KaskadskyjKozak

that's a huge generalization. there are several democratic candidates who fall into that category. unfortunately i don't think the big qualify yes, but if they got big, they'd start to toe the party line we need a viable independent candidate.

you are almost as feisty as me this week. you are focusing on the driving, what about the hunting? more profoundly they are allowed to hunt an animal whose killing is banned nearly world-wide.

well, for all our disagreements, I have to say I understand what you are trying to say, and it's usually a lot more cerebral and interesting than what those guys post.

whether native americans owned the land or not, they lived next to hunting grounds. now they don't, and not necessarily by choice.

I'm arguing against property taxes period, not just after you've paid off your loan. at least for a primary residence that is. as for an inheritence tax - different topic.

are they using the .557 to make it easier for them or to assuage the people who think it is inhumane and cruel to kill an animal the size of a whale in the "traditional" way?

laugh it up - Bush's IQ exceeds both your and No. 13's IQs - combined.

what if the people were driven from their original lands and thus have to get to a destination they never should have been forced to leave?

i'm only abusive to those who deserve it, Bug.

like posting nearly 40000 pieces of crap to a climbing forum?

changing the subject? a car is not land. as for the kkk, FOAD, Canuck-dog-felcher

how do you keep a jackass in suspense?

once you pay for your property (e.g. a loan if you have one), you are free and clear. you are not taxed for your property, and you can not be evicted for any reason. it's yours until you die.

you just don't get it. ever. there's the "character flaw".

PORTER, WTF? HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE IS REACHING OUT TO YOU!

bullshit. the fact is with property taxes there really is no such thing as private "ownership" of land/property.

+1 except I think Dru is about to tell us how the whale meat is chock full of toxins

and non-property owners don't benefit from these things?

IS THAT YOUR GOD PORTER??

That's just it, I don't think they will get Hilary's vote but the democrats will lean towards a canidate that could appeal towards both parties. Obama is critical of the war, which is good because it gives voters an option to express thier disatisfaction with the war. Even if Obama wins, he will find it incredibly difficult to withdraw from Iraq, that is if he actually attempts to. Hilary can SAY she is against the war, but hasn't make promises to begin troop withdrawal. politicians don't do what they say anyways. people might bank on Hillary to get us out of Iraq whether she says she will or not.

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. you are just too stupid to understand TTK's legal arguments based on his perfect expertise in this subject matter. self-professed jack of so many trades...

Ha. This seems a fundamental oversight in the discourse surrounding home ownership and the freedom it supposedly provides. Most home "owners" are just rent payers with interest. and what about once you pay off your loan? then you are a "renter" from the all-mighty state alone - which suits you and your ilk just fine, "prole"

I want to deceive people into thinking these things must be paid only through "property taxes". I want to nickel-and-dime tax people to death, so each tax seems reasonable and relatively small - even though in the aggregate, they are not. I am a tax-and-spend liberal!

supposedly, she's peeled off about 25% of the female rep vote. or so I've heard reported (and not on FOX news, so STFU before you even say it)

don't try to talk sense to a died in the wool, ACLU-card-carrying closet, commie-sympathizer. the land belongs to the state, as do you.