You're either a citizen or you're not
It seems that due to some fraud among a
few lay midwives in border areas, the Feds are challenging the birth certificates of citizens when it comes to applying for passports. They are not, however, challenging their citizenship when it comes to anything else, like voting.
From
here.
So, because a passport is not a right, but some kind of luxury, the government can deny it without having any burden of proof.
Personally, I think if the government is not willing to go to court and accuse someone of not being a citizen, it should issue the f***ing passport. It's pretty stupid to punish someone for not being born in a hospital. Note that the government is challenging birth certificates from
all lay midwives, not just those that are suspected of fraud.
Eh, I see your point but after having worked in a couple of areas near the Southern border I can tell you that we (taxpayers) pay for a lot of illegal prego women who come here for only one reason, to have babies and make the kids legal so they can live off the government. It really is pretty sad. I think if we started to charge their home countries the cost of their care things might tighten up a little.
Eh, I see your point but after having worked in a couple of areas near the Southern border I can tell you that we (taxpayers) pay for a lot of illegal prego women who come here for only one reason, to have babies and make the kids legal so they can live off the government. It really is pretty sad. I think if we started to charge their home countries the cost of their care things might tighten up a little.
If the kid is born here, that kid is constitutionally a legal American citizen (amendment XIV, clause 1), whether the parent(s) are legal or not. So we ARE the kid's home country. Not that I'm advocating we pay for anything/everything.
We know that TGRR. That's his point.
We know that TGRR. That's his point.
What, that the kid's home country is America?
Yes and thats why they come here 8.9 moths pregnant.
Yes and thats why they come here 8.9 moths pregnant.
That makes precisely zero (0) difference, as far as the kid is concerned. Amendment XIV has no requirements as to where the kid is conceived.
That was Rich's point, if they are born here they should get a passport. Possibly they've discovered a business of phony midwife papers.
But since the constitution, more accurately the courts, say anchor babies have to be given citizenship, the answer is to stop the 8.5 month pregnant alien from entering illegally.
That was Rich's point, if they are born here they should get a passport.
Oh, sure. I agree with that.
Possibly they've discovered a business of phony midwife papers.
According to the OP, they've found one (1).
But since the constitution, more accurately the courts, say anchor babies have to be given citizenship, the answer is to stop the 8.5 month pregnant alien from entering illegally.
Exactly. Precisely.
Now, tell me that either of the two major parties are going to get right on that. Go on, tell me.
Of course not, too much money involved. But at least they are practicing on
Canada so they'll be ready if it's forced upon them. ;)
That makes precisely zero (0) difference, as far as the kid is concerned. Amendment XIV has no requirements as to where the kid is conceived.
Perhaps you missed my suggestion in another thread to build ta friggin wall/fence whatever to keep the illegals out. I even offered to build a nice lil birthing place on the other side of the border so that the children could be born in relative safety in Mexico. Not only does this keep illegals out and the costs associated with them, but it offers those jobs the illegals would have been taking, for legal residents.
Even more
reason.
(CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico) — Gunmen killed a police officer and a jail guard Friday and left signs on their bodies saying they had fulfilled a promise to slay at least one officer every 48 hours until the Ciudad Juarez police chief resigns.
If they lived next door to you wouldn't you lock your door?
From Lou Dobbs on CNN:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/19/ldt.01.html
Well, joining me now with more on the threat of Mexico's drug cartels pose to this country is El Paso mayor, John Cook, and his city is on the front lines of the border drug wars. We have CNN military analyst, General David Grange who joins us, and Professor George Grayson from the College of William and Mary.
Gentlemen, with this range of expertise we will make some progress on this.
Let me start with you, General Grange. Earlier this month, secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano was talking about the prospect of a fence or wall on the U.S./Mexican border. Let's listen to what she had to say first, for just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECY: At some places fence or wall. But, I would -- would not advise the Congress that to simply build a fence or wall or whatever you want to call it, between the U.S. and Mexico is going to stop illegal immigration or drug trafficking...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: You know, General Grange, I come to you first because, really, it's clear that a new sort of strategy is needed. Should the Department of Homeland Security -- what should they do to deal with border violence? Should we have some sort of surge approach to this?
BRIG GEN DAVID GRANGE (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I believe it's a national security issue. If you look at the national military security -- military security for the United States, the protection of the homeland is the No. 1 priority. And I believe this -- conditions exist where law enforcement agencies, National Guard, even the citizenry of the United States should not have to put up with this security challenge.
This is a -- we're not providing a safe and secure environment for our people. And so a fence, a wall would be part of it, but it has to be in depth, it has to be efforts in depth to handle the threat. PILGRIM: Certainly does.
Mayor Cook, I would like to turn to you. El Paso, how safe is it really? And I understand that your city council recently voted on a resolution to debate the merits of legalizing drugs. You vetoed that. Tell us what it's like in El Paso.
MAYOR JOHN COOK, EL PASO, TX: Well, you know, the issue of the veto and the debate about whether or not we should lift the prohibition against narcotics I think distorts the fact of the border wall. You have to remember the suggestion of the wall came up before all the violence did and it was actually supposed to stem illegal immigration, that's how the whole conversation began in the first place.
PILGRIM: But, how do you feel about the drug trafficking? Certainly this is a very serious issue for this country?
COOK: Well, you know, drug trafficking, you have to look at the two sides of the equation. One is supply and the other is demand. The United States is definitely on the demand side, Mexico is on the supply side. I think what you see with all the violence happening right now is a direct impact from President Calderon finally putting his foot down on the drug dealers and on the cartels that control the passageways and the trade routes.
And for our council to suggest that we do exactly what the drug cartels would like us to do, which is step away from the argument and make it a legal trade, I think is a step backwards for us.
PILGRIM: Mayor Cook, do you think more should be done on our side of the border?
COOK: Well, we definitely need to look at issues like gun smuggling which goes into Mexico right now, money laundering, which happens in the United States, and the money is sent back into Mexico. We definitely have to clamp down on those.
The place to hurt the drug dealers is two places: No. 1, interrupt their supply and No. 2, interrupt the cash that's coming back to them. And until we adopt that approach, then we're never going to win this war.
PILGRIM: Professor Grayson, you've spent so many years on this topic. Tell us what you think about the criminal gangs in the Mexican Gulf cartel that we're seeing this enormous surge of violence that we're seeing, potentially because of the crackdown, but still very hard to take when you're near this.
PROF GEORGE GRAYSON, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: Kitty, there are more gangs, they're more dangerous, they're involved in more activities and they're now going after military officers, retired and on active duty, to show that they can act with impunity.
And so, I think it's important to have a wall at the border, recognizing that's not a panacea, but it is at least one step that we can take to try to slow the influx of both illegal aliens and also the flow of narcotics.
PILGRIM: You know, I really would like to bring up a comment that the outgoing CIA director, Michael Hayden, said recently. And there was a report put out that for U.S. Security, only second to al Qaeda, Mexico poses a huge threat and I'd like to actually read from this report.
Mexico is one of two countries, Pakistan is the second, that bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse and the report says, "in terms of worse case scenarios for the joint force and indeed for the world, two large and important states bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico -- and any dissent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on serious implications for homeland security alone."
Now, General Grange, this report is absolutely chilling. What should be the U.S. response to this?
GRANGE: Well, I think this really wakes us all up. I mean, the constitution of the United States talks about "we, the people," providing for a common defense. I mean, that's a mission, that's something that all people of the United States ought to think about and care about.
You know, what is need here, if the president of Mexico is going to do what he's doing to try to stem it on his side, we got to do it in concert with him, everything we can, using private and public sector, using a whole nation approach bringing everything we can to bear to stop this . and I'm not talking about just guns and kinetic means (ph), I'm talking about even soft power, Information operations.
You know, it's pretty tough to tell Pakistan not to let people infiltrate into Afghanistan or be on the North Korean/South Korean border where tunnels come under the country, to, wow, look at this, this is something. What about our own border? Why do we allow that in the United States of America, which is our primary defense requirements? It amazes me and I think we ought to do something about it.
PILGRIM: Mayor Cook, when you read something like that, about a collapse, a catastrophic collapse, what does that mean for El Paso? Does that not worry you?
COOK: Well, first of all, I don't think we're bordering on catastrophic collapse. Barry McCaffrey, I think, would disagree with that. But, what he does suggest is that we have bilateral negotiations with the country of Mexico and work with them as equal partners and at the same time respect their sovereignty.
And I think we probably need to put more money than is put in that we put into Mexico, right now. Their army and police force are not equipped the same way that the drug dealers are, so I think supplying them equipment, training of their police force, those are some things that we can definitely help with. But, we have to, at the same time, respect their sovereignty and they have to ask us to do these things, we can't force them.
PILGRIM: Gentlemen, we have to hold it there. A very important topic, we've barely touched on it. George Grayson, Mayor John Cook and General David Grange, thank you.
ummm, so Mayor Cook thinks we need to give Mexico money to fight the drug trafficers in Mexico? WTF is it our responsibility to supply money and training to Mexico now? Good grief! And we need to respect their sovereignty? Why? Because they respect OURS so much? god this shit pisses me off!
Perhaps you missed my suggestion in another thread to build ta friggin wall/fence whatever to keep the illegals out. I even offered to build a nice lil birthing place on the other side of the border so that the children could be born in relative safety in Mexico. Not only does this keep illegals out and the costs associated with them, but it offers those jobs the illegals would have been taking, for legal residents.
Perhaps you missed reality, you know, where neither major party nor their owners has any interest in doing anything of the kind.
Even more reason.
If they lived next door to you wouldn't you lock your door?
I live 19 miles from Mexico. We lock our doors and travel armed.
Not because I have anything against Hispanics, but because I live 19 miles from Mexico.
This is something some people have trouble grasping.
Yes there are a zillion Mexicans coming in illegally, that are just poor starving people that are willing to work hard to support themselves and their families back home, blah blah blah.
BUT, if you are a Mexican criminal running from the police, or the army, where can you be safe? USA.
If you are a Mexican criminal looking for money, as most criminals are, where's the money? USA.
If you are a Mexican smuggler, where are you going to smuggle to? USA.
If we don't know who's coming in, how do we ferret out the criminal element, which is significant and increasingly violent?
Maybe the US should pay the illegal immigrants to build the wall to keep themselves out.
Actually we should hire Israelis, they know how to build a wall.
No, their wall sucked, only the no man's land, barbed wire and machine guns were really effective.
Maybe the US should pay the illegal immigrants to build the wall to keep themselves out.
Funny story about that.
I know one of the main contractors for the portion of the (mostly symbolic) wall built in Arizona. Guy owns a pretty good size crane company. He watched some guys being hauled off the concrete crew by INS.
On the other hand, over in Benson, the guy who owns the wreckers caught 4 illegals on his property (crossing the border). He held them at gunpoint until INS arrived. He was sued for "mental cruelty" by the four, represented by some ambulance chasers from Sierra Vista. He wound up settling with them at $78,000.
Next time, I think he'll "be scared" because "they were coming right at him". I mean, what the FUCK was that judge thinking?
No, their wall sucked, only the no man's land, barbed wire and machine guns were really effective.
We can't afford (in terms of dollars or cash) to man a front that long indefinitely.
No problem, with a decent wall, plenty of electronic sensors and drones in the air, we could be 99.9 % effective.
Or dust off MacArthur's plan for keeping the Chinese out of Korea. ;)
No problem, with a decent wall, plenty of electronic sensors and drones in the air, we could be 99.9 % effective.
Or dust off MacArthur's plan for keeping the Chinese out of Korea. ;)
Fuck that. Like I said, I'm 19 miles from the border. So you can understand that I'm not in favor of that last bit.
Somehow I didn't think you'd be enthusiastic about that one. :lol2:
Actually we should hire Israelis, they know how to build a wall.
pffft.
Actually we should hire Israelis, they know how to build a wall.
Good idea. :D
BUT, if you are a Mexican criminal running from the police, or the army, where can you be safe? USA.
If you are a Mexican criminal looking for money, as most criminals are, where's the money? USA.
If you are a Mexican smuggler, where are you going to smuggle to? USA.
Decriminalise drugs.
Put the money saved into rehab programmes.
And a bit of the current "defence" budget into helping previously Taliban-supported poppy growers to find a new crop, because all opium previously bound for the US will now be
grown in the US.
Buy American!
Phooey!
Screw the wall. Dredge out the Rio Grande, extend it to the Pacific and make it a navigable canal like the Panama Canal. Let Mexico be a half partner on the construction, maintenance and operation and we'll have thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, going on forever. And a natural barrier to illegals coming across the river, which as it stands now, can be crossed without getting one's knees wet.
I like my idea better than the wall, which will be tunneled under before it's even finished.
Phooey!
Screw the wall. Dredge out the Rio Grande, extend it to the Pacific and make it a navigable canal like the Panama Canal. Let Mexico be a half partner on the construction, maintenance and operation and we'll have thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, going on forever. And a natural barrier to illegals coming across the river, which as it stands now, can be crossed without getting one's knees wet.
I like my idea better than the wall, which will be tunneled under before it's even finished.
Problem: The entire budget would get sucked through Mexico City in bribes alone. You think Washington is corrupt? Ho ho!
Perhaps you missed reality, you know, where neither major party nor their owners has any interest in doing anything of the kind.
The fact that neither party is in favor of it has no bearing.
Yes there are a zillion Mexicans coming in illegally, that are just poor starving people that are willing to work hard to support themselves and their families back home, blah blah blah.
Good - get stations built to process the paperwork and get them in legally.
BUT, if you are a Mexican criminal running from the police, or the army, where can you be safe? USA.
If you are a Mexican criminal looking for money, as most criminals are, where's the money? USA.
If you are a Mexican smuggler, where are you going to smuggle to? USA.
HUGE BUT!
If we don't know who's coming in, how do we ferret out the criminal element, which is significant and increasingly violent?
That is exactly why we NEED to control this border.
The fact that neither party is in favor of it has no bearing.
Well, except when it comes to, you know, reality.
if we built a wall that was 50 ft thick, and 400 feet high, that went down 75 ft below the surface, and we cleared the land 2000 feet on both sides of it, except for the outposts on the US side and a big freaking gate every 100 miles or so.....
think big.....make a point out of it.
if we built a wall that was 50 ft thick, and 400 feet high, that went down 75 ft below the surface, and we cleared the land 2000 feet on both sides of it, except for the outposts on the US side and a big freaking gate every 100 miles or so.....
think big.....make a point out of it.
1952 miles long = 10,306,560 feet
10,306,560 * 475 * 50 = 244,780, 800, 000 cubic feet of concrete.
= 81,593,600,000 yd^3 at 4050 LB/yd^3 = 330,454,080,000,000 pounds, or 165,227,040,000 tons of concrete. Plus rebar.
Got 165.2 billion tons of concrete kicking around?
That'll be A LOT of work won't it? Good place to start.
1952 miles long = 10,306,560 feet
10,306,560 * 475 * 50 = 244,780, 800, 000 cubic feet of concrete.
= 81,593,600,000 yd^3 at 4050 LB/yd^3 = 330,454,080,000,000 pounds, or 165,227,040,000 tons of concrete. Plus rebar.
Got 165.2 billion tons of concrete kicking around?
Nah, but we have lots of left over cold war nukes. Bomb the hell out of the scrub brush and turn the soil to a radioactive wasteland that no one will be able to cross until another brillant plan can be hatched.
Or as far as I am concerned, let all of the people crossing just pay a "toll" with Mexican Hash and I'll guarantee they can cross along my property line.
:fumette:
Nah, but we have lots of left over cold war nukes. Bomb the hell out of the scrub brush and turn the soil to a radioactive wasteland that no one will be able to cross until another brillant plan can be hatched.
Screw that. The friggin' wind down here goes South to North.
The delegates from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California are not amused.
That'll be A LOT of work won't it? Good place to start.
It would also require about a century's worth of concrete at maximum possible output, not allowing for any concrete for anything else...and don't get me started on the rebar.
So, you can spend a hundred years building your wall, while everything else falls apart.
Oh please start on the rebar. I wanna know how many steel plants/mills we'd have to get going to do this.
It'll never happen - we both know that, but goddamn we gotta get some kind of control over this shit.
Oh please start on the rebar. I wanna know how many steel plants/mills we'd have to get going to do this.
It'll never happen - we both know that, but goddamn we gotta get some kind of control over this shit.
Penalize the employers. If there's no jobs, there's no reason to immigrate (outside of CA for free bennies, I mean, but they're all nuts in CA anyway).
Fine the employers til their eyes bleed, including agriculture. The problem will ease up soon enough.
we could make it out of
adobe!
we could make it out of adobe!
WE COULD MAKE IT OUT OF MOONBEAMS AND PIXIE DUST!
you have a lot of that stuff down there?
you have a lot of that stuff down there?
We're positively gagging on the stuff.
Decriminalise drugs.
I'm talking about real criminals, not just the drug smugglers which are a nuisance but not nearly as dangerous.
Dredge out the Rio Grande, extend it to the Pacific and make it a navigable canal like the Panama Canal.
That would let the Chinese ships into the Gulf and eliminate a lot of trucking jobs.
I'm talking about real criminals, not just the drug smugglers which are a nuisance but not nearly as dangerous.
Are you joking? The bastards run around with assault rifles and NVGs. Bump into them in the boondocks, they just shoot you.
further support to stopping the flow!
The majority of the pot, coke & crank coming in is by the tractor trailer load, or plane load, and doesn't go near the boondocks.
The small time smugglers/hustlers that you might find in the boondocks, while they may be dangerous, the real criminals that are committing armed robberies, home invasions, kidnappings and murders, worry me much more. They should have never gotten past the border.
if we built a wall that was 50 ft thick, and 400 feet high, that went down 75 ft below the surface, and we cleared the land 2000 feet on both sides of it, except for the outposts on the US side and a big freaking gate every 100 miles or so.....
think big.....make a point out of it.
Add land mines and you might have a solution there.:3_eyes:
1952 miles long = 10,306,560 feet
10,306,560 * 475 * 50 = 244,780, 800, 000 cubic feet of concrete.
= 81,593,600,000 yd^3 at 4050 LB/yd^3 = 330,454,080,000,000 pounds, or 165,227,040,000 tons of concrete. Plus rebar.
Got 165.2 billion tons of concrete kicking around?
Sounds shovel ready to me ...
Collateral job and wealth creation. There will be enough new jobs to offset the lost ones.
And the ancient Chinese built a freakin' huge wall out of stone blocks using little more than slave labor. With modern trucks and cranes, the job will be simpler and faster, with less loss of life and fewer bodies buried beneath.
1952 miles long = 10,306,560 feet
10,306,560 * 475 * 50 = 244,780, 800, 000 cubic feet of concrete.
= 81,593,600,000 yd^3 at 4050 LB/yd^3 = 330,454,080,000,000 pounds, or 165,227,040,000 tons of concrete. Plus rebar.
Got 165.2 billion tons of concrete kicking around?
At step 3, you should have divided by 27, not 3.
You only need 18.3 billion tons of concrete.
well, what are we waiting for then?!
Roger to call his congressman
Penalize the employers. If there's no jobs, there's no reason to immigrate (outside of CA for free bennies, I mean, but they're all nuts in CA anyway).
Fine the employers til their eyes bleed, including agriculture. The problem will ease up soon enough.
That's what I say. If there is a stiff penalty, which now there isn't, then employers would quit hiring them and they'd go home. Of course, we would have to quit giving them free govt assistance as well.
As for the crime stuff, I swear, just repeal all the friggin' drug laws and let people grow their own. That would get rid of the crime element. Prices would go down because it would be plentiful. Let things like weed open up a new industry. It's ridiculous that weed is illegal. It's safer than alcohol. And the tax we could collect on it would be astonomical, not to mention we would save on the "drug war." Controlling other certain substances and taxing them, like we did with alcohol, would help with more hardcore drugs. (No, I don't think those drugs are good. But I think drug laws do more harm than the actual drugs.)
Of course, we would have to quit giving them free govt assistance as well.
and there is the problem.
Which is why it would never get past the victimhood mentality of many community leaders.
and there is the problem.
And I don't understand that...
What don't you understand?
What don't you understand?
Why we can't quit giving them govt assistance. If you're illegal, why are you entitled to it?
Oh - In that case we agree. For a moment there I had a WTF moment.
As for the crime stuff, I swear, just repeal all the friggin' drug laws and let people grow their own. That would get rid of the crime element. Prices would go down because it would be plentiful. Let things like weed open up a new industry. It's ridiculous that weed is illegal. It's safer than alcohol. And the tax we could collect on it would be astonomical, not to mention we would save on the "drug war." Controlling other certain substances and taxing them, like we did with alcohol, would help with more hardcore drugs. (No, I don't think those drugs are good. But I think drug laws do more harm than the actual drugs.)
snip~ The small time smugglers/hustlers that you might find in the boondocks, while they may be dangerous, the real criminals that are committing armed robberies, home invasions, kidnappings and murders, worry me much more. They should have never gotten past the border.
I watched a thing on weed on cnbc tonight. Since the state law in California is legal for medicinal purposes, there are dispencaries where people with prescriptions can legally buy pot. The people who run those dispencaries pay taxes, a LOT of taxes. the rest of the country should follow suit.
Eric Holder apparently said states will now be in control of their marijuana laws. Good. It's about friggin' time.
I watched a thing on weed on cnbc tonight. Since the state law in California is legal for medicinal purposes, there are dispencaries where people with prescriptions can legally buy pot. The people who run those dispencaries pay taxes, a LOT of taxes. the rest of the country should follow suit.
Eric Holder apparently said states will now be in control of their marijuana laws. Good. It's about friggin' time.
I think there is still some major confilict with the fed. I can't remember what it was, maybe in the state of Washington, maybe BigV can help out here.
Why we can't quit giving them govt assistance. If you're illegal, why are you entitled to it?
I will go so far as to say they should be allowed to use an emergency room...but that INS should be informed.
Now, as far as INS goes, we really kind of need to let the INS do its job...and we need to kick every president since Carter up and down the street, for telling the INS to back off.
I will go so far as to say they should be allowed to use an emergency room...but that INS should be informed.
Now, as far as INS goes, we really kind of need to let the INS do its job...and we need to kick every.....
one of them here illegally - OUT
one of them here illegally - OUT
Yes, the conclusion of both of my statements taken together agree with that.
I feel for 'em, you know? I understand what they're trying to do...you know, live a better life.
But that isn't our problem.
No it isn't. Perhaps they could try to make their own country better.
No it isn't. Perhaps they could try to make their own country better.
You'd just get shot by the drug lords, who have 60% of the population actively backing them.
You'd just get shot by the drug lords, who have 60% of the population actively backing them.
But that isn't our problem.
I will go so far as to say they should be allowed to use an emergency room...but that INS should be informed.
Now, as far as INS goes, we really kind of need to let the INS do its job...and we need to kick every president since Carter up and down the street, for telling the INS to back off.
Well hospitals have had to close because of people using the emergency room like a doctor's office (not just illegals, but people without insurance as well). The INS isn't even allowed to ask your legal status. THAT is wrong.
[QUOTE=TGRRI feel for 'em, you know? I understand what they're trying to do...you know, live a better life.[/quote]
Yes, me too. But they should come legally. IMHO, the only way to stop the problem is to cut it off at the top, with the people who hire them.
Build the damn wall already - Did you get the concrete yet TGRR?
Build the damn wall already - Did you get the concrete yet TGRR?
DANCIN' AS FAST AS I CAN, BOSS!
\
Not dance, sing.
I get no kick from champagne, mere alcohol does...
Talk about leaving a legacy....This would rival the Hoover Dam.
Talk about leaving a legacy....This would rival the Hoover Dam.
It would totally overshadow it.
The Hoover Dam was a mere 6.6 million tons of concrete.
Talk about conspiriocracy!
It would totally overshadow it.
The Hoover Dam was a mere 6.6 million tons of concrete.
But its like money - you gotta use the "new math."
But its like money - you gotta use the "new math."
Okay. Let's vote the border states a few hundred billion tons.
Problem solved!
TGRR,
Adjusting to the new regime.
[youtube]bLJxmJZXgNI[/youtube]:mad:
Can't we get that money back from the countries of origin? This is friggin' ridiculous. THAT'S why so many hospitals are shutting down.
but but but - share the wealth and all, right? Take from the rich...
Can't we get that money back from the countries of origin? This is friggin' ridiculous. THAT'S why so many hospitals are shutting down.
May as well try to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
but but but - share the wealth and all, right? Take from the rich...
We put a strawman in your strawman so you can bullshit while you bullshit.
We put a strawman in your strawman so you can bullshit while you bullshit.
HA HA HA HA - great one!
HA HA HA HA - great one!
:3eye: