Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

Poll

If America becomes the only industrialized nation to completely open its borders to uncontrolled immigration, as Ian suggests, how many people would move here?

More than 4,000,000,000
- 22 (32.4%)
More than 3,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 2,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 1,000,000,000
- 2 (2.9%)
More than 500,000,000
- 6 (8.8%)
More than 250,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 100,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 50,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)
More than 25,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 10,000,000
- 7 (10.3%)
Less than 10,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)

Total Members Voted: 30


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: If we had open borders ...  (Read 37064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

timmysoboy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Word
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2008, 12:11:42 PM »

I chose the most all-encompassing answer of 10 mill.  betcha I'll win.
Logged

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #61 on: March 10, 2008, 12:16:12 PM »

You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)

I've already addressed that earlier in this thread.  There's free market, and then there's magical thinking.  Absence of welfare is only possible if the mob that demands welfare can be kept at bay.  We already have welfare in this country in spite of limited immigration (compared to what it would be with open borders), with the overwhelming majority of immigrants voting for it.  The only immigrants who don't vote for welfare are the ones who would make it here anyway: hard-working professionals.  So this country cannot remain free without some controls over immigration!

Yes, there would come a point at which a person in India would rather stay in India than come to America, but if that point is reached America would very much resemble India today: filled with poor people who do nothing but breed and blame rich people for "oppressing" them.  With cheap labor the incentive for labor-saving technical innovations will go away, so it will be closed-borders countries like Japan that will gain the technological edge, first with robotics and then with other things as well.  The top brains from all over the world will find it in their best interest to immigrate there, making it the Galt's Gulch of sorts, while the open-border socialist countries fall apart further as the result.  A nation of 100 million scientists will wipe the floor with a nation of 2 billion rice farmers, even more so in the future than we can imagine today!


Immigrants are not allowed to vote, until they become citizens. Instead of closing borders to immigrants, why not simply end their eligibility for all state welfare programs and putting an end to naturalized  citizenship?

Immigrants also shouldn't be taxed to pay for "services" that they don't receive. They could set up, pay for and govern any free market alternatives to these services that may be of value, thereby setting an example of voluntary free market government for those, unfortunate enough to be citizens, to emulate.

Sorry, we tried that in California with Prop 187.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

The courts threw it out.

We really need to bring down the welfare state entirely.

All of this is academic anyway. What is more likely to happen is that the increasingly tyrannical state will destroy the US economy and drive more and more jobs out of the country and into Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Dubai, China, Ireland, India, etc. Nobody will want to come here where there are no personal freedoms and no jobs.

We will never have freedom and prosperity here or anywhere until the welfare state is dismantled. Once that happens then you can send all of the people you want and they will either be productive, go home, or die.
Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #62 on: March 10, 2008, 02:59:50 PM »

Why do you think that locking down the boarders is more politically feasible than making immigrants ineligible for public welfare?

A determined thief could break into your house no matter what kind of a security system you have, but that doesn't mean you should remove all locks in your house, leave the doors wide open, go on vacation for a month, and put an ad announcing all this in all local papers...

(Will reply to other points later...  Unless I forget.)
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #63 on: March 10, 2008, 03:15:51 PM »

You, apparently, don't trust the market. Pessimistic projections about immigration, like scary projections of every other non-aggressive human activity, fail to take into account that they are self limiting.(See my post, just above yours.)

I've already addressed that earlier in this thread.  There's free market, and then there's magical thinking.  Absence of welfare is only possible if the mob that demands welfare can be kept at bay.  We already have welfare in this country in spite of limited immigration (compared to what it would be with open borders), with the overwhelming majority of immigrants voting for it.  The only immigrants who don't vote for welfare are the ones who would make it here anyway: hard-working professionals.  So this country cannot remain free without some controls over immigration!

Yes, there would come a point at which a person in India would rather stay in India than come to America, but if that point is reached America would very much resemble India today: filled with poor people who do nothing but breed and blame rich people for "oppressing" them.  With cheap labor the incentive for labor-saving technical innovations will go away, so it will be closed-borders countries like Japan that will gain the technological edge, first with robotics and then with other things as well.  The top brains from all over the world will find it in their best interest to immigrate there, making it the Galt's Gulch of sorts, while the open-border socialist countries fall apart further as the result.  A nation of 100 million scientists will wipe the floor with a nation of 2 billion rice farmers, even more so in the future than we can imagine today!


Immigrants are not allowed to vote, until they become citizens. Instead of closing borders to immigrants, why not simply end their eligibility for all state welfare programs and putting an end to naturalized  citizenship?

Immigrants also shouldn't be taxed to pay for "services" that they don't receive. They could set up, pay for and govern any free market alternatives to these services that may be of value, thereby setting an example of voluntary free market government for those, unfortunate enough to be citizens, to emulate.

Sorry, we tried that in California with Prop 187.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

The courts threw it out.

We really need to bring down the welfare state entirely.

All of this is academic anyway. What is more likely to happen is that the increasingly tyrannical state will destroy the US economy and drive more and more jobs out of the country and into Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Dubai, China, Ireland, India, etc. Nobody will want to come here where there are no personal freedoms and no jobs.

We will never have freedom and prosperity here or anywhere until the welfare state is dismantled. Once that happens then you can send all of the people you want and they will either be productive, go home, or die.

According to the article you linked, the proposition was held up on the technical grounds that immigration laws exceed the constitutional authority of the states. All that means is that it must be a federal law, which is what I was taking about in the first place.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #64 on: March 10, 2008, 03:22:28 PM »

Why do you think that locking down the boarders is more politically feasible than making immigrants ineligible for public welfare?

A determined thief could break into your house no matter what kind of a security system you have, but that doesn't mean you should remove all locks in your house, leave the doors wide open, go on vacation for a month, and put an ad announcing all this in all local papers...

(Will reply to other points later...  Unless I forget.)

It seems that you're implying that immigrants who come for jobs or to start businesses are somehow stealing "our" country. It sounds xenophobic to me.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #65 on: March 10, 2008, 03:36:58 PM »

I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.

And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.

convert_to_liberty

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #66 on: March 10, 2008, 03:57:50 PM »

I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.

And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.

Despicable.

Logged

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #67 on: March 10, 2008, 04:43:56 PM »

I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.

And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.

Despicable.



You don't think that might have been ironic? I mean I don't know for sure, but the specific form of genocide being advocated leads me to think it would be a fair guess.

convert_to_liberty

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #68 on: March 10, 2008, 05:06:59 PM »

I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.

And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.

Despicable.



You don't think that might have been ironic? I mean I don't know for sure, but the specific form of genocide being advocated leads me to think it would be a fair guess.

Perhaps. But from what I have seen with the anti-immigrant crowd, you never can tell.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #69 on: March 11, 2008, 06:08:50 AM »

I think we should donate billions of free clothing articles to the Mexicans...infested with smallpox.

And then after the smell goes away we can open the borders.

Despicable.

Yes, but consider this: the Dutch thought using smallpox as a weapon was despicable, but the Spanish and the Portuguese did not.  Not as many people speak Dutch in the Western Hemisphere nowadays, and not as many would be speaking English either if the English-speaking colonists didn't have the stomach for genocide.  The reason we shouldn't conquer Latin America isn't because it's "despicable", which it is of course, but because cheap labor is more productive and much more beneficial to the economy when they think they are free.  That's what left-wing politics has always been about.


... "the anti-immigrant crowd" ...

I'm very much pro-immigrant, as a matter a fact, but I'm not pro "open borders", at least not when there are other nations that still act within their national self-interest.  The only parts of the world that historically have had open borders with complete disregard for national interest have quickly been conquered.  (Please don't confuse allowing large-scale immigration, which is what the United States found to be in its interest throughout most of its history, with "open borders" - controls were put in place pretty darn quick once the population density increased.)  As a matter a fact, I'd like to see the population of the United States inch toward a billion during the 21st century, so our economy as a whole could stay above that of India, China, the expanded EU, and the Arab League, but this should be done through a merit-based immigration system.


Not if they have no incentive to come here seeking welfare. Then only the responsible and productive people will have any reason to arrive.

There's more to this than just "Welfare" as we know it today, there are the underlying reasons why Welfare was created in the first place, and it cannot be taken away at a stroke of a pen without taking care of those underlying reasons first or the results would be many times more devastating.  Many western countries suffered political revolutions mid-way into their entry into the so-called "Industrial Revolution".  Those revolutions didn't happen because Karl Marx was such a smartie, they happened because the mob of poor people decided it was easier to loot and pillage than to work their way up through the capitalist system (which admittedly wasn't very fair in those countries and was failing to reform itself, but the revolutions can still happen under the fairest of systems).  That's why we have welfare: it costs us less than the damage the mob of angry poor people would cause.

Poor people are dangerous, especially in large quantities, and especially if they are jealous of what you have.  True, they have very painful and difficult lives, but everything is relative - compared to our uncivilized ancestors just 5000 years ago their lives are pretty darn good.  Gather round, little pro-open-border kiddies, Uncle Alex will tell you a story of how our world might end up in the future:

Imagine a poor person living among other poor people in Indonesia working 60 hours a week attaching zippers to jeans for $3000 a year, which is what the actual value of his labor is on the open market.  He is pretty content - he can buy his daily bread, send his children to school, and maybe even buy a used television set.  He knows there are rich people somewhere out there, but they are too far away to be angry at, and all of his neighbors live just as well as he does in a poor but happy little community.  If they do decide to "beat the rich" and go Communist, so goes Indonesia - the few rich Indonesians flee, and Indonesians find themselves in the middle of a war zone making $500 a year - not that big a loss to the world economy.

Now imagine America has open borders and no socialist government policies.  Someone tells this jeans zipper attacher guy that he could make $10,000 a year doing the same work in America, with the increase in salary being due to lower density of cheap labor there (though obviously not as much as before) and also a much larger sales market, which means lower shipping costs for the company.  He saves up for a $500 passage for his family on a cargo boat (or buys it on credit), arrives in LA, and indeed does get a job for $10,000 a year.  Land costs a lot more, obviously, but his family can rent a cheap room in some cheap housing project too crummy to be allowed to be built back when there was government regulation.  He misses his old village and its community, but hey, American dream, right?  He works just as hard as he did in Indonesia, makes more money, but for some reason he just isn't happy.

He sees all those rich Americans, most of whom hate him for bring down their own wages.  Those people have all the luck - they had free education, tremendous economic protectionism, etc...  But now that the playing field is leveled, they're angry at him.  He has to join a gang of other Indonesian jeans factory workers for his own protection, and in that gang he hears things: "Americans don't deserve what they have!  They still have many economic benefits: savings and land they bought back when they'd be paid $20/hour to do the job we're doing now!"  Since America would by then have 100+ million people, mostly recent immigrants, who're making less than $15K/year, this sentiment would be very popular.  "The rich people owe us", they would say.  Why should some childless American couple have this big house all to themselves, when we, five families with a total of 30 kids, have less living space than they do!"  Etc, etc, etc.

The riots won't begin all at once, but once they do they'll accelerate, and, since guns are legal, will become ever more deadly.  Factory owners will have to hire security to protect both their factories from sabotage and their workers from the angry mobs of the unemployed.  The more violence increases, the worse the economy becomes; and the worse the economy becomes, the more violence increases - the textbook collapse of any country that finds itself having a lot of angry poor people.

America falls further and further behind other nations as various Communist (the "Reds") and anti-Communist (the "Whites") fractions gain local power and fight each-other for broader control.  After several years of mass chaos and civil war, the rich will come to see that continuing to fund the Whites is a lost cause, and will instead pay an arm and a leg to immigrate their families to Japan, which kept its immigration merit-based and built zipper-attaching robots a long time ago - and in fact are making their zippers from an alloy mined in the asteroid belt and smelted by throwing it in close orbit of the sun.  Japan's scientific innovations in the field of SDI prove especially useful as newly Communist America tries to use its nukes as leverage in negotiating the price on imports of Venus-grown rice to feed its starving masses.  In the end, the leaders of America, and all other poor countries in the world, are forced to resort to drastic measures to maintain their hold on power, which some going as far as instituting zero-child policies and evacuating whole parts of their country to sell to the Japanese.

Open borders and free flow of people are good values to have, and in many cases they have utilitarian benefits, but not when taken to extreme.  In a contest between blind idealism and pragmatism, in this fairytale symbolized by Japan, pragmatism will win out in the long run.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2008, 07:32:00 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2008, 08:52:55 AM »

Not if they have no incentive to come here seeking welfare. Then only the responsible and productive people will have any reason to arrive.

There's more to this than just "Welfare" as we know it today, there are the underlying reasons why Welfare was created in the first place, and it cannot be taken away at a stroke of a pen without taking care of those underlying reasons first or the results would be many times more devastating.  Many western countries suffered political revolutions mid-way into their entry into the so-called "Industrial Revolution".  Those revolutions didn't happen because Karl Marx was such a smartie, they happened because the mob of poor people decided it was easier to loot and pillage than to work their way up through the capitalist system (which admittedly wasn't very fair in those countries and was failing to reform itself, but the revolutions can still happen under the fairest of systems).  That's why we have welfare: it costs us less than the damage the mob of angry poor people would cause.

Poor people are dangerous, especially in large quantities, and especially if they are jealous of what you have.  True, they have very painful and difficult lives, but everything is relative - compared to our uncivilized ancestors just 5000 years ago their lives are pretty darn good.  Gather round, little pro-open-border kiddies, Uncle Alex will tell you a story of how our world might end up in the future:

Imagine a poor person living among other poor people in Indonesia working 60 hours a week attaching zippers to jeans for $3000 a year, which is what the actual value of his labor is on the open market.  He is pretty content - he can buy his daily bread, send his children to school, and maybe even buy a used television set.  He knows there are rich people somewhere out there, but they are too far away to be angry at, and all of his neighbors live just as well as he does in a poor but happy little community.  If they do decide to "beat the rich" and go Communist, so goes Indonesia - the few rich Indonesians flee, and Indonesians find themselves in the middle of a war zone making $500 a year - not that big a loss to the world economy.

Now imagine America has open borders and no socialist government policies.  Someone tells this jeans zipper attacher guy that he could make $10,000 a year doing the same work in America, with the increase in salary being due to lower density of cheap labor there (though obviously not as much as before) and also a much larger sales market, which means lower shipping costs for the company.  He saves up for a $500 passage for his family on a cargo boat (or buys it on credit), arrives in LA, and indeed does get a job for $10,000 a year.  Land costs a lot more, obviously, but his family can rent a cheap room in some cheap housing project too crummy to be allowed to be built back when there was government regulation.  He misses his old village and its community, but hey, American dream, right?  He works just as hard as he did in Indonesia, makes more money, but for some reason he just isn't happy.

He sees all those rich Americans, most of whom hate him for bring down their own wages.  Those people have all the luck - they had free education, tremendous economic protectionism, etc...  But now that the playing field is leveled, they're angry at him.  He has to join a gang of other Indonesian jeans factory workers for his own protection, and in that gang he hears things: "Americans don't deserve what they have!  They still have many economic benefits: savings and land they bought back when they'd be paid $20/hour to do the job we're doing now!"  Since America would by then have 100+ million people, mostly recent immigrants, who're making less than $15K/year, this sentiment would be very popular.  "The rich people owe us", they would say.  Why should some childless American couple have this big house all to themselves, when we, five families with a total of 30 kids, have less living space than they do!"  Etc, etc, etc.

The riots won't begin all at once, but once they do they'll accelerate, and, since guns are legal, will become ever more deadly.  Factory owners will have to hire security to protect both their factories from sabotage and their workers from the angry mobs of the unemployed.  The more violence increases, the worse the economy becomes; and the worse the economy becomes, the more violence increases - the textbook collapse of any country that finds itself having a lot of angry poor people.

America falls further and further behind other nations as various Communist (the "Reds") and anti-Communist (the "Whites") fractions gain local power and fight each-other for broader control.  After several years of mass chaos and civil war, the rich will come to see that continuing to fund the Whites is a lost cause, and will instead pay an arm and a leg to immigrate their families to Japan, which kept its immigration merit-based and built zipper-attaching robots a long time ago - and in fact are making their zippers from an alloy mined in the asteroid belt and smelted by throwing it in close orbit of the sun.  Japan's scientific innovations in the field of SDI prove especially useful as newly Communist America tries to use its nukes as leverage in negotiating the price on imports of Venus-grown rice to feed its starving masses.  In the end, the leaders of America, and all other poor countries in the world, are forced to resort to drastic measures to maintain their hold on power, which some going as far as instituting zero-child policies and evacuating whole parts of their country to sell to the Japanese.

Open borders and free flow of people are good values to have, and in many cases they have utilitarian benefits, but not when taken to extreme.  In a contest between blind idealism and pragmatism, in this fairytale symbolized by Japan, pragmatism will win out in the long run.

Your runaway scenario, like all statist scaremongering fables about how trends, that if allowed to continue, will lead to doom, always fail to consider the self limiting effect of these trends that happens when the market is allowed to operate freely.

You keep failing to address this and other criticisms of state intervention that I have already brought up,
Quote
Immigrants will only come here as long as there is a great enough benefit to their presence here to overcome our greater cost of living and we will only offer them jobs and business opportunities which give immigrants incomes sufficient to overcome these costs if doing so improves our own standards of living. It's a self limiting process. When the costs of living here start to outweigh the benefits, then migration will start to flow in the opposite direction.

If you're worried about state welfare programs upsetting this balance, well, even state welfare is a self limiting process. If the burden becomes too noticeable, then there will be a justifiable demand to remove immigrants from state welfare, and if too many immigrants find a way to work around this obstacle by becoming citizens, then there will be a justifiable demand to limit or even stop the naturalization process.

except to say that they would start a revolution if their numbers become too large.

This fails to address the fact that if their numbers are large it will only be because they find it desirable to stay here and are getting a footing on the ladder of upward mobility for themselves and especially for their children.

It also fails to address that being forbidden to participate in state educational and welfare schemes, they would be free to set up their own free market voluntary governing agencies, both charitable and for profit, to provide necessary services for their immigrant communities.

Before long, they will be forming their own businesses and starting to out compete  established Americans in their productivity, creativity and independence, forcing us to either emulate their virtues or become irrelevant has-beens.

You also fail to address that immigrants will not be a scary monolithic group that could take us over, but would consist of many different and separate communities, that would be in competition with each other to show that their respective groups have the most worthy cultural heritage to proudly share with their adopted homeland. A competitive-cooperative balance and harmony would be the result, especially since there would be no state subsidies or privileges for them to fight over.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2008, 08:55:22 AM by markuzick »
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2008, 11:11:02 AM »

You underestimate the people's desire to come to America, even if it is to make $1500 a year instead of $1000.  There are 6.5+ billion people in this world, most of whom are much poorer than you or I, and the number of them who'd be willing to drop everything and come to America is very high.  The average beggar in NYC clears several dozen times more money per day than what the poorest billion of people in the world are living on!  And with all the container ships going between our coasts and the third world, the price of basic passage is fairly accessible even to the poorest of the poor, especially if they can get a micro-credit loan to pay off after they get here.

And you overestimate the limiting factors, such as the cost of living.  Lack of government regulation when it comes to real estate is probably a good thing, but it would allow for people to live very cheaply in shanty towns or, more likely, private "workers' residence" ghettos built by businesses sponsoring the importation of cheap labor.  I'm not against all those things in of themselves, but I do believe that they would sooner or later lead to political instability and socialism.  Thus is human nature: people who can barely afford to feed their children will always feel justified to rob the rich.

Hopefully 2-3 generations from now all parts of the world will experience sufficient economic growth where mobs of angry poor people will no longer be as much of a threat, but until then - we need some limits on immigration.
Logged

timmysoboy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Word
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2008, 11:32:23 AM »

When it comes to immigration, I'm all for it.  It's not because of any 'good of the nation' bull shit that seems to be on everyone's mind (not just saying on this board, but in politics in general).  I'm all for immigration because who the fuck am I to say where people can and can not live.  Course I don't really believe in boarders...
Logged

jimmed

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2008, 11:38:57 AM »

When it comes to immigration, I'm all for it.  It's not because of any 'good of the nation' bull shit that seems to be on everyone's mind (not just saying on this board, but in politics in general).  I'm all for immigration because who the fuck am I to say where people can and can not live.  Course I don't really believe in boarders...

That's all fine and dandy in a libertarian utopia.

But we're forced to foot the bill for the leeching fuckers in the meantime.
Logged

timmysoboy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Word
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2008, 12:26:02 PM »

Yeah, dude, that kinda blows.  I hope I can find a job someday that doesn't require me to pay income tax.  That way I've got NOTHING to complain about.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 37 queries.