Friday Funnies

Papers please


NEXT: No Lifting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning.

    Just dumb cartoon.

    1. Now, Suki, I am convinced you are a time traveler. When I commented before the article actually appeared, your comment was definitely not here. And yet not it appears, stamped at almost six hours before my own. I bow before your obviously superior powers… I shall start a cult to worship you.

  2. The point is good, but the delivery… Payne is aptly named.

    1. Throwing it in there mid-sentence kills it.

  3. So much potencial,and it falls flat.

    1. …potential

  4. Why does the GOP have furry arms? Robin Williams?

    1. Is it true that Robin Williams’s son is known as Hairy Comic, Jr.?

      1. Is it true that Robin Williams is universally disliked?

        1. I love Robin Williams (great stand-up comic) and find Anomalous’ goofy joke delightful. This comic, not so much.

        2. Robin Williams is a national treasure you fuck!

  5. One of the few things the U.S. Constitution does require of the government is to provide for the nation’s defense… this cartoonist doesn’t seem to get the point.

    1. Illegal immigrants are threats to unmowed lawns and untrimmed hedges everywhere. They must be stopped. Amirite?

      1. You should be writing the cartoons.. You’re actually funny!

        1. Careful, some people might take offense to reality.

      2. Absolutely. And there’s no other possible reason for people to support the AZ law.

        This constant line of bullshit is tiring. I don’t think the law is a good idea, and I wouldn’t be counted in the majority of Americans that support it. But if you can’t understand why people are worried about increased illegal immigration, that’s a problem. Because the vocal opponents of this law (at least here at Reason) are sounding more and more like Obama every day.

        Reasonable? Hell no. You must be a racist. So I will ignore your points and instead mock you with falsehoods.

        1. And there’s no other possible reason for people to support the AZ law.

          Not that has not been shown to be total bullshit.

          I wouldn’t be counted in the majority of Americans that support it.

          Then shut up and mock the residents of Redneckistan in their transparent racism.

          1. “Redneckistan”? Now that’s insightful commentary.

            1. Damn straight it is. The bluster of “rule of law” and all that other nice-sounding verbage is cover for that kernel of fear known as “fear of the other”.

              1. Thanks for the lesson. Shouldn’t you be working on next semester’s Chicano Studies curriculum?

                1. Don’t you have a Know-Nothing Committee meeting to discuss TEH IMMIGRANT HORDES! Them white wimmin ain’t gonna protect themselves, Cletus.

                  1. Nice use of “teh.” I hardly ever see that gem.

                2. Hey, TAO may be a douche bag, but at least he’s an enlightened and superior douche bag.

                  1. “Damn straight it is. The bluster of “rule of law” and all that other nice-sounding verbage is cover for that kernel of fear known as “fear of the other”.”

                    That’s bullshit, I have a half Mexian nephew, and have went out with some wise latina’s 😛

                    But I still think we need to get a handle on this illegal immigration thing. Employer enforcment is probably the best way, but if you get stopped, yes, you should have some fuckin ID (who doesn’t these days?)

                    Basically unrestricted immigration (IE because of all the excess illegals) has turned a lot of nice areas in CA into the freaken getto.

                    Shit needs to be slowed down to a legal amount that is set at a rate that allows people to assimlate.

                    1. I’ve got no problem with hispanics (ethnicity) or Mexicans (nationality) or Canadians (nationality)… but you come through the door and follow the laws. If you’re caught breaking and entering you’ve already started off your stay showing a disregard for our laws. That’s not a good start. Check out John 10:1 (red letter)”Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.”

                    2. And the next two verses: “The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice.”

                      Just what is the annual quota for shepherd visas anyway? I’m pretty sure it’s close to zero.

                      I’m also pretty sure that almost all illegal aliens would enter by the gate if the gate were opened to them.

                    3. uh..regarding your last sentence. They wouldn’t be illegal aliens if they came through the gate. Many immigrants come through the gate and to those of you that do so and respect our laws… Welcome to America!!

                    4. They wouldn’t be illegal aliens if there were enough visas for them to enter the gate.

                    5. Our gates take about 10 years to get through…

                    6. Then why the gate at all?

                    7. I get around primarily on foot, and I often leave my drivers liscence (only ID I have)

                      Luckily I don’t live in Arizona.

              2. Damn straight it is. The bluster of “rule of law” and all that other nice-sounding verbage is cover for that kernel of fear known as “fear of the other”.

                Are you really a douche bag asshole.
                Or do you just play one online?

      3. My mother’s reasoning is something like this. “Why should I have to press “1” for English?

  6. Why is the cop hassling Babu Bhat?

  7. “In the latest edition of Friday Funnies, Henry Payne looks at Arizona’s controversial new immigration law.”

    Can’t we do better than “controversial”? How about “bad”? Or maybe “seriously offensive to Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia”?

    1. You forgot “harsh.” That’s Dalmia’s favorite.

    2. Do tell, sir, do tell! Another thrilling “just so” comment from the eminent plagiarist, as this line of thought seems so familiar to me! May a mongoose deprive you of your unquestionably compromised manhood.

  8. Really, I did.

    1. But would Paul Krugman find it amusing? He’s pretty hairy too!

      1. Actually, I do. Of course, I’m plastered.

        1. Either Paul Krugman has giant hands, or that’s a kid-sized beer. Looks like an effete snob nonetheless.

  9. The further people are away from the problem of illegal immigration the less they have a problem with it. It isn’t their property or their money so…

    1. Here is the bottom line: If a consenting employer is hiring a consenting employee, then, unless the employment is for what should be a real crime, it is none of your business if the employee is from Mexico or Montana.

      1. It’s so simple. Why, the very idea of borders and national sovereignty is so 19th Century!

        1. It means something for, you know, when divisions of an opposing army are coming across, not when people are coming to work.

          IOW, try again.

          1. Uh…divisions of an army ARE comming across, work or not.
            Build. A. Fucking. Wall

        2. Actually, it is the very idea of free migration that is so 19th century. It wasn’t until the 1920’s that general restrictions against immigration even came into law.

          1. We also didn’t have the welfare state we do now.

            I’m all for rolling back the immigration back to ‘free’, but the welfare state NEEDS to be rolled back, too.

            1. Or, hey, wild idea… Don’t give immigrants or their citizen children welfare.

            2. “We also didn’t have the welfare state we do now.”

              You use this line when arguing against tax cuts?

          2. Except for chinamen. We had to cut that shit off quick after they were done building our railroads.

    2. I lived in Texas for several years. I never had a problem with them. I guess you need to find another talking point so…

      1. Is that supposed to be logic? The commented said nothing about the origin.

        1. It’s actually a pretty direct and clear response to what “figures” wrote, whether or not you agree with it. Your response seems to be to something other than what “Steve Nash Equilibrium” wrote.

          1. Extreme unrealistic example for the purpose of exposition: At “ground zero”, 90% of people support illegal immigration. For every mile away from “ground zero”, support goes up by some percent. In this example, you can still say that the further you are away from the problem (aka “ground zero”), the less you have a problem with it, even if the comment is beside the point because of overwhelming support for it.

            The assertion that SNE seems to be responding to seems closer to “nobody close to the problem has ever been ok with illegal immigration”. SNE seems to think that a single individual falsifies the premise whereas the original premise does not rely on total agreement.

            1. Should probably have put “the further people are away from the problem, the less those people have with it” instead of appearing to refer to an actual individual “you” instead of the intended general “you”.

  10. Well, at least i can get my daily exposure to knee-jerk nationalism out of the way early on this thread. The cartoon still sucks, however.

    1. It’s a two-fer, X. You get knee-jerk libertarian dogma as well.

    2. The cartoon still sucks, however.

      Agree or disagree with his premise, Payne still brings people together!

  11. I’m sick of the “papers, please” bullshit. I don’t like the law because theres a ton of hispanic Americans that will suffer from it. But hearing the gang that just appointed the IRS to monitor our checking accounts to make sure we purchased health insurance say “papers, please” is disgusting.

    1. That’s different!

    2. Uh…how about those of us who are opposed to both?

      I am sick of the “RED TEAM BLUE TEAM” bullshit.

      1. You can say papers, please all you want then.

        1. Presumably only if you’re also opposed to highway patrol asking for your license and registration at traffic stops as they do now, too. Of course, many libertarians are opposed to that.

          1. What is the purpose of traffic stops if not to catch people committing crimes that should not be crimes?

            1. Ahem, money? Revenue generators with a badge, silly TAO. See also: shakedown artist.

            2. Making money for the cops.

              Don’t get me wrong, I oppose this, but I also oppose the existing traffic stops and request for papers. It’s for that reason that I find the cartoon not very effective– it’s acting as though asking for papers at a traffic stop is some kind of unprecedented violation of liberty, when unfortunately it’s a common one.

              That’s, I think, a lot of why many people aren’t so outraged at the law. If (they thought) it forced them to hand over documentation at a time and place that they currently don’t, they’d be more upset. But when they already have to do so at a traffic stop, it doesn’t seem like that much more of an imposition.

            3. Oh, you mean like DUI, no drivers license, suspended license? Stupid freaking MORON.

            4. To apprehend someone who just committed a crime?

        2. And you can be utterly ineffectual on an obscure blog.

  12. A lot of cultural imperialist seem to be very butthurt over this cartoon. If they weren’t driven by racism and nationalism they would see that attacking the supply of illicit labor is a waste of time and all resources should go to the demand (if you assume there is a problem). The only reason these people (undocumented workers) are here in the first place is because there is a significant difference in the cost of labor and the revenue recieved by a laborer thus creating an illicit labor market.

    1. A lot of people, who are free to leave their homes without the threat of coming back to find illegal aliens inside, robbing and destroying their personal property, seem to be very butthurt over the people who do actually have to live without the exact same freedom trying to get help.

      1. Because it really would be unconstitutional for Arizona to pass laws against breaking and entering, robbery, or wanton destruction.

        1. Personal responsibility is very libertarian. Illegals don’t have driver’s licenses, thus no car insurance, so when they have a wreck, guess who pays. Either they play by the same damn rules as the rest of us or we annex Mexico and make it the 51st State.

          1. There are plenty of Americans who drive without licenses and insurance, but, strangely, you only have a problem with the Mexican ones.

            Cannot imagine why that would be…

            1. I think that’s slightly unfair. I’d actually imagine that he’s probably in favor of cops asking for proof of license and insurance from everyone that they stop for a traffic offense, like they do now. So he does have a problem with all those “plenty of Americans” too, he’s just using that one problem as an excuse for an additional reason to dislike illegal immigrants being here.

              So I think that his point is a distraction and a non sequitur but I don’t think that your comeback is quite on point either. It’s not that he “only has a problem with the Mexican ones.” It’s that asking for proof of license and insurance at traffic stops is sufficient to handle that problem, so his complaint is beside the point and just cover for wanting to crack down on illegal immigration.

              But it also makes sense that for people who already favor cops demanding proof of license, registration, and insurance at traffic stops wouldn’t really be impressed by a “papers, please” argument that pretends that we don’t already demand papers at a traffic stop.

              1. Mr. Thacker – he was talking about car accidents, not traffic stops. And like I pointed out, there are Americans out there who are at fault in traffic accidents and do not have licenses and/or insurance.

                If we keep our eye on the point here, MikeP’s and my response are a total refutation of the notion that we need a big immigrant crackdown because of the supposedly millions of accidents illegals cause every year. It get repeated so often like it is some kind of masterful insight, and it is isn’t!

                So we can argue the details or we can deal with the point at hand: illegal immigrant crackdown is not necessary just because someday an illegal might cause an accident.

                1. the notion that we need a big immigrant crackdown because of the supposedly millions of accidents illegals cause every year. It get repeated so often like it is some kind of masterful insight, and it is isn’t!

                  Agree, it’s not a masterful insight, because it’s a response that doesn’t address the stated problem. It’s an excuse to be against immigration.

                  At the same time, the entire “papers, please” argument and cartoon isn’t some kind of masterful insight, either, but it keeps getting repeated too. It isn’t a masterful insight because people are already asked for their papers at car accidents and traffic stops.

                  If anything, Payne’s cartoon I think would make people less likely to oppose this law then before. Showing a cop asking for papers at a traffic stop just isn’t going to arouse people’s ire; it certainly isn’t going to make them think that this law is some unprecedented new assault on liberty. Showing a cop randomly asking for papers on the street might, or a when crossing a state border, or when asking a cop for directions, or other situations where they don’t now but arguably the new law might make them do so.

          2. Those would be the same damn rules that don’t allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses?

          3. I think that we should have annexed Mexico a long time ago. Or atleast threaten to if they don’t stop their population from coming over our borders. Fair trade off wouldn’t it be? You don’t stop them, then all of your land r belong to us!

        2. So our tax money should go toward policing a third-world country’s criminals?

  13. *sticks fingers in ears*


  14. While I don’t like the Arizona law, don’t cops in every state demand “papers, please” in the form of license and registration when they stop you for a traffic offense? Not that that isn’t demeaning and humiliating, and people hate it as well.

    1. It’s different when they ask a Mexican for his “papers.” They’re one step away from a boxcar to Treblinka.

      1. OFFS you people are insane.

        1. Well, since you are on public roads, no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to ask for license and registration. If you are driving on private roads, welll of course you don’t even need a license.

      2. They’re one step away from a boxcar to Treblinka.

        Are there death camps in Mexico?

        1. Part of Obamacare was a provision for death panels. How else can we get rid of these illegals?


  16. Cartoon = meh.

    Comments = WTF, did no one get their coffee this morning? Didn’t sleep well last night?

    FFS – Good Morning, Reason! Happy Friday!

  17. So the GOP is to blame if I have to show my state ID or driver’s license or green card when I get pulled over for speeding?

    1. Are you white? If so, then no, it’s just common sense.

      If you’re Hispanic, yes, those racist GOP rednecks are afraid you’re going to drop an anchor baby on the spot.

    2. Juuuuuust missed the nail. Try again, ma’am.

  18. I have a modist proposal. There are those of us that really don’t mind open border type immigration, but utterly fear the consequences of welfare state meets open borders. After a bit of thought, I have come up with this gem which will allow folks like me to completely support open borders.

    It’s called a tax cap. It’s in the form of a bet. I am told that every incoming immigrant is a net plus as they produce more output than they consume in goods and services, this is possibly true, but I suspect that it is not true in the long run once they too can vote themselves a share of the plunder. Here’s the deal.

    Those voting against unlimited immigration have their taxes capped at current levels. This includes all taxes, fees and anything else progressives might want to call taxes for political reasons. If the services demanded by the incoming population make the cost of services go up, this price is entirely payed by the folks who voted yes. If the new comers provide more than enough cash back into the system and tax revenues rise, those who voted yes get a rebate as their taxes drop (while mine are fixed) and reap the rewards of their farsightness.

    Put this in place and I am utterly fine with never asking anyone for any sort of immigration document. This also nicely torpedos the arguments of those who claim I am afraid of immigrants for not opposing open borders.

    What do you think ? Can we arrange this bet ?

    1. Or get rid of the welfare redistribution scam and put the Fair Tax in place.

    2. That would require you to “show your papers” to prove you voted yes or no.

      1. …. and that is somehow “more” invasive than something like having the IRS scan through all my records at will to decide whether or not they think that business lunch was appropriate ?

        I sort of think you are worrying about minor pinhole leaks around one of your east windows when the entire west wall of your house has been torn down.

    3. I will agree with you that the real nut of the problem, however, is not immigration, not racism, not nationalism. It’s “welfare state meets open borders” as you put it well.

      There’s also the general jurisdictional problem of criminals crossing the border to escape Mexican police. The fact that it’s a border means that there is a slightly higher likelihood of the people crossing it being wanted criminals. The same is true for Americans crossing into Mexico.

  19. Payne’s biggest mistake was to put the suspected illegal in a car, thus taking this whole debate into a useless direction. The guy should have been just walking down the street with the flag of Mexico on his shirt.

    1. Agreed.

      1. Sure, if the law said that the cops can randomly ask anyone for their papers. It doesn’t, and they can’t.

        1. Right, they have to have legal contact. Walking up and starting a conversation is legal contact, at which point they can ask for papers. But I agree, that contact probably won’t be “random” will it.

          1. Bullshit. Flat out bullshit. The law specifically “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state”

            1. Let me know if you still call this “bullshit” when you get stopped for crossing a residential street. Bless you. Thank you.

        2. Have you ever watched Cops? They stop people at random all the time. “he was walking funny”

          1. Usually, “he was walking funny” means the susoect was starggering so badly he / she was about to fall down.

            You libs will never be takken seriously because most of you have contempt for the law and for law enforcement (not to mention being a bunch of pot heads). No one with any sense wants to live in your make believe world of no laws and no borders.

            1. Yea, this world is much better…


  20. The hypocrisy of the GOP bitching about “Outta control DC” while supporting Wacko AZ is dwarfed by the hypocrisy of the GOP bitching about Outta Control DC when the Dems are in office and then HAVING SEX WITH US the moment their ass hits the throne.

  21. It takes a special kind of stupid to have a problem with asking someone suspected of criminal activity if they have been involved in criminal activity such as breaking immigration laws.

    1. Another illogical “illegal immigration is illegal and therefore bad” argument.

      1. No, it’s not. He’s saying that if someone is already suspected of criminal activity you can ask them about other criminal activity.

        His statement implicitly defends illegal immigration being illegal, sure, but it doesn’t really touch on why he thinks that illegal immigration should be illegal. There really are several possibilities here, including:

        1) One defends illegal immigration being illegal for all the standard (illiberal) reasons, and sees no problem with cops asking about it just like seeing no problem with cops checking to see if there’s an outstanding warrant for your arrest when they stop you at a traffic stop.

        2) One doesn’t like illegal immigration being illegal in theory for all the reasons of free movement, but since it’s illegal and thus cops can check for it when they stop you, like they can check for other laws. This subdivides into:
        2a) Since illegal immigration is illegal, it’s bad in at least the malum prohibitum sense, or
        2b) Even though illegal immigration is illegal, one doesn’t think it’s bad, but it’s important, necessary, or at least permissible for cops to uphold the law as written.

        There’s nothing in his statement saying that he necessarily believes 2) instead of 1). In any case, the “illegal immigration is illegal and therefore bad” is more likely to be held by people who are in theory more open borders but don’t go along with thinking that laws that they disagree with ought not to be enforced strictly. (I will note that in practice most people don’t believe that speeding laws should be enforced strictly, so most people recognize some amount of flexibility for ill-judged laws about acts only malum prohibitum.)

      2. When most people make the irritating “what part of illegal don’t you understand” argument, do you think that they mean that simply by virtue of something being illegal it is malum in se, or do think that they are instead arguing that the police have a responsibility to strictly enforce the laws as written?

        I’d assume that they’re generally trying to say the latter, which is not illogical on its face. However, people generally don’t hold to that opinion consistently, at least if you ask them about say, speeding tickets.

    2. We suspect you of being an illegal immigrant because (*&%&*(%&*^%&^%&*^$%^*#&$%(*^, therefore we have the right to suspect that you are an illegal immigrant and demand your papers.

    3. Not really. By that logic, any cop in Arizona can ‘suspect’ me of violating 18 USC 1346 and therefore force me to produce paperwork proving I’m in the country legally. The ‘special kind of stupid’ is the person who thinks this won’t be severely abused.

  22. Believe it or not, the issue of whether we should have immigration laws, and whether and how those laws should be enforced, are different issues.

    The discussion would be much enhanced if people realized this.

    1. Yes, I totally agree with this. I’ve tried to make this point, but I find that I’m terribly prone to circumlocution.

      1. Reality is boring, and it doesn’t make for interesting and insane threads.

  23. If you don’t like that illegal immigration is illegal then state that, but makeing this about AZ is wrong it was made illegal by the fedral government AZ just chose to enforce it.

    1. MikeP has proven repeatedly that this law goes further than federal immigration law.

      But I still think we need to get a handle on this illegal immigration thing. Employer enforcment is probably the best way, but if you get stopped, yes, you should have some fuckin ID (who doesn’t these days?)

      fuck that and fuck you for saying it. Having a state ID to have permission to travel is as good as saying you have to have the State’s permission to live (not survive, live). And who that employer hires is, again, not your business.

      The handstands and half-baked rationales Mexican-haters go through to somehow invalidate the “consenting adult” standard that supports most libertarian legal theory is astonishing.

      1. Well, most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t really. Remember, in practice people do need a state ID to have permission to travel, and most people seem not to have a big problem with that.

        1. Wrong. You need a state ID which supposedly demonstrates your capability to safely propel a two-ton vehicle around the streets. The fact that said ID has been perverted into an all-purpose ID is a different argument which doesn’t negate the point made above.

          1. Oh yeah? Try getting on an airplane without state or federal ID. You will never get past the ticket counter.

            1. I agree! I should also be able to go into your bank and take money out of your account, without the teller checking my ID to make sure I’m really you. Checking my ID violates my privacy rights.

            2. These are both voluntary activities. I am not required under penalty of arrest to fly or, on Ernie’s point, open a bank account. I should not need an ID to walk around.

              I would think this is obvious.

      2. So you’re objecting to people not being fully consistent libertarians in accordance with legal theory, but they’re already not, since if they were they would have bigger issues with public roads, public driver’s licenses, and insurance requirements than they do.

  24. “Raaaaacist!!”

  25. I say the ‘toon is a win.

    1. Why? ‘Cause of all these posts?

  26. Not all libertarians are against the Arizona immigration bill. The reason I support it is because we have a massive welfare state and we are running trillion dollar deficits with unfunded liabilities for welfare/health care programs at over 40 trillion USD. We simply can not afford to allow millions of low-income, uneducated, unskilled people into this country to suck the system for the few drops of milk it has left. End the welfare state and then I will support free immigration. We must be practical about these things.

  27. I find it ironic and hypocritical that Mexicans would decry and condemn the Arizona immigration law. In Mexico it is a felony to enter the country illegally (the first time around). The Mexican government practically condones the mass kidnapping, extortion, rape, murder, and robberies, committed against immigrants traveling north through/into Mexico, which is being perpetrated by organized crime, and even police. They are incredibly harsh on illegals but have the audacity to condemn Arizona. I live in Austin, Texas where the liberal (aka loony) city council is boycotting Arizona. How about all these cities and groups boycotting Arizona boycott Mexico! What the hell, their immigration laws and treatment of illegals makes Arizona look like its new law was written by Mother Teresa her self! So whats the deal? If these hypocrites want to boycott Arizona they have to boycott Mexico first.

  28. Please sign the Arizona “Illegal Alien” petition:…..ation.html

  29. Blah, Blah, Blah!!! They really pay you for this crap?

  30. That cartoon was simply stupid. A governor who takes states rights seriously actually did something, and this was your response. Reason?

    Hardly. Your site name is a misnomer.

    To be fair, you should have shown the Dems trying to “unscrew” (pardon the pun) the top of a Viagra subscription bottle.

    Take your ass a quick trip to Mexico and find out about their “immigration” laws.

    But what do I know? The last true social contract was what was known as the Articles of Confederation.

    We’re just playing out the string anymore.

  31. Lame cartoon. All the Arizona law does is replicate existing Federal law at the State level. Many States already have such codes, including California – they just aren’t enforcing it which is bring a high social and fiscal cost to us all.

    1. California’s law does not make state offenses out of federal offenses: it simply directs state officers to remand to federal authorities those suspected of being illegal aliens.

      That is a very big difference.

  32. The GOP isn’t being hypocritical here. According to this comic, the party is concerned with this attitude in Washington. The quote says nothing about the States and, more specifically, Arizona.

  33. I bow before your obviously superior powers… I shall start a cult to worship you.

  34. The fact that it’s a border means that there is a slightly higher likelihood of the people crossing it being wanted criminals. The same is true for Americans crossing into Mexico. | RAN ran ran ??? ??? ??? |

  35. I need some time to think about this!

  36. Gotta love engineers 😉

  37. The faculty of reason, rationality, or the faculty of discursive reason

  38. The reasoning for the black box is to document what exactly happens in a crash.

  39. I agree with most of what you wrote down below

  40. Reason is committed to a pluralistic approach, promoting …

  41. do you wanna be my leader ?

  42. si on ne m?lange pas les torchons et les serviettes

  43. Join us now to get access to all our features.

  44. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics

  45. You don’t need to add your email if you are already subscribed by email to Reason

  46. we try and we hope.

  47. Something like this may be what you’re looking for

  48. get your own private messenger, and so, so much more

  49. It’s also quick and totally free

  50. so what are you waiting for?

  51. There are lots of links on reason

  52. I need some time to think about this!

    I agree with most of what you wrote down below

  53. hank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  54. hank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  55. I was just having a conversation over this I am glad I came across this it cleared some of the questions I had.

  56. Maxwell’s contribution was the realization that electricity and magnetism were not separate forces, but were interrelated.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.