Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Idaho  (Read 129470 times)

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #135 on: August 14, 2003, 08:31:05 pm »

Quote
Joe wrote: Maine has less Federal land than all but Delaware.
That is indeed a major benefit and I am pleased that Maine has so far resisted attempts to federalize some of the forest lands. Why do you think several of the Westerners here promote federal lands as a benefit, including in the FSP spreadsheet? I've seen some of their attempted explanations and I just don't understand them. Have you been able to understand their explanations?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2003, 08:33:48 pm by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #136 on: August 14, 2003, 09:01:11 pm »

Quote
Locationx3 Exitus wrote: In addition, many comments have been made suggesting that Canada is "not a friend".

True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)

Quote
Joe wrote: Being a 51st state would offer an easier and more peaceful alternative.
Yeah, but people don't like odd numbers. Better split Maine into three states so you get an even total of 52. ;)

Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'. ;)

Quote
there is a very large percentage of repressed Republicans and Independents in Massachusetts that could give support to more Liberty if they felt they had a fighting chance to reclaim their state).
I sure hope so. I'm one of the independent-minded Massachusetts Libertarians. It seems like even a lot of the Democrats here have libertarian tendencies given that they keep electing pro-business, tax-cutting Republican governors and vote in tax cuts of their own via ballot initiatives.

There seems to be more openness toward libertarianism among the younger crowd here in MA. One time when I voted a young guy was checking off the names and handing out the ballots. When he noticed that my name had an "L" by it he blurted out, "Cool! A Libertarian!" It wasn't exactly proper poll procedure, but it was rather encouraging.

Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)
« Last Edit: August 16, 2003, 12:52:04 am by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #137 on: August 15, 2003, 11:25:23 am »

Quote
Locationx3 wrote: In addition, many comments have been made suggesting that Canada is "not a friend".

True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)

So I see that you agree with those who say that Canada is not a friend.  Westerners actually have a lot more in common with Canadians in Alberta and B.C. than with Canadians in Ontario and Quebec.  And by the way, I wrote that, not LocationX3, but close enough, we already share a lot in common.

Quote
Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'. ;)
Really, it's that bad?  So the anti-freedom lot in Kennebunkport and Portland are more entrenched and aggressive than I thought?

Quote
Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)

That's funny, I thought I joined the Free STATE Project.  I'm all for the idea of regionalism, I fully expect and have even promoted the idea of some degree of support and the spill-over effect to occur in any one of our states that may be chosen, except Alaska, of course.  Hey, I'm all for re-claiming California for liberty too!

But the idea that got LocationX3 going here was seeing so many people flock to the 101 reasons why NH was just 'the bomb' and yet simultaneously support Maine which is far less like NH than less than half our other states, except it being next-door and in the region.

Before we can lead other states in a region towards more liberty we must first obtain substantial political goals in our own chosen state.   In absolute terms, using objectifiable and quantifiable criteria, Idaho clearly offers us far more than Maine!

If you must choose a state by conjecture and speculation about future events, rank Maine above Idaho, but if you prefer to examine real and quantifiable measures, like those in this thread, then by all means,  I think you know what to do.  After all, the whole idea that the FSP is even a viable project in any state is pure speculation, why not speculate based on the most objective criteria available?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2003, 03:42:06 pm by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #138 on: August 15, 2003, 01:00:05 pm »

There has been many calls on this forum to seriously examine the three upper-tier population states.

Of these, New Hampshire supporters have rigorously promoted the strong NHLP, the FSP-friendly governor, and a certain 'New-Hampshire libertarian' culture apparent as being an asset to the FSP, also the apparent ease with which one can obtain a public office in NH.

By itself, Maine supporters promote an independent tradition and independent potential,  but most other claims that Maine is like New Hampshire in favorability for the FSP rest upon New Hampshire's coat-tails.

As far as using Libertarian Party vote totals as a measure of potential, Idaho can stand on its own. . .
November 2002 Election Results:  Highlights & Tallies
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=votesbystate
Total Libertarian Votes by State

11,356    Alaska
4,642      Delaware
197,900  Idaho
1,440      Maine
22,560    Montana
39,762    New Hampshire
41,314    South Dakota
29,927    Vermont
43,944    Wyoming
 
In light of the fact that Maine also has more voters than Idaho, in comparison these numbers should be significant.  It would seem that this is one more reason to ask the question, why in the world would you rank Maine over Idaho?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2003, 01:08:52 pm by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #139 on: August 15, 2003, 04:17:53 pm »

On another thread entitled, 'The most important number of all' James Maynard presents the Members By State Statistics as being a critical measurement of "where people will be the most receptive to the FSP".  While many have seriously doubted this as an objective measurement and rendered it as having entertainment value only, to those who think there may be some merit in it, and still remain undecided whether Idaho is a superior choice over Maine, consider that Idaho has 2.3 times better turn-out than Maine Per 1000 population even though Maine has more adult residents.

NH 0.1208
AK 0.0668
WY 0.0622
ID 0.0544
DE 0.0446
SD 0.0315
VT 0.0324
ME 0.0270
ND 0.0237
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #140 on: August 16, 2003, 05:42:12 pm »

Maine presents something of a problem for me as its has so much potential and yet, so many detracting factors as well.

It has the strongest potential for autonomy of all the eastern states, as well as the strongest potential for creating new states.  This is one area where I respectfully disagree with Jason: I think that the creation of new states by subdividing old ones is going to become more attractive in the future as a means of granting more representation to those who are currently losing their voice in national politics.

California has 50+ electoral votes and representatives in Congress now (and is growing ever larger), and a handful of other states are growing larger as well.  Before long, this handful of states will essentially control the Executive Branch and the House of representatives to an extent that the rest of the country might as well not be represented at all save in the Senate.

Maine is a place where current discontentment with the system may lead the way in creating new states as a compromise measure, which would be interesting when you consider that Maine was once at the heart of the one of the most famous compromises in US history: the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  In this situation, Maine entered the Union as a free state, while Missouri entered as a slave state, balancing the representation of opposing political forces for a time.

Maine is also probably the only eastern state that would really appeal to westerners, and, as others have mentioned, it has a strong history of supporting independents.

The problem is essentially this: do we want to live under Maine's onerous taxes in the hope of turning her back to liberty when there is no promise that we will be able to do so, and when other candidates may be simpler to turn?

Maine seems to be a state of many potential benefits, and many real problems; a diamond, perhaps, but definitely one in the rough.

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #141 on: August 17, 2003, 12:04:29 am »

Before long, this handful of states will essentially control the Executive Branch and the House of representatives to an extent that the rest of the country might as well not be represented at all save in the Senate.

So then we should split Maine in to 11 little states and take 10 of them for ourselves.  That'd give us 20 of the 120 Senators which would surely wield a substantial amount of power ;)

Seriously though, Idaho beats Maine hands down on almost every objective measurement imaginable.  In fact, Idaho beats *all* the other states on many of the objective factors.  

If Maine were 200,000 population, maybe you could make a case for it, but if we're going to look at high population states (over, say, 900,000), Idaho and New Hampshire are the only ones worth looking at.  Any strength that another state has significantly over either Idaho *or* New Hampshire can be mirrored by a lower population state (particularly Alaska and Wyoming).

V- (delurk, relurk)

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #142 on: August 17, 2003, 10:50:10 am »

If Maine were 200,000 population, maybe you could make a case for it, but if we're going to look at high population states (over, say, 900,000), Idaho and New Hampshire are the only ones worth looking at.  Any strength that another state has significantly over either Idaho *or* New Hampshire can be mirrored by a lower population state (particularly Alaska and Wyoming).

Actually, in spite of what I wrote above, I do rank Idaho higher than Maine.  In fact, I also rank it higher than three low population states: VT, DE, and ND.  I think that a good case has been made for its having a liberty-friendly population, and it also has a few advantages that New Hampshire lacks: liberty-friendly neighboring states, the initiative and referendum, right-to-work laws, and a top-ranking homeschooling environment (like AK).  These are some very important elements for me.

glen

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #143 on: August 17, 2003, 11:01:52 pm »

Hi Varrin

I like the actual Idaho web site.
Logged

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #144 on: August 19, 2003, 04:15:29 am »

Sorry for the slow reply, Joe. It took time for me to plow through the new posts and topics and find this thread again.

.... So what is the issue with the federal lands? That they could lock the locals out of those lands?

Hardly. There is much more to the issue then that. Did you ever stop to consider that the feds can block access from one area of private land to another by shutting down roads that travel through federal lands? Did you know that this has happened in Western states and caused an uproar among locals when it has happened? Did you know that such actions by the feds can ruin the livelihoods of ranchers and farmers and destroy property values? And the problems run much deeper and wider than that.

Quote
FreedomRoad wrote: It is the amount of land left in private ownership which is the most important criteria!

Wrong again. For the purposes of the FSP, SMALLER STATE SIZE IS BETTER, not larger. A larger state is more unwieldy and difficult to traverse and manage by a movement like the FSP. And socialistic nationalization of land is bad in and of itself—do you not agree?

• Is government ownership and nationalization of land in general a bad thing or not?
• Does the release of wolves, grizzly bears and other predators on federal lands by the feds negatively affect ranchers, farmers and residents on adjacent properties or not?
• Is it a problem or not when the federal government forces a right of way across private lands in order to get to their federal lands (a problem that residents of Wyoming, such as John Blatt and Bob Harrower of Pinedale, are currently complaining about)?
• Is it a problem or not when the general public trespasses across private owners’ land to access public land, and recreate on the private land, trash it, cause fires, cause ruts by driving across it in 4WD vehicles and snowmobiles, poach animals, etc., as been increasingly happening in WY as the population grows? Is not Tara Miller, of Big Piney, WY, right when she says, “With the increasing population here and explosion in Utah only 3-1/2 hours away, the people problem will most likely worsen.” Is it not a fact that recreational-use federal lands attract people by the tens of thousands to come tramping across adjacent private lands and bring their trash, traffic and all the problems assorted with large population flows of nonresidents?
• Will not working to privatize federal and state lands be part of any Free State Project, and thus will not more lands in government hands mean more work over a longer period of time to create something more closely resembling the Free State conceived of in the Free State Project?
• If federal lands are not a significant problem why do the Wyoming Republican and Libertarian parties include reclaiming federal lands as a plank in their platforms?
• Does not more federal lands in a state create more dependency in that state on the feds to manage those lands and to tell them whether they can have grazing rights or not?
• Are you aware that the federal government is the biggest polluter in the nation and that it does some of that polluting on federal lands?

Perhaps you’ll find the arguments of prominent libertarians on the federal lands issue more persuasive than the complaints of rank-and-file Wyoming residents and my own input:

Why did Steve Richardson, in his campaign as a Libertarian in 1998 for U.S. House-WY, call for privatization of federal lands by direct transfer to U.S. citizens if federal lands are not that big a deal?

"It's time we [Wyoming residents] started behaving like a sovereign state. Until we do, our fellow Americans will continue to treat us as the dependent colony we've become." --Steve Richardson, http://www.wyolp.org/releases.98.1.html


CATO Analysis:
How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands

by Terry Anderson, Vernon Smith and Emily Simmons
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html

Executive Summary
Fully a third of the land area of the United States is owned by the federal government. Although many Americans support the preservation of those lands, analysts on the left and the right agree that the federal government has done an exceedingly poor job of stewarding those resources. Indeed, the failure of socialism is as evident in the realm of resource economics as it is in other areas of the economy.

Four criteria should guide reform efforts: land should be allocated to the highest-valued use; transaction costs should be kept to a minimum; there must be broad participation in the divestiture process; and "squatters' rights" should be protected. Unfortunately, the land reform proposals on the table today fail to meet some or all of those criteria.

Accordingly, we offer a blueprint for auctioning off all public lands over 20 to 40 years. Both environmental quality and economic efficiency would be enhanced by private rather than public ownership. Land would be auctioned not for dollars but for public land share certificates (analogous to no par value stock certificates) distributed equally to all Americans. Those certificates could be freely transferred at any time during the divestiture period and would not expire until after the final auction. Land would be partitioned into tracts or primary units, and corresponding to each tract would be a set of distinct, separable, elemental deed rights. Any individual with a documented claim to rights defined by those deeds, however, would be assigned the appropriate deed or deeds. Once divested, tract deed rights would be freely transferable.


Why Federal Lands Hurt the Free State

Federal Lands = Nanny Statism = Federal Imperialism

To summarize what I have covered here, federal lands…
• Hurt environmental quality (the federal government is a poor steward and the largest polluter in the nation)
• Hurt economic efficiency, including resource-use efficiency and highest-valued use efficiency, and wealth creation with waste, mismanagement and opportunity costs
• Increase costs to tax payers and reduce the current and potential tax and fee base
• Increase the likelihood of wolves, grizzly bears and other predators being released on federal lands with little or no supervision or responsibility for consequences, negatively affecting ranchers, farmers and residents on nearby properties
• Increase the likelihood of the federal government forcing a right of way across private lands in order to get to their federal lands
• Increase the likelihood of the general public trespassing across private owners’ land to access public land, creating damage in so doing
• Mean more work for any Free State Project, diverting time and resources from other efforts
• Create more dependency on the nanny state to manage those lands and to tell citizens whether they can have grazing, recreational, right-of-way, etc. rights or not, and by creating more public employees and special interest groups with vested interests in profiting from and expanding further the federal lands


There are only two reasons I can think of for weighting federal lands as a positive, and perhaps they are what the creators were thinking of when they weighted that factor positively in the spreadsheet. One is that the lands could be sold off to generate some cash for a future libertarian government. The second was mentioned as a possibility by Keith Murphy at Examining Government Land Ownership on August 07, 2003, 02:04:24 pm: that federal lands cause such problems for residents of the states that have them that it helps push them toward antagonism toward the federal government.

Regarding the first possible reason, federal lands is a very difficult issue that will divert attention, time, resources and people away from tackling other issues. In order to tackle the federal government on the federal lands problem we are going to need a majority in both houses of the congress. That is a far-off goal that will first require our building power in numerous states.

As regards the second possible reason, if the spreadsheet were consistent it would need to weight other negative factors as positives using the same reverse-logic. Favoring a state because it has things that piss libertarians off doesn’t seem like a wise course.

At the very least one must agree that applying a POSTIVE Weighting to federal lands on the FSP spreadsheet leads to a perverse result. By the logic of this weighting, a state with 100% federally owned lands would achieve the BEST score!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2003, 04:17:11 am by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #145 on: August 19, 2003, 04:26:36 am »

True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)
So I see that you agree with those who say that Canada is not a friend.
It was supposed to be a joke. I don't really think we should invade Canada. I hope you understood that and are just playing along with the joke. :)

Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
Quote
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'.  ;)
Quote
Really, it's that bad?  So the anti-freedom lot in Kennebunkport and Portland are more entrenched and aggressive than I thought?
Again, it was a joke, which I hope you understood and are just pulling my leg right back!  ;D

Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
Quote
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)
Quote
That's funny, I thought I joined the Free STATE Project.  I'm all for the idea of regionalism, ....
I think Joe's intention was probably that we would eventually "take back New England," Exitus. I don't think anyone has ever proposed anywhere on this BBS that we tackle several states at once, and I don't think that quote was an exception. Perhaps you were just joking here also, and don't expect anyone to take your criticism of a supposed regional attack seriously? Sometimes I don't know whether you're joking or serious.

And eventually taking back all of New England won't be as difficult as you might think. Once the FSP succeeds in NH, the othe nearby states will want to emulate it. ME and VT already have some factors that favor a spread of the NH libertarian revolution there, despite the gains the leftists have made in recent years there--a reversal of direction is still possible. And MA has actually been gradually moving away from the worst excesses of the Dukakis-era liberalism. We even had a libertarian-Republican governor who we re-elected (Bill Weld) before he moved on to book writing and law (and he was still very popular when he moved on) and we have had many tax and fee cuts. We still have more work to do here in MA, but a successful FSP in NH will give us just the kick we need to really get the reform going here in MA. Thanks to all you FSP people for your commitment! I think you will be in the vanguard of a new American Revolution!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2003, 04:43:04 am by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #146 on: August 19, 2003, 07:27:31 am »

....
Idaho Atheists Inc. http://www.idahoatheists.org/
Google Directory Listing: Atheism

Humanists of Idaho: http://idaho.humanists.net/index.html
Google Directory Listing: Humanism

Buddha - net directory: http://www.buddhanet.net/americas/usa_id.htm Google Directory Listing: Buddhism
....
Hindu Temples: http://www.garamchai.com/templesNW.htm
Google Directory Listing: Hinduism

Universal Unitarians: http://www.pnwd.uua.org/directory_print.html#ID
Google Directory Listing: Unitarian Universalism
....
And now for something completely different: http://www.churchofreality.org/
Thanks for this information, Glen. The existence of offices in Idaho of the above organizations would make me feel more comfortable as an atheist, rationalist Libertarian that I might be accepted in Idaho and find other like-minded people, and other libertarians like me would likely also take some comfort in this.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2003, 07:28:27 am by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #147 on: August 19, 2003, 12:22:29 pm »

Exitus. I don't think anyone has ever proposed anywhere on this BBS that we tackle several states at once, and I don't think that quote was an exception. Perhaps you were just joking here also, and don't expect anyone to take your criticism of a supposed regional attack seriously? Sometimes I don't know whether you're joking or serious.

I'm really bad with not using smilies enough.  Dead-pan humor with understatements and obvious exaggerations seems to be my forté when speaking in person, but it is a proven weakness in my writing.  

Truth is, I'm only half-serious, I do mean that we should be cautious in hoping to push the autonomy issue of a state with a next-door Canadian government and while Canada has certain libertarian strengths, on the whole it is less free than most of our neighboring U.S. states.  But no, I realize you were only  joking of an armed Canadian invasion.  (Not that it wouldn't be oh too easy with an unarmed Canadian populace --(that is a joke of course-- insert smilie here: :) )).
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #148 on: August 19, 2003, 12:41:00 pm »


As to Libertarian votes...


Joe, I'm not going to quote that statement in its entirety in case you may later wish to re-phrase that comment about the Libertarian Party or in case I am mis-interpreting a joke, but I must say I agree with the jist of what you are saying.

--
For example. . .
 there is a political wonder-boy running for office in a certain locale that I am familiar with.  He was the former chair of the local LP there.  He is a smart and tenacious lawyer.  He has handsome good looks, is very good in speaking, politically slick and camera-saavy and has some good well-monied connections.  Needless to say, this ambitious fellow decided to drop-out of the LP and join up with them evil Republicans in order to have some real chance of winning an election in his lifetime.

Now that he is getting on talk-radio shows and spreading the message of liberty and seeking to establish his name out on the political front for the 2004 elections, the LP that he used to lead is now labeling him as a traitor.  It is actually a little more complicated than that, but essentially, it is pure partisanship.  At a recent meeting, the officers of the LP started thinking of ways they could publically humiliate this guy and hamstring his political efforts.  This kind of action makes me very angry.  Too many libertarians like to take political purity tests of each other and avoid the real dirty work of securing liberty through political channels.  It's the old crabs in a bucket allegory, they prefer to run paper candidates and maintain themselves as the purist vote influencers.
________________________________________________

I hope that in our chosen state, we learn to attack the most obvious enemies of freedom first, and not people who will potentially be allies even if they make an occasional compromise by joining the wrong party. . .

And if this is your point, that Maine is highly independent and has a relatively weak LP that will force us all to have to become independents when running for office there, in order to become politically viable, then point taken.
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

skypod

  • Friend of FSP
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • BADNARIK for President!
    • Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
« Reply #149 on: August 19, 2003, 12:47:05 pm »

One reason someone might have chosing Maine over the western states is Maine has access ports.
Logged
Melissa Seaman - Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
When the extraordinary becomes commonplace, that is a revolution.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Up