Replies

amen to that one, bro. this shlub will do everything except admit that he/she is a pure statist. even after confronted with the question: if it is not YOUR life based on what you can do with it, barring anarchy, WHOSE life is it? i still have to get an answer on that one. since i never have, not even once, i no longer correspond with them. they are like babies who plug their ears and say "nanana cant hear you", when faced with their own identity.

the children will not admit that their beliefs imply the life of the individual belongs to the state.

To: Texaggie79

You have a habit of changing the subject when you get your butt kicked in an argument. Stick to the subject. - 56 by OWK

The subject is: can an inanimate object be so much of a threat, that by owning it, you violate your neighbors rights? - 58 by Texaggie79

To: OWK

amen to that one, bro. this shlub will do everything except admit that he/she is a pure statist.

even after confronted with the question: if it is not YOUR life based on what you can do with it, barring anarchy, WHOSE life is it? i still have to get an answer on that one. since i never have, not even once, i no longer correspond with them. they are like babies who plug their ears and say "nanana cant hear you", when faced with their own identity.
the children will not admit that their beliefs imply the life of the individual belongs to the state.

--------------------------------------

Yep, once again tex-baby has demonstrated his sophomoronic inability to present a coherent logical point on 'inanimate objects'. - His infantile stance is a wonder to behold.