Del Rio Border

41,108 Views | 607 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Cobretti
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

well, boys, I'm going down there hunting at the end of the month, so I will report back to the good sicem 365 peeps. Hunting on a friends ranch just out of Eagle Pass. He say he has Haitian's running amok. Will report back.
Hog hunting again ?
Big, Big Deer...My Son, not me. I'm more of a sit in a blind with some bourbon and binoculars kinda guy. Son (college) is serious trophy hunter with bow!
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

well, boys, I'm going down there hunting at the end of the month, so I will report back to the good sicem 365 peeps. Hunting on a friends ranch just out of Eagle Pass. He say he has Haitian's running amok. Will report back.
Hog hunting again ?
Big, Big Deer...My Son, not me. I'm more of a sit in a blind with some bourbon and binoculars kinda guy. Son (college) is serious trophy hunter with bow!
Would definitely prefer to sit in the blind with the bourbon.

Good luck !
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

well, boys, I'm going down there hunting at the end of the month, so I will report back to the good sicem 365 peeps. Hunting on a friends ranch just out of Eagle Pass. He say he has Haitian's running amok. Will report back.
Hog hunting again ?
Big, Big Deer...My Son, not me. I'm more of a sit in a blind with some bourbon and binoculars kinda guy. Son (college) is serious trophy hunter with bow!
Would definitely prefer to sit in the blind with the bourbon.

Good luck !
Depends on the bourbon
Friend shared some Woodford Reserve. 2 fingers with branch water
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

well, boys, I'm going down there hunting at the end of the month, so I will report back to the good sicem 365 peeps. Hunting on a friends ranch just out of Eagle Pass. He say he has Haitian's running amok. Will report back.
Hog hunting again ?
Big, Big Deer...My Son, not me. I'm more of a sit in a blind with some bourbon and binoculars kinda guy. Son (college) is serious trophy hunter with bow!
Would definitely prefer to sit in the blind with the bourbon.

Good luck !
Depends on the bourbon

True

But I know JR isn't going to drink any cheap crap .
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Osodecentx said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

Canada2017 said:

J.R. said:

well, boys, I'm going down there hunting at the end of the month, so I will report back to the good sicem 365 peeps. Hunting on a friends ranch just out of Eagle Pass. He say he has Haitian's running amok. Will report back.
Hog hunting again ?
Big, Big Deer...My Son, not me. I'm more of a sit in a blind with some bourbon and binoculars kinda guy. Son (college) is serious trophy hunter with bow!
Would definitely prefer to sit in the blind with the bourbon.

Good luck !
Depends on the bourbon

True

But I know JR isn't going to drink any cheap crap .
Wine, perhaps, bourbon, not so much. However , my buddy who's ranch it is a bourbon geek. Love friends like that! lol
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?





https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


You say that like it means something. An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

&ct=g
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.

Ridiculous

The United States not only had strict immigration regulations throughout the last 100 plus years........it had some of the highest import tariffs in the world .

Both contributed to the United States possessing one of the highest standards of living ever seen .

Even MEXICO has stricter legal immigration requirements than those of the United States.
As do Japan, Canada. New Zealand and Australia .
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.

Ridiculous

The United States not only had strict immigration regulations throughout the last 100 plus years........it had some of the highest import tariffs in the world .

Both contributed to the United States possessing one of the highest standards of living ever seen .

Even MEXICO has stricter legal immigration requirements than those of the United States.
As do Japan, Canada. New Zealand and Australia .
It laughable that so many liberals refuse to believe that the USA has some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. in 2018, the good 'ole USA only came 2nd to Germany with regard to number of migrants formally received.

Hell, right now, it so easy to come to America, all you need to do is just hang out by the bridge and wait for biden's people to come get you and take you where you want to go. No vax status needed.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.

Ridiculous

The United States not only had strict immigration regulations throughout the last 100 plus years........it had some of the highest import tariffs in the world .

Both contributed to the United States possessing one of the highest standards of living ever seen .

Even MEXICO has stricter legal immigration requirements than those of the United States.
As do Japan, Canada. New Zealand and Australia .
It laughable that so many liberals refuse to believe that the USA has some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. in 2018, the good 'ole USA only came 2nd to Germany with regard to number of migrants formally received.

Hell, right now, it so easy to come to America, all you need to do is just hang out by the bridge and wait for biden's people to come get you and take you where you want to go. No vax status needed.
Knew a husband and wife team of doctors with a net worth of over 2 MILLION pounds who wanted to leave Scotland and emigrate to Australia to be with their kids and grand kids already living there.

No brainer right ? Both countries in the British Commonwealth , and which country couldn't use more doctors ? Super qualified couple with kids already living in Australia .

They were turned down....flat down.

Why ?

Told they were too OLD. ( they were in their early 60's. )

Meanwhile Biden's handlers are opening the floodgates to millions of completely uneducated individuals most of whom can't even speak rudimentary English . No heath screening either ........in the middle of our country's worst pandemic in over a century .

Yet the same message board clods keep repeating their bizarre platitudes ....... as if farmers in California and west Texas need millions of unskilled laborers to pick the onion and lettuce crops.

Clearly doesn't make any economic sense......doesn't make any sense toward public health either .

Only makes long term political sense .







Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your reasoning, not mine.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

I know you are being facetious. That is the reasoning of faux conservatives, who imagine themselves smart
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

I know you are being facetious. That is the reasoning of faux conservatives, who imagine themselves smart
Yep.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

I know you are being facetious. That is the reasoning of faux conservatives, who imagine themselves smart
It's also the reasoning of genuine leftists who vastly overestimate their own intellect.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

I know you are being facetious. That is the reasoning of faux conservatives, who imagine themselves smart
It's also the reasoning of genuine leftists who vastly overestimate their own intellect.
Really Weak Wang
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Your reasoning, not mine.


at least you're consistent, another stupid response. You beat up strawmen like Bama beats FCS teams

Hercules Hercules!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

jupiter said:



https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/shape-shifting-pandemic-changed-contour-of-economy.html

Let's stop killing humans in the womb and see how the numbers react.
Why stop killing humans in the womb? Abortion affects 0.00% of people over the age of zero, which poses statistically zero risk to the general population. My body, my choice.

signed,
Conservatives

I know you are being facetious. That is the reasoning of faux conservatives, who imagine themselves smart
It's also the reasoning of genuine leftists who vastly overestimate their own intellect.
Really Weak Wang
Interestingly enough, that is the driving factor for most males that vote democrat.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.

Ridiculous

The United States not only had strict immigration regulations throughout the last 100 plus years........it had some of the highest import tariffs in the world .

Both contributed to the United States possessing one of the highest standards of living ever seen .

Even MEXICO has stricter legal immigration requirements than those of the United States.
As do Japan, Canada. New Zealand and Australia .
It laughable that so many liberals refuse to believe that the USA has some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. in 2018, the good 'ole USA only came 2nd to Germany with regard to number of migrants formally received.

Hell, right now, it so easy to come to America, all you need to do is just hang out by the bridge and wait for biden's people to come get you and take you where you want to go. No vax status needed.

That is a gross misrepresentation of our current policies. By misrepresenting current policy you make it impossible to engage in a constructive discussion of reform.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Rawhide said:

Canada2017 said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

muddybrazos said:

Wangchung said:

Meh, they claim to be libertarian yet push globalist narratives, and I've seen those types around here who are definitely not right-leaning.
I think open borders is common among some libertarians. The Koch brothers are ibertarian globalists bc cheap labor is in the interest of their business. As to the notions that immigrants do more crime that is only partially true. Legal immigrants do less crime. Illegals for the most part probably do less crime since they don't want to risk deportation but we know for a fact that many illegal immigrants are criminals and are involved with cartels & gangs.
We can leave legal immigrants out of the discussion, because save for a small number of people most Americans like legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are illegal for a myriad of reasons including not being able to legally immigrate due to criminal records in their home country. The problem is ANY crimes committed by people who aren't supposed to be here is too much. We have enough of our own crime to deal with and we don't need softhearted and softheaded people determining our immigration policies based on emotions and fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic. It's funny, the same people always whining about low wages are the ones pushing for open borders and depressed wages. They think with their hearts and we all suffer.

The new one drop rule. Any crime is one too many. IF it's committed by one of THEM.

The sound economic reasons in favor of immigration reform is not even the best reason. Liberty issues are the highest reason: private employers should be able to decide who they hire. This is a fraction of a step removed from my argument on why term limits are inherently undemocratic: voters should be able to elect their chosen candidate, not be forced to move on from someone they support merely because an arbitrary number of years have passed.

If you see an emotional component to this argument you brought it into the room. See the first paragraph.


One drop, that's right. One crime that could have been avoided through enforcement of current law is too many. Well put.
Why would we reform immigration when we don't even ask hundreds of thousands of illegals to adhere to the current immigration laws? You want to speed up the legal process for immigration? Stop allowing illegals to flood the system. Stop rewarding their breaking of our laws. The simple truth is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to flood our borders, unvetted and unvaccinated, is the surest way to destroy this country. A simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

You just roll right past a key point: the citizens that exercise their right to hire migrant labor. That is currently illegal, but I hear no cries for enforcement from you. Why is there no moniker for "illegal employers"?

Actually I already suggested we enforce the laws on the books rather than reforming anything. Grab your glasses and read again. Then address this simple question; what superpower has ever existed and thrived with open borders?

What superpower denies natural rights?

Sorry. Shorter list: which superpower
protects them?
Open borders is not a natural right. So again, what superpower that exists now or at any time in human history has ever been prosperous with open borders?


An immigration policy that recognizes the natural right to hire, to work, to travel is what America used to have. And should have again.

Ridiculous

The United States not only had strict immigration regulations throughout the last 100 plus years........it had some of the highest import tariffs in the world .

Both contributed to the United States possessing one of the highest standards of living ever seen .

Even MEXICO has stricter legal immigration requirements than those of the United States.
As do Japan, Canada. New Zealand and Australia .
It laughable that so many liberals refuse to believe that the USA has some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. in 2018, the good 'ole USA only came 2nd to Germany with regard to number of migrants formally received.

Hell, right now, it so easy to come to America, all you need to do is just hang out by the bridge and wait for biden's people to come get you and take you where you want to go. No vax status needed.

That is a gross misrepresentation of our current policies. By misrepresenting current policy you make it impossible to engage in a constructive discussion of reform.

Sure, okay buttercup. But we'll just forget the thousands of illegals he's released into the country with no vax mandate.

I guess if it was an "official policy" then you'd care.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true.

2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform.

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant.

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true. (Their anchor babies qualify and they live off that. True)

2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform. (Every abortion performed on a pregnant human ends a human life. Complaining about declining population numbers while promoting ending the lives of Americans. True)

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant. (I'm going to assume you support every leftist opinion posted in this thread since you've decided to answer for and defend leftists throughout it and have yet to disagree with the posts that I am obviously referencing)

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base. (At this point it should have been obvious to you that I was mentioning multiple proudly espoused beliefs of the left rather than your own personal beliefs but the only defense you have is to play semantics and avoid the overall point. You might pat yourself on the back for such antics but it just reveals the weakness of your arguments)
As far as usernames, this monicker is the second one I've had for this site and the first one on this site with more than two comments. Sorry if I don't know your history.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leaked-border-patrol-docs-release-immigrants-us-biden-administration
At least 160,000 illegal immigrants have been released into the U.S., often with little to no supervision, by the Biden administration since March including a broad use of limited parole authorities to make more than 30,000 eligible for work permits since August, Border Patrol documents obtained by Fox News show.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leaked-border-patrol-docs-release-immigrants-us-biden-administration
At least 160,000 illegal immigrants have been released into the U.S., often with little to no supervision, by the Biden administration since March including a broad use of limited parole authorities to make more than 30,000 eligible for work permits since August, Border Patrol documents obtained by Fox News show.
The American people have been lied to repeatedly by the national media since the moment Hillary conceded the 2016 election .

Yes, they are finally waking up to it......unfortunately its too late.

Radical Dems will use voter harvesting and mail in balloting to stay in power indefinitely .
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true. (Their anchor babies qualify and they live off that. True)
Chuckle, yeah, a family can live off the benefits provided to an infant. Give me a break. Not true, and anyone who can live off what they get from a citizen is not getting the "fruits of this country", they are getting gifts from a citizen. Or, much more likely, they are receiving wages for their labor.

2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform. (Every abortion performed on a pregnant human ends a human life. Complaining about declining population numbers while promoting ending the lives of Americans. True)
Still not murder. And I have never complained about population decline. Not true.

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant. (I'm going to assume you support every leftist opinion posted in this thread since you've decided to answer for and defend leftists throughout it and have yet to disagree with the posts that I am obviously referencing)
I'm disagreeing with exactly what you posted. What you choose to assume about me is up to you. So far it's not working out very well.

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base. (At this point it should have been obvious to you that I was mentioning multiple proudly espoused beliefs of the left rather than your own personal beliefs but the only defense you have is to play semantics and avoid the overall point. You might pat yourself on the back for such antics but it just reveals the weakness of your arguments)
Semantics. The weak minded response to an argument. I didn't engage in word games, I told you exactly and clearly what I believe. If there are weaknesses in my argument then by all means point them out. As to disarming citizens: **** no. Not true.
As far as usernames, this monicker is the second one I've had for this site and the first one on this site with more than two comments. Sorry if I don't know your history.

Well, now you know. I have disagreed with leftist arguments and disagreed with you. If you want to deal with what I say instead of the assumptions you make about what I don't say then here's your chance.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true. (Their anchor babies qualify and they live off that. True)
Chuckle, yeah, a family can live off the benefits provided to an infant. Give me a break. Not true, and anyone who can live off what they get from a citizen is not getting the "fruits of this country", they are getting gifts from a citizen. Or, much more likely, they are receiving wages for their labor.
(You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've personally met illegals that do this. I've met legal citizens who have illegal parents that do this. Your denial here is laughable)
2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform. (Every abortion performed on a pregnant human ends a human life. Complaining about declining population numbers while promoting ending the lives of Americans. True)
Still not murder. And I have never complained about population decline. Not true. (Killing a human without their permission is murder)

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant. (I'm going to assume you support every leftist opinion posted in this thread since you've decided to answer for and defend leftists throughout it and have yet to disagree with the posts that I am obviously referencing)
I'm disagreeing with exactly what you posted. What you choose to assume about me is up to you. So far it's not working out very well. It's worked as far as revealing the fact you want to pretend you're a moderate when your every move has been to defend leftists. You cannot prove the left doesn't do all the things I've listed simply because YOU haven't been caught doing all of them.)

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base. (At this point it should have been obvious to you that I was mentioning multiple proudly espoused beliefs of the left rather than your own personal beliefs but the only defense you have is to play semantics and avoid the overall point. You might pat yourself on the back for such antics but it just reveals the weakness of your arguments)
Semantics. The weak minded response to an argument. I didn't engage in word games, I told you exactly and clearly what I believe. If there are weaknesses in my argument then by all means point them out. As to disarming citizens: **** no. Not true.( Triggered by the gist of your argument being accurately labeled semantical? That's on you for how you've come at this topic)
As far as usernames, this monicker is the second one I've had for this site and the first one on this site with more than two comments. Sorry if I don't know your history.

Well, now you know. I have disagreed with leftist arguments and disagreed with you. If you want to deal with what I say instead of the assumptions you make about what I don't say then here's your chance.


I've been able to deal with your attempts to speak for the left while using your personal beliefs and behavior as a shield for any criticism that heads their way. You're not complex.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true. (Their anchor babies qualify and they live off that. True)
Chuckle, yeah, a family can live off the benefits provided to an infant. Give me a break. Not true, and anyone who can live off what they get from a citizen is not getting the "fruits of this country", they are getting gifts from a citizen. Or, much more likely, they are receiving wages for their labor.
(You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've personally met illegals that do this. I've met legal citizens who have illegal parents that do this. Your denial here is laughable)
2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform. (Every abortion performed on a pregnant human ends a human life. Complaining about declining population numbers while promoting ending the lives of Americans. True)
Still not murder. And I have never complained about population decline. Not true. (Killing a human without their permission is murder)

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant. (I'm going to assume you support every leftist opinion posted in this thread since you've decided to answer for and defend leftists throughout it and have yet to disagree with the posts that I am obviously referencing)
I'm disagreeing with exactly what you posted. What you choose to assume about me is up to you. So far it's not working out very well. It's worked as far as revealing the fact you want to pretend you're a moderate when your every move has been to defend leftists. You cannot prove the left doesn't do all the things I've listed simply because YOU haven't been caught doing all of them.)

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base. (At this point it should have been obvious to you that I was mentioning multiple proudly espoused beliefs of the left rather than your own personal beliefs but the only defense you have is to play semantics and avoid the overall point. You might pat yourself on the back for such antics but it just reveals the weakness of your arguments)
Semantics. The weak minded response to an argument. I didn't engage in word games, I told you exactly and clearly what I believe. If there are weaknesses in my argument then by all means point them out. As to disarming citizens: **** no. Not true.( Triggered by the gist of your argument being accurately labeled semantical? That's on you for how you've come at this topic)
As far as usernames, this monicker is the second one I've had for this site and the first one on this site with more than two comments. Sorry if I don't know your history.

Well, now you know. I have disagreed with leftist arguments and disagreed with you. If you want to deal with what I say instead of the assumptions you make about what I don't say then here's your chance.


I've been able to deal with your attempts to speak for the left while using your personal beliefs and behavior as a shield for any criticism that heads their way. You're not complex.

No, you were going to show the weakness of my arguments, not why you can't address them.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't know what I did but my specific responses aren't showing up. I'll try again later.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

quash said:

Wangchung said:

Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed.

Nice straw man.

Can you engage in substantive discourse?


It's only a strawman if it's not true or relevant. Everything I posted is true and relevant. But the guy who can only ask questions in return (trying to build a dialogue, right? Lol) when faced with questions that cut to straight through his narrative WOULD try to write it off as a strawman.

Let's see.

Wangchung said:

"Illegals somehow are entitled to all the fruits of this country with no compulsion to follow our laws, according to you, yet preborn humans can be murdered on a whim. Then you complain about population decline. "Kill your own children, disarm yourselves, import hostile illegal aliens" is one heck of a creed."

1. Migrants must follow the laws of this country. They cannot receive welfare, among other benefits. Not true. (Their anchor babies qualify and they live off that. True)
Chuckle, yeah, a family can live off the benefits provided to an infant. Give me a break. Not true, and anyone who can live off what they get from a citizen is not getting the "fruits of this country", they are getting gifts from a citizen. Or, much more likely, they are receiving wages for their labor.
(You truly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've personally met illegals that do this. I've met legal citizens who have illegal parents that do this. Your denial here is laughable)
2. Abortion is not murder; it is a constitutionally protected right until a certain point. We can argue over where that arbitrary point ought to be, but calling it murder is legally false. Not true. Or relevant to immigration reform. (Every abortion performed on a pregnant human ends a human life. Complaining about declining population numbers while promoting ending the lives of Americans. True)
Still not murder. And I have never complained about population decline. Not true. (Killing a human without their permission is murder)

3. I have never complained about population decline. Not true. Or relevant. (I'm going to assume you support every leftist opinion posted in this thread since you've decided to answer for and defend leftists throughout it and have yet to disagree with the posts that I am obviously referencing)
I'm disagreeing with exactly what you posted. What you choose to assume about me is up to you. So far it's not working out very well. It's worked as far as revealing the fact you want to pretend you're a moderate when your every move has been to defend leftists. You cannot prove the left doesn't do all the things I've listed simply because YOU haven't been caught doing all of them.)

4. Disarm yourselves. I don't know what your previous nicknames are, but I cannot believe you have been around here any time at all and think I advocate disarming citizens. I am one of the strongest 2d Amendment advocates on this board. Some of you "conservatives" are OK with red flag laws, among other restrictions; I am not. Not true. And really, really off base. (At this point it should have been obvious to you that I was mentioning multiple proudly espoused beliefs of the left rather than your own personal beliefs but the only defense you have is to play semantics and avoid the overall point. You might pat yourself on the back for such antics but it just reveals the weakness of your arguments)
Semantics. The weak minded response to an argument. I didn't engage in word games, I told you exactly and clearly what I believe. If there are weaknesses in my argument then by all means point them out. As to disarming citizens: **** no. Not true.( Triggered by the gist of your argument being accurately labeled semantical? That's on you for how you've come at this topic)
As far as usernames, this monicker is the second one I've had for this site and the first one on this site with more than two comments. Sorry if I don't know your history.

Well, now you know. I have disagreed with leftist arguments and disagreed with you. If you want to deal with what I say instead of the assumptions you make about what I don't say then here's your chance.


I've been able to deal with your attempts to speak for the left while using your personal beliefs and behavior as a shield for any criticism that heads their way. You're not complex.

No, you were going to show the weakness of my arguments, not why you can't address them.

I think it's my phone. Like I said, I'll see if I can fix it later.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?

The issue is not your phone...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.