|Mother_Puncher - 2011-03-29 |
God only knows how many times I've been attacked while picking up trash in central Whitepeopleville in a group of like-minded people and regreted not having a gun on my hip an opposition to helmet and seatbelt laws in my heart.
|IrishWhiskey - 2011-03-29 |
When they say New Hampshire works for a Tea Party state because its "socially accepting", I have to assume they mean "socially accepting of teabaggers", and not in general.
Alternatively this is just another group of deluded Rand/Paul fiscal libertarians who still believe they're still running the Tea Party, as opposed to the Palin/Beck nightmare its become.
|charmlessman - 2011-03-29 |
I have no problem with this. Jet's just let them have Rhode Island instead.
|Redford - 2011-03-29 |
These people seem to advocate freedom in all things without actually realizing or understanding the effects that those freedoms result in.
For example, a lack of seatbelt laws does make you more "free", but it also reduces state and police funding (those fines go somewhere after all). It also means, in general, more people are likely to die when in an accident, because they are "free" to ignore the fact that seatbelts are the best way to survive them.
Your state is suffering from a bad budget, so clearly the proper thing to do is to keep voting for low taxes. Why? Who cares if it's worse for the state. It's more free!
|phalsebob - 2011-03-29 |
Hahaha, oh shit that's good!
|The Townleybomb - 2011-03-29 |
Awesome! Now all we have to do is think of a reason to go to war with New Hampshire!
|Syd Midnight - 2011-03-30 |
Just a reminder that they've already tried a "Free Town" project, which was about as successful as you'd expect. Turns out they don't enjoy living next to each other, also banning municipal taxes and emergency services isn't as great an idea as it sounds, so natural selection has forced them to spread out a bit.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|