What would you do if.....

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:
And when have "most" of any group been a valid argument for ANY cause?

It's not how many agree. It's how valid their claims.

And who will determine it?

To say that parents are unreasonable
because they chose to spank is itself "unreasonable".
The argument of the slavery proponents, and opponents of women's
sufferage.

False analogy!
No it's not. There are three up there. In one way or another each apply
to the issue.

Yes, it is. There's no more slaves; there will always be children.
Women can vote; children can not ever expected be!

The relationship between parents/children is different.

Yes, and that's been the excuse for slavery and women's suppression.
Please learn to read, and try doing it in libraries instead of on line.

Hahaha! Learn to use logic, ignoranus kane0!

You are not arguing that slave owners should use non-cp alternatives
to discipline their slaves, are you??
Why would I do that? A slave by definition, unless there are specific
laws protecting them, R R R R, and there are and were, are subject to
whatever the slave owner wishes to do with them.

What? There "are" laws protecting slaves? Are you this stupid? ;-)
You might want to educate yourself on current day slavery, Doan't.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/histor...ws/2252001.htm

0:-

Learn to read your own source, STUPID!:

"Successive regimes outlawed slavery in 1905, at independence in 1960, and
most recently in 1980."
Learn to read it yourself. Those are the laws I mentioned, as current,
to protect slaves.

There are no slaves, STUPID!
That's odd. Those observing the situation in Mauritania and Sudan
disagree with you, but heck, you are the expert, right?

Yee! They didn't outlaw slavery???

What in my statement addresses that issue? I would hardly have to tell
you or others that after providing a citation that says that, and also
says they do not enforce it, and the judicial is complicit in those
countries so that there is still slavery there.

Don't you read?

The laws are to protect people from being
enslaved, not to "protect slaves", ignoranus kane0!
Dear me. Then they aren't being used to free slaves? Funny I thought all
these people that were activists were trying to get those laws enforced
for the millions of black people in Africa out of slavery.

Hohoho! Changing the subject, ignoranus kane0?

No, I'm still on topic, Doan't. Try and keep up here.

So the laws "protect
slave" or protect people from being enslaved?

If someone is already a slave, as is true for millions world wide, then
those people are protected by the laws on slavery IF someone can get
them enforced. And advocates do manage to do that. In some nations not a
decade ago such laws were scoffed at, but today are being vigorously
enforced.

So, laws that protect against slavery help people that are now IN
slavery to get out.

What is so difficult for you about this concept?

How does that work for you? Are these laws somehow retroactive so they
can't protect people that ARE slaves to get them out of slavery?

They legally not slaves!

Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

The laws are to protect them from being
enslaved! See the difference, STUPID? ;-)

No, there is no difference. It would protect people from becoming
slaves, if the slavers can be caught and stopped before they enslave
(highly unlikely by the way) and it protects people that are slaves now
by getting them out of slavery legally.

You really do have a problem with either or comprehension and logic.


Are there still slaves in that regime's country?

Not legally!
I don't recall asking you a question that would fit that answer.

Hahaha!

Sorry. I'll try to dumb down my complex statements a bit more for you.

Your answer isn't correct.

Are there still slaves in Africa?

Are there still slaves in America?

Yes. There have been arrests, charges, prosecutions, trials and
convictions.

The most recent had to do with Korean nationals or of Korean extraction
and citizens and importing women for sexual slavery.

You really do work to maintain your ignorance, don't you now?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/e...ing/index.html

http://www.polarisproject.org/polari...Article_p3.htm
Does this answer your question?

You have entered yet another area I am an activist in. Small time, of
course. Mostly just letter writing. But enough to have bothered to
research and of course I receive a lot of information from sources whose
mailing lists I am on.

"AGAINST THEIR WILL

The U.S. government estimates that each year as many as 800,000 people
around the world are enslaved as laborers or sex workers—15,000 of them
in the United States. Katherine Chon ’02 and Derek Ellerman ’00 are
determined to set them free.

By Will Bunch ’81 and Charlotte Bruce Harvey ’78
Brown Alumni Magazine " ...

http://www.freetheslaves.net/news/archive/
Italy

Are there child slaves in southern Asia?

Are there still child slaves in America?

Probably. The government thinks so. I have also known of a few cases
where CPS was involved in placing them after the police removed them
from their parents who were prostituting them out for money and drugs.

Are children being prostituted after being SOLD into slavery by their
family?

Sure! Is it legal?

No. Where did I suggest that it was...other than it being a "legal" matter?

In fact, that IS what I said when I said laws are in place to protect
slaves.

Don't you read anything but your own babbling?

Hihihi! Don't you know that you are STUPID?

No, and neither do you, despite screaming it fairly regularly. It's a
wish of yours, not a fact.

You keep making stupid remarks about logic and you can't even get
your facts together? Hihihi! Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS...

Yes, we do seem to be more than one up on you in that area. 0:-

In stupidity, YES! ;-)

That would be stupid to say, since I replied to your claim about us not
being logical.

Be a good boy, Doan't, and doan't try to teach an old dog new tricks,
eh? RR R R R R
Hahaha! So you are now an "old dog"! Is LaVonne treating you like one?
Not to my knowledge. Do you know otherwise?
Logic and the pro-spanking compulsives. Amazing what they can get
themselves to believe in the face of reality.

Hihihi! You are even too stupid to see that she is using you like a dog!

You mean she's making a slave of me? 0:-

But if I do it willingly and have a payoff I agree is worth it can you
call me a slave, or being used?

Is LaVonne so clever that she can go back, let me see now, 51 years an
make me have the revelation I had about children not being assaulted in
the name of discipline?

It was just that long ago.

You are becoming more pathetic by the post, Doan't. It's sad to watch you.

But I'm just fascinated to see how a pro spanking compulsive operates.



Oh well.
AFfromDreamLand
Try not to dream about this conversation tonight and the millions of
slaves in the world today, from tiny children on up, that anti slavery
laws were created to protect by activists trying to get them enforced.

It will just keep you awake.

Why?

Because despite the beatings you suffered as a child you do have a tiny
shred of conscience left.

0:-




Nighty night.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Correction ***


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

Doan Wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a
reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable
hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according
to
you?

Doan
Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any
reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care
for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Spanking has been upheld by the courts (even the Supreme Court) as
"reasonable". It might be "unreasonable" to you but to most parents
in the U.S., it is "reasonable".
We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule.

Hahaha! Realllly??? You must have skipped Government 101!
You must not understand what you are reading.

I just pointed out it's NOT majority rule. It's representative rule, by
vote.

Representative of what? Of a minority? ;-)
Yes. Exactly that. People who may be in the minority for some reason, or
any reason, are not only protected in our system, they have very real
power. You never have taken a PoliSci class, have you?

Hihihi! Are you so STUPID as to make such a claim in public?

We are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy. More properly we have a
system called a representative democracy.

We are a democracy, a representative democracy.
Yes, Little Sir Echo. Quoting me does not nullify my own statement to
the same effect. When are you going to grow up, Doan't?

We can't be both. We are either a pure democracy, which I clearly stated
we are not, or we are a representative democracy, which you agree with.

You said we are NOT a "democracry".

No I didn't. You have to actually remove words from the originating
sentence to make that lying claim. You have NO ethics or morals at all
do you? Did your parents create a sociopath?

Hahaha! Resorting to adhoms again. Did your parents create stupid kids
like you? Bad genes? ;-)

Here's what I said. Have some one read it to you aloud without stopping
after the first use of the word Democracy: '"We are not a "democracy,"
as in pure democracy.'

There goes your English again. ;-) Why didn't you just say "We are not a
pure democracy"?

The second phrase is clearly descriptive of the first. You are
completely in defiance of rules of standard English and a cowardly vile
liar. But heck, what's new?

Hihihi! "rules of standard English"???

A representative democracy is still
a democracy, nevertheless, STUPID!

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't a pure democracy. Can't you do
something to improve your reading comprehension, or does your compulsion
to lie interfere with your capacity to learn?

Ooops! Resorting to adhoms when you are losing again. How typical of
anti-spanking zealotS like you. ;-)

Would could possibly be your point? Because your name is Doan and that
includes Don and An that you are either, but not Doan, in full?

Hihihi! Logic of an anti-spanking zealotS!

Yes, If I say this is not a pure democracy, which of course I did say,
and you insist that my descriptive phrase can't be used, WHEN IT'S EVEN
IN THE VERY SENTENCE UNDER DISCUSSION, I'd say I'm logical and you are
exposed AGAIN as a liar. That's why I call you compulsive.

You can't seem to control yourself even with people watching.

Hahaha! You are making a fool of yourself in public again, ignoranus
kane0!


We not a "direct
democracy" but we are a "democracy! To say that we are not a democracy
is simply idiotic!
Does being a "democracy" change that we are a representative democracy?
Yes, if it's pure democracy, not if you include "representative" in there.

It doesn't change the fact that we are a "democracy", STUPID! ;-)

Of course not, as long as you don't forget what I actually said: '"We
are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy.'

If you don't understand that statement please have an 8th grader explain
it to you.

Hahaha! Are you an 8th grader? ;-)

Are you trying to say that when WE used "democracy" to describe out
system of government it is not understood as "representative?

It's still a democracy!

I didn't say it wasn't. 'We are not a "democracy," as in pure
democracy.' Is that not what I said?

Splitting hairs over common usage (when I was careful to note that we
are NOTE a pure democracy) is pretty childish.

Hihihi!

Meaning you don't have any possible intelligent reasonable honest response.

Meaning I am having so much fun...at your expense, of course! ;-)



Are we a pure democracy then?

Are we not a "democracy" then?

Sure as long as you do not forget, as I stated, 'We are not a
"democracy," as in pure democracy.'

Okay? Get the 8th grader, or a therapist. You need one or the other,
apparently. Now would you say that I said you need an 8th grader for
your therapist?

Hahaha! Showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS again! ;-)

1500 people in an out of the way district in Montana get to elect a
representative that goes to congress and has ONE vote per issue, against
a congressman or women elected in a district of 5 or 6 million people,
and again, one vote per issue.

Then why does California has more representatives than Alaska, ignoranus
kane0?
It's not tied completely to ratio of people. If only ONE person lived in
a district they would have a representative. You are confusing the House
with the Senate. Two from each state, AGAIN BALANCING THE POWER, because
no matter the population each state gets two, and each of those only one
vote.

Hahaha! Why don't you answer my question, STUPID? Why is it that
California has more representatives than Alaska?

More people. That's why we have a representative democracy and why bills
must pass BOTH houses of Congress, AND be ratified by the President.
Each step dilutes the power of the majority.

So it's still a majority? But you said it's not!

Back to PoliSci for you.

Hihihi!

If I say "congress," of which legislative body am I speaking?

And since we have two legislative bodies within our Congress, we then
have even more leveling of the playing field. Anything to get away from
point, eh, Doan't?

So which one has more representatives, California or Alaska? Why?

That does not make CA residents more powerful than Alaskan. Remember, we
have a two parter. Actually three. Two legislative bodies and a single
executive, PLUS, if need be later, a third body, in the form of the
judicial, from local Federal courts to the Supreme court.

You yourself, dummy, have cited the Supreme court just recently.

We are, Doan't, a representative democracy with all the checks and
balances that implies.

All three branches can be, and often are, involved in decision making to
ensure that no majority can overpower the minority.

Are you sure? If the majority voted for George Bush, who will be
President? ;-)

It's done wonders, all things considered. A great model.

Which were created by people who, more than likely, were spanked! ;-)
What has the non-spanking cultures created, Kane? How about a peacedful
society like the Hutterites? Remember them? Hic..hic!

Try to stay on topic and on task. I'll have more assignments for
you later. Hihihi!

I'm sorry you are so confused. Surely you have a cogent thought to
come back with, rather than just your silliness for avoidance.

You meant avoid your STUPIDITY? ;-0

Did you interrupt your professors to correct every possible
statement you could split hairs on? Yup! If he is a stupid
asshole like you! ;-)

Is that why you are stuck where you are?

Now now, aren't you a bit ahead of me on the ad hom by now? R R R R R

Just throwing the same **** back at you, remembered? Can't take it, huh?
;-)

I do so hate having to teach civics to bright little children that think
they know it all, but doan't.

So what did you teach, Prof. Ignoranus Kane0? ;-)

I was discussing teaching now.

And as you can see, it's civics class time for the little Doan't.

And the stupid asshole prof. is ignoranus kane0! ;-)


Doan


Give yourself another fifty years or so. Your intelligence will convert
into smarts...if your ass hasn't been whipped by your parents too much,
too high up your back.

Give yourself another fifty years and you would still be a stupid asshole
who think that calling other women "smelly-****" is acceptable!

Doan

They legally not slaves!

Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

Hahaha! So, according to you, it is legal to be a slave??? Show me
the law
where it said that, ignoranus kane0! Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS!

AFfromDreamLand

They legally not slaves!

Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

Hahaha! So, according to you, it is legal to be a slave??? Show me
the law
where it said that, ignoranus kane0! Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS!

AFfromDreamLand

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Correction ***


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

Doan Wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a
reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable
hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according
to
you?

Doan
Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any
reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care
for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Spanking has been upheld by the courts (even the Supreme Court) as
"reasonable". It might be "unreasonable" to you but to most parents
in the U.S., it is "reasonable".
We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule.

Hahaha! Realllly??? You must have skipped Government 101!
You must not understand what you are reading.

I just pointed out it's NOT majority rule. It's representative rule, by
vote.

Representative of what? Of a minority? ;-)
Yes. Exactly that. People who may be in the minority for some reason, or
any reason, are not only protected in our system, they have very real
power. You never have taken a PoliSci class, have you?

Hihihi! Are you so STUPID as to make such a claim in public?

We are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy. More properly we have a
system called a representative democracy.

We are a democracy, a representative democracy.
Yes, Little Sir Echo. Quoting me does not nullify my own statement to
the same effect. When are you going to grow up, Doan't?

We can't be both. We are either a pure democracy, which I clearly stated
we are not, or we are a representative democracy, which you agree with.

You said we are NOT a "democracry".
No I didn't. You have to actually remove words from the originating
sentence to make that lying claim. You have NO ethics or morals at all
do you? Did your parents create a sociopath?

Hahaha! Resorting to adhoms again. Did your parents create stupid kids
like you? Bad genes? ;-)

Is that what made you skip over this portion and not respond directly?
"No I didn't. You have to actually remove words from the originating
sentence to make that lying claim."

Here's what I said. Have some one read it to you aloud without stopping
after the first use of the word Democracy: '"We are not a "democracy,"
as in pure democracy.'

There goes your English again. ;-) Why didn't you just say "We are not a
pure democracy"?

Please explain, Grammar monkey, how my English was insufficient for the
understanding of "as in a pure democracy."

The second phrase is clearly descriptive of the first. You are
completely in defiance of rules of standard English and a cowardly vile
liar. But heck, what's new?

Hihihi! "rules of standard English"???

Sure. You can't remove part of a sentence and then claim the person
didn't say what you conveniently removed, but only something you left
remaining.

It both dishonest and in defiance of proper language usage.

A representative democracy is still
a democracy, nevertheless, STUPID!
I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't a pure democracy. Can't you do
something to improve your reading comprehension, or does your compulsion
to lie interfere with your capacity to learn?

Ooops! Resorting to adhoms when you are losing again. How typical of
anti-spanking zealotS like you. ;-)

Ad hom? Questioning your reading comprehension and honesty isn't an ad
hom, it's a favor. And you are welcome. I'd do it for any weasel that
just bailed out of the argument and failed to address my leading
sentences in that paragraph. 0:-

Would could possibly be your point? Because your name is Doan and that
includes Don and An that you are either, but not Doan, in full?

Hihihi! Logic of an anti-spanking zealotS!
Yes, If I say this is not a pure democracy, which of course I did say,
and you insist that my descriptive phrase can't be used, WHEN IT'S EVEN
IN THE VERY SENTENCE UNDER DISCUSSION, I'd say I'm logical and you are
exposed AGAIN as a liar. That's why I call you compulsive.

You can't seem to control yourself even with people watching.

Hahaha! You are making a fool of yourself in public again, ignoranus
kane0!

You seem to offer little support for that claim other than stating it,
while I continue to manage to point directly to what you do and fail to
do that shows what you really are. A liar.

We not a "direct
democracy" but we are a "democracy! To say that we are not a democracy
is simply idiotic!
Does being a "democracy" change that we are a representative democracy?
Yes, if it's pure democracy, not if you include "representative" in there.

It doesn't change the fact that we are a "democracy", STUPID! ;-)
Of course not, as long as you don't forget what I actually said: '"We
are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy.'

If you don't understand that statement please have an 8th grader explain
it to you.

Hahaha! Are you an 8th grader? ;-)

Apparently not with the capacity to help you understand standard English.

Are you trying to say that when WE used "democracy" to describe out
system of government it is not understood as "representative?

It's still a democracy!
I didn't say it wasn't. 'We are not a "democracy," as in pure
democracy.' Is that not what I said?

Splitting hairs over common usage (when I was careful to note that we
are NOTE a pure democracy) is pretty childish.

Hihihi!
Meaning you don't have any possible intelligent reasonable honest response.

Meaning I am having so much fun...at your expense, of course! ;-)

Yes, it's the Monkeyboy syndrome in full bloom.

Are we a pure democracy then?

Are we not a "democracy" then?
Sure as long as you do not forget, as I stated, 'We are not a
"democracy," as in pure democracy.'

Okay? Get the 8th grader, or a therapist. You need one or the other,
apparently. Now would you say that I said you need an 8th grader for
your therapist?

Hahaha! Showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS again! ;-)

1500 people in an out of the way district in Montana get to elect a
representative that goes to congress and has ONE vote per issue, against
a congressman or women elected in a district of 5 or 6 million people,
and again, one vote per issue.

Then why does California has more representatives than Alaska, ignoranus
kane0?
It's not tied completely to ratio of people. If only ONE person lived in
a district they would have a representative. You are confusing the House
with the Senate. Two from each state, AGAIN BALANCING THE POWER, because
no matter the population each state gets two, and each of those only one
vote.

Hahaha! Why don't you answer my question, STUPID? Why is it that
California has more representatives than Alaska?
More people. That's why we have a representative democracy and why bills
must pass BOTH houses of Congress, AND be ratified by the President.
Each step dilutes the power of the majority.

So it's still a majority? But you said it's not!

No, that's not what I said. Here's what I said:

"We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule."

And they are not. They are made by a series of actions by different
groups which have a powerful effect of suppression of majority rule,
even though in each case a "majority" might pass their portion of the task.

Interestingly some of our proceedures require MORE than a majority.

Still don't want a civics lesson I see.


Back to PoliSci for you.

Hihihi!

If I say "congress," of which legislative body am I speaking?

And since we have two legislative bodies within our Congress, we then
have even more leveling of the playing field. Anything to get away from
point, eh, Doan't?

So which one has more representatives, California or Alaska? Why?
That does not make CA residents more powerful than Alaskan. Remember, we
have a two parter. Actually three. Two legislative bodies and a single
executive, PLUS, if need be later, a third body, in the form of the
judicial, from local Federal courts to the Supreme court.

You yourself, dummy, have cited the Supreme court just recently.

We are, Doan't, a representative democracy with all the checks and
balances that implies.

All three branches can be, and often are, involved in decision making to
ensure that no majority can overpower the minority.

Are you sure?

As sure as the last election for president. And you?

If the majority voted for George Bush, who will be
President? ;-)

Now you have done it. I don't know if I want to do the research for you
or not.

We have had a number of presidents that won, as all must, through the
electoral college and yet did NOT have the popular (or as it's sometimes
referred to, Democratic) majority vote. Their opponent did.

Yet, there they a

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...te&btnG=Search

And Doan't, it's not like this hasn't been in the news in your lifetime.

Did you know that in some states you cannot vote directly for the man,
but must vote the party?

Have you ever thought of doing a little research before you jabber away,
monkeyboy?

Or will you now admit what we've known about you for years, you use the
"I was just kidding" childish bailout whenever you are cornered for your
lies and stupidity, but you were serious as hell up to that point.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html
Presidents Elected Without a Majority

Fifteen candidates (three of them twice) have become president of the
United States with a popular vote less than 50% of the total cast. It
should be noted, however, that in elections before 1872, presidential
electors were not chosen by popular vote in all states. Adams's election
in 1824 was by the House of Representatives, which chose him over
Jackson, who had a plurality of both electoral and popular votes, but
not a majority in the electoral college.

Besides Jackson in 1824, only three other candidates receiving the
largest popular vote have failed to gain a majority in the electoral
college—Samuel J. Tilden (D) in 1876, Grover Cleveland (D) in 1888, and
Al Gore (D) in 2000.

Year President Electoral % Popular%
1824 John Q. Adams 31.8% 29.8%
1844 James K. Polk (D) 61.8 49.3
1848 Zachary Taylor (W) 56.2 47.3
1856 James Buchanan (D) 58.7 45.3
1860 Abraham Lincoln (R) 59.4 39.9
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 50.1 47.9
1880 James A. Garfield (R) 57.9 48.3
1884 Grover Cleveland (D) 54.6 48.8
1888 Benjamin Harrison (R) 58.1 47.8
1892 Grover Cleveland (D) 62.4% 46.0%
1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) 81.9 41.8
1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 52.1 49.3
1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1 49.5
1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4 49.7
1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1 43.4
1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 43.0
1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 49.0
2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3 47.8

So what was that question about majority rules again? R R R R R


It's done wonders, all things considered. A great model.

Which were created by people who, more than likely, were spanked! ;-)

That could be the wonder of it all, now couldn't it? It's amazing how
the spanked can still prevail over the pain and humiliation involved in
being assaulted by their own parents.

But then there's always the chance that they had non-spankers in their
lives to help them get over the depradations of their spanking parents. 0:-

I've known a number of folks that had a relative or teacher that
cushioned the trauma. Why you might have even had one yourself. 0:-

What has the non-spanking cultures created, Kane? How about a peacedful
society like the Hutterites? Remember them? Hic..hic!

Sure. Want to be shown for the dishonorable screeching hysterical
monkeyboy you are and go through that again?

I admitted being misled by a source and went to the trouble of
researching further and even making direct e-mail contact and finding
out that they do in fact spank and I posted that e-mail content here.

Yet you still wish to pretend I made an error I did not correct. Which
of us is honorable and which without honor then in this instance?

Try to stay on topic and on task. I'll have more assignments for
you later. Hihihi!

I'm sorry you are so confused. Surely you have a cogent thought to
come back with, rather than just your silliness for avoidance.

You meant avoid your STUPIDITY? ;-0

Yeah, like presidents only being elected by majority vote of the public,
R R R ...

As I said, we are NOT a majority rules nation. And that is such an
obvious thing to even an 8th grader that I'm stunned you didn't know and
would continue to defend your claim that we are.

Or were you just seeking information and having fun at my expense,
again? Eh? R R R R

Did you interrupt your professors to correct every possible
statement you could split hairs on? Yup! If he is a stupid
asshole like you! ;-)

Is that why you are stuck where you are?

Now now, aren't you a bit ahead of me on the ad hom by now? R R R R R

Just throwing the same **** back at you, remembered? Can't take it, huh?
;-)

Can't take it? You can't seriously be asking that in this public forum
where people can, in your inimitable words, see and "decide for
themselves?"

I do so hate having to teach civics to bright little children that think
they know it all, but doan't.

So what did you teach, Prof. Ignoranus Kane0? ;-)
I was discussing teaching now.

And as you can see, it's civics class time for the little Doan't.

And the stupid asshole prof. is ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Most dull and stupid students have similar responses, and nearly every
one spanked at that. It does something to the capacity to learn, as we
can see in you.

Some folks overcome it though. Why not you?


Doan

Give yourself another fifty years or so. Your intelligence will convert
into smarts...if your ass hasn't been whipped by your parents too much,
too high up your back.

Give yourself another fifty years and you would still be a stupid asshole
who think that calling other women "smelly-****" is acceptable!

Naw, I'll be dead.

Are you prepared to defend the stand that the Smelly **** took on
hanging children up naked in church and having the congregation beat
them with objects, with the parents permission?

Go ahead.

Or, you can admit that Fern was in fact WORSE than any name I could have
called her and did.

Even YOU don't support that kind of "CP" do you?

Or is it yet again a case of "let them make up their own minds?"

Doan

Have a nice quite night.

Kane




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

wrote:
They legally not slaves!
Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

Hahaha! So, according to you, it is legal to be a slave???

Sure. There is NO law against being a slave, only being a slave HOLDER.

Just how stupid ARE you?

Slavery is recognized as existing by the presence of laws addressing it.

Show me the law against being a slave. I, R RR R R "Double Dare you."

Show me
the law
where it said that, ignoranus kane0!

Since I didn't say it I can't help you, no matter how much you need it.

Now come up with that law that says it's illegal to be a slave.

Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS!

Repeat it often enough and it loses all it's power as a claim.

Especially in the face of your postings and mine by comparison.

Notice?


AFfromDreamLand

How much longer are you going to make a fool of yourself?

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

wrote:
They legally not slaves!
Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

Hahaha! So, according to you, it is legal to be a slave???

Sure it is. You ever heard of anyone being charged and convicted of
being a slave?

It's only illegal to HOLD a person in slavery.

Show me
the law
where it said that, ignoranus kane0!

I didn't say there was a law that makes it legal to be a slave.

It's just isn't illegal, so of course the opposite would be legal.

There is no law that says it's ILLEGAL to be a slave. And one can't
prove a negative.

Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS!

No, actually you keep trying your hardest to come up with a question as
impossible to answer as mine, The Question.

And of course fall on your dumb ignorant ass over and over again in so
trying.

**** throwing chimpanzees have more intelligence than you, screeching,
hysterical dancing monkeyboy.

AFfromDreamLand

Enjoy your dreamland tonight.

See if you can plan something better for tomorrow. This has been waaaaay
too easy for me.

0:-
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Correction ***


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

Doan Wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a
reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable
hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according
to
you?

Doan
Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any
reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care
for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Spanking has been upheld by the courts (even the Supreme Court) as
"reasonable". It might be "unreasonable" to you but to most parents
in the U.S., it is "reasonable".
We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule.

Hahaha! Realllly??? You must have skipped Government 101!
You must not understand what you are reading.

I just pointed out it's NOT majority rule. It's representative rule, by
vote.

Representative of what? Of a minority? ;-)
Yes. Exactly that. People who may be in the minority for some reason, or
any reason, are not only protected in our system, they have very real
power. You never have taken a PoliSci class, have you?

Hihihi! Are you so STUPID as to make such a claim in public?

We are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy. More properly we have a
system called a representative democracy.

We are a democracy, a representative democracy.
Yes, Little Sir Echo. Quoting me does not nullify my own statement to
the same effect. When are you going to grow up, Doan't?

We can't be both. We are either a pure democracy, which I clearly stated
we are not, or we are a representative democracy, which you agree with.

You said we are NOT a "democracry".
No I didn't. You have to actually remove words from the originating
sentence to make that lying claim. You have NO ethics or morals at all
do you? Did your parents create a sociopath?

Hahaha! Resorting to adhoms again. Did your parents create stupid kids
like you? Bad genes? ;-)

Is that what made you skip over this portion and not respond directly?
"No I didn't. You have to actually remove words from the originating
sentence to make that lying claim."

Oops! Looked like I just touch a hot topic! ;-) Why didn't you answer my
question, ignoranus kane0?

Here's what I said. Have some one read it to you aloud without stopping
after the first use of the word Democracy: '"We are not a "democracy,"
as in pure democracy.'

There goes your English again. ;-) Why didn't you just say "We are not a
pure democracy"?

Please explain, Grammar monkey, how my English was insufficient for the
understanding of "as in a pure democracy."

Hihihi! Because you are just STUPID!

The second phrase is clearly descriptive of the first. You are
completely in defiance of rules of standard English and a cowardly vile
liar. But heck, what's new?

Hihihi! "rules of standard English"???

Sure. You can't remove part of a sentence and then claim the person
didn't say what you conveniently removed, but only something you left
remaining.

It both dishonest and in defiance of proper language usage.

Hihihi!

A representative democracy is still
a democracy, nevertheless, STUPID!
I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't a pure democracy. Can't you do
something to improve your reading comprehension, or does your compulsion
to lie interfere with your capacity to learn?

Ooops! Resorting to adhoms when you are losing again. How typical of
anti-spanking zealotS like you. ;-)

Ad hom? Questioning your reading comprehension and honesty isn't an ad
hom, it's a favor. And you are welcome. I'd do it for any weasel that
just bailed out of the argument and failed to address my leading
sentences in that paragraph. 0:-

Hahaha! Getting defensive, ignoranus kane0?

Would could possibly be your point? Because your name is Doan and that
includes Don and An that you are either, but not Doan, in full?

Hihihi! Logic of an anti-spanking zealotS!
Yes, If I say this is not a pure democracy, which of course I did say,
and you insist that my descriptive phrase can't be used, WHEN IT'S EVEN
IN THE VERY SENTENCE UNDER DISCUSSION, I'd say I'm logical and you are
exposed AGAIN as a liar. That's why I call you compulsive.

You can't seem to control yourself even with people watching.

Hahaha! You are making a fool of yourself in public again, ignoranus
kane0!

You seem to offer little support for that claim other than stating it,
while I continue to manage to point directly to what you do and fail to
do that shows what you really are. A liar.

Yes, YOU ARE A LIAR! ;-)

We not a "direct
democracy" but we are a "democracy! To say that we are not a democracy
is simply idiotic!
Does being a "democracy" change that we are a representative democracy?
Yes, if it's pure democracy, not if you include "representative" in there.

It doesn't change the fact that we are a "democracy", STUPID! ;-)
Of course not, as long as you don't forget what I actually said: '"We
are not a "democracy," as in pure democracy.'

If you don't understand that statement please have an 8th grader explain
it to you.

Hahaha! Are you an 8th grader? ;-)

Apparently not with the capacity to help you understand standard English.

Hahaha! Better than you, STUPID!

Are you trying to say that when WE used "democracy" to describe out
system of government it is not understood as "representative?

It's still a democracy!
I didn't say it wasn't. 'We are not a "democracy," as in pure
democracy.' Is that not what I said?

Splitting hairs over common usage (when I was careful to note that we
are NOTE a pure democracy) is pretty childish.

Hihihi!
Meaning you don't have any possible intelligent reasonable honest response.

Meaning I am having so much fun...at your expense, of course! ;-)

Yes, it's the Monkeyboy syndrome in full bloom.

Oooops! Back to ad-homs again, STUPID! ;-)

Are we a pure democracy then?

Are we not a "democracy" then?
Sure as long as you do not forget, as I stated, 'We are not a
"democracy," as in pure democracy.'

Okay? Get the 8th grader, or a therapist. You need one or the other,
apparently. Now would you say that I said you need an 8th grader for
your therapist?

Hahaha! Showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS again! ;-)

1500 people in an out of the way district in Montana get to elect a
representative that goes to congress and has ONE vote per issue, against
a congressman or women elected in a district of 5 or 6 million people,
and again, one vote per issue.

Then why does California has more representatives than Alaska, ignoranus
kane0?
It's not tied completely to ratio of people. If only ONE person lived in
a district they would have a representative. You are confusing the House
with the Senate. Two from each state, AGAIN BALANCING THE POWER, because
no matter the population each state gets two, and each of those only one
vote.

Hahaha! Why don't you answer my question, STUPID? Why is it that
California has more representatives than Alaska?
More people. That's why we have a representative democracy and why bills
must pass BOTH houses of Congress, AND be ratified by the President.
Each step dilutes the power of the majority.

So it's still a majority? But you said it's not!

No, that's not what I said. Here's what I said:

"We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule."

Yes, in most case it is. That is why we voted, STUPID!

And they are not. They are made by a series of actions by different
groups which have a powerful effect of suppression of majority rule,
even though in each case a "majority" might pass their portion of the task.

Hahaha!

Interestingly some of our proceedures require MORE than a majority.

More than a majority is stil majority, STUPID! ;-)

Still don't want a civics lesson I see.

Still a stupid ass-hole I see! ;-)


Back to PoliSci for you.

Hihihi!

If I say "congress," of which legislative body am I speaking?

And since we have two legislative bodies within our Congress, we then
have even more leveling of the playing field. Anything to get away from
point, eh, Doan't?

So which one has more representatives, California or Alaska? Why?
That does not make CA residents more powerful than Alaskan. Remember, we
have a two parter. Actually three. Two legislative bodies and a single
executive, PLUS, if need be later, a third body, in the form of the
judicial, from local Federal courts to the Supreme court.

You yourself, dummy, have cited the Supreme court just recently.

We are, Doan't, a representative democracy with all the checks and
balances that implies.

All three branches can be, and often are, involved in decision making to
ensure that no majority can overpower the minority.

Are you sure?

As sure as the last election for president. And you?

George Bush won by a majority, STUPID! ;-)

If the majority voted for George Bush, who will be
President? ;-)

Now you have done it. I don't know if I want to do the research for you
or not.

We have had a number of presidents that won, as all must, through the
electoral college and yet did NOT have the popular (or as it's sometimes
referred to, Democratic) majority vote. Their opponent did.

But they have a MAJORITY of the electorates, STUPID!
Yet, there they a

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...te&btnG=Search

And Doan't, it's not like this hasn't been in the news in your lifetime.

Did you know that in some states you cannot vote directly for the man,
but must vote the party?

Have you ever thought of doing a little research before you jabber away,
monkeyboy?

Have you, ignoranus kane0? ;-)

Or will you now admit what we've known about you for years, you use the
"I was just kidding" childish bailout whenever you are cornered for your
lies and stupidity, but you were serious as hell up to that point.

Hahaha! You are STUPID!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html
Presidents Elected Without a Majority

Buth they all won the MAJORITY of the electorates, STUPID!

So what was that question about majority rules again? R R R R R

The majority of the electorates, STUPID!


It's done wonders, all things considered. A great model.

Which were created by people who, more than likely, were spanked! ;-)

That could be the wonder of it all, now couldn't it? It's amazing how
the spanked can still prevail over the pain and humiliation involved in
being assaulted by their own parents.

Don't talke like that about LaVonne, please! ;-)

But then there's always the chance that they had non-spankers in their
lives to help them get over the depradations of their spanking parents. 0:-

I've known a number of folks that had a relative or teacher that
cushioned the trauma. Why you might have even had one yourself. 0:-

What has the non-spanking cultures created, Kane? How about a peacedful
society like the Hutterites? Remember them? Hic..hic!

Sure. Want to be shown for the dishonorable screeching hysterical
monkeyboy you are and go through that again?

Go ahead, kane0. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE you! ;-)

I admitted being misled by a source and went to the trouble of
researching further and even making direct e-mail contact and finding
out that they do in fact spank and I posted that e-mail content here.

Hahaha!

Yet you still wish to pretend I made an error I did not correct. Which
of us is honorable and which without honor then in this instance?

You said it was part of their non-violent parenting, STUPID! ;-)

Try to stay on topic and on task. I'll have more assignments for
you later. Hihihi!

I'm sorry you are so confused. Surely you have a cogent thought to
come back with, rather than just your silliness for avoidance.

You meant avoid your STUPIDITY? ;-0

Yeah, like presidents only being elected by majority vote of the public,
R R R ...

It's the electorates, STUPID!

As I said, we are NOT a majority rules nation. And that is such an
obvious thing to even an 8th grader that I'm stunned you didn't know
and would continue to defend your claim that we are.

Hihihi!
Or were you just seeking information and having fun at my expense,
again? Eh? R R R R

Hohoho!
Did you interrupt your professors to correct every possible
statement you could split hairs on? Yup! If he is a stupid
asshole like you! ;-)

Is that why you are stuck where you are?

Now now, aren't you a bit ahead of me on the ad hom by now? R R R R R

Just throwing the same **** back at you, remembered? Can't take it, huh?
;-)

Can't take it? You can't seriously be asking that in this public forum
where people can, in your inimitable words, see and "decide for
themselves?"

Yup! But you wanted to decide for them right, ignoranus kane0?

I do so hate having to teach civics to bright little children that think
they know it all, but doan't.

So what did you teach, Prof. Ignoranus Kane0? ;-)
I was discussing teaching now.

And as you can see, it's civics class time for the little Doan't.

And the stupid asshole prof. is ignoranus kane0! ;-)

Most dull and stupid students have similar responses, and nearly every
one spanked at that. It does something to the capacity to learn, as we
can see in you.

How about you, STUPID?

Some folks overcome it though. Why not you?

Hahaha!

Doan

Give yourself another fifty years or so. Your intelligence will convert
into smarts...if your ass hasn't been whipped by your parents too much,
too high up your back.

Give yourself another fifty years and you would still be a stupid asshole
who think that calling other women "smelly-****" is acceptable!

Naw, I'll be dead.

Yup! A dead stupid asshole! ;-)

Are you prepared to defend the stand that the Smelly **** took on
hanging children up naked in church and having the congregation beat
them with objects, with the parents permission?

Go ahead.

I am only speaking for myself. Why must I defend someone else, STUPID?
I don't have a master like you have Dr. Lavonne! ;-)

Or, you can admit that Fern was in fact WORSE than any name I could have
called her and did.

Even YOU don't support that kind of "CP" do you?

Or is it yet again a case of "let them make up their own minds?"

I let the law take its course! You don't let them make up their
own minds? ;-)


Doan

Have a nice quite night.

Hihihi! I already have. YOu sleep tight, ok? ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

Opinions wrote:
The linkage between flogging slaves and spanking children is little
more than an extension of the old suffragette line equating marriage to
slavery.

That's because it very much resembled slavery. Women were so routinely
subjugated they had little power to escape any mistreatment. They could
not work and make enough to survive on. They had children they could NOT
get custody of in those days. If they left they left alone, legally.

They could not contract. They could not vote. They could not refuse the
sexual advances of their mate and claim rape, though it was.

It exits because the suffrage moment in America was a
spin-off of the abolitionist movement.

That seems like a logical progression to me, and so makes my point nicely.

The entire no-spank dog and PHONY show exits because girls don't
outgrow spanking like boys do. Parents who've raised both boys and
girls are quite aware that a change in a boy's voice signals massive
changes in attitude as well. The difference in boys is reasonably
described in a recently published book on Manliness. It's also why
boys say they'll punch the daylights out of any schoolteacher that
tries to paddle them. Girls usually don't.

In other words, it only stops because of fear instilled in the spankers.
Again, you make my point elegantly. Thank you.

You do see how dishonorable this is then...to hit a child up to the
point he can hit you back. But continue on those still to weak to fight
you and hurt you.

All too aware of the sexual discrepancy, liberal white females raised a
ruckus about women passing from the control of their fathers to the
control of their husbands.

So far you are batting 100.

They got an opportunity to do something
about it with the passage of 20th century equality laws that ignored
biology and demanded boys and girls be treated exactly alike.

Actually no such thing happened. It was a long slow struggle. Even to
this DAY there exists disparities in schools.

Schools,
frequently dependent on liberal white educated females for their labor
became a primary vehicle for discriminating the propaganda. That's why
schools tried to turn active little boys into passive little girls!

No such thing happened universally. Sports programs, for instance, were
strong as ever until recent funding shortfalls, and at that not a lot of
schools have cut ALL sports.

It was the beginning of a grand but doomed social experiment. The
ultimate goal of no-spank is to get women out from under the control of
men and has little to do with protecting children.

So spanking is used to keep women subjugated to men? I'm not surprised
you'd think so.

The proof, of
course, is that the same liberals that support no-spank have few qualms
with abortions that kill unborn children!

Can you provide some proof of your allegation above?

Politicians went along with the scheme because they thought they needed
the vote of women to stay in office and the corporations what filled
their political campaign war chests made billions of dollars from being
able to hire large numbers of women at relatively low wages.

You dream this stuff up as you go along, just like in the old days,
Obsessive, observer.

The game will end when the low-priced toil provided by protected
females to corporations is no longer needed. Corporations are ducking
equal protection laws much like they get around environmental
protection laws. Offshoring jobs to less stringent political
environments is but one means.

I love this connection from no-spank to our economic challenges. It's
the typical far fetch doofi observer we've all come to know and love.

It is the story of the Soviet Union as it fragmented into Russia and 14
other constituencies! The constitutional equality of males and females
disappeared.

Because they stopped spanking? I don't think they have.

Sweden has replaced the Soviet Union as the darling of
American liberals. In time, the Swedish child protection racket will
collapse and the Swedes will return to doing things as they did for
generations just as Russia did

You need to look at how long it's been going on. It would have collapsed
by now if it was the source of the problems. Their real problem is the
same one other countries in Europe are having. They brought in cheap
foreign labor, the need for them went away eventually, but the imported
folks and their cultures did not.

In fact, most of those are spanking cultures.

The weakness of no-spank-equality is the same as it was for
institutional slavery. Because they are unnatural arrangement of the
social order, both require an extensive and expensive social
organization to maintain them.

Your logic is all over the map there. You just lumped slavery and no
spank in the same pile. One was for abuses, and the other against.
Slavery for, no-spank against.

You sure you wanted to say that?

Slavery is not an unnatural arrangement at all. It's old, it's founded
in human nature to try and get something for nothing. Perfectly natural.
But not moral.

Spanking isn't about being natural or unnatural, as we KNOW it's natural
to hit...so is killing, so is robbery, so is rape. They just happen to
be immoral acts that do damage. Nature can be very damaging and human
nature very much so.

So we put restraints upon ourselves by society imposing laws. That too
is natural.

I've seen chimps do similar things, where one is misbehaving and a few
others have chased it and whacked it a bit, or at least threatened.
Their social order and behavior was disrupted and they set the
transgressor straight.

We are doing the same thing all over the planet to those that have been
disrupting the social order by assaulting children and pretending it's
some loving discipline bull****.



Doan wrote:
The relationship between parents/children is different [from master and
slave].


Sure is. So what? "Different" in no way supports abusive.

Kane. Observer, you aren't any brighter, just more withdrawn and anal.

Terrified to try and debate, you dream up these soliloquies and post
them and then run. Amusing.

Almost as funny as Doan't.

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

wrote:
They legally not slaves!
Sure they are, or they wouldn't be identified as slaves that need to be
freed by the laws that say that. It is ILLEGAL TO KEEP A SLAVE, NOT TO
BE ONE, dummy.

Hahaha! So, according to you, it is legal to be a slave???

Sure. There is NO law against being a slave, only being a slave HOLDER.

There are laws OUTLAWING slavery!

Just how stupid ARE you?

Just HOW STUPID ARE YOU? Outlawing slavery means there can't be NO
slaves!


Slavery is recognized as existing by the presence of laws addressing it.

So there are still slavery in AMERICA???

Show me the law against being a slave. I, R RR R R "Double Dare you."

It's call the Emancipation Proclamation, STUPID!

Show me
the law
where it said that, ignoranus kane0!

Since I didn't say it I can't help you, no matter how much you need it.

But you said being a slave is legal!

Now come up with that law that says it's illegal to be a slave.

So after the Emancipation Proclamation, all the slaves are LEGALLY still
slave???

Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS!

Repeat it often enough and it loses all it's power as a claim.

Hihihi! A fact is still a fact!

Especially in the face of your postings and mine by comparison.

Are you SO STUPID? ;-)

Notice?

Yes, YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)


AFfromDreamLand

How much longer are you going to make a fool of yourself?

How much longer will you?

AFfromDreamLand