[Whit]

Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.

     If this line makes sesnse to you then you have no clue what actual slavery is, so this is pointless.

What do you mean killing you? I said I'd only kill those who oppose me and those like me when we take over the government and return it to a constitutional republic. Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth?

     This may well be the closest you come in this entire thread to asking about anyone elses opinions...
     To answer your question yes, I would oppose you. The reason is that I don't believe that you would "return it to a constitutional republic." Everything you've posted to this point makes you sound like a fanatic. I don't trust fanatics, no matter how good what they say sounds. That's exactly how the Spanish Inquistion and Hitler came to power. You have shown no sign of hearing anything anyone has said to you.
     Frankly, I think that if someone like you did take over you would feel it was necessary to maintain the position to "insure our freedom." You want proof?

Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved. They are scared of those who really value freedom.

     In this statement you belittle everyone not like you to the point of insignifigance. It's also sounds like you've got a lot of hate in your heart. No, I don't trust you. You are a fanatic, with false claims of your values. If you actually believed that all men are created equal you couldn't think in such terms.

Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes. Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law. Rather than standing up, they think of their political careers and rule poorly. That means they're not good people. They may be a decent judge, but not a good person.

     So, a decent judge can decide to make unconstitutional rulings? Didn't expect you to say that.

You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.
http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html

     Taken from that site:

Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under "protectionism" you end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need

     But you had previously said:

But many people don't know that the constitutional parts of government can be paid with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected

     So, to tariff or not to tariff? Which is it?