> What good would that do? I get the impression that you're somewhat insulated from the changes that have been going on in larger states. Friendly folk in other states were hoping for a "rescue"; NH supporters were hoping for reinforcements.

I don't know what you mean by insulated; the only way I'm insulated from changes happening in larger states is that I don't live in one. But I read the news as much as anybody. Liberal states are getting more liberal; densely populated states are getting more bureaucractic. New Hampshire is not immune, either; increasing influence from Massachusetts on the southern border is pushing New Hampshire more toward the center all the time.

But "what good would that do?" is, IMHO, a pretty overreactive and fatalistic response to "just move to a conservative state." Sure, states like Oregon and California and any state dominated by increasingly dense cities are swinging more left all the time, but I do not think that this is the least bit true of states like Indiana, Wyoming, South Carolina, or, no, not New Hampshire either. These states are conservative because that's how the people in them want to be governed, not because someone moved here with 19,999 buddies. You mentioned preferring Alaska. So move to Alaska! Alaska's one of the most securely conservative states in the union and, frankly, has a better future outlook than New Hampshire does, with or without the Free Staters.

I'm not sure if your later comment about preferring to be involved than "hunkering down and hiding from the rest of the world" was related to this or addressing another point in my post, but this *again* has a borderline insulting ring to it. You can't be active without all the other Free Staters? What do you think *we've* been doing over here in New Hampshire all this time? We're not hiding from the rest of the world, which means that if you wanted to be active in preserving personal freedoms where you live, you could do it just as well by coming here on your own accord, rather than coming here just because a few thousand other people are also.

> > Nothing anybody has said in this thread has alleviated the discomfort I feel over a humongous group of people with no personal stock in specifically New Hampshire moving here with the stated aim of influencing its social and political climate.
>
> I doubt anything will alleviate it except time and getting to know the people who become your neighbors.

If and when the Free Staters who come here come to care about *New Hampshire* as opposed to any old place where they stand a chance of perpetuating their agendas, I will cease to have a problem with any of this. It has nothing to do with me getting to know anybody. I'm not blanket prejudiced against "outsiders" on principle (as some New Englanders are); my issue is why they're coming in the first place, and it reeks of a lack of respect.

> Technically, NH gets this sort and size of influx every single year, especially from neighboring states. Just this time, it's a little more organized and a slightly different viewpoint.

Which makes all the difference to me. By the way, you posit that 20,000 people *will* have a significant influence on the political tides here, but then dismiss the numbers by saying we get this many every year? Do you realize who these 20,000 per year, mostly from neighboring states, are coming *from*? Massachusetts and Vermont could scarcely be further left, and Maine is pretty liberal, too. Good luck pushing all that back with a one-time influx.