Posted: 12/20/2009 8:02:47 PM EDT
|
claw their way out of their graves and bring about the zombie revolution? |
So... to kill a zombie? Hell yeah! No wait, that's Thomas Jefferson! I'm confused. I guess if we zombie-planners stay out of their way, they'll eliminate the liberals... plus it won't spread because the liberals don't have enough brain mass to matter (pun intended). Oh snap!  |
|
Quoted:
I think we should wrap their caskets in copper wire. All the spinning they are doing should make for some good 'green' energy! But a constitutional republic founded by sepratist zombies from the 18th century would be good too. Can I wear a wig? Only if you have wood teeth. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. |
|
The great American patriot Benjamin Franklin was asked, upon his emergence from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, what form of government the United States was going to have. Franklin answered succinctly, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, Ben... we haven't lost it yet, but I can damn sure see the end of it without looking very hard.  |
|
Quoted: Even zombie revolutions?Quoted: Quoted: Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid.  |
|
Quoted: Thegreat American patriot Benjamin Franklin was asked, upon his emergencefrom the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, what formof government the United States was going to have. Franklin answeredsuccinctly, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, Ben... we haven't lost it yet, but I can damn sure see the end of it without looking very hard. We lost it years ago. We're just now seeing the cracks in the veneer of lies we've been fed for decades. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Even zombie revolutions?Quoted: Quoted: Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1425/1433454862_96f4eb3dfc.jpg Zombies need to die... They have no right to exist. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. |
|
Quoted:
... Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. [/div] [/div] Yet that's the key difference here - the colonists HAD no representation in parliament. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. Proving my point for me. You don't know what you're talking about. The founders would disagree with you. They did not lord it over others. They wanted self rule. our founders would have gone to war already. we are nutless wonders. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. Like the boot their putting on our neck right now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. Proving my point for me. You don't know what you're talking about. The founders would disagree with you. They did not lord it over others. They wanted self rule. our founders would have gone to war already. we are nutless wonders. Our revolution was an anomaly. George Washington can't get enough credit for what he did and allowed, IMHO. Dozens of Latin American countries attest to the usual course of events. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: ... Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. [/div] [/div] Yet that's the key difference here - the colonists HAD no representation in parliament. [div]And your point is? The colonists were able to influence the King and the Parliament even though they didn't have their own representatives in parliament. You might not believe it, but people have always met with the Kings and Queens of England, one on one, to discuss their grievances and issues. Like wise people have always been able to meet with and discuss their problems and issues with the men and women of parliament. There is absolutely no reason that the colonists couldn't have gone through official channels to set up their colonies as a new nation. People would have been receptive to the idea that England gave birth to a group of people in a new land and those people have now grown up enough to be considered a new nation.[/div] |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. [/div] [/div] Yet that's the key difference here - the colonists HAD no representation in parliament. [div]And your point is? The colonists were able to influence the King and the Parliament even though they didn't have their own representatives in parliament. You might not believe it, but people have always met with the Kings and Queens of England, one on one, to discuss their grievances and issues. Like wise people have always been able to meet with and discuss their problems and issues with the men and women of parliament. There is absolutely no reason that the colonists couldn't have gone through official channels to set up their colonies as a new nation. People would have been receptive to the idea that England gave birth to a group of people in a new land and those people have now grown up enough to be considered a new nation.[/div] Seems to be working just fine with the Isralies and palestinians
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. Proving my point for me. You don't know what you're talking about. The founders would disagree with you. They did not lord it over others. They wanted self rule. our founders would have gone to war already. we are nutless wonders. Our revolution was an anomaly. George Washington can't get enough credit for what he did and allowed, IMHO. Dozens of Latin American countries attest to the usual course of events. Never forget Sam Adams tireless efforts pushing the boycotts that kept King George from having enough war support to face Washington with a larger army. Adams proved that if a populace has enough principle they can starve the beast. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid.  Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. [/div] [/div] Yet that's the key difference here - the colonists HAD no representation in parliament. [div]And your point is? The colonists were able to influence the King and the Parliament even though they didn't have their own representatives in parliament. You might not believe it, but people have always met with the Kings and Queens of England, one on one, to discuss their grievances and issues. Like wise people have always been able to meet with and discuss their problems and issues with the men and women of parliament. There is absolutely no reason that the colonists couldn't have gone through official channels to set up their colonies as a new nation. People would have been receptive to the idea that England gave birth to a group of people in a new land and those people have now grown up enough to be considered a new nation.[/div] Uhhh... no? The revolution didn't happen overnight. England wasn't receptive to shit, or things might never have gotten so ugly. In fact, most of Parliament and the King thought the colonists were completely unreasonable - especially on the tax issues. Also, royal governors were appointed, and gave little regard to colonial democratic systems. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. you are fucking retarded. revolutions, while violent, are not about lording over others. It's about freedom. It's about someone getting their fucking boot off your neck of their hand out of their fucking wallet. Proving my point for me. You don't know what you're talking about. The founders would disagree with you. They did not lord it over others. They wanted self rule. our founders would have gone to war already. we are nutless wonders. Our revolution was an anomaly. George Washington can't get enough credit for what he did and allowed, IMHO. Dozens of Latin American countries attest to the usual course of events. Never forget Sam Adams tireless efforts pushing the boycotts that kept King George from having enough war support to face Washington with a larger army. Adams proved that if a populace has enough principle they can starve the beast. Not unique to our revolution. Manipulations of the oppositions fund raising capacity is as old as war. |
|
Quoted: Proving my point for me. You don't know what you're talking about. Hey, I'm not the one with an almost religious fanaticism toward very flawed human beings. The founders would disagree with you. They did not lord it over others. They wanted self rule. The founders sure as shit lorded over others.  They weren't the noble upstanding wise people our history books tell us they were. They were just as stupid and corrupt and evil as our leaders in Washington are today. Same shit, different century.our founders would have gone to war already. we are nutless wonders. Yeah... killing English soldiers or people in government who are doing their jobs because YOU want to be in charge over others is being brave. Like it or not, the whole concept of revolution boils down to taking power from one group of people and giving it to yourself because you want to have power over others even as you speak of freedom and democracy and egalitarianism. It's confused thinking, no better than that of communist or socialist revolutionaries. Just my opinion. |
|
Quoted: Like the boot their putting on our neck right now. Someone is always going to have a boot over someone else. It's the nature of power, it flows downhill. You can try to remove it through a revolution, but then you create a vacuum which is almost always filled by Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Maoism and various dictators who speak of revolution and freedom for the people. The only reason our nation never experienced most of the negative results of a revolution is because we had a war for independence... and we were largely a hell of a long ways away from other nations.
|
|
Quoted: Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?Yes and I understand the legal nature of the language. Most people who read it don't grasp a lot of what was said or written or every concept it was conveying. They just get wowed by the usage of words which were designed to invoke an emotional response in the reader or listener. When I read it or listen to it, I groan when I get to certain sections of it because most of the people around me don't know what it was saying, in a legal sense, to certain people and how offensive and shocking it was meant to be. I think the founders could have and should have written a much better document that was more persuasive and logical and not as likely to incite anger. Thats just my opinion. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Revolutions are wrong A-10 of Justice inbound in 3....2....1.... I stand by my statement. It's ALWAYS wrong to bring about or support a revolution. Revolution is always, at it's core, about murdering and stealing and lording over others. In the case of the United States, we had a war for independence. Although I'm against how our founders went about things(they should have gone through parliament to set up our nation and not gone to war against England), the general idea of a group of people colonizing a new land and then growing up and becoming their own nation is valid. Wow. ALWAYS wrong? Think of the most oppressive regimes in the world... African dictatorships, Myanmar, North Korea...onandon... Is it really murder if a captive slave (not an indentured servant) kills his master or their agents to escape? Of course it's about control - it's about self-control and autonomy. The right to the BASIC human rights outlined in our own Constitution. The American Colonies were megabucks in revenue for the Crown (not average Joe Englander), our Forefathers petitioned for relief but were shrugged off. What now? Oh shit, you sent an army over here? Well we can't have any violence or anything, here's the title to my shop... GTFO |
|
Quoted: Uhhh... no? The revolution didn't happen overnight. England wasn't receptive to shit, or things might never have gotten so ugly. In fact, most of Parliament and the King thought the colonists were completely unreasonable - especially on the tax issues. Also, royal governors were appointed, and gave little regard to colonial democratic systems. Of course things didn't happen over night, nothing ever does. England was an ocean away. It's kinda hard to be receptive when it takes months to send messages back and forth. You forget or are involved in other issues. Oh and I'd say the Parliament and King were correct that the colonists were unreasonable when it came to things like taxes. They were paying fewer taxes than the English were. Democracy is the absolute worst form of government. You're really not going to persuade me with regard to the governors not giving the colonial democratic systems the time of day. I'm not cool with the whole mob rule thing just like I'm against a mob demanding revolution so that they can have power, not those other people.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?Yes and I understand the legal nature of the language. Most people who read it don't grasp a lot of what was said or written or every concept it was conveying. They just get wowed by the usage of words which were designed to invoke an emotional response in the reader or listener. When I read it or listen to it, I groan when I get to certain sections of it because most of the people around me don't know what it was saying, in a legal sense, to certain people and how offensive and shocking it was meant to be. I think the founders could have and should have written a much better document that was more persuasive and logical and not as likely to incite anger. Thats just my opinion. I'm sure you would have written a much better Declaration of Independence, but only because you have had the opportunity to critique the one we have. The founders had nothing to work from since no such document existed in the world at the time they wrote theirs/ours. I think they did a damn fine job. |
|
In case you've never seen it before: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ––Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 What is unreasonable here? All seem like legitimate bitches to me, and Arfcom would see me as a liberal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?Yes and I understand the legal nature of the language. Most people who read it don't grasp a lot of what was said or written or every concept it was conveying. They just get wowed by the usage of words which were designed to invoke an emotional response in the reader or listener. When I read it or listen to it, I groan when I get to certain sections of it because most of the people around me don't know what it was saying, in a legal sense, to certain people and how offensive and shocking it was meant to be. I think the founders could have and should have written a much better document that was more persuasive and logical and not as likely to incite anger. Thats just my opinion. I think that the 'legal' part is screwing up your perception. It is not about that. In laymans terms. It is about the foundations of Freedom. Think about it. |