Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/18/2001 12:14:12 PM EDT
I know this is gonna be a flame fest, and a touchy subject. In all sanity, I should not even post this topic, but what the hell? This is stemmed off of a comment by mattja (I think). I'll start off the argument by stating the fact that [i]most[/i] women are liberal, and [i]most[/i] women support restricting our rights. ("most" being the important word) Flame away.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:19:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2001 12:24:51 PM EDT by MindHunter]
Originally Posted By stubbs: I know this is gonna be a flame fest, and a touchy subject. In all sanity, I should not even post this topic, but what the hell? This is stemmed off of a comment by mattja (I think). I'll start off the argument by stating the fact that [i]most[/i] women are liberal, and [i]most[/i] women support restricting our rights. ("most" being the important word) Flame away.
View Quote
At first I was going to post something comedic here but on second thought. Do you think it is right to only let people vote that support your ideas? Kind of defeats the purpose I would say. What would be after Women? Blacks, Hispanics, Cops, Doctors, I have a problem with that line of thinking. In my mind that would mean all the blood shed by our brothers to protect democracy would have bled in vain. Hunter out...
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:20:15 PM EDT
THAT WAS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER MADE IN THIS COUNTRY
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:23:10 PM EDT
[kill]
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:23:19 PM EDT
I'll add that MOST (not all) women are controlled by emotions (and I'm glad they are.) Its a God-given design, and it balances out the man's over-emphasis on logic, providing the world with compassion and kindness. However, I find this fact problematic when allowing a person into a voting booth. Emotion is good, but ultimately it must be overridden by logical and rational analysis of the facts, thereby producing a decision based on those facts. Just ask yourself this - why are MOST of the most rabid gun control proponents women?? Personally, i don't blame women for this. I blame those who exploit the emotional side of women. Back to the question at issue - I'm NOT ready to keep women from voting, but I do see over -emotionalism as a major driver of the Leftist / Marxist agenda. I'm open to suggestions as to how to solve this. Nomex on. Come on baby - light my fire.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:24:45 PM EDT
only thing them womens is good fer is birthin' babies
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:25:18 PM EDT
I'm worried about our female members here. I've almost been killed trying to discuss this topic.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:29:17 PM EDT
I think that the main problem is the "soccer mom". Life probably would be simpler if we(the men) still owned them(the women). sigh... Those were the days.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:30:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: I'm worried about our female members here. I've almost been killed trying to discuss this topic.
View Quote
today is a good day to die!!!!!!!! Any why do you think that women get so irate over this topic??? Emotion. Few are able to debate the issue without hyterics and histrionics. Some are, but very few. Of course, if someone tried to take my vote away, I'd get pissed too. But that doesn't mean the subject is taboo. AS I said above, I'm NOT thinking of taking away their right to vote. I just want ALL people, women AND men, to vote based on logic and fact, NOT emotion. Emotion-based voting is the single biggest driver of the Marxist agenda in this country.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 12:33:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hg112: I think that the main problem is the "soccer mom". Life probably would be simpler if we(the men) still owned them(the women). sigh... Those were the days.
View Quote
You a funny man.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 1:24:26 PM EDT
Did anyone see "The Man Show" episode where women were signing a petition to repeal women's suffrage (19th Amendment)? Funny as all get out! I feel that it would be a much better country if women were not allowed vote. However, I do not believe in taxation without representation. So, if they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote. I only wish that all voters were more informed on the issues before they head to the ballot box. When my sister heads to the polls, she has no clue about the issues or candidates. If more men actually voted, things would not be nearly as bad.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 1:32:06 PM EDT
Women have proven themselves to be perfectly willing to throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as long as someone is promising them a little security. For that reason, I believe they should not be allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 1:34:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mejames: However, I do not believe in taxation without representation. So, if they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote.
View Quote
We can ban them from working too. [:)]
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 1:40:34 PM EDT
Repeal women's sufferage!
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 1:56:29 PM EDT
No, as much as I respect women, they vote with more emotion that logic. Emotional legislation only achieves more government and less freedom with the illusion of more safety. radioman
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:34:28 PM EDT
Enough. I've been lurking on this board for the last month, and am already sick of the broad generalizations and misogyny. I'm tired of reading demands for nude pictures to prove that the poster is female, and the assumptions those females are here to function as trolls. Read through some of the posts for the last month. If that doesn't tell you why most women do not support gun ownership, then nothing will. As long as you insist on telling women that we are not smart enough to own guns, and should only concern ourselves with the kitchen and raising children, then the majority of women will never care about your rights. If you want us to care about your rights, then try making more women feel involved and welcome. This thread should be locked before it degenerates further. [:(!]
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:41:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:42:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: Enough. I've been lurking on this board for the last month, and am already sick of the broad generalizations and misogyny. I'm tired of reading demands for nude pictures to prove that the poster is female, and the assumptions those females are here to function as trolls. Read through some of the posts for the last month. If that doesn't tell you why most women do not support gun ownership, then nothing will. As long as you insist on telling women that we are not smart enough to own guns, and should only concern ourselves with the kitchen and raising children, then the majority of women will never care about your rights. If you want us to care about your rights, then try making more women feel involved and welcome. This thread should be locked before it degenerates further. [:(!]
View Quote
And this has [i]what[/i] to do with this thread? Did you not read the original post?
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:46:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: try making more women feel involved and welcome.
View Quote
Welcome to the board as a "poster" glockgrrrl. Hunter out...
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:53:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2001 2:57:59 PM EDT by raven]
Hell yes they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Look who they vote for when they do: Gore and Clinton. Not only that, they shouldn't be allowed on juries either. I was watching a report of the LAPD Rampart scandal, which started with several cops indicted for their connections to LA gangs. This one cop was being prosecuted, but he escaped his first proscecution. The jury was hung. Why? Four women on the jury thought he was too good-looking to be a criminal. [pissed] A lot of women don't have the basic sense to look beyond surface appearances, and don't realize the harm a single trusted person can do to our institutions if he's a bad apple. Women use the same criteria to choose who they're going to vote for too. Clinton's a complete scumbag but women still like him because he's sexually appealling to them. Never mind the huge damage he's done, he's cute! The only problem with denying women the vote seems to be issues that affect women directly like civil rights and reproduction rights. Women should be allowed their voice in that. Also, women are a lot more informed on local issues than men are, so should be allowed to vote in those matters.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:59:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: Enough. I've been lurking on this board for the last month, and am already sick of the broad generalizations and misogyny. I'm tired of reading demands for nude pictures to prove that the poster is female, and the assumptions those females are here to function as trolls. Read through some of the posts for the last month. If that doesn't tell you why most women do not support gun ownership, then nothing will. As long as you insist on telling women that we are not smart enough to own guns, and should only concern ourselves with the kitchen and raising children, then the majority of women will never care about your rights. If you want us to care about your rights, then try making more women feel involved and welcome. This thread should be locked before it degenerates further. [:(!]
View Quote
so how about a nude pic to prove you are female.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:59:31 PM EDT
Oh man.... I just can't resist getting in on this one and I may get flamed from both sides but at least read it all first and then think. I do not believe that it was ever intended for women to be saddled with the responsibility of making governmental decisions. It has always been the responsibility of men to be the leaders that they were created to be but we have lost this along the way as well. Today - we are so confused in general about who is who in the zoo that nobody cares about the fact that we are losing ground fast. I am going to state right here and now that my answer is not suggesting that women are not smart enough, (in fact many have a higher intelligence than men.... flame me!) or knowledgable enough, or anything enough to vote or be involved in the working of government. I am NOT a chuavinist (if I didn't spell that right - just goes to show ya what I mean...). I love my wife and honor her and let me say here that she feels this way more strongly than I do. What I AM saying is that the burden or responsibility should never have fallen to women to step up to the plate and be leaders. I am convinced that the reason this has happened is because men (I am talking in general terms here....) have refused to be men. We have avoided our responsibility and in many ways I don't blame the ladies for feeling that something has to be done. I can tell you that I take every opportunity to "teach" men to be MEN and to have integrity and be responsible. That is what we have lost in our society. So ladies and gents - what I am saying is that we never should have gone there in the first place. You know we have been blaming Eve for the "little problem" in the garden, but if you will read Genesis closey you will find that Adam was stading right there and never said a word! In fact - he just played along and ate the forbidden fruit too and they both paid the price. Notice who got called on the carpet first - it was the man! Why? Because he was the one who was given the responsibility to subdue everything. He blew it and when he was questioned about it - he tried to pass the buck... "the women thou gavest me....". Therein lies the problem. Ladies - I apologize for our weakness and lack of manhood. I for one intend to return to what was originally set up to work right. Ladies we never should have forced this in your direction. If we man would do our job - you ladies would not have to worry about who is in the White House....... Let the firefight begin..... [uzi] [sniper] [b]The Sniper
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:03:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2001 3:02:30 PM EDT by raven]
Way to rationalize male oppression and patriarchy, Sniper! [;)] I salute you!
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:24:40 PM EDT
[b]And this has what to do with this thread? Did you not read the original post? Gecko45[/b] I did read the original post. Apparently, you did not read mine: ...sick of the broad generalizations... [b]so how about a nude pic to prove you are female. hg112[/b] Your picture is below. However, it is a very special picture. To view it, you must first remove your tin foil hat, and then hold your breath until it appears. You hold sole responsibility for any injuries you may incur. [b]I do not believe that it was ever intended for women to be saddled with the responsibility of making governmental decisions. It has always been the responsibility of men to be the leaders that they were created to be but we have lost this along the way as well. Ladies we never should have forced this in your direction. The Sniper[/b] I would have been more impressed by your post had it not sounded so patronizing.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:30:36 PM EDT
A big fat YES!!! you cant bar people from voting just because they disagree with your posistion. there are however some people who should not vote such as convicts, non-us citizens, and those who receive welfare (if your not responsible enough to take care of yourself, then well...). i still stand by the idea that in order to vote, you must take a constitution exam in order to acquire a voter registration card. if you fail the exam, then you dont understand your own government or liberties, and therefore should not vote. vote reforming lib
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:33:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mejames: However, I do not believe in taxation without representation. So, if they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote.
View Quote
Finally a topic with some meat in it! I believe anyone who doesn't pay taxes should note be allowed to vote!! I almost believe only landowner's should be allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:33:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: ...I would have been more impressed by your post had it not sounded so patronizing...
View Quote
Sorry glockgrrrl - it was not meant to be patronizing. It is hard to cover a subject like this in this type of forum I guess. Women are very capable but that just isn't my point anyway. I just believe that there has been a way to do a lot of things from the beginning but we have blown that in more ways than one - so we are left with trying to put things back in place. I know that I am going to be misunderstood by guys and gals but I just had to throw in here with... well at least a little different twist on this. Just at least consider what things would be like if we all would have done our "jobs" right in the first place. Hey... Peace everybody! Just my .02 worth... [sniper] [b]The Sniper
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:40:25 PM EDT
You know, reading glockgrrrl's post made me think of something. Every girlfriend I've had has broken up with me because I was either a hunter (You KILL Bambie??!!! I don't EVER want to talk to you again!!) or I was a gun owner (You own GUNS??!! And you know how to use them for self defense?? You're evil!!!). Maybe you can explain why that is. I've always treated women with respect and as equals (at least, since about half of my girlfriends were smarter than me). They just found something offensive about firearms. Hell, the last woman I dated was in the Air Force ROTC at UNT, not only that, her dad was a hunter, and she was kinda freaky about guns. Why is that, do you know? ML
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 3:44:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 4:08:18 PM EDT
I knew I would get some intelligent responses.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 4:17:27 PM EDT
Yes! but only if their pro-gun.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 4:27:50 PM EDT
Perhaps the long held belief that the sweet young girl is to delicate needs to be discarded. My daughters are every bit young ladies, but they know how to handle guns, and can shoot with the best young men around. I taught them early, and that will carry into adulthood. They have already laid claim to what they want to take with them to college. When they are raised with a proper foundation in freedom, liberty, and what correct gun control is (hitting your target), they will vote, and carry those traits with them for the next generation. They will vote for freedom, not for the pantywaist concepts that liberals, soccer moms, and sheeple promote. My daughter said it right when we were talking about the million bitch march, she said wouldn't it be neat if they all got the runs at the same time from listening to the tripe that was being broadcast from the speakers. Just as the government through schools change ideas, start working on those close to you especially our children. Till then it's a moot point, if we value freedom, then we have to recognize the female vote.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 4:45:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: If you want us to care about your rights, then try making more women feel involved and welcome.
View Quote
Perfect example of the irrational emotion women display. [b]nobody loves me, You hurt my feelings so screw your god given rights[/b]
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 5:07:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MindHunter: What would be after Women? Blacks, Hispanics, Cops, Doctors, I have a problem with that line of thinking. In my mind that would mean all the blood shed by our brothers to protect democracy would have bled in vain. Hunter out...
View Quote
Democracy? Sorry but this country was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 5:47:07 PM EDT
Mrs CAR15M4 tells me that she'd gladly give up her right (as a woman) to vote if it ment that our country wouldn't have to put up with the likes of Clinton, Gore, Reno, Feinstein, the Kennedy's (dead or alive: they're all the same), etc, etc, etc. I get her point. Jay Arizona
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 5:54:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: I knew I would get some intelligent responses.
View Quote
HEY! Who you callin' intelligent...? [:\] [>:/] [;)] [sniper] [b]The Sniper
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:18:25 PM EDT
[b]Perfect example of the irrational emotion women display. nobody loves me, You hurt my feelings so screw your god given rights RipMeyer[/b] That is incorrect; please guess again. If I have no stake in an issue, then I personally will refrain from voting on it. That is not to say that most people will. It is not a case of “you hurt my feelings”, rather it is a case of “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care what happens to your right?” If you want to retain your right to firearm ownership, I suggest you take an interest in involving more people. [b]Mrs CAR15M4 tells me that she'd gladly give up her right (as a woman) to vote if it ment that our country wouldn't have to put up with the likes of Clinton, Gore, Reno, Feinstein, the Kennedy's (dead or alive: they're all the same), etc, etc, etc. CAR15M4[/b] Well and good if she wishes to count on the masses to elect whom she wants to see in office. I personally would not consider it.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:23:23 PM EDT
No....America Has enough problems as it is. AHHH the good ole days. Only white male landowners.ATF
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:37:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2001 6:39:29 PM EDT by RipMeyer]
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: Originally Posted By RipMeyer [b]Perfect example of the irrational emotion women display. nobody loves me, You hurt my feelings so screw your god given rights.
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl That is incorrect; please guess again. If I have no stake in an issue, then I personally will refrain from voting on it. That is not to say that most people will. It is not a case of “you hurt my feelings”, rather it is a case of “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care what happens to your right?” If you want to retain your right to firearm ownership, I suggest you take an interest in involving more people.
View Quote
Once again, perfect example!!! It does not affect me why should I care!! BECAUSE PEOPLE DIED FOR THESE RIGHTS AND YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PRESERVE THEM
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:42:08 PM EDT
I'm still waiting for the naked pics!!!
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 7:45:28 PM EDT
Yes. This subject is beyond debate in the 21st century.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 7:56:38 PM EDT
[b]Once again, perfect example!!! It does not affect me why should I care!! BECAUSE PEOPLE DIED FOR THESE RIGHTS AND YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PRESERVE THEM RipMeyer[/b] Had you read my post carefully enough, you would know that I do not agree with the statement “It does not affect me, so why should I care?“ Would not this obligation you speak of also extend to the 19th amendment? [b]I'm still waiting for the naked pics!!! hg112[/b] Try holding your breath longer.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:10:07 PM EDT
Actually, I don't think anyone should vote. We should just put all the names on a dartboard, have someone stand with their back to it, and toss a dart over their shoulder at the board. Whichever name is hit by the dart wins! This would save money, time, and energy; and would give us a "politician" who didn't give a crap about pleasing everyone.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:11:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 7: Democracy? Sorry but this country was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
View Quote
Pay attention I never said it was founded as a democracy. I suppose your next argument is going to be none of our brothers have died in the name of our democracy. Hunter out...
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:24:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: RipMeyer Had you read my post carefully enough, you would know that I do not agree with the statement “It does not affect me, so why should I care?“ Would not this obligation you speak of also extend to the 19th amendment?
View Quote
Dont agree with it? read your own words!! Originally Posted By glockgrrrl
"rather it is a case of “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care what happens to your right?”
View Quote
Sounds like you could care less what rights are stripped as long as [b]YOU[/b] are not affected. Dont feel alone there are plenty like you!!
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:36:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RipMeyer:
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: RipMeyer Had you read my post carefully enough, you would know that I do not agree with the statement “It does not affect me, so why should I care?“ Would not this obligation you speak of also extend to the 19th amendment?
View Quote
Dont agree with it? read your own words!! Originally Posted By glockgrrrl
"rather it is a case of “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care what happens to your right?”
View Quote
Sounds like you could care less what rights are stripped as long as [b]YOU[/b] are not affected. Dont feel alone there are plenty like you!!
View Quote
That is not worded as a statement of her opinion. Reread it without the emotion of anger, opppps wait only women let emotions affect their conduct...........nevermind. Hunter out...
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:44:54 PM EDT
[b]Dont agree with it? read your own words!! RipMeyer[/b] This was the sentence preceding it: If I have no stake in an issue, then I personally will refrain from voting on it. That is not to say that most people will. For example, the area that I live in had a vote to increase revenue by raising taxes on homeowners. Being that I am not a homeowner, I abstained from voting. The idea I am attempting to convey to you is that [i]some[/i] people will allow a right to slip away, because the right, or lack thereof, does not affect them. There are two ways to remedy this: either convince them to refrain on issues that do not affect them, or involve them in the issue. Involving them would be far easier, and could only have a positive result. [b]Sounds like you could care less what rights are stripped as long as YOU are not affected. Dont feel alone there are plenty like you!! RipMeyer[/b] While I am not in that group, apparently you are. I do not see any other explanation of why you would adamantly defend the second amendment, but not the nineteenth. I will also note that you did not answer my question regarding your belief in obligations to said rights.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:48:29 PM EDT
It seems very clear what was said.
It is not a case of “you hurt my feelings”, rather it is a case of “It doesn’t affect me, so why should I care what happens to your right?”
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:58:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: RipMeyer While I am not in that group, apparently you are. I do not see any other explanation of why you would adamantly defend the second amendment, but not the nineteenth. I will also note that you did not answer my question regarding your belief in obligations to said rights.
View Quote
Feel free to re-read the posts I have made and show me where I have said I do not support the 19th or any other amendment. I simply made the statment, women quite frequently let feelings get in the way of facts. just because you dont own a house does not mean you should let your neighbors get screwed when they need your help. once again it seems you have proved my point that you dont care unless it affects "YOU". You dont have to be affected OR involved to give support.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 9:02:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I'll add that MOST (not all) women are controlled by emotions (and I'm glad they are.) Its a God-given design, and it balances out the man's over-emphasis on logic, providing the world with compassion and kindness.
View Quote
Garandman...right on the money again! This female preponderance to use "emotion" over "logic" was aptly displayed during the recent election when Al Gore "kissed" his wife Tipper on stage ("What a sweet kiss [:X], he must really love his wife. I think I'll vote for him"). Numerous women called in to either Rush Limbaugh or the Micheal Reagan shows (it might have been a topic of discussion on both) and said they had been undecided on who to vote for in the election until they saw this famous kiss. Rush was incredulous at first, not beleiving this was even remotely a concern of most women. After a few called in and supported the first women it became a hot topic of discussion for the rest of the day. It is also noted that an equal or greater number of women called in to discredit the notions of these women. But, to actually hear those first women defend themselves, and the anti-logic they used to do it with, astounded, upset, and worried me. This was the same tribe of "blondes" that the Democratic party was trying to sway when they had somebody touch up Al's "package" on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine ("What a nice big stlaminka he has [:X], I think I'll vote for the "well hung" guy"). Women are more emotional than men and that is a good thing. One of those complimentary traits that as garandman pointed out compliments mens lack of or rarely used emotions. These complimentary skills are what make a good relationship, marriage, and family work. Why do we (or the sociologists) want to tinker with this and why do they keep trying to re-define our gender roles in society. I predict that like the Lemmings in Scandanavia, that eventually, we as a society will be torn in so many stupid directions that all we are doing is getting closer and closer to a cultural cliff and that the day we fall off is rapidly approaching. I'm not saying women shouldn't have the right to vote. But perhaps women were in the position they were in for the last thousand years, with no vote and little political power for a reason. The "old boy network" that dominated politics till recently, without all the rhetoric that we get plastered with, knew that most women couldn't handle the right to vote and should be left to responsibilities where their emotional nature could be used to its best effect. Before I have to put my flame suit on, these are not necessarily my beliefs, but just me trying to look at the situation through the eyes of my very chauvanistic male forebearers and trying to decipher why they were the way they were. The logical (male) side of me says they were wrong. The emotional (female) side of me say they must have been on to something! Since women get to use their emotions to make decisions and defend them, then I guess I have that right also. [;D] To a Million Mom March Member: "I'll give up my right to the 2nd Amendment, when you give up your right to the 19th Amendment."
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 9:11:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glockgrrrl: [b]Once again, perfect example!!! It does not affect me why should I care!! BECAUSE PEOPLE DIED FOR THESE RIGHTS AND YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PRESERVE THEM RipMeyer[/b] Had you read my post carefully enough, you would know that I do not agree with the statement “It does not affect me, so why should I care?“ Would not this obligation you speak of also extend to the 19th amendment? [b]I'm still waiting for the naked pics!!! hg112[/b] Try holding your breath longer.
View Quote
You sexy thing. Why must you tease me like that? [sex] [sex] [sex] [sex] [sex] [spank]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top