shape1369 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 the minute men are not acting as a seat belt. they are harrassing actual citizens and at times have attacked them as well... My stepdad is mexican by birth, and a naturalized citizen. I can assure that if he went down there he would get some shit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Cowboy Bill Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 as a resident of Mass., I'm offended that a bunch of inbred anti-democtaric rednecks are co-opting the name "minutemen" the only minutemen are residents of Boston area. They might as well call themselves the viet cong or the Isreali army...its just as apt but the truth is, our economies are linked...and don't forget the US southwest is part of mexico, irregardless of which gov't owns it...as long as the demand is there for mexican labor, there will be a supply...basic economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavicon Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 yo, this is no lie. These people are racists. Each one is racist to different degrees i'm sure, but racist none the less. Here are some in laguna beach. This pic is FOR REAL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Cowboy Bill Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I'd fuck her, plus I bet they have good meth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavicon Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 yeah, she's kinda cute. Also note the blond on the left-hand side. Did you know that true Arian puss is purple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Originally posted by shape1369@Feb 10 2006, 08:58 PM the minute men are not acting as a seat belt. they are harrassing actual citizens and at times have attacked them as well... My stepdad is mexican by birth, and a naturalized citizen. I can assure that if he went down there he would get some shit... Quoted post perhaps you guys missed this thread a while ago. you can assure me that your step dad would get harrassed? hmmmm i suppose all the minute men are white right? please look at some statistics of the minute man project before you spout off. the group was composed of almost 10% legal mexican citizens. the seatbelt analogy was for carrying a gun. they are not brandishing rifles and shotguns and assault weapons as someone said on here months ago, and i proved them wrong. a seatbelt is a safety net in a car. a gun is a safety net for self defense. as for the minuteman project being racist... the project is not racist. obviously a plan of stopping ILLEGAL immigration (even along the canadian border) will draw racists who want to stop all immigration and kill all people who arent white. the pictures of the nazis at the minuteman rally was proven to be a group not associated in any way to the project and was hundreds of yards from the actual protest. why did they choose the minutemen for a name? obviously the minutemen were a handful of boston militia. they chose the name, for doing the job the government wont. article 4 section 4 of the US constitution guarantees us a republican form of government and protection from invasion. illegal immigration is invasion as our laws are supposed to prevent it. the mexican army, armed has entered our country dozens of times. if this is not an invasion, i dont know what is. i just dont get it. most people want to have living wage legislation and pro labor laws, who are pro illegal immigration. but the argument is pure hypocrisy, as the illegal immigrants are one factor which lower the market's labor rate. "americans wont do those jobs..." can also be chaulked up to the welfare state. why would anyone want to work for a living, when they can make twice as much sitting at home collecting a welfare check? why do illegal immigrants get the same services as legal citizens? something is wrong. illegal immigration is an erosion of national sovereignty, drains already overstretched government services, drives down wages and allows criminals (after all they entered a country ilegally)who have no respect for the rule of law, to come to this country and do as they please. it defy's the concept of citizenship. what other country can you waltz across the border of? hell we protect the border of north and south korea 10 times better than our own. why in the hell would the administration talk about terrorists and them coming to get us, andleave the borders wide open? i know know, the latino vote fuck that, shut the border. until then, let the peaceful american militia, the minuteman project do the job the government wont do. report illegal crossings to the border authorities, since our government will not employ enough border agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 hmmmm the US southwest is actually part of mexico.... hmmmnmm. very interesting. actually your right, the real racists, shouting "fuck you gringo!" as part of La reconquista would agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Have you ever been in south texas? I am just curious? Have you lived in an area where these issues are of major concern? And your assumptions about welfare are rediculous. Just like always you jump on the concept of people sitting on their ass just to recieve welfare. Fuck you and the horse you road in on. My mother and I were on food stamps for several years out of my life. Not because my mom was some stupid fat bitch lazying about her apartment while I ran around aimless in the streets. But because she was a single mother working to get her masters degree while raising me and trying to provide the best education and living condition possible. Do you support programs like WIC? Let's also consider something you said in your last post "hell we protect the border of north and south korea 10 times better than our own. why in the hell would the administration talk about terrorists and them coming to get us, andleave the borders wide open? i know know, the latino vote" Have you ever done research into voting demographics and how public policy effects voter turnout? Living in a household with a political science PhD whom does study this, in a place where it is relevant (Houston), I think I have a little more exposure to these concepts. Go to Laredo and Nuevo Laredo... The only difference between an illegal immigrant and a naturalized citizen is a rediculously stupid test and a sheet of paper... That is it. Beyond any of that, have you ever heard of NAFTA? One of Bush's platform propositions was working with Vicente Fox to open up the boarders for trade between US, Mexico and Canada. They are still turning highway 59 into I-69 which will run from Canada all the way through Mexico. The only thing that caused a slight halt in this was 9-11. As the trade deficit becomes larger and larger america needs to look for more places to export our goods to. We need to create new markets, Mexico is a huge possibility for that. Thus the reason we must, at a federal level keep rather open lines of communication, politically and physically. There is so much more that plays into things like this than I think you give creedance to. Politics isn't simple minded banter about the ideological foundations of our country... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 sorry. shut the borders. get the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, UN and any other "free" trade treaty or quasi government body that sacrifices US sovereignty and forces us to rewrite our laws to satisfy a world body. perhaps i missed the section of the constitution which guarantees everyone "free" healthcare, "free" housing, and "free" food. why is this wrong? what role do we want the federal government to be in our lives? a police state? or a constitutional republic? welfare is immoral and coercive. why is it immoral? because it violates private property. protection of private property is the reason the constitution was drafted. if a private citizen were to rob someone of there money, to give to another we would call it theft. but its ok for the government to do it. this is not liberty. if people want to give to the poor, it should be voluntary, and non coercive. moral law dictates that stealing is wrong. it is an infringement on private property. because a majority vote in congress took place, does not make it "right." even MLK said a just law is one grounded in Moral law. wealth redistribution is a euphamism for stealing. it is socialism and brings into account "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." socialism is slavery and is anti american. end the welfare state and every other non congressional expentitures. welfare isnt helping anyone. poverty levels are still the same as they were when the great society spending took off. time for another plan. as James Madison said...congress doesnt have authority to spend money on objects of "benelovence." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milton Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Zealotry is stupid my friend. Politics is a rational sphere not an emotional one. People on both sides of the spectrum often forget this idea. If people disagree with you it doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them bad people. The aim of politics is to provide the best functioning system of government, you're going to achieve that better from rationalism than ranting. Your stance on welfare I find particularly flawed. 1) Welfare is not morally illegitimate, and neither is socialism for that matter. The government is not "stealing" from anyone. If you don't want to pay taxes hitch up your trailer and drive to Canada, its that simple. Not only is taxation and welfare Constitutional (Amendment 16) but it is a moral non-event. For one, there is no standard "moral law" that you can find. Instead moral norms are produced by the majority of the population. Since the majority has decided to maintain welfare, it is hence moral to maintain it. A political position can neither be moral or immoral as it is a rational position based on a persons view of the best system. Also, the racist and class-discriminatory undertones that pervade your text are immature and ignorant. You hate the poor, but have no reason for doing so. If you disagree with the politics fine, but leave your emotional baggage at the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 angelofdeath- this is rediculous. You want to remove america from most of its trade agreemants? You want to economically isolate us at this point in the world? I can't even respond to you now, because you are far removed from the realities of contemporary economic and political theory. You also keep avoiding answering any questions I may ask. You sidestep the point through rediculous suggestions that could never happen. whatever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by Milton@Feb 11 2006, 05:42 PM Zealotry is stupid my friend. Politics is a rational sphere not an emotional one. People on both sides of the spectrum often forget this idea. If people disagree with you it doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them bad people. The aim of politics is to provide the best functioning system of government, you're going to achieve that better from rationalism than ranting. Your stance on welfare I find particularly flawed. 1) Welfare is not morally illegitimate, and neither is socialism for that matter. The government is not "stealing" from anyone. If you don't want to pay taxes hitch up your trailer and drive to Canada, its that simple. Not only is taxation and welfare Constitutional (Amendment 16) but it is a moral non-event. For one, there is no standard "moral law" that you can find. Instead moral norms are produced by the majority of the population. Since the majority has decided to maintain welfare, it is hence moral to maintain it. A political position can neither be moral or immoral as it is a rational position based on a persons view of the best system. Also, the racist and class-discriminatory undertones that pervade your text are immature and ignorant. You hate the poor, but have no reason for doing so. If you disagree with the politics fine, but leave your emotional baggage at the door. Quoted post milton. is it right to steal a coat from someone in winter and give it to someone who may or may not have a coat? this is wealth redistribution. i dont think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. i have strong opinions. i am not a bigot. by calling me a racist or classist, you obviously cannot make a real argument against mine. any sort of wealth redistribution is immoral, and against the principles of liberty this country was founded on. our country was born out of revolution, mainly over taxes. now a little more than a century later, we have created a corrupt government beauracracy called the IRS to do just this. amazing. what would jefferson or madison think about this? just because something gets a majority vote in congress doesnt make it right. take a look at iraq. i dont hate the poor. the fundamental difference is, the use of coercion or not. if someone wants to give to the poor, it should be done by private citizens.(which is how everything was handled prior to the new deal, if welfare is at all to be done, it should be left to the states) community, churches, private donations are what is needed. government is corrupt, inefficient, coercive and anti liberty in this reguard. the federal governments job is clearly defined in the constitution. coercion is used to get taxes. at gun point and punishment by law, you must pay taxes on your income, and virtually every other thing. this money is then used to pay for cushy government jobs, imperial overseas exploits, an inefficient corrupt welfare state, and all the pork barrel projects you can imagine. income tax should be abolished. how far the progressive revolution has taken this country is rediculous. counterfeit paper fiat greenback money which robs us blind through inflation to popular vote electing senators. outstanding. for a country whose founders boldly claimed "give me liberty or give me death!" rationalization at this point in america, wont get anything done. look at what it is getting done. we have 2 majority party's. there are some good guys in DC. but most are summer soldiers and "sunshine patriots" whose loyalty goes to the highest bidder. they want the same exact thing. they are 2 sides of a wooden nickel. these "trade" agreements are bullshit. this "free" trade is not the FREE TRADE of adam smith. pick up a copy of "wealth of nations" free trade requires not government regulation. in answer to your questions about texas, no i havent been there. illegal immigrants are a problem where im at. dont worry. its amazing how mad people get when i promote ideas that the classical liberal/paleolibertarian/paleoconservative ideology gets nowadays. it is the ideology that founded this country. its amazing to me how it is "so extreme" to some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milton Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath@Feb 12 2006, 12:40 AM milton. is it right to steal a coat from someone in winter and give it to someone who may or may not have a coat? this is wealth redistribution. i dont think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. i have strong opinions. i am not a bigot. by calling me a racist or classist, you obviously cannot make a real argument against mine. any sort of wealth redistribution is immoral, and against the principles of liberty this country was founded on. our country was born out of revolution, mainly over taxes. now a little more than a century later, we have created a corrupt government beauracracy called the IRS to do just this. amazing. what would jefferson or madison think about this? just because something gets a majority vote in congress doesnt make it right. take a look at iraq. i dont hate the poor. the fundamental difference is, the use of coercion or not. if someone wants to give to the poor, it should be done by private citizens.(which is how everything was handled prior to the new deal, if welfare is at all to be done, it should be left to the states) community, churches, private donations are what is needed. government is corrupt, inefficient, coercive and anti liberty in this reguard. the federal governments job is clearly defined in the constitution. coercion is used to get taxes. at gun point and punishment by law, you must pay taxes on your income, and virtually every other thing. this money is then used to pay for cushy government jobs, imperial overseas exploits, an inefficient corrupt welfare state, and all the pork barrel projects you can imagine. income tax should be abolished. how far the progressive revolution has taken this country is rediculous. counterfeit paper fiat greenback money which robs us blind through inflation to popular vote electing senators. outstanding. for a country whose founders boldly claimed "give me liberty or give me death!" rationalization at this point in america, wont get anything done. look at what it is getting done. we have 2 majority party's. there are some good guys in DC. but most are summer soldiers and "sunshine patriots" whose loyalty goes to the highest bidder. they want the same exact thing. they are 2 sides of a wooden nickel. these "trade" agreements are bullshit. this "free" trade is not the FREE TRADE of adam smith. pick up a copy of "wealth of nations" free trade requires not government regulation. in answer to your questions about texas, no i havent been there. illegal immigrants are a problem where im at. dont worry. its amazing how mad people get when i promote ideas that the classical liberal/paleolibertarian/paleoconservative ideology gets nowadays. it is the ideology that founded this country. its amazing to me how it is "so extreme" to some people. Quoted post My point is this: government taxation, though it may be coercive, is not stealing. It's not an infringement on liberty, by any reasonable definition of the term liberty. And as I said previously, the legal, majority sanctioned, government sanctioned act of taxation is not a moral event. Moral theory is, or should be, indifferent to taxation. Moral norms are sponsored by society as a whole, since society as a whole (on the majority) agrees with taxation, it is not an immoral act. There is no breach of a moral norm at work here. The only way you can taxation into the sphere of moral wrongs is to mis-classify it as "theft." Which it is not for the following reasons: 1) Taxation is government sponsored. Since government (and the majority) make laws and define theft they have precluded the operation of the moral norm "theft" to government taxation. (See, generally, US Constitution Amendment 16, which passed by a super-majority in both houses and was ratified by the states no less.) 2) Taxation is optional. If you want to live in the United State you have to pay a fee for the privilege. A standing army, public education, and a judicial system are not free of charge. If you do not want to be taxed, move to a country without a federal tax system. 3) The idea that there are a fixed set of moral norms that apply equally to all is dated. Who are you to define morality for me? Doesn't that go against your palelibertarian philosophy? Finally, people disagree with the classicist philosophy because it is so far to the right that it has become disjoined with any current social mores. It is so conservative in fact, that even the most right wing conservatives in Congress don't ascribe to it. It's a wonderful little political viewpoint that brought us the 3/5 Compromise, the fugitive slave laws, the civil war as well as Lochner v. New York. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Thank you Milton for saying what I couldn't express in my frustration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 just because the government does something does not make it right. hell, if we elected another hitler and he wanted to kill all jews in america, because the government does it, does it make it right? taxation of income is anti liberty. take note, it no incomes were taxed until king lincoln in during the civil war. why? income taxation is tyrannical. our reveunue for the federal government to perform is few small tasks was almost solely taken from tariffs on imports. and your wrong, there is atleast one guy in congress worth anything... RON PAUL define morality? i believe the people of the sovereign states have the right to define thier own morality. federalism 101. its funny how liberals dont want "morality" legislated, but dont hesitate in taking the moral high ground and legislate morals like...welfare, war on poverty, free healthcare, segregation, slavery, affirmative action. what are these? morals. you'd be suprised the amount of laws based on morals. stealing? murder? why should we impose these morals on you? why the hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~KRYLON2~ Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 mexicans are crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milton Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Okay, this is it, then I have to write a paper on the moral culpability of hate crime. In order to be morally culpable for an act the actor must: 1) Be a moral agent; 2) breach a moral norm; 3) Which fairly obligates his/her/its compliance, and; 4) The act is fairly attributed to the agent. Now, the first open question becomes can the government as entity be a moral agent. (In a similar sense, can a corporation be an agent?). Does an entity have the rational reasoning ability and accurate factual perception to be a moral agent? Can a government entity be empathetic? While individuals within government can accurately be described as moral agent, can the entity of "government" be classified as such. I don't know, I wonder if you could answer that. Second, can the government breach a moral norm. This is interesting for two reasons. Does the government acting as voice of the majority define moral norms? Possibly, after all moral norms are the effect of the social mores of the times. Also, can the government actually breach the norm? More specifically, is the government able to engage in conduct that is outside of moral boundaries as it is an entity? This gets back to the first question. Third, does any moral norm apply to governments as such? Clearly they apply to government officials and those within government. For that reason the Hitler idea is a non-sequitur. Hitler was an individual running a country, not a body of popularly elected officials. His abhorrent conduct can be considered morally relevant because he was a person. These are large open questions that need to be answered before you consider an action immorral. If you can, so be it. I can't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Well said Milton. Have you read the racial contract? I suggest you give it a look, I think you'll find it particularly relevant and interesting. It is a look at the contractarian structure of contemporary politics and the racial requisites of those contracts. Really awesome. anywho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Cowboy Bill Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 isn't society, or any society, a social contract? It's my thinking that if we share a homeland or a city or a county or state, then it is our duty as a member of that society to contribute to its well-being. The fairest and most efficent way to contribute is by taxes. Taxes on disposable income specifically, and those with more disposable should contribute more. That's fair. What's not fair is people who say, people should only contribute if they feel like it. Given this option, most are not gonna. And to this dude who keeps quoting 18th economic philosphy: dude its the 21st century bro. The shit is as relevant to today as is 7th century Islam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Yeah, I was talking about an evaluation of how the original concepts of a social contract were executed in history and how it shaped the contemporary world. The book is an examination of the metastructure of all of the different contracts and the underlying racial currents among them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 "not a body of popularly elected officials" so you mean to say, that popularily elected officials cannot promote tyranny on the people? look at the constitution ratification debates. the anti federalists didnt hardly even want a federal government! please refer to jim crow laws. even though northern judges deemed them constitutional, popularily elected officials enacted them. they also essentially enacted voter disqualification on poor people. all done by popularily elected officials. this is hte reason why pure democracy was detested by the framers of the constitution. income taxes and fake money are only good for one thing. financing socialism. even the socialist-esque people who pushed the 16th through, said that any taxes totalling anything over 10% of income is tyrannical. even lincolns war time tax, was something like 1% on incomes over 10,000$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath@Feb 11 2006, 06:10 PM sorry. shut the borders. get the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, UN and any other "free" trade treaty or quasi government body that sacrifices US sovereignty and forces us to rewrite our laws to satisfy a world body. perhaps i missed the section of the constitution which guarantees everyone "free" healthcare, "free" housing, and "free" food. why is this wrong? what role do we want the federal government to be in our lives? a police state? or a constitutional republic? welfare is immoral and coercive. why is it immoral? because it violates private property. protection of private property is the reason the constitution was drafted. if a private citizen were to rob someone of there money, to give to another we would call it theft. but its ok for the government to do it. this is not liberty. if people want to give to the poor, it should be voluntary, and non coercive. moral law dictates that stealing is wrong. it is an infringement on private property. because a majority vote in congress took place, does not make it "right." even MLK said a just law is one grounded in Moral law. wealth redistribution is a euphamism for stealing. it is socialism and brings into account "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." socialism is slavery and is anti american. end the welfare state and every other non congressional expentitures. welfare isnt helping anyone. poverty levels are still the same as they were when the great society spending took off. time for another plan. as James Madison said...congress doesnt have authority to spend money on objects of "benelovence." Quoted post so i guess your down for building your own damn roads, hiring a personal security force,ect...Taxes are a necessary evil. People who dont drive cars could argue that their tax money going towards road maintanence is theft. You can carry on this arguement all damn day. If you dont like the way America is, why dont you just fucking leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Mexican troops attack United States http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigrati...s_attack_us.htm http://www.ranchrescue.com/ Consulate says Mexican troops not in standoff http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../601250317/1001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavicon Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 13 2006, 10:34 PM WHO GAVE IT THAT RIGHT? Quoted post haha, infowars?? I'm not usually one to attack the source right off the bat, but c'mon man Alex Jones is one paranoid mofo Straight up conspiracy theorist, no doubt about it read this book^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 same story flav. el paso times Consulate says Mexican troops not in standoff http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../601250317/1001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 so i guess your down for building your own damn roads, hiring a personal security force,ect...Taxes are a necessary evil. People who dont drive cars could argue that their tax money going towards road maintanence is theft. You can carry on this arguement all damn day. If you dont like the way America is, why dont you just fucking leave? Quoted post try again friend. post roads are constitutional. im for limited government, not anarchy. i want the constitution to be read, for what is says, not for what it MIGHT say. i think the states should be in charge of roads. i love america. and will do everything in my power to reinstate the constitution. its funny someone using a "conservative" type line of "get out if you dont like it..." to a conservative. and the mexican army locked and loaded has been in our country dozens of times in the past year. and thats not just alex jones saying this. its on the "major" networks as well. some of you guys need to open your eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane30 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 haha nice angelofdeath, pulling out the marx....well i live in miami and immigration is huge, theres like no real americans left, my school is 97% Latino. that doesnt mean everybody was born elsewhere but we are of latin decent...also theres a huge population of mexicans here that do "do the dirty work". our economy depends on these types of people, those who are willing to do labor intensive work for little pay. as for the socialist remark...it sounds good as long as ur not the one who is being robbed of ur money and having it given to the lazy guy down the street who begs for money and gets welfare n food stamps......if my ability is greater than yours then WHY THE FUCK! should u get more...for that ill start being lazy n eating shit...feel me.......sry for gettin off topic but its been like this......ooh shit, theres 2 pages..hahaha maybe no1 should pay attnetion to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath+Feb 14 2006, 05:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (angelofdeath - Feb 14 2006, 05:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-swedish erotica@Feb 14 2006, 11:03 AM so i guess your down for building your own damn roads, hiring a personal security force,ect...Taxes are a necessary evil. People who dont drive cars could argue that their tax money going towards road maintanence is theft. You can carry on this arguement all damn day. If you dont like the way America is, why dont you just fucking leave? Quoted post try again friend. post roads are constitutional. im for limited government, not anarchy. i want the constitution to be read, for what is says, not for what it MIGHT say. i think the states should be in charge of roads. i love america. and will do everything in my power to reinstate the constitution. its funny someone using a "conservative" type line of "get out if you dont like it..." to a conservative. and the mexican army locked and loaded has been in our country dozens of times in the past year. and thats not just alex jones saying this. its on the "major" networks as well. some of you guys need to open your eyes. Quoted post [/b] i respect your right to an opinion, but all of this doesnt make sense. i'm assuming you write graffiti. thats "unamerican" and costs american citizens a lot of money, its against the law, ect. maybe its just me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane30 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 think of it as an exception....and not all of us are "patriots" or "pro-american", we live here, love it, but doesnt mean we agree with everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.