Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 136 of 372 (771776)
10-29-2015 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bliyaal
10-29-2015 8:14 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
The majority SHOULD rule, that's part of the American Constitution too, if anybody cares.
Not when it comes to the rights of a minority. Did you know that in 1967, when interracial marriage was made legal everywhere in the US, over 70% of the population was against it?
AS I SAID, sometimes minority rights do have to be protected, and that is one example. But that what PC does is put all minorities above the majority and that's a recipe for cultural destruction.
Let me expand on that idea. Minorities need to be brought into the majority, that's the point of defending their rights. They've been disenfranchised, they should be given full citizenship with all its rights. But if they want to form their own separate subculture at odds with the majority that is NOT within their rights. [ABE: I don't mean groups can't live separately from the main culture, I just mean they can't form their own little state that's hostile to the main culture's laws and works to destroy them.]
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bliyaal, posted 10-29-2015 8:14 AM Bliyaal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 137 of 372 (771777)
10-29-2015 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Omnivorous
10-29-2015 5:12 PM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
No, the Constitution was not meant to protect subversive subcultures, and the majortity IS to rule. As I just wrote in my previous post, where minorities are disenfranchised they need to be brought into the majority where they can participate with full citizenship rights. Minorities do not have the right to form their own alien subculture which is at odds with the majority and with the laws of the society. You have of course the PC view of minority rights which contains the recipe for the destruction of western civilization. The rights of minorities to be full participants in the society is a tenet of western civilization. The rights of minorities to oppose and seek to undermine the legal and cultural foundations of the majority society is NOT protected by the Constitution, although Political Correctness has so abused the Constitution you think it is, and there are a lot of you so bye bye America.
"Swearing fealty" has to involve a destructive attitude toward the society they live in tp be prohibited. As long as a group lives under the society's laws without trying to destroy them there isn't a problem. I for instance swear fealty to a God who commands me to pray for the peace of the nation I live in. But Islam is known for its undying commitment to establishing Kalifa all over the planet, which is a commitment to the destruction of any form of society that is not Kalifa, and for doing it by infiltrating societies and working to undermine them when they have the power to do so. They've been vandalizing the city of Marseilles since they became numerous enough to get away with it.
Sorry you've bought the PC version of the Constitution. But then you are far from alone. However if you ever wake up you may find that like the situation on the Titanic there may not be room in the lifeboats for you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 5:12 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 8:07 PM Faith has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 138 of 372 (771784)
10-29-2015 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
10-29-2015 6:10 PM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
Faith writes:
However if you ever wake up you may find that like the situation on the Titanic there may not be room in the lifeboats for you.
Well, that was a Titanic load of unsupported assertions. I don't need a seat on that particular boat.
The rights of minorities to oppose and seek to undermine the legal and cultural foundations of the majority society is NOT protected by the Constitution
Actually, they are.
Everyone has the right in the U.S. to seek changes, profound or trivial, to our legal and cultural foundations by persuading voters it should be so, or by selling enough Thai food. The Constitution can be amended, and has been, to benefit women, among others. It is not an inerrant sacred document but a flawed, secular, social and political contract.
We can burn the flag. We can organize and agitate to change this country into a parliamentary social democracy. We can form a political party based on the premise of incorporating Sharia law. We can even advocate the denial of our rights to others, as you do.
"Swearing fealty" has to involve a destructive attitude toward the society they live in tp be prohibited. As long as a group lives under the society's laws without trying to destroy them there isn't a problem. I for instance swear fealty to a God who commands me to pray for the peace of the nation I live in.
So a Muslim woman doesn't have to actually try to subvert anything, she just has to wear a burqa. Then her constitutional rights are forfeit, because Muslim.
Have you identified any pockets of Sharia law here? Because I've identified communities here that use different codes to decide matters customarily left to mainstream civil law, and you don't seem to mind, because not Muslim.
The Constitution protects all of us from that kind of tyranny. You don't get to set a dress code for people here because other people in Marseilles are vandals.
But perhaps you could quote the passages in the Constitution that prove me wrong. In my experience, people who use the Constitution like a cudgel with which to beat others know very little about it and understand less.
It is a breath-taking irony, Faith: you enjoy the Constitution's protections of your freedoms of religion and expression, and you want to throw them out.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 10-29-2015 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 10-29-2015 10:43 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 139 of 372 (771785)
10-29-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Greatest I am
10-29-2015 1:54 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
Pay attention.
In a society where the majority is to rule, the majority have decided that it is moral to have the majority rule.
This does not translate into the majority is moral or always moral. It is just saying that the majority thinks that it is moral to have the majority rule.
If the majority was always moral then no law would ever be repealed and we have some of those laws that are repealed as the standards or morality change.
Oh, for God's sake, G. This little side track isn't about whether or not I comprehend your opinions about government principles: it's about your debate tactics.
I said, "Show evidence that burqa bans work."
You said, "Majority rules, therefore burqa bans work."
In logic parlance, this is called "appeal to popularity" (argumentum ad populum), and is considered a fallacious argument.
Then, to Omnivorous, you said, "Majority isn't always right."
So, I turned around and said, "So, France's burqa ban is not evidence that burqa bans are right."
And now you're repeatedly reiterating your view of how democratic principles operate.
The question still stands: "Do burqa bans have a beneficial effect on society?" Your last couple of posts effectively amount to backpedaling on your original statement that "burqa bans benefit all people because the majority ruled"; so you're left with two pieces of "evidence": a series of manipulative video appeals to emotion, and your erroneous conflation of disagreement with immorality.
Once again: my position is that a burqa ban is highly unlikely to result in a net benefit for Canada for three reasons:
  1. There is no evidence that such bans in other countries have significantly reduced oppression of Muslim women.
  2. The ban is likely to negatively effect women who are not currently being oppressed.
  3. The ban is going to difficult to enforce tactfully and effectively.
Can you defend your position that a burqa ban would be beneficial for Canada without appealing to "majority rules"?
Edited by Blue Jay, : Fixing "list" code.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Greatest I am, posted 10-29-2015 1:54 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Greatest I am, posted 10-30-2015 8:43 AM Blue Jay has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 372 (771787)
10-29-2015 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Omnivorous
10-29-2015 8:07 PM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
You know nothing about Islam and less about the Constitution, which is in fact used as a "cudgel" by the PC forces to destroy America and all of western civilization. Changing it through legal channels is NOT the same thing as claiming its protection while conspiring to bring down a nation by growing your population to the point that you can force others to Sharia law. You have the PC version of the Constitution and have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? I have to be the enemy here, no way I might in fact be right. Oh well. Bye Bye America as I said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 8:07 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 12:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 151 by Greatest I am, posted 10-30-2015 8:53 AM Faith has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 372 (771792)
10-30-2015 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
10-29-2015 10:43 PM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
Changing it through legal channels is NOT the same thing as claiming its protection while conspiring to bring down a nation by growing your population to the point that you can force others to Sharia law.
Describe the protection you believe that the constitution provides against such a thing happening. I think the belief that Sharia law could be introduced in such a way is pretty fanatical, but if you claim that such a procedure is unconstitutional, exactly what section of the constitution do you think would be violated?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 10-29-2015 10:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 10-30-2015 12:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 372 (771795)
10-30-2015 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
10-30-2015 12:03 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
by growing your population to the point that you can force others to Sharia law.
Describe the protection you believe that the constitution provides against such a thing happening.
I think it's mostly a matter of understanding how the language of protected freedoms was understood in its day and something of the history of PC over the last half century.
But you do need to know more about Islam than anybody here seems to know, or take seriously if they've heard it. Back before 9/11 I happened to have read a book by Ramon Bennett, a Christian living in Israel, about Islam's strategies for conquering the world for Allah. I may have written about this book somewhere here. He quotes Muslim leaders all over the Arab world on how they plan to destroy Israel and then take over the rest of the world, and they specifically described the method of growing their population until they have the power to do so. If it seemed worth it I'd go see if I can find the book and quote it but that much effort is hardly ever really worth it here. Oh the guy is a Christian? Forget that then. And they'll go dig up whatever has been said against him and treat THAT as the truth. Etc.
Nobody here seems to have a clue about PC. Tanypteryx thinks it refers to being polite about differences or some such. No, it's a concerted propaganda program that took off in the sixties through the Cultural Marxists who had escaped Nazi Germany to come and teach in American Universities a few decades earlier. They were all Jewish and paranoid about anti-Semitism which they assumed was the driving force of all of western civilization including America even if they couldn't see it. So they crafted ideas they knew would destroy American civilization from the inside. Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, and many others. Bill Lind is the name of the guy who did the analysis I first encountered of Political Correctness as originating with the Cultural Marxists. Those guys were Marxists but they'd given up on overt revolution and sought an insidious revolution. There is also reason to trace this back before them to the Jesuit influences on Marx himself, and to a Jesuit who first invented the idea of Social Justice or Socialism or Communism. First you call into question everything about the nation you want to bring down, all its pride in its goodness. Make it out to be nothing but a greed-driven racist murderous evil force in the world, bury all its goodness or reinvent it as evil. Forget about the lives lost by Americans in the service of saving Europe from Hitler. Call America "imperialist." That was one of the strangest pieces of propaganda you heard all the time in the 60s. The British Empire was/is of course attacked as evil in exactly the same way, its benevolent contributions to the nations it occupied buried under mountains of invective, accusations of greed and racism and so on. A small truth is made to overwhelm the bigger truths. Make it so nobody can say anything good about the nation without hearing about how it murdered Indians and witches and Quakers and lynched blacks and so on. You never hear the true story of Thanksgiving any more, the friendship and sharing of food between the Pilgrim settlers and the local Indian tribe. No, that's all been buried. Christians didn't befriend the Indians, they murdered them. But of course if they wanted to save their souls that was an evil in itself.
Of course American freedoms ARE good according to PC, as long as we define them according to PC. The real greatness of America is rewritten in PC terms.
I think the belief that Sharia law could be introduced in such a way is pretty fanatical, but if you claim that such a procedure is unconstitutional, exactly what section of the constitution do you think would be violated?
I hope it can't succeed. I hope Americans still have enough common sense to prevent it, but it isn't looking good.
PC constitutionality thinks it's just grand that Sharia law could be imposed on America by the mere growth of the Muslim population. Amazing. Is anybody really thinking? Again, it's in how it was understood back then as compared to the ridiculous destructive interpretations we hear now.
Just for an example from that time, here's Samuel Adams on religious freedoms:
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.
But of course I'm the fanatic and you have no reason to listen to me or to anyone I quote. I know that only too well by now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 12:03 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 1:02 AM Faith has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 372 (771796)
10-30-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
10-30-2015 12:56 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
I think it's mostly a matter of understanding how the language of protected freedoms was understood in its day and something of the history of PC over the last half century.
You seemed to be claiming that the constitution does not allow the strategy of 'growing your numbers'until you get your way. Your statement does not come close to defending such a claim.
Faith writes:
Nobody here seems to have a clue about PC. Tanypteryx thinks it refers to being polite about differences or some such. No, it's a concerted propaganda program that took off in the sixties through the Cultural Marxists who had escaped Nazi Germany to come and teach in American Universities a few decades earlier
Just thought this was worth a repeat.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 10-30-2015 12:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 10-30-2015 1:04 AM NoNukes has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 372 (771797)
10-30-2015 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by NoNukes
10-30-2015 1:02 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
Well, that was short and sour. Why do I bother?
I didn't intend such an implication. I thought it was common sense.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 1:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 1:37 AM Faith has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 372 (771798)
10-30-2015 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
10-30-2015 1:04 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
I didn't intend such an implication. I thought it was common sense.
Telling me that your position is common sense, or to think harder, or calling the opposing position Marxist neither helps me understand where you are coming from nor persuades me that you are right.
Since your position is based on the constitution, I would think that you ought to be able to at least point to some part of the document in support of your position.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 10-30-2015 1:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 10-30-2015 1:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 146 of 372 (771799)
10-30-2015 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
10-30-2015 1:37 AM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
The Constitution never intended to grant freedoms to subversive groups. The First Amendment that grants religious freedom never intended to grant that freedom to a religion that seeks ultimately to dominate the nation ruled by the Constitution. abe: I would think this would be obvious since the whole flap was about preventing one denomination from dominating all the others. How we could get from that basic understanding to thinking the Constitution would permit a religion to grow to dominate the nation by any means whatever is beyond me. /abe
I answered you that it depends on reading the Constitution as it was originally understood as compared to reading it with the PC understanding that grants freedom to subversive religions. That's the only claim I made, that it depends on how you read it. And I quoted Samuel Adams to show that at least one founder understood the problem of subversive religion. He would have of course as all the early Puritans did, when they disallowed Roman Catholics from positions of political power. Both Roman Catholicism and Islam are subversive religions that seek to take over the world. They knew it back then in the case of the RCC, apparently not so clear about Islam. But we should be clear about Islam now.
I don't know what you think I said that this doesn't answer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 1:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2015 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 147 of 372 (771808)
10-30-2015 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Bliyaal
10-29-2015 2:51 PM


Bliyaal
"We know the answer, it's the man. Why don't you focus on the real problem instead of the false image you made up in your head?"
I agree. Thanks for agreeing that he and his misogynous religion is the one forcing the wearing of that apparel.
But what do you suggest we do to such a fundamentally flawed person?
I have already suggested that we force Islam to alter the message of their jihadist and misogynous man creating Qur'an. Few seemed to think we could ask that so I have no other solution except for what follow.
Please try to think like a Muslim man and opine on the notion I put.
------
Muslim men. Honor and duty to women demand that you outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka.
Think of our Penopticon world. penopticon - Search
In our technological world, security of the person is relying more and more on technology. Authorities of all kinds have their satellites and cameras on in so many locations now that one can barely find a place to spit without three different camera angle shots being taken and a spitting ticket being issued by someone monitoring those camera shots and looking for your money.
Annoying? --- Perhaps. --- But great for security of the person and pleasing to our political as well as religious sense of duty and honor to women. Especially Muslim honor as Islam emphasized a man’s honor and duty to women, more than in the West. A Muslim man’s honor resides in his wife and protecting is paramount.
The point is that the state provides security to it’s citizens via this technology and that more and more technology will be used. I.E., cell phones.
It is incumbent then on the Muslim state to make it illegal to hinder any state or government from insuring the safety of all citizens, as honor and duty demands. Muslim woman should not be allowed to escape the safety umbrella that the state, in this case, Muslim men and Sharia, who must provide security of the person for Muslim women.
Honor and duty to women demands that Muslim men forbid Muslim women from wearing anything that would reduce their security.
Enhancing the security of Muslim women is a Muslim man’s responsibility, duty and honor. To not accept and indeed demand the highest security for the Muslim women is dishonor and a shirking of a Muslim man’s duty.
Allah will be pleased when Muslim men step up and have their women toss their hijab, niqab and burka in the dustbin, as Muslim honor demands.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Bliyaal, posted 10-29-2015 2:51 PM Bliyaal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Bliyaal, posted 10-30-2015 8:55 AM Greatest I am has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 148 of 372 (771809)
10-30-2015 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Bliyaal
10-29-2015 2:53 PM


Bliyaal
Again you put an idiotic view that is not indicated at all.
You must be showing your own thinking.
Who is the racist here?
For your information, I recognize only one race, the human race, and it just happens to have a variety of shades.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Bliyaal, posted 10-29-2015 2:53 PM Bliyaal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Bliyaal, posted 10-30-2015 8:59 AM Greatest I am has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 149 of 372 (771810)
10-30-2015 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Omnivorous
10-29-2015 5:12 PM


Re: PC doing its dirty work as usual
Omnivorous
"GIA doesn't give a fig for Muslim women".
You are lying. It is because I give a fig that I do what I do.
Why do you not care for the freedom of Muslim women and would leave them slaved to Muslim men?
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 5:12 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 150 of 372 (771812)
10-30-2015 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Blue Jay
10-29-2015 8:48 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Blue Jay
"Do burqa bans have a beneficial effect on society?"
Absolutely. It protects the main culture and its values of face to face communication without ostracizing the immigrant culture or upsetting the majority culture.
In the British legal system, witnesses must unveil as well as jurors because of the importance of the right of the defendant to face to face communication.
----------
"1. There is no evidence that such bans in other countries have significantly reduced oppression of Muslim women."
Any reduction in oppression is valuable in a free nation is it not?
Would you be prick enough to deny even a small reduction in oppression?
--------------
"2.The ban is likely to negatively effect women who are not currently being oppressed."
Granted. It will to those brainwashed into thinking that apparel is somehow tied to religion and spirituality. They should take comfort in the fact that Jesus is said to have said that such religious symbols should be worn only in private. He frowned on public displays of piety.
----------
"3.The ban is going to difficult to enforce tactfully and effectively."
B.S. No more than a speeding ticket if the women are more law abiding than this one. If a woman makes too big a fus, then she, like this one, will pay the consequences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOiaXN-egg&feature=em-su...
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2015 8:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2015 12:50 PM Greatest I am has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024