Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 286

Thread: Libertarian Party Endorses Illegal Immigration

  1. #151
    "as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.
    Like this quote?

    In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, ďAre there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?Ē

    What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind Ėideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

    ďSuppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?Ē Jefferson asked. ďIf it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.Ē
    http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/fo...tion-skeptics/
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.
    Really?

    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
    https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    "as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012
    Thank you.

    Great quote.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I see absolutely nothing in any of those quotes that contradicts exactly what I said. Do you?

    Notably, you didn't provide any information about the primary sources, you just copied and pasted paragraphs from that Woods article where his words are mixed with the founders he quotes. And Woods himself never once claims in that article that any of the founders he mentions believed the federal government had any constitutional authority to limit immigration.

    If you actually check the source of the Jefferson quotes, you will see that, not only does he never once endorse the empowerment of the federal government to limit immigration, but in fact he explicitly disavows that position, saying that in spite of his skepticism of the benefit of mass immigration, it remains the case that "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship." This line comes right after the quotes you cherry-picked from that Woods article.
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

    So this is actually a great illustration of precisely what I said.

    The founders (Jefferson at least) were so committed to liberty, including open borders, that they stood by that conviction even when they foresaw that it would lead to undesirable results.

    They (at least Jefferson) were not people who looked out at the world and every time they saw something they didn't like, spoke sentences that started with the words, "There ought to be a law..."
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 02-01-2019 at 03:48 PM.

  8. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Of course, I'm sure you're well aware that the founders would not have expanded the meaning of the word "invasion" to include the immigration of peaceful civilians, like you are doing.

    You must either adopt a living document view of the Constitution, or else admit that it does not empower the federal government to limit immigration. Because interpreted according to its original meaning, it clearly does not.

  9. #157
    On the other hand, if anyone really wants to take an honest look at what the founders thought about federal power to restrict immigration, and what the Constitution actually says about it, when interpreted according to originalist principles, you will find a treasure trove of evidence pertaining to those questions in these articles by Ilya Somin.

    Unlike that Woods article, these articles actually address the specific question of how the founders understood the Constitution, and not just whether their personal opinions about immigration were to prefer more of it or not.

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...113025&EXT=pdf

    https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09...er-immigration

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2c57ee2f1af4

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Treaties were broken and of course I don't agree with that. Lands were conquered and lands were purchased. That is all history. You seem to believe that the present day Americans, which includes Indians, should feel guilty and because of that guilt, allow our country to be taken over by invaders.

    Why is that?
    Nope- I don't think we should feel guilty- I think we should WAKE UP take care of the real problems before us instead of fighting over things that are designed to take our eye off the mark.
    Last edited by Ender; 02-01-2019 at 03:58 PM.
    There is no spoon.

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    That's my point.

    Hostile invading immigrants decimated the native population, enslaved, abused and carried out what could only be described as a pogram of ethnic cleansing, all the while promising peace and prosperity through "free trade" and treaties, leaving these once mighty and proud people second class citizens and wards of the state in a society that hated them, because the native population would not, could not, effectively organize, erect barriers to the invasion and protect themselves.

    The current invaders have made it clear that is their plan for me and my family.

    Maybe you could call it karma then, and I should just retreat to Europe.

    But I can say this, after extensive research, my family never used African chattel slaves, and the native lands they settled on in the 17th century here, were paid for, fair and square.
    I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.
    There is no spoon.

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.
    Yerp!
    There is no spoon.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Oh, that libertarian party... They're a hoot.



    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  15. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.
    Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


    https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

    The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

    Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

    Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

    (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

    (2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

    (3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

    (4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

    (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

    (6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

    (7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

    (8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



    Article 1

    Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    In Alexandria Bay New York, there are kiosks at the border so that anyone who crosses the river can self-declare. They're not manned 24/7. Besides major points of entry, most places along the northern border are like that. Seems satisfactory where there are not perverse incentives.
    Canada has a standard of living very close to ours, a small population relative to its size and no land borders with impoverished overcrowded countries.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.
    Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Yerp!
    Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  19. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


    https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

    The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

    Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

    Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

    (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

    (2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

    (3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

    (4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

    (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

    (6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

    (7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

    (8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



    Article 1

    Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
    I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

    But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 02-01-2019 at 04:22 PM.

  21. #168
    Originally Posted by tfurrh

    "as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Thank you.

    Great quote.
    A biased liberal ruling.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?
    Thanks for the neg idiot, you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
    when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
    When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

    But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.
    Congress was given power to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations", that means they can define entry without permission and proper documentation as a crime and specify a punishment.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post

    https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

    The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

    Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

    Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

    (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

    (2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

    (3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

    (4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

    (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

    (6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

    (7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

    (8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



    Article 1

    Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight


    You can find more in this thread:

    Article 1 Section 9
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A biased liberal ruling.
    Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.
    No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.
    US law does not say that.

  30. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
    To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

    I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

    I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.
    He was talking about the union excluding the citizens of states that were threatening to secede and thus become foreigners.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    US law does not say that.
    Yes it does.
    It is just like a trespasser is trespassing the entire time he is on my property not just as he crosses on to it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.
    That is sadly where our point of disagreement is.

    I do. I see it as a clear and present danger, and hopefully present that fact in a calm and rational way, and not in a way indicating irrational fear.

    The UniParty Marxist Super Majority government in California, directly caused by invading migrant hordes displacing and overwhelming native voters, is evidence of this.

    Texas, Arizona and Florida are next.

    Once that happens, you can dismiss even lip service to limited government representation at the federal level for 100 years or more.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 02-01-2019 at 04:45 PM.

  35. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Thanks for the neg idiot, you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
    when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
    When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,
    Better check again. I didn’t neg you. I reserve that for trolls. Not just general ignoramuses.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 288
    Last Post: 01-12-2019, 03:38 PM
  2. Libertarian Party endorses GAY MARRIAGE
    By wgadget in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 08:05 AM
  3. Rick Perry Perry's growing "Tea Party" Problem: Illegal Immigration
    By Tod in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 11:26 PM
  4. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 11:52 PM
  5. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •