1493: The Democratic American Government declares: America for Americans

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

BlackConservative:

Revnak:
You're comparing sovereignty to rational immigration laws. Those European sailors came for land slaves and glory not with the intention of becoming citizens of the new world but of conquering it. The brown people you seem to loathe so much come to your country seeking opportunity, not to expand the perimeter of the empires of their homelands.

Are you sure about their intentions? How do you know?

According to La Raza and the Reconquista of Aztlan they are here specifically to expand their empire.

I just... what? Firstly, Danyal has a major issue with Muslims, not Mexicans. Secondly, WHAT?!? How can you honestly believe Mexicans are interested in conquering the US? Mexico is probably the least significant threat to America that exists. Drug cartels, sure, but expanding immigration rights to illegals currently residing in nation or making it easier to legally enter the country will in no way affect them. You are being ridiculous.

Danyal:

Zef Otter:
Well considering the disease killed millions off and emptied the land.. which helped the settlers. I doubt it would do much if you cant enforce it.

But would it have been moral to enforce a no-immigration-policy if you 'occupy' an entire continent with a few million people? Indeed, I don't think they could have enforced it - but what if they did? Would it be wrong for Europeans to break that law?

TheIronRuler:
Danyal. Like I said before - Might makes Right

No, it doesn't. You know a lot about the Israel-Palestine-conflict. There are lots of justifications for the existence of Israel - "we've got more tanks than the Arabs" isn't one that's commonly used.

TheIronRuler:
BTW S. Africa didn't have as many cities as you might think.

You mean America instead of Africa, I hope? ;) But AFAIK, Meso-America was relatively densely populated.

.
I meant America, not Africa. It slipped.

Ownership of land and property wasn't the same as it was in Europe, especially in North America. It was one of the reasons why when they moved the ownership of land of the natives on to the British/American system, they abused the fuck out of it and basically robbed them blind.

Revnak:
The brown people you seem to loathe so much come to your country seeking opportunity, not to expand the perimeter of the empires of their homelands.

I'm sure that's very comforting knowledge to the victims of Islamic street gangs who are being subjected to a years long campaign of terror to expel them from the city for being gay, also comforting for the many victims of rape and sexual abuse caused by Islamic views on women will be greatly relieved to hear that.

Heck, in fact even I myself am relieved. The four thugs who called my wife a whore as she walked by, assaulted her and then attempted to assault me for being white and not bowing to the islamic ownership over all beings female, clearly had only my best intentions at heart, and clearly I was an agressive white imperialist pig for beating them down where they stood untill they either fled or were on the ground.

I am so happy you pointed this out for me.

Revnak:
You're comparing sovereignty to rational immigration laws. Those European sailors came for land slaves and glory not with the intention of becoming citizens of the new world but of conquering it.

At the time, those two things were the same, both for european and north american norms and values.

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

Revnak:
You're comparing sovereignty to rational immigration laws. Those European sailors came for land slaves and glory not with the intention of becoming citizens of the new world but of conquering it. The brown people you seem to loathe so much come to your country seeking opportunity, not to expand the perimeter of the empires of their homelands.

Are you sure about their intentions? How do you know?

According to La Raza and the Reconquista of Aztlan they are here specifically to expand their empire.

I just... what? Firstly, Danyal has a major issue with Muslims, not Mexicans. Secondly, WHAT?!? How can you honestly believe Mexicans are interested in conquering the US? Mexico is probably the least significant threat to America that exists. Drug cartels, sure, but expanding immigration rights to illegals currently residing in nation or making it easier to legally enter the country will in no way affect them. You are being ridiculous.

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

Danyal:

Shadowstar38:
I can't help but feel Europe wouldn't have given a fuck either way. If they wanted land, they were going to get it. They'd have every right to tell the immigrants to bugger off, but then everyone would just say "fuck the police" and expansion away.

But should they have given a fuck? Do you have the right* to claim a territory and tell others "this is mine, stay away"?

We wouldn't have had the right... but that wouldn't have stopped us. Like, at all. Back in those days, if we wanted your land odds are we were taking your land, one way or another.

Because if the various Empires started by European countries in those times proved anything, it's that we just didn't care if someone else claimed something before we did. Look at the British Empire: We gave not one fuck and managed to waltz our way into controlling something like a quarter of the entire world.

BlackConservative:

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

Are you sure about their intentions? How do you know?

According to La Raza and the Reconquista of Aztlan they are here specifically to expand their empire.

I just... what? Firstly, Danyal has a major issue with Muslims, not Mexicans. Secondly, WHAT?!? How can you honestly believe Mexicans are interested in conquering the US? Mexico is probably the least significant threat to America that exists. Drug cartels, sure, but expanding immigration rights to illegals currently residing in nation or making it easier to legally enter the country will in no way affect them. You are being ridiculous.

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

.
The nature of the USA's nationality makes it so that as long as you hold the values which the republic was built upon and live your lives according to the rule of law, you are as American as you can be - no matter if you can or can't speak English. This fear-mongering of yours is ridiculous.

Heronblade:
A nation is able to define their own borders and choose who can cross them.

But is 5 million people enough to claim an entire continent as being your nation?

evilthecat:
Why not just come out and ask me a question about the 21st century?

Can you give me one modern example of a big fertile continent occupied by a couple of million people, while that continent could potentially support hundreds of millions of people?

JoJo:
In answer to the question posed in the OP, had a government existed back then with the capacity to stop European's colonising North America and decided such a policy should be enacted, then I would believe that to be justifiable: their nation, their decision.

I asked about stopping immigration, not colonization... Is it okay for them to forcibly prevent Europeans from entering the North-American continent?

Revnak:
The brown people you seem to loathe so much

<Citation needed>

BlackConservative:
Nice one Danyal.

Thanks :)

davidmc1158:
Charles C Mann's book 1491

Thanks!

Skeleon:
It's not like borders were particularly well respected 500 years ago, Europe was and for many years remained a battleground, so I'm with Shadowstar38 on this: Even if they had founded a (or probably several independent) formalized state(s), I doubt the people wanting to explore and exploit this fresh area ripe with resources would've cared. Danyal, you yourself bring up the city states of South and Middle America, well, did the Conquistadors respect their sovereignity? Not really.

I understand that preventing European immigration would be rather impossible for Native Americans, but would it be okay if they tried it as a nation-state?

TheIronRuler:
Ownership of land and property wasn't the same as it was in Europe, especially in North America. It was one of the reasons why when they moved the ownership of land of the natives on to the British/American system, they abused the fuck out of it and basically robbed them blind.

I understand that, but what if they tried it 'The European Way'? What if they set up a democratic nation-state and decided to forcibly prevent all Europeans from entering the continent? I'm not asking whether it would work, but whether it would be 'good'/moral/alright.

Danyal:
Can you give me one modern example of a big fertile continent occupied by a couple of million people, while that continent could potentially support hundreds of millions of people?

Hmmm...that depends on infrastructure. If you've only got a few millino, you don't have the infrastructure in place to develop the land for hundreds of millions.

Now, possibly it might be possible to increase Australia's population to that extent, but that'd require lots of work building up the infrastructure along the way.

Danyal:
I understand that preventing European immigration would be rather impossible for Native Americans, but would it be okay if they tried it as a nation-state?

Would it be okay? By what standard? What does that question even mean?

Danyal:

TheIronRuler:
Ownership of land and property wasn't the same as it was in Europe, especially in North America. It was one of the reasons why when they moved the ownership of land of the natives on to the British/American system, they abused the fuck out of it and basically robbed them blind.

I understand that, but what if they tried it 'The European Way'? What if they set up a democratic nation-state and decided to forcibly prevent all Europeans from entering the continent? I'm not asking whether it would work, but whether it would be 'good'/moral/alright.

.
I'm sorry but this philosophical debate is pointless. Neither side saw each other as an equal. You can't have this sort of society exist in such a level of sophistication in the 15th century. Our country and our motherland are all recent inventions, so is the new democracy and the inventions used to support this, compared to 1492.

Skeleon:

Danyal:
I understand that preventing European immigration would be rather impossible for Native Americans, but would it be okay if they tried it as a nation-state?

Would it be okay? By what standard? What does that question even mean?

Would it be alright, would it be moral, would it be good, what would you think about it, something like that. It's not that hard.

TheIronRuler:
I'm sorry but this philosophical debate is pointless. Neither side saw each other as an equal. You can't have this sort of society exist in such a level of sophistication in the 15th century. Our country and our motherland are all recent inventions, so is the new democracy and the inventions used to support this, compared to 1492.

Nation-states and democracy both existed before 1493. And it's just a hypothetical situation!

Danyal:
And it's just a hypothetical situation!

The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they are so different from reality.

For such a nation-state to exist, all sort of things would have to be completely different. You've not specified what, or how.

Presumably there'd be all sorts of outlandish and improbable ways that such a nation-state could exist, and each would lead to the question having a different answer.

Assuming that the hows and whys where defined, they'd likely be so far outside the real world that we'd not really be able to work out the implications.

Danyal:
Would it be alright, would it be moral, would it be good, what would you think about it, something like that. It's not that hard.

Actually, it is. Are you asking from their time's perspective with violent invaders with weapons at the door? Are you asking from our current perspective, where immigrants usually come peacefully but some people are afraid of "cultural invasions", crime, poverty and stuff like that? Are you asking from their varying cultures' moral point of views, some of which focused heavily on non-violence and some that were very open to warfare? Are you asking from the Europeans' moral point of view at the time, who to a large degree didn't think of natives as equals to be treated with the same respect another European rival or even enemy would be?

Alright, let's use the situation of a violently encroaching invading force. Would I, right now, think they would've been morally justified in fighting back against them? Sure. Would I, right now, think they would've been morally justified in killing civilians during that struggle? No, not unless those civilians offensively attack themselves as well (risking losing their civilian status). Civilian, peaceful immigrants they should not drive out; violent, exploitative imperialists they would have every right to.

But that's from my point of view. If they, from theirs, view even peaceful immigrants as a threat (maybe because they burn down forests for agricultural reasons or due to mining operations or whatever), would they be justified? Not from my point of view, but clearly from theirs because then those peaceful immigrants wouldn't qualify as peaceful by their definitions.

Nation-states and democracy both existed before 1493. And it's just a hypothetical situation!

The problem is that a hypothetical requires some sorts of rules, some framework to operate under. I don't even know what assumptions to base this on, so that's why you get the above response, specifically the first paragraph.

EDIT: Or, to make that last part short: What thaluikhain said. Is that a Ninja star?

Danyal:

I asked about stopping immigration, not colonization... Is it okay for them to forcibly prevent Europeans from entering the North-American continent?

If that's what they desired as a sovereign people then yes it would be okay in regards to my moral principles, although shutting your culture off from the world generally isn't a good idea and leads to stagnation, it's no coincidence that all of the most technologically advanced civilisations arose in Europe and Asia where nations and cultures were jostling for space with each other and able to share innovations.

ReservoirAngel:
We Anyone wouldn't have had the right... but that wouldn't have stopped us anyone. Like, at all. Back in those days At all times and still, if we anyone wants your land, odds are we they're taking your land, one way or another, if they can.

Fixed that post, removed occidentalism, inserted realism.

Danyal:

Heronblade:
A nation is able to define their own borders and choose who can cross them.

But is 5 million people enough to claim an entire continent as being your nation?

The numbers vs geographic area only really matter when it comes to ENFORCING such a claim. Whether there had been five hundred natives or five billion, the circumstances behind their right to claim their own, otherwise unoccupied, land remain the same.

Heronblade:
The numbers vs geographic area only really matter when it comes to ENFORCING such a claim. Whether there had been five hundred natives or five billion, the circumstances behind their right to claim their own, otherwise unoccupied, land remain the same.

Wait, seriously? Five hundred Native Americans is enough to claim ownership of North America?

Danyal:

Heronblade:
The numbers vs geographic area only really matter when it comes to ENFORCING such a claim. Whether there had been five hundred natives or five billion, the circumstances behind their right to claim their own, otherwise unoccupied, land remain the same.

Wait, seriously? Five hundred Native Americans is enough to claim ownership of North America?

Sure, They'd be laughably inadequate when it comes to defending that claim, and I'd be far less contemptuous of the Europeans for ignoring said claim, but they're perfectly welcome to try from a moral standpoint.

They'd still have the prior multiple generation claim over an unoccupied land, and allowing immigration in this case is a direct threat to not only their sovereignty, but their lives. I'm sure if Lil devils x is around she could tell you a lot more about what my people did to hers, are still doing in fact, much to my amazement and dismay.

thaluikhain:

Danyal:
And it's just a hypothetical situation!

The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they are so different from reality.

Spoken like a true BabaKiuerian.

BlackConservative:

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

Are you sure about their intentions? How do you know?

According to La Raza and the Reconquista of Aztlan they are here specifically to expand their empire.

I just... what? Firstly, Danyal has a major issue with Muslims, not Mexicans. Secondly, WHAT?!? How can you honestly believe Mexicans are interested in conquering the US? Mexico is probably the least significant threat to America that exists. Drug cartels, sure, but expanding immigration rights to illegals currently residing in nation or making it easier to legally enter the country will in no way affect them. You are being ridiculous.

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

'twas not German tanks, nor German aircraft, nor German ship, nor German soldier, nor German missle, but German immigrant that defeated the American people. Or does that logic only apply to Mexicans.

Danyal:

Revnak:
The brown people you seem to loathe so much

<Citation needed>

You do not like Muslims. I cannot any longer call what you feel for Islam simply a disagreement with the principles. You have made it very clear at this point that the people are the problem, if not by outright saying it than at least by clearly leaving it to be seen between the lines of your anti-immigrant rants.
I on the other hand am the staunchest supporter of immigration on these forums. I feel outright disgust every time I read a thread here on the topic, and my post history shows I am quite willing to equate your arguments to those of famous racist groups from my country's past. I understand that you don't really hate them. I get that on some rational level, but that part of me goes out the door when I see people making arguments I personally cannot see as motivated by anything other than ignorance and hatred.

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

'twas not German tanks, nor German aircraft, nor German ship, nor German soldier, nor German missle, but German immigrant that defeated the American people. Or does that logic only apply to Mexicans.

I'm skeptical about there being some massive conspiracy behind this, but he happens to be correct about the potential consequences involved.

People of German descent still outnumber any other group in the "white" American category, they are at about 15%, the next closest, Irish, is at 10%. But in this case, it doesn't matter, because they are American in thought, creed, and self perception. They added aspects of their culture to ours certainly, but are part of the whole, not separate from it.

Similarly, there are groups of Chinese immigrants that have kept their culture to the exclusion of ours, but it still doesn't matter, because they don't have the numbers to overrule their neighbors.

When it comes to the Mexicans however, for the very first time, we're dealing with a group of immigrants who not only refuse to integrate with the rest of the country, but are large enough in number to begin overwhelming the locals.

Heronblade:

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

'twas not German tanks, nor German aircraft, nor German ship, nor German soldier, nor German missle, but German immigrant that defeated the American people. Or does that logic only apply to Mexicans.

I'm skeptical about there being some massive conspiracy behind this, but he happens to be correct about the potential consequences involved.

People of German descent still outnumber any other group in the "white" American category, they are at about 15%, the next closest, Irish, is at 10%. But in this case, it doesn't matter, because they are American in thought, creed, and self perception. They added aspects of their culture to ours certainly, but are part of the whole, not separate from it.

Similarly, there are groups of Chinese immigrants that have kept their culture to the exclusion of ours, but it still doesn't matter, because they don't have the numbers to overrule their neighbors.

When it comes to the Mexicans however, for the very first time, we're dealing with a group of immigrants who not only refuse to integrate with the rest of the country, but are large enough in number to begin overwhelming the locals.

And I will go ahead and tell my ridiculously not culturally Mexican friends who happen to be of solely Mexican descent that apparently they outright refuse to integrate. The numbers are in, Mexicans integrate at the same rate as everybody else.

Revnak:

Heronblade:
I'm skeptical about there being some massive conspiracy behind this, but he happens to be correct about the potential consequences involved.

People of German descent still outnumber any other group in the "white" American category, they are at about 15%, the next closest, Irish, is at 10%. But in this case, it doesn't matter, because they are American in thought, creed, and self perception. They added aspects of their culture to ours certainly, but are part of the whole, not separate from it.

Similarly, there are groups of Chinese immigrants that have kept their culture to the exclusion of ours, but it still doesn't matter, because they don't have the numbers to overrule their neighbors.

When it comes to the Mexicans however, for the very first time, we're dealing with a group of immigrants who not only refuse to integrate with the rest of the country, but are large enough in number to begin overwhelming the locals.

And I will go ahead and tell my ridiculously not culturally Mexican friends who happen to be of solely Mexican descent that apparently they outright refuse to integrate. The numbers are in, Mexicans integrate at the same rate as everybody else.

Never claimed that the trend was universal, just that it does exist in enough significance to cause problems.

Heronblade:

Revnak:

Heronblade:
I'm skeptical about there being some massive conspiracy behind this, but he happens to be correct about the potential consequences involved.

People of German descent still outnumber any other group in the "white" American category, they are at about 15%, the next closest, Irish, is at 10%. But in this case, it doesn't matter, because they are American in thought, creed, and self perception. They added aspects of their culture to ours certainly, but are part of the whole, not separate from it.

Similarly, there are groups of Chinese immigrants that have kept their culture to the exclusion of ours, but it still doesn't matter, because they don't have the numbers to overrule their neighbors.

When it comes to the Mexicans however, for the very first time, we're dealing with a group of immigrants who not only refuse to integrate with the rest of the country, but are large enough in number to begin overwhelming the locals.

And I will go ahead and tell my ridiculously not culturally Mexican friends who happen to be of solely Mexican descent that apparently they outright refuse to integrate. The numbers are in, Mexicans integrate at the same rate as everybody else.

Never claimed that the trend was universal, just that it does exist in enough significance to cause problems.

Except it really doesn't after maybe two or three generations.

Revnak:

Heronblade:

Never claimed that the trend was universal, just that it does exist in enough significance to cause problems.

Except it really doesn't after maybe two or three generations.

Which would make this a non issue if we weren't talking about a constant influx of people.

Heronblade:

Revnak:

Heronblade:

Never claimed that the trend was universal, just that it does exist in enough significance to cause problems.

Except it really doesn't after maybe two or three generations.

Which would make this a non issue if we weren't talking about a constant influx of people.

Which will make it a non-issue when the inevitable happens and that influx slows or the already integrated outnumber those who have yet to do so, which is basically soon and very soon respectively.

Danyal:
Can you give me one modern example of a big fertile continent occupied by a couple of million people, while that continent could potentially support hundreds of millions of people?

Can you give me an example of a 15th century democracy?

America at the time was "fertile" in the same way inland Australia is "fertile", i.e. much of it wasn't. It took hundreds of years of technological development, hard work and infrastructural development to make America "fertile", a process which wasn't completed until well into the 20th century. At the time of the American revolution, nearly 200 years after the first colonization, there were still only 3 million colonists in what is now the United States. It didn't reach 100 million until 1920, because the continent couldn't support that many people.

I don't know what issue you want to talk about, whether it's historical determinism or how white civilization is the tits because those dumb native Americans were too stupid to work the land properly and then white people came along and used their special powers to make the land fertile. It doesn't make your logic persuasive, it doesn't demonstrate the power of your principles, it demonstrates the power of your imagination.

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

Revnak:

I just... what? Firstly, Danyal has a major issue with Muslims, not Mexicans. Secondly, WHAT?!? How can you honestly believe Mexicans are interested in conquering the US? Mexico is probably the least significant threat to America that exists. Drug cartels, sure, but expanding immigration rights to illegals currently residing in nation or making it easier to legally enter the country will in no way affect them. You are being ridiculous.

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

'twas not German tanks, nor German aircraft, nor German ship, nor German soldier, nor German missle, but German immigrant that defeated the American people. Or does that logic only apply to Mexicans.

The German immigrants didn't set out to conquer America and "return" it to their country. Although there was a small Nazi movement within the U.S. but that was handled. Only the Mexicans have openly accepted this stance, so in this case yes, it does only apply to Mexicans.

Like I said before do some research, I already provided the search words for you.

BlackConservative:

Revnak:

BlackConservative:

You need to do some research. The Reconquista will be done not with guns but simply by outpacing all others in pregnancy rates and population. In fact I would say Mexico is a far greater threat to the U.S. than any country or entity on the planet.

'twas not German tanks, nor German aircraft, nor German ship, nor German soldier, nor German missle, but German immigrant that defeated the American people. Or does that logic only apply to Mexicans.

The German immigrants didn't set out to conquer America and "return" it to their country. Although there was a small Nazi movement within the U.S. but that was handled. Only the Mexicans have openly accepted this stance, so in this case yes, it does only apply to Mexicans.

Like I said before do some research, I already provided the search words for you.

I would rather not read your almost certainly conspiracy theory laden texts. Most Mexican immigrants are just desperate for a better life. The motivations of the poor, the downtrodden, and the desperate are rarely imperialistic, they just want a chance in life. Give them that rather than discrimination and slave labour and you will find them to be appreciative.
Your case is also hindered by the increasing enlistment rates among Latinos. If they were plotting something those numbers would be going down. Instead it shows they're integrating. In fact, all the numbers do.

Danyal:
Good evening Escapists,

Imagine Native Americans formed a democratic government before Columbus discovered America. Would they have had the right to forbid Europeans to enter the continent? Would it be immoral for them to have discriminatory laws against white people?!

I'd like to write a long story to explain this, but I can't really think of anything relevant to add. I'm interested in your replies.

Eh?

What has democracy and morality got to do with the conquest of the New World? The Europeans had the power and took what they wanted: the governmental structure of the natives is neither here nor there, it would not have changed a thing.

The European powers simply declared that owned land and dickered between themselves over which European power owned it. I doubt nearly all native Americans (north of Mexico at least) had the faintest idea that the land they and their forebears lived on had been divvied up by people an ocean away. They weren't asked, and by the time they realised it was a fait accompli they couldn't resist. Some actually were mid-Europeanisation by the 19th century and had set up tentative systems of self-government and nationhood claims. Needless to say, they received short shrift.

What perhaps the issue was a very different concept of land ownership. Not that it would have mattered if they had a framework similar to Europeans: the Spanish tore down and annihilated the greatest empire in the Americas in short order in Mexico, we can hardly think anyone would have gone easier on those in the USA/Canada.

I think its safe to say that you can morally claim ownership and sovereignty of the land you live on and the area immediately around it, I don't think someone could build a house in the middle of an island the size of Australia and claim the whole continent belongs to him because he built there first.

cthulhuspawn82:
I think its safe to say that you can morally claim ownership and sovereignty of the land you live on and the area immediately around it, I don't think someone could build a house in the middle of an island the size of Australia and claim the whole continent belongs to him because he built there first.

Why can you claim it on the land you live on, though? What's so moral about being there "first"?
If the first generation settled an entire country (and let's assume no-one lived there before they came), then the second generation wouldn't have any moral claim to anywhere to live.
Now I know what you are thinking "Hey, wait, we got inheritance", but what makes THAT so moral? They are basically getting a piece of land that they did NOT claim first, but in fact just in merit of being a biological product of another person.
In the end, it comes down to "Because if you try to take it from me, I will fight you for it, and I'm stronger".

Realitycrash:

Now I know what you are thinking "Hey, wait, we got inheritance", but what makes THAT so moral? They are basically getting a piece of land that they did NOT claim first, but in fact just in merit of being a biological product of another person.

One of the fundamental points of property is that one may do with what one owns as one wishes. Such as, for instance, bequeath it to ones children. If that is not moral, you are coming close to arguing property is not moral. Do you want to go there?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked