Classic. Have you seen this one yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeyb...tsniperxb5.gif
Printable View
Classic. Have you seen this one yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeyb...tsniperxb5.gif
The States (I know they're overwhelmed by the invasion), are a possibliity, or more importantly the private sector can build and do the maintenance for the wall. Border security whether State or Federal can work in cooporation with the private sector who builds the wall. Ideally I would rather have the private sector also guard the border injustly they would be overwhelmed with law suits.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
Great photos . :lol: :lol: :lol:
AHHHH, poor kitty!! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
We could possibly have the private sector build and maintain the fence so long as they are contracted by state or federal gov't. However, this has drawbacks as well. And we have certainly seen this in the cases of Haliburton and Blackwater. Even the NAFTA super highway is starting as a government owned highway being sold to a private Spanish contractor. So, I would be pretty leary of privitization. Its not as "efficient" as its backers always claim. And not all private contractors are "American." Many are global. Lou Dobbs lays this out in his latest book.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmruger
I listened to most Ron Paul interviews this past year and don't recall the question of employer accountability/sanctions coming up once. So I can't answer this for certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by StokeyBob
I do know he is deadset against the REAL I.D. He does not want a national ID card (for privacy reasons) and he doesn't think it would matter to illegal immigrants. I'm with him on this one. "Papers please!"
Going out on a limb, I would bet he would say he prefers to leave it up to the states to design/implement any employer sanctions for hiring illegals. ie: Arizona's new legislation going into effect. He is a true federalist and thinks the states can best design these programs. I have no problem with this. If you are a federalist, then you would have to argue that is the preferred method.
He has also said that illegals are able to work for less money; because we subsidize them via healthcare, welfare, etc. That we encourage the practice via these subsidies.
Martha, did you see Paul on Meet the press this morning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha
Ron Paul is for stopping birthright citizenship, he is for closeing the border with the national guard and Border Patrol, she said alot of people have been quoting him from before 9/11 and your stances change when circumstances change, now he does not believe in educating illegals, a (huge problem in our schools) cutting off all welfare progarms and medical because our hopitals are going broke...The main thing with me is he is a big believer in the constitution( which is the reason our country is so great) most polictians would like to burn it. He also would listen to the voice of the people and go with the majority because he believes this is what our founding fathers believed was best for America....and I agree!
I think you're absolutely right in interpreting Paul's thoughts on this matter. If he was President, all he can do is reign in the federal spending on these programs. Then States such as mine, cannot declare a state of emergency and demand federal funds for all these entitlement programs, when they get themselves in trouble. I'm in CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
Paul is not my number one candidate, but we certainly could do worse. I like many of his ideas.
I agree and we need more oversight and accountability on any of these projects, when done by government or private, this ripping of Americans tax dollars has to stop. :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
If the federal government contracts the wall to the highest international bidder we may end up with a lot of illegals slipping though the cracks. Keep in mind if the CFR people get in office the fence will not be maintained or even built.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
If the States contract the maintenance and construction of the wall where only local corporations can bid that may be better. Thanks to Reagan we are overwhelmed in the border states and that may not work.
Whether contracted out by Federal or State our Border security should be overlooking the process and maintenance to make sure illegals are not slipping through the cracks. I'm sure the Minutemen will be observing all activity with this task.
Ideally contracting the wall to the Minutemen paid for by tolls from the trade transits would be best. The litigation involved may halt opperations or maintenance. Would be nice if only the different Minutemen groups would be able to bid!
The founders feared Democracy and the majority rule which is why they established a Constitutional Republic. Just look at the buying of votes with the welfare state and entitlements. Then there is that women voting thing....Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
Regardless, Paul is soft on immigration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html
and just plain nutty when it comes to foreign policy.
Paul doesn't have a modicum of understanding about what Islam is all about nor any idea that Allah instructs his followers to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to convert the whole world to Islam.
He wouldn't have a clue on what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is all about.
Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.
Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons. Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.
Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.
At least under Paul we woudn't be so hated in foreign countries and blamed as conquerors, tortures, exploitation etc...
If you never read foreign press, I assure you this is what a lot of them talk about us.
That was a great part of the interview. Tim Russert made the implication that Ron Paul was a hypocrit since he considers himself a "strict constructionist" and still promotes amending the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship. Ron Paul smacked him upside the head with his answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
From the transcript: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/pr ... mode/1098/)
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
Do you have any basis for these assertions or are you just spewing your own opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by PFWAG
Bring our military home, yes, which would allow us to cut funding WITHOUT lowering our ability to defend ourselves. The rest of this is just RANT.Quote:
Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.
What should we do to stop them, BOMB them?? Are you another fan of that 'preemptive strike' doctrine?Quote:
Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons.
They do, and I doubt he ignores anything. The rest of this is MORE RANT.Quote:
Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.
And this is just downright ludicrous... :roll:Quote:
Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.
After 911 we should simply not allow muslims to immigrate here. How close is the nearest Muslim Nation? Indonesia, Philippines, Morroco! How can they possibly affect us if we do not allow them to immigrate here. The countries who border the Muslim Nations need to make a stand and we can help through the private sector. The way we are defending the World no other Nation is responsible for their own defense, more taxation and debt from federal taxation to take care of the World.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFWAG
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmruger
And there in lies the rub. "Privitization" implies that the highest bidder gets the contract. The Minutemen would not be given any special consideration under lassez fair economics -- they don't have the capital. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Minutemen would prefer a permanent vacation and for the federal government to actually do their Constitutional duty.
"Government" is not the problem. The problem is that we presently do not have representative government.
Regardless of who takes the contract or even if our government did "actually" built the wall I do not think most of the Minutemen groups would trust them, for good reason. They are dedicated for this country and they know if they take a permanent vacation we will be permanently globalized. Who is more Patriotic people signing up to go to Iraq or people volunteering with or as Minutemen?Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
MY God, you are so ill informed "PFWAG" You know absolutely nothing about Ron Paul that is so easy to see by your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFWAG
Are you one of those people who believe in "the constitution is nothing but a gawd damn piece of paper" people, Bushes words, not mine.
Yes give us another Bush this man has not done enough harm to our country....did you vote for him? I didn't either time!!
Tough choice, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmruger
I consider the men and women signing up to go to Iraq to be very patriotic and dependable people....its those damn Haliburton and Blackwater folks I despise. Kinda like the Hessians that King George tried to pay off to fight George Washington and our freedom fighters at the founding of our republic.
The Minutemen are great, but it seems clear that they can not do it alone. If it were for profit, perhaps more would join, but that brings us back to the Hessians and Haliburton.
IMO the bottum line is that the military is never better used, and more motivated than defending ones own territory. If we had representative gov't, the deed would be DONE.
The problem is we can not trust the CFR people to finish the deed they do not care about borders and would rather have the NAU and the amero.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
The Executive and Legislative Branches make promises and pass bills yet nothing gets done. If the deed was privatized with a toll we know the funds would be there to for the task. The Minutemen would keep us informed with the progress.
When we had an incident here near Oakland, when a truck with fuel burned up and destroyed an overpass, they had a contractor fix the problem with encentives. Why do you think they chose to complete the work with a private contractor? Because if the State (caltrans) were given the job the businesses in San Francisco would lose too much money, they take to long. The contractor finished ahead of time and made (I think) millions in incentives!
When tasks are privatized there done right and efficiently!
Yes, but a Spanish private contractor is currently working on the super highway :?Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmruger
There have been plenty of other problems with private contractors. As I have already outlined.... Profit motive, does not always garantee efficiency, and certainly not sovereigty. The "effecient contractors" also tend to be globalists. Remember, our trade deficit means that we have to sell off infrastructure (roads, bridges, fences) because foreigners own our debt.
I think what we surely agree upon is that we do not currently have a representative government, and we assuredly need one.
We can vote, for now, evidently the MSM has influenced are citizens to vote for who they want and certain corporations benefit. We need to vote, get the message out, talk about the Constitution, how as a Nation we were not always suppressed with federal taxation, and get everyone we can to understand and vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
DITTO!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmruger
nntrixie wrote:
I must have missed something along the line. Who has suggested that we should have no interior enforcement? I haven't seen anyone suggest such a thing. 8OQuote:
IT is little more than frustration, they are getting through and the difference seems to be the violence aimed at the BP agents.
Perhaps I'm wrong, I don't see how - a fence with nothing no interior enforcment to back it up, won't do that much.
As for illegals getting through in San Diego, I'm betting there is a lot less getting through in San Diego than there are anywhere in Arizona and Texas! Geez, along most of the border their is very little to stop them from just walking across the border at their leisure. At least that isn't happening in San Diego. Those attempting to get through the fence in San Diego are forced to resort to trickery and violence. I for one am glad their meeting resistance!
The few getting through in San Diego can't even be compared to the numbers entering through the unfenced portions of the border. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to seriously rethink the thought process that delivered them to that conclusion. :wink:
Hunter's fence in San Diego dropped crossings by 90% and the crime rate in San Diego by 54%. It definitely did the job it was designed to do. Anyone that disputes that doesn't know from Aunt Fanny's cat.
But Congress cut the funds AND the specifications for the REST of the fence, so talking about it right now is a waste of time.
PineStrawGuys wrote:
Thank you. :)Quote:
Hunter's fence in San Diego dropped crossings by 90% and the crime rate in San Diego by 54%. It definitely did the job it was designed to do. Anyone that disputes that doesn't know from Aunt Fanny's cat.
That is the exact reason I've been contacting my representatives through hand written letters, phone calls, and emails this past week! I hope everyone else that thinks we need the Hunter double-layered fence has joined me in that endeavor. :wink:Quote:
But Congress cut the funds AND the specifications for the REST of the fence, so talking about it right now is a waste of time.
Believe me, MW, I've burned up the phone lines and my modem last week over it. I used to LIVE in San Diego, I KNOW that fence worked!
That is the exact reason I've been contacting my representatives through hand written letters, phone calls, and emails this past week! I hope everyone else that thinks we need the Hunter double-layered fence has joined me in that endeavor. :wink:[/quote:1yyis5p1]Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
I did it right after they passed the spending bill, I also e-mailed Hunter and thanked him for his work on it and told him not to give up! He had a long hard fight getting the fence up in San Diego.
PineStrawGuys wrote:
SOSADFORUS wrote:Quote:
Believe me, MW, I've burned up the phone lines and my modem last week over it. I used to LIVE in San Diego, I KNOW that fence worked!
It nice to know the fence is definitely one thing a large majority of us can agree on. :)Quote:
I did it right after they passed the spending bill, I also e-mailed Hunter and thanked him for his work on it and told him not to give up! He had a long hard fight getting the fence up in San Diego.
Whether we can actually undo what the Democrat controlled Congress has done with the help of Hutchinson and Cornyn's remains to be seen. However, at least we can take pride in knowing we did all we could to reverse this travesty! Your country and I thanks you both for rising to the occasion. :wink:
How is enriching the coffers of the largest, most powerful fascist state on the planet a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha
How is letting Yahoo and Google pile upon the burden the billion people living under the heel of CCP oppression are yoked to something that benefits us-or the people whose speech is being suppressed and whose rights are being denied?
The point about Cuba, Iran, etc., is not that the U.S. isn't trading with these nations, but that the rest of the world IS, and that it's a policy that has proven to be a total and unadulterated failure.
It nice to know the fence is definitely one thing a large majority of us can agree on. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
Whether we can actually undo what the Democrat controlled Congress has done with the help of Hutchinson and Cornyn's remains to be seen. However, at least we can take pride in knowing we did all we could to reverse this travesty! Your country and I thanks you both for rising to the occasion. :wink:[/quote:2073p67w]
Actually "MW" I happen to like Hunter a whole lot, I just disagree with the war and the reason we are in Iraq ( but I don't want to go there again) :wink: I think I have exhausted that subject for now.
He is for sure a great American Patriot, and I would vote for him before any of the rest (except Paul) because I think we should give REAL change a chance in this country.
I don't think most people realize how close we are to loseing our soverengity, constitution and freedoms, not to mention our country, the same old type politicians are going to give us the same old crap, except the crap keeps getting deeper and Americans are being buried in it. :wink:
A fence by itself could work if we get the PC crowd to get their heads screwed on right. The right way is to protect this country at all cost. One way to do this is with a no nonsense high voltage electric fence. These fences were invented to keep people out of places they have no business. A few people get shocked and a lot learn not to mess with the border or the fence. We have every right to do whatever we feel is right for our country, don't let these whiners tell you it can't be done, they are just brainwashed by the PC crowd! Get a grip people, your families heritage and future is at stake! Now act like it is!
But, with everyone so brainwashed on this PCism, we just question each other time and time again. Every dang one of those politicians have a fence around their mansions. They have fences around the whitehouse, governors mansions, prisons and all the places where people aren't allowed to be and if you get caught in those places then ya get arrested and thrown in jail, then you go to court for tresspassing. Even Mexico's presidential home has a big iron fence around it with many, many gaurds. If you block out the PCism and use your head right, Americans can do anything we need to do and it won't be that expensive compared to what we're doing now.
Everyone wants to be so politicially correct about this fence. Look, when you build a fence, you say bye bye, and don't call us we'll call you!
These people are so PC about the fence you'd think they're best friends with these illegals or something. Hey, we don't need friends that bad. I love my brother and sister Americans, those are my friends!
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Good Day!
I just discovered that this book is available online for free in PDF format. I prefer the hardcopy, but here it is in case you are interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
Whether you are a Ron Paul supporter or not, this book is very enlightening reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
Thanks "specsaregood" that was really nice of you...I will check it our put it in my favorites and if it is to hard to read that way I will look through Alibres (used boods online) easier to find older books on there.
Thanks again....SOSAD
A fence without interior enforcement would do little good.
Who says we won't have interior enforcement? - just look around you.
We have large corporations that are employing thousands of illegals - hundreds at one location. Are our immigration people going after those people? Perish the thought, they write great big checks.
They are going after people who employ 2 - 14 - 23 people. That's not enforcement - that's a joke.
Now those same people who 'enforce' the interior laws are going to be the ones deciding on the fence and the operation of the fence. Do you really think they are going to do anything that works? I don't.
As to the San Diego fence - yes, it seemed to work. But the articles seem to suggest the drug dealers and illegals are getting around it now.
A fence, with interior enforcement and enhanced patrols would be great.
THE fence, as invisioned, executed and built by the same ones who are bringing us immigration control - is a farce. It really is.
We have laws on the books - if used - would clear up 90% of the problem in a matter of weeks. They aren't being used - and we think they are going to build a fence they know will work?
I'm not saying a fence won't help, I'm saying our government has no intention of building one that will. We can dream, we can hope, we can rant, we can demand, and we can let them give the contract either to some foreign company or the biggest contributor - that doesn't mean we are going to get one that works. It just means we are going to get a big debt and probably business as usual.
See the references at the bottom. BTW, do you know what Islamic doctrine of abrogation is?Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
Except for the "Kumbaya" part, these are the positions of RP. Gathering around the campfire singing "Rocky Mountian High" would probably be more appropriate. See the references at bottom. You might start reading instead of knee-jerk opinionating about what is rant and what is facts. I'll bet I know more about RP's positions than you know about the other candidate's positions. Loser has to vote for the other guy's candidate. Unfortunately, unless something miraculous happens in the next few months, I don't think either of our guys will be the nominee. I would actually vote for Paul over Obama or Hillary. However, if it is McCain or Guiliani, I'm writing in Tancredo.Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
Yes. If necessary. Or are you willing to wait until NYC or WDC is nuked? How about we let them nuke Phoenix? That will also cause many of the illegals who weren't vaporized to go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
Yes they hate us because we are in Iraq but that is not the primary reason they hate us. Do I need to enumerate all the Islamic attacks on the US BEFORE we were in Iraq? Regardless, except for the strong allegory, these are the positions of RP. See references at end. Since RP is strongly for the legalization of marijuana, which part is ludicrous?Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
Actually I back up my statements with facts. When you read all the links below on what RP's actual positions are maybe you can offer something besides OPINION. Unfortunately I did vote for Bush. Twice. The alternatives, however, would have been worse. Both times. And RP would do far more far damage than the traitorous Bush is doing. BTW, since you Paulites don't think Islam is a threat, can you explain the Islamic doctrine of abrogation to everybody on the forum? I must warn you, however, it will make RP look even nuttier.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
Agree but does your Aunt Fanny’s cat know that all the illegals simply went around the fence? While it helped SD, there was probably no overall reduction in illegals, drugs, or crime. You can not fence a tiny portion of your yard expecting to keep stray dogs from crapping all over the lawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys
See the parts on Crime and Border Security in
http://www.darksideofillegalimmigration.com/
Here are some links to just a few of the sources that I have used to seperate BS, especially on some forums and threads, from the actual facts:
American Conservative Union (ACU)
Rating the Presidential Candidates
http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp
ACU RELEASES RESPONSES TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/071210pr.asp
Americans for Tax Reform
2008 Presidential Field - Taxpayer Protection Pledge-Signing Status and ATR Congressional Ratings
http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/200 ... tings.html
On Taxes -- In Their Own Words
2008 Republican and Democrat Primary Debates
http://www.atr.org/special/misc/intheir ... _2008.html
Family Research Council
FRC Presidential Candidate Speeches
http://www.frcaction.org/
Freedom Works
Economic Issues and Candidates for President, 2008
http://www.freedomworks.org/action/president/
Health 08 (from the Kaiser Family Foundation)
2008 Presidential Candidate Health Care Proposals: Side by Side Summary
http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm
My Election Choices
2008 Presidential Election Survey
http://www.myelectionchoices.com/
National Right to Life (endorsed Thompson)
Where Do the Candidates Stand on Life
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcan ... arison.pdf
NUMBERS USA (does not endorse candidates)
Assessment of Presidential Candidates On Immigration Issues
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... z2008.html
National Taxpayer’s Union
NTU's Fiscal "Snapshot" of the 2008 Presidential Race
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Presidential Candidates – Compare on Issues
http://pewforum.org/religion08/
Political Base
2008 Presidential Field
http://www.politicalbase.com/elections/
Project Vote Smart
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php
Select Smart
Candidate Positions
http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html
2008 Presidential Candidate Selector (28 position questions with variable weighting)
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html
Tax Policy Center
2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Proposals
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopic ... matrix.cfm
WCVB TV5 Boston
Compare the Candidates (will do a side by side comparison on major issues with references)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/compare ... index.html
Vote-USA
Presidential Candidate Comparisons
http://www.vote-usa.org/
2 Decide
2008 Presidential Election Candidates on the Issues
http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
Feel free to add your list of insightful sites that will further educate us on the positions of RP.
FYI: Select Smart presents 26 issues with a weighting of relative importance factor.
If you really want to see which candidate your are most in tune with, go directly to My Election Choices, an “independent, neutral, non-partisan way to start your election decision making processâ€
Pfwag, if you've done your homework like you say, you'd probably find out that the terrorists didn't attack Americans on our soil until we were on theirs. And I think Ron Paul knows a helluva lot more about terrorism than the current monkies running this show. Ron Paul is right about everything he says about this Iraq situation. If you knew much about terrorism, you'd know it's not going to end by staying over there fighting their civil war.
AGAIN I INSIST WITH OR WITHOUT THE FENCE IF WE DON'T FIGHT THE NORTH AMERICA UNION IT WILL NOT HELP.
ILLEGALS WILL BE BACK .THEY ARE PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE,NAU,SPP, GLOBALIZATION, ERRADICATION OF THE BORDERS, OUR SOVEREIGNTY.
Assuming those who support Dr. Paul have not done their homework in investigating him is an insult Pfwag.Don't treat us as if you are smarter or wiser because you are NOT !!
I agree with Ron Paul especially on the ME.If we had kept our nose out of their business years ago instead of interfering for the sake of Big Oil they would NOT have bombed us.
Do you know or government supplied Sadam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used on Iran ? I am ashamed of my government sometimes because that is just one of many things they have done to other countries and we wonder why they hate us ?
Read about how we supported Hussein.
www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ir ... nindex.htm
I am a Patriot to my country but I am NOT in agreement with the shameful things our government has sometimes done to others mostly for Big Oil or Big Business.
Yet this country runs on oil
Usually several MILLION barrels a day
Not really sticking up for the obscene profits of the oil companies
but bottom line
You have to get to work , public transportation sucks