FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush's Border Buffoonery





The Philosopher Princess
During this “election crisis” year, almost every political posturer is polling the public to find which buzzwords will get the most votes. They aren’t trying to find out what will really work, or to put together a real solution, but just what will sound good to the majority of their supporters without alienating too many other voters.

The politically charged “immigration crisis” is one issue on which politicians are particularly keen to take every possible stance, while being careful not to take any real stands. As expected, the president leads the pack in talking a lot while saying nothing of substance. If the “W” didn’t already stand for “Waffler”, this recent speech on border issues makes the case that it should.

Source: http://www.reason.com/links/links051606.shtml
ReasonOnline wrote:
Bush's Border Buffoonery

Non-binding, non-militarized non-solutions to a non-problem

Nick Gillespie

Give President Bush this much: His 16-minute "major" speech on immigration touched on, however briefly, every key issue related to the topic: border control, enforcement, guest worker programs, I.D. cards, you name it. And in the doublespeak fashion that underpins all political utterance, nothing seemed to mean what it plainly seemed to mean. Or at least imply. Hence, the president is sending 6,000 National Guard troops to keep watch on the Rio Grande, but "The United States Is Not Going To Militarize The Southern Border," says the White House fact sheet on the matter. No way, Jose—because "Mexico is our neighbor and friend." We just don't want our sister to employ one.

The real problem, which no politician is trying to solve, is that making it illegal to move, to search for a better job, and to support your family, is a violation of natural laws. Whenever Government attempts to change natural laws, the resulting conflict between natural laws and man-made Government rules creates chaos, hardship, and political crisis.

Instead of honestly putting the blame where it belongs, politicians posture to the fear of their constituents and promote unworkable pseudo-solutions that sound good in 15-second sound bites, but have no real substance and cannot work in the real world. (Note: Washington DC is not in the real world Razz.) Politicians work on the absurd assumption that if force is causing a crisis, the solution is to increase the level of force.

For a thoughtful read on the president’s doublespeak about immigration, this article from Reason Magazine is precious.
horseatingweeds
This type of thing makes me angry, perhaps due to my ignorance to the subject as this is usually the cause of my anger.

The immigration problem is not that illegal immigrants ARE coming over the border; it is that the system that brings legal immigrant in must be so inefficient that it is easier to risk life and limb in the dessert.

We currently have these people working for nothing and they are willing. What reason should we have for not letting them in legally? If our legislature can call an emergency super session to keep some poor girl a vegetable why can’t they initiate a revamp on our immigration system?

The Mexicans are hard working and dedicated people. Their standard of living is going up nearly as fast as the Chinese. Its not like the US will suddenly be inundated by millions of Mexicans.

It seems better in the long run if we invest in central and south America than to invest in a belligerent wall or military force to keep them separate. Its times like this that I feel in agreement with Anarchist Princes.
smalls
Princess,
It's great to see someone else post an article from Reason!
At any rate, just to piggy-back on your post. The real problem isn't immigration, it's the welfare state. We simply cannot have both.
For more on this, and a general debunking of myths associated with immigration, check out this article.
ocalhoun
You know, I'm getting a little tired of people railing against what is being done about illigal immigration, but I have yet to hear anyone who has any better ideas on what to do.
If you could take over the US government for long enough to do so, what would you do about it? I think the president is doing a good job with it, given the circumstances.

My favourite idea is a hostile takeover of Mexico, making it the 51st through 55th states. Then all Mexicans would be US citezens and could migrate freely.

A more plausable plan would be to open the border, and make it legal to come to the US for everyone, but require everyone who does so to get an ID and work for at least minimum wage. Even this would mean lower wages for Americans, but it would work better than the current strategy.

Besides the point, what is it about Mexico that makes living illigaly in the US, hundreds of miles away from your family, and making a pittance of a salary for backbreaking labor seem preferable?
Soulfire
The problem I have with illegal immigration is that it is, indeed, illegal. People who break the law are punished, that's how it works. They broke our laws, and I see it as a huge injustice to everyone to let them go scott-free. Natural laws, in my opinion, do not include having the ability to do whatever one would like. That's part of the problem, natural law is subjective, and the definition varies per person. They, just as any other person, should abide by the law.
The Philosopher Princess
Soulfire wrote:
Natural laws, in my opinion, do not include having the ability to do whatever one would like. That's part of the problem, natural law is subjective, and the definition varies per person. They, just as any other person, should abide by the law.

Natural laws are the laws of the universe, science, and how things work. They don’t need codified into law books to be valid. They are valid because they work. Gravity, for instance, is a natural law. It wasn’t passed or decreed, just discovered. And even before it was discovered, it already worked. It is impossible to break the law of gravity. If you try to break the law of gravity you stand a chance of breaking something else (maybe your head).

Natural laws are not subjective. Legislative laws, bureaucratic rules, regulations, and decrees are subjective. They are made for subjects to obey. They require enforcement to work at all, and generally don’t work very well. Often, the results of enforcing the rules are worse than the results of the behaviors they were designed to change.

Supply and demand is a natural law. The free market runs on natural laws that have been discovered by economists. The freedom to migrate is part of this system of natural laws that makes the free market run efficiently. When government (or some gang across town) decides to interfere with the laws of supply and demand, the free market, and the freedom to migrate, it is going against what is natural.

So, like the guy who continually bumps his noggin trying to break through a brick wall, government (not just ours, actually all governments) keeps making the mistake of trying to overcome natural laws with subjective man-made laws, rules, regulations, and decrees.

What’s up with that? Are they trying to play God? Do they think passing an earthly law will change the natural laws that the earth runs on? They can never have enough “enforcement” to overcome the law of gravity, supply and demand, free market, the laws of motion and inertia, and various laws of human nature.

So, you are right that natural laws do not include the ability to do whatever one would like. In fact, the opposite is true. Natural laws prevent their own violation. No matter how powerful a person or group of people believe themselves to be, they cannot overcome natural law.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s get back to why I care. Obviously government won’t succeed in breaking or changing natural law. But, it can do a heap of damage in trying. Its silly war on immigration is hurting real people and wreaking havoc on the economy.

Eventually, it will be seen as just another stupid fallacy of the “bad old days”. Like when the Pope decreed that the sun, moon, and stars all revolved around the earth and that believing Galileo’s theory that the earth revolved around the sun was heresy worthy of death. The Pope had the political power, so even Galileo agreed (in order to save his neck), but the advancement of knowledge was slowed to a crawl as scientists worried about being theologically correct, rather than looking for truth.

Government has proven over and over again that it is willing to waste millions of lives and billions of dollars on impossible quests, that if successful would still be a disaster.

I strongly suggest people stop breaking their heads and others’ heads by trying to change natural laws.
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Natural laws, in my opinion, do not include having the ability to do whatever one would like. That's part of the problem, natural law is subjective, and the definition varies per person. They, just as any other person, should abide by the law.

Natural laws are the laws of the universe, science, and how things work. They don’t need codified into law books to be valid. They are valid because they work. Gravity, for instance, is a natural law. It wasn’t passed or decreed, just discovered. And even before it was discovered, it already worked. It is impossible to break the law of gravity. If you try to break the law of gravity you stand a chance of breaking something else (maybe your head).

Soulfire meant something akin to 'natural rights', you've taken that the entirely wrong way (and far down that way). Personaly, I'd say people are born with no natural rights. Not the right to be alive, not the right to speak your mind, not the right to do what you please, and not the right to cross whichever borders you please. Your rights are given to you by governments, and are worth nothing unless they are enforced by governments. (Therefore without initaition of force *wink*, you have no rights, as human nature leads others to violate your rights.)

The United States has, wisely or not, given it's citizens the right not to be swarmed by countless foregn workers willing to work for a fraction of minimum wage (another right given by the government; the right to enough money to keep a family healthy, given that you are willing to work).

Illigal immigrants are not only breaking imigration laws, they're usualy breaking other laws, such as the minimum wage and tax laws. If they came over and obeyed all of these laws as well (I know they can't), then they wouldn't be such a big problem. If illigal imigrants came over and worked for at least minimum wage, and paid thier taxes would it be such a problem? You'd still have the problem of all the US currency being sent back over the border, and the national security issues, however.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Let’s get back to why I care. Obviously government won’t succeed in breaking or changing natural law. But, it can do a heap of damage in trying. Its silly war on immigration is hurting real people and wreaking havoc on the economy.

It's illigal imigration itself that's wreaking havoc on the economy, although the war on it is what's causing people to be hurt.

Borders are important to countries: how do you tell the difference between the border being infiltrated by these;
1 field laborer
2 cocaine smuggler
3 terrorist / spy

#1 isn't hurting anyone in any tangible way, just the economy, but #2 and #3 are very much hurting people.
S3nd K3ys
The US has more immigrants than ANYONE else in the world with hundreds of millions waiting to get here.

Being here ILLEGALLY should get you thrown in jail for 6 months, then deported.
ocalhoun
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Being here ILLEGALLY should get you thrown in jail for 6 months, then deported.

I'm not sure about that, sending people to jail costs money. I say, deport them to a different country than what they came from like, Afganistan.
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
Soulfire meant something akin to 'natural rights', you've taken that the entirely wrong way

Okay, but I’m the one who discussed natural laws in my first post. So my context is the valid one here. If the subject was intentionally changed to rights then it should not have been posted here but on a different thread. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, and not interpreting it as intentional.
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Being here ILLEGALLY should get you thrown in jail for 6 months, then deported.

I'm not sure about that, sending people to jail costs money. I say, deport them to a different country than what they came from like, Afganistan.


I understand that, but I think it would be more of an incentive not to come here illegally if you knew you were going to spend time in jail and not be able to work and send money back home.

But you bring a valid point.
ralphbefree
I agree that the timing of the immigration issue gives politicians an issue to enflame emotions of their voters and thus gain office by media propogada efforts. I live in California and graduated with an agriculture business adminstrative degree, and I do not agree with the current measures being taken by the USA and Californian governments. California is one of the largest producers of the worlds food supply. 14.6% of the US food consumption is produced in California. This food is harvested in large part with the labor of Mexican workers. These workers by neccessity are nomadic, traveling north with the ripening crops. In the winter when there is no work they return home where the sun is warm and await the next season. What a hard life, but one that is neccessary because it is impossible to make a living being a farm hand on todays multi-corporate owned farms.
by 2030 upto 10% of California's 9 million acre crop land can be converted to non-agriculture uses; I.E. suburban housing. This will reduce the need for agriculture farm workers and seasonal harvest help. With the population expected to increase another 17 million by 2030 there will be a great demand for housing. This housing is going to be in the crop lands that once supported the rest of the country.
So I feel that the government thinks that this conversion of agriculture land to urban sprawl will displace the illegal immigrant population. This is in essence using there cheap labor while it benefited us and now there is no room for them so we will kick them out. This is wrong. These people followed the American Dream to come here and work hard to better their families. They, like the Irish and the Blacks during the mid 1800's are being enslaved to do the work that the white elite do not want to do themselves but is necessary. Yet unlike their enslaved bretheren of the mid 1800's there is no room for them to stay in the country that they help to create after capitalistic evolution has forced the demise of their trade.

We cannot morally stand by and eat the good food that these people help bring to our tables and then watch as we deport them as our way of saying Thank You for a hard job well done. We cannot use these people then "kick them to the curb".
Billy Hill
ralphbefree wrote:

We cannot morally stand by and eat the good food that these people help bring to our tables and then watch as we deport them as our way of saying Thank You for a hard job well done. We cannot use these people then "kick them to the curb".


You don't have to be illegal to be here working seasonal jobs.

You're just making excuses.

I don't understand what part of ILLEGAL folks don't understand. The US currently has the highest legal (and illegal) immigration rate in the entire world. Those illegals cutting to the front of the line need to be fined an d sent back to the end of the line (or deported as the case warrents). It's that simple.

Granted, the line is long and drawn out and that needs to be addressed, but not until the companies employing illegals, and the borders are secured, can that be delt with.

The financial and social burdens brought on by illegal immigration is staggering.
HoboPelican
Billy Hill wrote:
...

I don't understand what part of ILLEGAL folks don't understand. The US currently has the highest legal (and illegal) immigration rate in the entire world. Those illegals cutting to the front of the line need to be fined an d sent back to the end of the line (or deported as the case warrents). It's that simple.
...


I gotta agree with you on this. It seems foolish to me to think that the US can absorb any given amount of immigrants. That is why there are laws concerning it. But whether the immigration laws need to be changed or not really isn't the issue. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Period. So now some folks want to let the lawless stay and those trying to observe the rules get to wait. I personally think that sucks. I say we deport the illegals and blacklist them.

You don't like the law, what are you doing to change it?

And PP, you wrote alot about Natural Law and how pointless it is to try to change it, but I'm not at all convinced that humans moving anywhere they want falls under Natural Law. To equate the force of gravity with freedom of movement is one heck of a leap of logic and I don't think you made a very good case for it.
The Philosopher Princess
smalls, thanks for the link to that very good article. This was a roll-your-eyes part, because you know it’s too true:

Jacob G. Hornberger wrote:
Let me restate this for emphasis: Under the pretext of enforcing immigration laws, our government — the U.S. government — the same government that sent tens of thousands of American GIs to their deaths in foreign wars supposedly to resist communism, is now forcibly returning people into communism.

Fighting communism but forcibly preventing people from getting out of it: what a crock Rolling Eyes. This leads nicely into my next point.
~~~~~~~~~~
horseatingweeds, the way you’ve stated this is very profound.....

horseatingweeds wrote:
The immigration problem is not that illegal immigrants ARE coming over the border; it is that the system that brings legal immigrant in must be so inefficient that it is easier to risk life and limb in the dessert.

.....(including its implied questions). Though I think to most people that would seem trivial, to me, it comprises so much to consider. “The system” includes, but is not limited to, how things work or don’t work in Mexico, and how things work or don’t work in the US. (It also includes natural laws, which aren’t particular to either.)

Without being comprehensive or specific, I’d like to offer an observation that I believe to be true.

“The system” is “inefficient”. Most of the people who talk in rhetorics of “illegal is illegal!” offer “solutions” of more inefficiency (more money spent on the same old programs, more time wasted doing the same things they’ve been doing, but just doing more of them, etc.). Some people sincerely believe that making the system more inefficient (with all that it implies) will reduce the “problem”.

Of course, people in denial won’t see it that way. Gamblers on their way to bankruptcy sincerely believe their next BIG win, and the saving of their life, is just a lucky roll or deal away. Liberals think more money for a failed monopolistic school system will improve education and that socialized medicine will improve health care. NeoCons[%%] think that more money for war and anti-terrorism will make us more secure.

People who sincerely believe in Big Government can’t see that their problems, many of which are caused by Big Government, can’t be solved by more of the same, i.e., even Bigger Government.

Only a person stepping away from the fray can see that in the bigger picture, Fighting Inefficiency with More Inefficiency won’t work.
____________________
[%%] The real Conservatives used to be for Small Government, but they have been mostly usurped by today’s NeoCons who are just as pro-Big-Government as the modern Liberals. But, before Liberals were for Big Government, the “Liberal” name was given to those who opposed Big Government, such as the Patriots of the American Revolution. Maybe since the “Conservatives” are championing Big Government now, the “Liberals” will start proposing ways to reduce Government. Remember: Liberal means proposing changes, Conservative means maintaining the status quo. So, in times of Big Government (out of control) trying to reign it in is Liberal. But, when there was a smaller, more reasonable, Government, keeping it that way was Conservative, while increasing it was Liberal. (It may seem confusing, but you can get a handle on this if you like.)
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
...
Of course, people in denial won’t see it that way. Gamblers on their way to bankruptcy sincerely believe their next BIG win, and the saving of their life, is just a lucky roll or deal away. Liberals think more money for a failed monopolistic school system will improve education and that socialized medicine will improve health care. NeoCons[%%] think that more money for war and anti-terrorism will make us more secure.


And people like PP think that opening the border will solve the whole problem.
Come on, PP, your solution is as simplistic as any here. Wink

Again, I say, it's illegal. It's not a solution, but it's a fact. If you don't like it, what are you doing to change it? Should we just ignore any law we don't like? Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

And still I don't see any sound argument to consider the "freedom of movement" as natural law.
S3nd K3ys
I'm with Hobo on this.


Natural Law?

You don't watch Discover Channel do you? Laughing Laughing

Whens the last time you saw one group of animals let another group move into their area and eat up all their food and use up all their resources and try to make them live they way THEY want to live?

Then live to tell about it?

Seriously, the 'Natural' world is FILLED with borders created and strictly enforced.

So you'll have to do better than "Natural Law". Wink
S3nd K3ys
BTW, PP, Mexico is NOT poor by any means. Also, you really need to study ILLEGAL immigration and LEGAL immigration more and realize that there IS a difference. Also, study the immigration laws in several countries and tell me what you find compared to that of the US. (Besides the length of time it takes here, which I admit needs to be shorter).

Again I'll try to get you to understand using your home as an example... I'll make it real simple, just like I do with my 3 year old who knows everything:

Imagine you (are forced by your landlord to) invite some homeless guy to your home. You put him to work. Feed him. He brings a wife and a son along later and you take them as well. You feel good about yourself and profess your humanitarian bleeding-heart liberal deeds proudly to all your friends.

Then you notice that there are 186 homeless folks (with their families) at your home eating your food, sleeping in your bed, and trying to get you to talk to them in 'hobo gibberish', even though they know english.

Now, pretend you don't have a phone.. only a car.

Your kid gets hurt really bad (raped and beaten by one of the homeless guys staying un-invited in your yard) and you have to drive him 20 minutes to the hospital. But one of the homeless guys you didn't invite drove your car, used ALL the gas then crashed it so it wouldn't run.

You had to take a bus. All the homeless guys took your bus money.

You get to the hospital, but it's been closed because all those homeless guys used all the resources.

Your son dies.

You go home.

You kick out the homeless guys then get arrested for being cruel to them.

Get it now?
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


Jacob G. Hornberger wrote:
Let me restate this for emphasis: Under the pretext of enforcing immigration laws, our government — the U.S. government — the same government that sent tens of thousands of American GIs to their deaths in foreign wars supposedly to resist communism, is now forcibly returning people into communism.

Fighting communism but forcibly preventing people from getting out of it: what a crock Rolling Eyes. This leads nicely into my next point.

How old is that quote? I didn't think Mexico is a communist country, or that the cold war is still ongoing...
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~


Only a person stepping away from the fray can see that in the bigger picture, Fighting Inefficiency with More Inefficiency won’t work.


May I reiterate my point, what WILL work? Surely, as much as you're disparaging the current system, you must have some far better ideas. Right?
HoboPelican
ocalhoun wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


Jacob G. Hornberger wrote:
Let me restate this for emphasis: Under the pretext of enforcing immigration laws, our government — the U.S. government — the same government that sent tens of thousands of American GIs to their deaths in foreign wars supposedly to resist communism, is now forcibly returning people into communism.

How old is that quote? I didn't think Mexico is a communist country, or that the cold war is still ongoing...

May I reiterate my point, what WILL work? Surely, as much as you're disparaging the current system, you must have some far better ideas. Right?

The quote is from 2002 and here is a more extensive quote
Quote:
Indeed, how many Americans know about the one million anti-communist Russians whom U.S. and British officials forcibly repatriated to the Soviet Union at the end of World War II, knowing that death or the gulag awaited them?

Ancient history, you say? Well, consider one of the most morally reprehensible policies in the history of our nation: the forcible repatriation of Cuban refugees into communist tyranny, a practice that has been going on for many years and that continues to this day.

Let me restate this for emphasis: Under the pretext of enforcing immigration laws, our government — the U.S. government — the same government that sent tens of thousands of American GIs to their deaths in foreign wars supposedly to resist communism, is now forcibly returning people into communism.


So it is referring to WWII and the US currently sending cubans back to Cuba. Now, can someone tell me if my memory is correct, but aren't those being sent back convicted felons? Seems pretty reasonable, if that's true.

And if I read PP posts correctly, she favors letting everyone go anywhere in line with her idea of the natural law of freedom of movement". Which she seems unwilling to to discuss. Smile
rwojick
Did you ever notice how many times it is the government on all levels violating the fundamental rights of the Constitution?

America was built on open borders. People can move freely in and out. This makes sense in a defense scope because other countries would be less likely to attack us because their people are here visiting or working.

So, who blocks the "freedom" and creates the hassle? The government that is safe keeping the rights, thats who?

Doesn't Iraq have the right to defend itself with the "right to bear arms"? Who creates the hassle? The one's with no evidence, that's who.

Having my bags searched by rats "protecting me" at the air port is a definite, having my plane shot down is a "maybe". How many "definites" do you want happening to you in your life time in return for "protection" from a few "maybes"?
S3nd K3ys
rwojick wrote:

America was built on open borders. People can move freely in and out. This makes sense in a defense scope because other countries would be less likely to attack us because their people are here visiting or working.


It may have been 'created' on open borders, but it was 'built' with regulated borders.

Quote:
Having my bags searched by rats "protecting me" at the air port is a definite, having my plane shot down is a "maybe". How many "definites" do you want happening to you in your life time in return for "protection" from a few "maybes"?


Flying is optional. You don't have to fly.

If you ARE going to fly, rules apply. Get over it. Just because you are all butt-hurt about it doesn't mean it bothers everyone. In fact, I'd be willing to be that more than 75% of people are smart enough to realize how in-significant waiting 10 minutes to have some someone search rat-bags is compared to having your plane brought down by someone with a gun.
rwojick
I think with GW you must remember his background as a cheerleader. He likes to whoop up the crowd and he has done it many times in many area's.

At least this brings the discussion out, however, as an actual player GW is not very good. He's good at cheering, not at directing a favorable outcome, as a quaterback would.

I think the idea of open borders is that over time America would be populated by people of many countries. And this is true today. Well, with this being the given, people of other Countries are less likely to attack us because their kin is living here.

Of course, it takes much for us to overcome this world wide good will, and it seems GW is busy doing just that. The shame is that a couple of good plays could make the world a much better place, but again, GW's flaw holds us back. He thinks his inner circle holds all of the knowledge, and he seems to refuse to pay for information that does not agree with his prejudices.

The time is winding down on what can be termed as a very mediocre presidency, this is a shame as it is little compared to what could have been.
rwojick
The idea of the Country was "open borders" but in landing in places like New York City, the locals could not resist the chance to pick the immigrints pockets.

This leads to the filthy rich tripping over the filthy poor in New York City, and our Country being fed with information from ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Ever notice how little World News comes from NYC? No, Bill OReilly wants to focus on the Mexican Border, if order to focus attention AWAY from the theives on Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and the "news studios".

Every time the infromation moguls suck up every dollar in the Universe, Washington prints more up, so the information Moguls can do it again.

How much does Regis make per show? Less that Ofrah? Don't beleive everything you hear, especially when it all comes through the "Big Apple".
diverden
I have the answer to the US making it to the World Cup finals and the problem of illegal immigration. We can create centers for dayworkers as some have proposed, and then round up all of them for soccer tryouts. Out of 10-15 million illegal immigrants, there must be several hundred who are world class soccer players and some others as coaches. We can offer them instant citizenship with the condition that they play for the US team, and we send the rest of them back to practice soccer until they are good enough to make the team. The other possibility is that we draft them into a mercenary army to fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other countries that we are possible threats ( this covers a lot of turf, but according to Cheney and Bush we have to be pre-emptive).I think this makes as much sense as amnesty, building a fence, official ID cards, and several other proposals offered by the politicians.
simp
Instead of sending National Guard weekend warriors to shuffle Border Patrol back office paperwork, why not play for real?

Create a mile-deep kill zone along the Mexican border. First they see the signs, in English and Spanish, that say clearly:

STAY OUT OR DIE!

Then they see the razor-wire fence. Behjnd the fence, they see more signs, pointing out exactly where (only some of) the land mines are buried. Overhead, from time to time, they see the helicopter gunships, with orders to kill any human that enters the zone. What they don't see are the hidden snipers, patiently waiting to practice their craft. And of course the zone wil be patrolled by crazed, undomesticated dogs that live to kill.

Still want to try to take my job, Spic?
S3nd K3ys
simp wrote:


Still want to try to take my job, Spic?


Quoted for posterity... Wink
horseatingweeds
Or get a college education
Related topics
President Hu's surname the Bush headache was hoped everybody
What does Bush look like?
Bush Poll
The downfall of american society
Beginning of the End of the World?
Texas and Arizona's Governer's have declared a...
Bush - Somebody Like This Band?
A soldier's rant
George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People - Kanye West
Retarded leaders
It's 'Let's Roll', NOT 'Let's roll over'
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Previously dismissed by "Bush Lied" crowd...
President bush
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.