Comments on: The State vs. Paul Jacob, Again http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/ Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:03:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-19364 abraham Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:27:26 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-19364 You're a hysteric, John. You aren't even listening to what I'm saying. You're just ranting nonsense at this point. Bye. You’re a hysteric, John. You aren’t even listening to what I’m saying. You’re just ranting nonsense at this point.

Bye.

]]> By: John Powers http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18568 John Powers Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:46:52 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18568 Yes Abraham, You are not alone in wanting such a thing. Petty tyrants everywhere want to be free of citizen involvement with elections. That is why we have the First Amendment, specifically to counter you and politicians everywhere who want to rule without check from citizens. JBP Yes Abraham,

You are not alone in wanting such a thing. Petty tyrants everywhere want to be free of citizen involvement with elections. That is why we have the First Amendment, specifically to counter you and politicians everywhere who want to rule without check from citizens.

JBP

]]> By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18480 abraham Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:35:48 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18480 Hi John. You're right, of course, but you're also an absolutist. Tell me where you live. I'd like to come to your city and get someone to start a petition to declare Friday to be Free Cake and Pie Day. Every citizen, every Friday, will get a free cake and a pie, whether they want it or not. The cost for all these fine desserts will of course be added to your tax bill. I'll lobby the hell out of this and spend whatever it takes to get it passed. Now, add lots of money from a very determined out of state capitalist (perhaps backed by foreign funding) and replace "Free Pie and Cake Day" with something even less desirable, and then explain to me how that guy's 1st Amendment rights trump your right to be free from silly people with silly ideas who don't have to live with the consequences. Why must poeople think in black and white? Nature itself is shades of gray. Why is your thought process so unnatural? Hi John.

You’re right, of course, but you’re also an absolutist.

Tell me where you live. I’d like to come to your city and get someone to start a petition to declare Friday to be Free Cake and Pie Day. Every citizen, every Friday, will get a free cake and a pie, whether they want it or not. The cost for all these fine desserts will of course be added to your tax bill. I’ll lobby the hell out of this and spend whatever it takes to get it passed.

Now, add lots of money from a very determined out of state capitalist (perhaps backed by foreign funding) and replace “Free Pie and Cake Day” with something even less desirable, and then explain to me how that guy’s 1st Amendment rights trump your right to be free from silly people with silly ideas who don’t have to live with the consequences.

Why must poeople think in black and white? Nature itself is shades of gray. Why is your thought process so unnatural?

]]> By: John Powers http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18420 John Powers Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:09:55 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18420 You may not like it, but it is still the First Amendment. That Amendment applies to "scumbags" just like it does to people trying to limit taxes and encourage good government. The broad and important issue is the State abusing the First Amendment. It is next to impossible for the taxpayers to have any influence when the the courts are used as a hammer against the taxpayers of this country. JBP You may not like it, but it is still the First Amendment. That Amendment applies to “scumbags” just like it does to people trying to limit taxes and encourage good government.

The broad and important issue is the State abusing the First Amendment. It is next to impossible for the taxpayers to have any influence when the the courts are used as a hammer against the taxpayers of this country.

JBP

]]> By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18379 abraham Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:16:32 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18379 I agree, if the issue is a universal one affecting all Americans. But are you saying you have a right to come to my county and petition for a landfill to be built next to my property if I don't want it? Perhaps the 1st Amendment gives you the right to do that, but it still makes you a scumbag. The problem with some people is that they think in such absolutist terms they miss the broader and more important issue. I agree, if the issue is a universal one affecting all Americans. But are you saying you have a right to come to my county and petition for a landfill to be built next to my property if I don’t want it? Perhaps the 1st Amendment gives you the right to do that, but it still makes you a scumbag.

The problem with some people is that they think in such absolutist terms they miss the broader and more important issue.

]]> By: John Powers http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18219 John Powers Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:26:30 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18219 "What right does a citizen of one state have trying to effect the outcome of how the people in another state will have to live?" I know that one, it is the First Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Petition to all people, not just the ones who are your political allies. JBP “What right does a citizen of one state have trying to effect the outcome of how the people in another state will have to live?”

I know that one, it is the First Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Petition to all people, not just the ones who are your political allies.

JBP

]]> By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18123 abraham Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:44:46 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18123 I'll add that of course I think Paul Jacob is getting a raw deal. I'm not sure why everyone is getting their panties all wadded up in a bunch over my comments. Unless he has sh**ty lawyers, he's not getting 10 years, whether the law is unconstitutional or not. My guess is whatever conviction he gets will eventually be over-turned, if sanity reigns. I am certainly against the government's over-the-top prosecution. But I certainly disagree with his practices. I’ll add that of course I think Paul Jacob is getting a raw deal. I’m not sure why everyone is getting their panties all wadded up in a bunch over my comments. Unless he has sh**ty lawyers, he’s not getting 10 years, whether the law is unconstitutional or not. My guess is whatever conviction he gets will eventually be over-turned, if sanity reigns. I am certainly against the government’s over-the-top prosecution.

But I certainly disagree with his practices.

]]> By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18122 abraham Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:39:48 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18122 Jim, I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution begins with, "We The People". You've been pledging an oath to a Communist manifesto and you didn't even know it. As for the rest of your unbelievably hystericaly screed, I suppose you don't believe in the concept of States rights? What right does a citizen of one state have trying to effect the outcome of how the people in another state will have to live? There's a reason we have states, or what's left of them since the federal government has been usurping more and more state rights since the beginning of the Union. It sounds like you're the one who has a rather "pink" view of how our system of government works. And you can blow that concentration camp bulls**t out your ass. Jim,

I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution begins with, “We The People”. You’ve been pledging an oath to a Communist manifesto and you didn’t even know it.

As for the rest of your unbelievably hystericaly screed, I suppose you don’t believe in the concept of States rights? What right does a citizen of one state have trying to effect the outcome of how the people in another state will have to live? There’s a reason we have states, or what’s left of them since the federal government has been usurping more and more state rights since the beginning of the Union.

It sounds like you’re the one who has a rather “pink” view of how our system of government works. And you can blow that concentration camp bulls**t out your ass.

]]> By: Marycatherine Barton http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18016 Marycatherine Barton Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:06:46 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18016 My hats off to professional petitioners. What a difficult job for the right of ballot consideration, a noble purpose. You are a resident of a state as long as you reside there, in a domicile of some sort that can prevent the resident from being thought of as homeless, and it does not matter how long the resident plans to stay. What! This stupid judge wants to look into a person's mind and learn intent. My hats off to professional petitioners. What a difficult job for the right of ballot consideration, a noble purpose. You are a resident of a state as long as you reside there, in a domicile of some sort that can prevent the resident from being thought of as homeless, and it does not matter how long the resident plans to stay. What! This stupid judge wants to look into a person’s mind and learn intent.

]]> By: Scott Bieser http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18010 Scott Bieser Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:08:41 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18010 Apparently, then, if you move to Oklahoma and vote, you can never leave. If in a few years later take a better paying job in Dallas or St. Louis or Chicago, then you can be arrested for election fraud. Abraham, it wasn't mentioned in this particular article but elsewhere it was reported that the TBOR petitioners were physically harassed by goons working for the state, and these goons would also go into supermarkets where the petitioners were out front working and lie to the managers about the petitioners supposedly strong-arming shoppers. Not many people are able or willing to work under such conditions. Apparently, then, if you move to Oklahoma and vote, you can never leave. If in a few years later take a better paying job in Dallas or St. Louis or Chicago, then you can be arrested for election fraud.

Abraham, it wasn’t mentioned in this particular article but elsewhere it was reported that the TBOR petitioners were physically harassed by goons working for the state, and these goons would also go into supermarkets where the petitioners were out front working and lie to the managers about the petitioners supposedly strong-arming shoppers. Not many people are able or willing to work under such conditions.

]]> By: Sean http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18008 Sean Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:56:40 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-18008 <blockquote>In considering the vague statute, the court ruled that "the definition of residency was living in Oklahoma, having a domicile, <strong> and intending to remain in Oklahoma permanently." </strong></blockquote> So if someone is living in Oklahoma, has a domicile, but intends to retire in 10 years and move to Florida, that person is not a resident of Oklahoma?

In considering the vague statute, the court ruled that “the definition of residency was living in Oklahoma, having a domicile, and intending to remain in Oklahoma permanently.”

So if someone is living in Oklahoma, has a domicile, but intends to retire in 10 years and move to Florida, that person is not a resident of Oklahoma?

]]> By: richard vajs http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-17987 richard vajs Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:51:18 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/28/the-state-vs-paul-jacob-again/#comment-17987 If, as a minority party, you try to play the game by the majority partys' rules, you will soon find that you are allowed one out per inning while they will get five. If, as a minority party, you try to play the game by the majority partys’ rules, you will soon find that you are allowed one out per inning while they will get five.

]]>