Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - The Topic [Tom Woods] [Bob Murphy] [Adam Kokesh]

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9
SmartMuffin
06/26/12 6:07:00 PM
#1:


Probably the three people I reference most often in this topic, so it's their turn to enjoy the spotlight of being in the title!

Here's Bob Murphy being awesome.



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
06/26/12 6:10:00 PM
#2:


Are they all white guys?

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
06/26/12 6:14:00 PM
#3:


Oh man, I have no idea why evolution chose to only bless white guys with the awesomeness of libertarianism. It works in mysterious ways.

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
Ace_Killjoy
06/26/12 6:15:00 PM
#4:


There is a good chance I'll vote for Ron Paul if he decides to build a gundam.

--
Proud member of the Global Defence Force.
http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/AceKilljoyShieldpngyp.png
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
06/26/12 6:16:00 PM
#5:


I don't think Ron Paul would build a gundam, but he would probably let private industry do it.

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/26/12 6:36:00 PM
#6:


From: JDTAY | #003
Oh man, I have no idea why evolution chose to only bless white guys with the awesomeness of libertarianism. It works in mysterious ways.


What about Tom Sowell? Not sure if he qualifies as libertarian or not but I've linked to him a few times!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
TomNook7
06/26/12 7:14:00 PM
#7:


needs more Gary Johnson

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/26/12 8:38:00 PM
#8:


external image

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/26/12 9:12:00 PM
#9:


also [Peter Schiff]



Someone should force Obama to watch this.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
barrysshoes
06/26/12 9:56:00 PM
#10:


tag

--
Ron Paul 2012 - Restore America Now
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/27/12 6:49:00 AM
#11:


http://www.facebook.com/KokeshforCongress/posts/434722576560361

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
06/27/12 1:23:00 PM
#12:


Hey Smuffin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/stockton-california-to-file-for-bankruptcy-protection/2012/06/27/gJQAOoim6V_story.html

Time for a dwmf post about how California's taxes needed to be just a bit higher?

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/28/12 6:38:00 AM
#13:


He's serious, bro.

external image

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/28/12 6:03:00 PM
#14:


Today, the Supreme Court confirmed what every reasonably intelligent person already knew.

You cannot rely on the federal government to limit its own power.

Nullification has always been the answer here, and this country will not taste freedom until the states embrace their proper role as protectors of the natural rights of man.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
06/28/12 6:07:00 PM
#15:


SmartMuffin posted...
this country will not taste freedom until the states embrace their proper role as protectors of the natural rights of man.


We should give each state a superhero name to help it embrace its protector role.

Delaware can be Captain Mighty.

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/29/12 6:04:00 PM
#16:


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-actor-jay-mohr-talks-about-his-christian-faith-laments-atheists-child-like-beliefs/

Jay Mohr to never work in Hollywood again.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/29/12 10:00:00 PM
#17:


The #1 reason I am a voluntarist.

external image

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
06/29/12 11:27:00 PM
#18:


There is a problem among libertarians, and that is that they claim their idea of private property is obvious, natural, and exists in a vaccum, but it is not and does not. One approach to property is to say that property is assigned according to law. But this requires a government for property to exist at all.

If you don't feel that law is a prerequisite for property to exist......who does the land of Israel belong to?

a. The Jews, because they hold it now.
b. The Palestinians, because they held it 60 years ago.
c. The British, because they conquered it from the Ottomans.
d. The Ottomans, because they ruled it before World War I.
e. The Palestinians, because they bought it from the Crusaders.
f. The Turks, because the Crusaders conquered it from them.
g. The Palestinians, because the Turks conquered it from the Arabs.
h. The Vatican, because the Crusaders conquered it righteously.
i. France, because most of the First Crusade came from France.
j. Russia, because the Crusaders swore to restore the land to the Byzantine Empire, which finds it closest analog today in Russia.
k. Greece, for the above and because the Byzantine Empire is closer to Greece.
l. The Vatican, because the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, and the Vatican is the true heir to Rome being in Rome.
m. The Palestinians, because the Crusaders wrongly took it from them.
n. Iran, because Shiites are right.
o. The Palestinians, because Sunnis are right.
p. The above mentioned Christian countries, because the Muslims wrongly conquered it from the Eastern Roman Empire.
r. The Jews, because the Romans wrongly expelled them from the land.
s. Iran, because Persia ruled the land.
t. The Jews, because God gave them the land.
u. The descendants of the Canaanites, because they held the land before the Jews.
v. The Jews, because God promised the land to Abraham.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/30/12 8:40:00 AM
#19:


Well, when it comes to property rights, land will always be the trickiest to figure it out. Rothbard goes into this quite a bit in Man, Economy, and State. Basically, originally land is unowned, and it becomes owned by the act of occupying, possessing, and improving it. Once that ownership is officially recognized in some way, there then becomes a chain of custody with legal deeds and such.

You make your first mistake in claiming that law requires government. It does not. Common law was originally developed by competing courts and jurisdictions. You can still have law with private, competing courts. It won't necessarily be universal law, but if you think we have universal law NOW, you're incredibly naieve.

Your second mistake is considering groups rather than individuals. Voluntarists have no use for collectives like that. Israel right now does not belong to "the Jews" but rather it belongs to the individuals within Israel who happen to own property. Most of them happen to be Jews. If a bunch of Muslims wanted to purchase all the property in Israel until THEY comprised a majority, that would be fine too.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/30/12 10:48:00 AM
#20:


external image

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
MalcolmMasher
06/30/12 10:57:00 AM
#21:


You make your first mistake in claiming that law requires government. It does not.

Okay, I don't follow this step. If me and my community agree that some hypothetical judge is capable of resolving our disputes and that his decisions are binding, then we've just made him into (part of) our local government. That is what gives him the authority to determine the law; we have agreed that he governs us in the matter.

Whereas, if me and my community do not agree to abide by the will of Judge Hypothetical, meaning that there is no communal government, then he has no power and cannot effectively determine the law.

--
I don't like this duchy. Now, it's an adventurer.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/30/12 11:02:00 AM
#22:


The law can be determined but on a voluntary basis. This is one of the more "advanced" AnCap ideals and I'm not really qualified to explain it in detail. Essentially, you have to think of the law as a voluntary service that nearly everyone would choose to participate in, but would not be forced.

Let's say you steal something from me. I would go to a private court and file suit against you. If you ignored the suit, or simply were not able to satisfactorily dispute my charges, this particular court would find you guilty of theft. Depending on the prestige or credibility of the court, this would likely affect the willingness of others to trade or transact with you.

Essentially, the courts would be private reputation monitoring services, and in a society based entirely on trade, reputation is everything. I've linked this video a bunch of times in these topics and I'm not sure if everyone has ever watched it, but it sketches the outline of the idea.



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/30/12 12:31:00 PM
#23:




--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
06/30/12 6:39:00 PM
#24:


I submit that this proposed system is neither natural nor obvious, even if it were possible for it to work.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
06/30/12 6:46:00 PM
#25:


Let's put this another way.

Contracts in our legal system are 3-way agreements- between 2 parties and the government, which agrees to enforce the contract. Contracts in Smuffin's system are 2-way agreements between the 2 parties only. What are the benefits of these approaches? The primary benefit of having 3-way contracts is that both of the non-government parties can have greater confidence that the contract will be performed, because the 3rd party will enforce it. This leads to more contracts being made, more trade conducted, and greater efficiency.

It is true that you can easily have 3-way contracts without a nominal government. But I submit that the more powerful the 3rd party is, and thus, the more they are able to act as a good contract enforcer, the more they actually assume the power and role of a government.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
06/30/12 7:07:00 PM
#26:


But I submit that the more powerful the 3rd party is, and thus, the more they are able to act as a good contract enforcer, the more they actually assume the power and role of a government.

Well, you've basically hit the nail on the head in identifying the trade-off that is at stake here.

You are correct that a government is better able to enforce contracts, laws, etc. than a private entity would be. However, government is also better able to violate your rights, steal your property, murder you, etc. than a private entity would be. The voluntarist argument, as I understand it, is not that government is completely without merit, just that the excesses and abuses outweigh the benefits of "being more affective at enforcing contracts."

And this particular trade-off doesn't just show up in a "government vs anarchy" debate. It also shows up in any argument about what kind of government to have. Remember, back in the day, people essentially made the same argument you are making to justify monarchy. We need to have a King, because they're so much more capable of really "getting things done", right?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/01/12 7:44:00 AM
#27:


Nigel Farage continues to be awesome.



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
TomNook7
07/02/12 11:05:00 AM
#28:




--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/02/12 9:38:00 PM
#29:


http://takimag.com/article/whats_so_bad_about_discrimination_brian_lasorsa#axzz1zWybuweO

We need more discussions like this is society. Freedom of association is a natural right that government has no business disrupting.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
the_champ999
07/02/12 11:10:00 PM
#30:


tag
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 8:41:00 AM
#31:


So Peter Schiff was discussing the whole "health care tax" thing today and brought up an interesting point. According to him (haven't verified it myself), the Supreme Court, shortly after the 16th amendment was passed, ruled that it was constitutional ONLY if the incomes were separated from the sources of the income. Which seems impossible, but they ruled that this could be done through the method of a corporate balance sheet. So essentially, the income tax was only constitutional if it was a profit tax rather than an income tax.

And, oddly enough, that's how it works for corporations but not for individuals. If Microsoft obtains 10 billion in revenues, but also spends 10 billion on expenses, they have a net profit of zero, and thus pay no income tax. For individuals; however, this is obviously not the case. You are taxed on your gross revenues, with zero regard for how much you actually spend. Why is this the case? Why is this tolerated and not pointed out? Why doesn't the left, who takes every POSSIBLE opportunity to demonize and villianize corporations, hammer this constantly?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz
07/03/12 9:27:00 AM
#32:


From: SmartMuffin | #029
http://takimag.com/article/whats_so_bad_about_discrimination_brian_lasorsa#axzz1zWybuweO

We need more discussions like this is society. Freedom of association is a natural right that government has no business disrupting.


This is how things work these days:

Males-only barbershop = misogynist institution

Blacks-only congressional caucus = civil rights.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png
Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
07/03/12 9:30:00 AM
#33:


Wait, is that guy seriously arguing racism is completely OK?
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 10:45:00 AM
#34:




omg! two out of three ain't bad.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
the_champ999
07/03/12 2:04:00 PM
#35:


I'm kind of with Lasastryke on the racism one. I think racism is inherently wrong, and I feel like people can have a freedom to only serve products to those they want to, but there is a limit. If the bartender said he didn't feel comfortable serving the guy and asked him to leave, that's one thing, but forcibly removing him violently isn't something I'd say is fair.
If companies can do whatever they want on their property I'd be scared to go into some stores knowing I could get beaten for no apparent reason.
I think right now this concept is in favor of affirmative action and racial oversensitivity, but the opposite extreme is just as undesirable.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 2:06:00 PM
#36:


If companies can do whatever they want on their property I'd be scared to go into some stores knowing I could get beaten for no apparent reason.

And EXACTLY how long do you think a company known for beating people up for no apparent reason would stay in business?

Anyway, you can't "assault someone for no reason" on any property, whether it's government owned, owned by a corporation, or even one citizen's house.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz
07/03/12 2:10:00 PM
#37:


From: Mr Lasastryke | #033
Wait, is that guy seriously arguing racism is completely OK?


I don't think he was supporting the guy assaulting people on his property. But I think he was basically arguing that freedom of association is important. Ideally, a private institution should be allowed to provide or deny service to whoever they choose.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and assault is a crime no matter where it is.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png
Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
... Copied to Clipboard!
NeoElfboy
07/03/12 2:29:00 PM
#38:


And EXACTLY how long do you think a company known for beating people up for no apparent reason would stay in business?

Plenty long, as long as they only beat up on a small minority. This... uh, actually happened 50+ years ago, you realise.

Granted, it wouldn't happen now most likely (I hope) but there is a reason that laws were drawn up to prevent gross racism. There's a pretty good chance that this man's business gets (rightly) boycotted out of existence if the allegations turn out to be true. But at the very least, the laws forcing businesses to serve all races were necessary once, and I am glad the sentiment behind those laws persists.

--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 2:44:00 PM
#39:


Plenty long, as long as they only beat up on a small minority. This... uh, actually happened 50+ years ago, you realise.

No, I don't realize. Why would people of that minority continue shopping at a store that beats them up? And if those people stopped shopping there, the store would have to either start beating up other people, or not beat people up at all.

But at the very least, the laws forcing businesses to serve all races were necessary once

No they weren't. Many businesses WANTED to integrate, but were legally required to segregate. That's why they're called Jim Crow LAWS and not "Jim Crow Corporate Policies."

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
foolmor0n
07/03/12 3:21:00 PM
#40:


From: NeoElfboy | #038
Granted, it wouldn't happen now most likely (I hope) but there is a reason that laws were drawn up to prevent gross racism.

This is the paradox of the system.
If you are living in a society where racism is tolerated, then a whites-only bar that routinely beats up and throws out black people would stay in business for a long time, and it would perpetuate the racism throughout the society. Government would come in and make that racism illegal, which would help to make society intolerant of racism. But then once you have a society that is intolerant of racism, do you need the anti-racism laws? Can't you let the whites-only bar exist, knowing that it's not beating up black people?

But that begets the question, why was there a racist bar that beat up black people in the first place? Shouldn't it be illegal to hurt people? Well yes, unless the government supports your racism.

The truth is, the free market is inherently non-discriminatory, and it promotes catering to a wide audience as opposed to just the majority. It's only when government supports racism by limiting the natural rights of a group that a racist market and a racist society is perpetuated.

--
_foolmo_
'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
... Copied to Clipboard!
JDTAY
07/03/12 3:22:00 PM
#41:


Hey, guys, big win for freedom:

http://news.yahoo.com/n-c-lawmaker-fracks-her-vote-152255133--abc-news-politics.html

Sometimes your finger is smarter than your brain.

--
PSN: JDTAY87
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 3:27:00 PM
#42:


If you are living in a society where racism is tolerated, then a whites-only bar that routinely beats up and throws out black people would stay in business for a long time, and it would perpetuate the racism throughout the society.

Well, I take a little issue with this. Society wouldn't just have to "tolerate" racism for such an establishment to be successful, it would have to be overwhelmingly supportive of racism. It's hard enough to make money in the bar/restaurant business even IF you're willing to serve everyone.

In order for a "whites only" bar to succeed, the number of whites who are SO racist that they prefer bars where no blacks are would have to exceed the number of blacks (and the number of whites who find racism abhorrent, for that matter).

This is exactly what Peter Schiff was talking about in his radio show by the way. He said that he would prefer any anti-Seitic business owners in New York to put up "No Jews Allowed" signs so that he and all his friends would know that place was anti-Semitic and would choose not to shop there. Under current laws, racist business owners merely hide their racism and still benefit from the business of those they are racist against.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
the_champ999
07/03/12 7:06:00 PM
#43:


This is exactly what Peter Schiff was talking about in his radio show by the way. He said that he would prefer any anti-Seitic business owners in New York to put up "No Jews Allowed" signs so that he and all his friends would know that place was anti-Semitic and would choose not to shop there. Under current laws, racist business owners merely hide their racism and still benefit from the business of those they are racist against.

Ok, while unpleasant, this makes a lot of sense. Like, I don't like racist people, but I'd much prefer racism to be communicated in words rather than fists. I'd like there to be no racism at all, but unless I master mind-control and can take over everyone's lives before Obama can, I'll settle.

I have to say as well, this topic has made me a Peter Schiff fan.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 7:20:00 PM
#44:


Now that Freedom Watch is gone, the Peter Schiff Show is probably the best place for daily analysis of the news (primarily focused on economics and the stock market, of course) from a pro-liberty prospective. You can listen for free every day from 10 AM - noon EST at http://www.schiffradio.com/. He has great guests, and great guest hosts! I've only been listening to him off and on for about six months and I've already learned a ton.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin
07/03/12 8:27:00 PM
#45:


http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/06/22/new-obama-ad-the-most-arrogant-man-in-the-world/

I support this parody effort.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
... Copied to Clipboard!
the_champ999
07/03/12 10:26:00 PM
#46:


Augh Peter Schiff's radio is not a good time for me and he charges for getting podcasts... well I wouldn't expect anything different from him.
... Copied to Clipboard!
redrocket
07/04/12 1:27:00 AM
#47:


SmartMuffin posted...
http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/06/22/new-obama-ad-the-most-arrogant-man-in-the-world/

I support this parody effort.



He picked Joe Biden to be his Vice President…just to show that he doesn’t really need one.

Talk about a low blow.

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
... Copied to Clipboard!
TomNook7
07/04/12 5:52:00 AM
#48:


You can subscribe to the Schiff Report on Youtube. That's what I do. I watch him all the time. He's like a hero to us all.

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
07/04/12 6:39:00 AM
#49:


It's pretty incredible to me that California has such major budget issues when it has such a large tax base. This is a rich state, with loads of rich people and highly profitable businesses being taxed at a very high rate. And yet it has to resort to regressive taxes like charging $460 for running a red light, and still can't balance the budget. In New Hampshire, we have no income tax, no sales tax, and a lot of our most productive residents work in Massachusetts, but we do fine with the budget. We do have unpaid state representatives in NH, but I'm sure that's not where California is losing all that money.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.
... Copied to Clipboard!
foolmor0n
07/04/12 7:09:00 AM
#50:


CA just needs to tax more, obviously

--
_foolmo_
'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9