Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
122
XP
1,549
Country
United States
Uh huh. Even though your president himself supported it and cleared them having guns on government property, it's all a sham.

People are watching it, in fact I've seen it trending. Just because you and your echo chamber aren't means nothing.

This country isn't going to get better until people learn to respect one another, and the Republican party is far from that. Ever notice how most riots are for someone's rights or equality while Republican riots are because they didn't get the president they wanted?
No he didn't. He said to peacefully assemble and protest. he did not once say to invade the capital, in which the Capitol police themselves are shown on video to wave people in for some odd reason. Set up anyone? Nobody is watching it or even remotely cares about it, stop watching CNN and get your brainwashed NPC head out your NPC ass please. This country won't get better until we get liberals, Rhinos, and people like you clear out of this country so we can make it sane and civil again. Most riots are started by crazed lefty lunatics, and even if you count the Jan 6th "riot", which I don't, that's still 1 vs. the hundreds Antifa and BLM have done in the past few years.
Oh man, you hurt me. Right in my soul.
Here's some soul music to heal you then:
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrdude

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,146
Country
United States
No he didn't. He said to peacefully assemble and protest. he did not once say to invade the capital, in which the Capitol police themselves are shown on video to wave people in for some odd reason. Set up anyone? Nobody is watching it or even remotely cares about it, stop watching CNN and get your brainwashed NPC head out your NPC ass please. This country won't get better until we get liberals, Rhinos, and people like you clear out of this country so we can make it sane and civil again. Most riots are started by crazed lefty lunatics, and even if you count the Jan 6th "riot", which I don't, that's still 1 vs. the hundreds Antifa and BLM have done in the past few years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lowers-to-capitol-despite-warnings-of-weapons

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...DKAB6BAgSEAE&usg=AOvVaw0VvLJZVBP-dwcbbvNmVTMO

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...BKAB6BAgREAI&usg=AOvVaw2wQDGoFyEdr_lAVDrEnCmG

Funny how the hearings are actually going on, like it's been proven, but I have yet to see any conservative website covering it like it isn't news. If you guys are so sure Trump is going to win because it's a sham, then why not televise it to own the libs and Dems? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

Funny answer you have there. Kinda sounds like:

"This country won't get better until we get rid of everyone that enjoys civil rights and refuse to be controlled by rich, white, evangelical men"

By the way, the soul music you posted was a perfect addition to finding the links in my response. If you're going to list more recommendations like that, maybe you should stick around.

Gotta admit I'm surprised you chose this though, considering the thumbnail is an ethnic woman.

Here's some soul music to heal you then:

I like that. I'll have to add it to my Spotify. Thanks!


OhWowHolyCrapWhatsThis

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

Windsall

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
207
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
195
Country
Canada
I find it odd just how polarized people are these days. And also how that can flip depending on what's involved.
If bodily autonomy is important then it should be in all cases.

I guess the difference here is that pro-life people will say that it's killing an unborn baby, while pro-choice either say that it's not alive enough to be a person or that the woman's freedom matters more.

I don't know how the topic devolved but I think there's lots to talk on it if were more civil. It's a morally complicated topic.


Also don't know how the trans topic came into it, but how someone acts or presents is not gender, that's gender expression, and gender roles. Gender is internal, which someone could say is in the brain (or soul, if someone is spiritual enough). The crowd that talks about gender as a social construct is actually hurting the lgbtq community a little (I mean i've seen it around, not just here), just like if someone said homosexuality is a social construct would.

As for politics and votes and all that, there's quite a bit of messed up talking points, it's too bad people don't listen to each other and try to see what's really going on. If someone's watched 2000 mules (or seen summaries), they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a lot that could've been better, including using better language or focusing on 'investigating' instead of claims that make people rile up.

Both sides (left and right) have trouble giving ground to the other and that makes it hard to find middle grounds or find how to work together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer and Korozin

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,101
Trophies
2
XP
18,223
Country
United States
Both sides (left and right) have trouble giving ground to the other and that makes it hard to find middle grounds or find how to work together.
Saying "both sides are wrong" is a false equivalency and an unhelpful platitude.

If bodily autonomy is important then it should be in all cases.
You are correct.

I guess the difference here is that pro-life people will say that it's killing an unborn baby, while pro-choice either say that it's not alive enough to be a person or that the woman's freedom matters more.
I don't think anyone on Earth would want the state to be able to violate their bodily autonomy rights in order to save my life, so I don't know why they think doing the same thing to a pregnant woman is okay. That's all it comes down to.

The crowd that talks about gender as a social construct is actually hurting the lgbtq community a little (I mean i've seen it around, not just here)
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election
Other than not getting the election outcome they wanted, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud and no reason to be upset with the election.
 

Windsall

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
207
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
195
Country
Canada
Saying "both sides are wrong" is a false equivalency and an unhelpful platitude.


You are correct.


I don't think anyone on Earth would want the state to be able to violate their bodily autonomy rights in order to save my life, so I don't know why they think doing the same thing to a pregnant woman is okay. That's all it comes down to.


"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender


Other than not getting the election outcome they wanted, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud and no reason to be upset with the election.

Bear in mind I'm not a republican (and not even american), but that there was no evidence of voter fraud was a talking point, while there was evidence, and more grew as time went by. At the time it wasn't easy to show that it might be widespread. It 'could' be, especially with everything that came out later, but besides that I agree that at the time saying 'widespread' would've been a bit much, and they should've started with less assumptions. They went further than that and said it was 'stolen'. I think it was a mistake to do that, but besides that there's plenty to investigate.

I've never said both sides are wrong or equal. Both could do a lot better, yes, and from a more center point of view (even if I consider myself a kind of liberal), there's a lot lacking on both sides, depending on the issue.

I've seen that gender as a social construct has made its way into sites and definitions, but just because it has doesn't mean it's right. Many people in the trans community including me don't agree with it. I would say the social side of gender is a construct, though even then I think it's a bit too much of a broad stroke, and more about a person's inner self would be important to talk about, which some other sites or definitions will have, though I would say still not enough, and it's worth listening to trans people's experience to get more understanding.
Again, it takes away ground because people in the lgbtq have been saying people are born the way they are for a reason. Could say it develops as growing, and social factors affect how someone grows, but if it was only a social construct then in a case where people were free to take on any role or norm and gender didn't matter for that .. there'd be no gender, so no trans gender people, which just isn't true, most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.
 
Last edited by Windsall,
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

Windsall

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
207
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
195
Country
Canada
Nonsense.

There's statistical analysis some did brought up a lot of really big concerns that could be investigated, and then besides just word of mouth stuff around the voting areas, the actual extensive footage of voting muling and other issues is a big one. In some states it's even illegal to gather/cast votes of others, so when you see so much footage of ballots being brought by bulk, by the same person, that kind of does raise bigger issues too.

Though again I would just say it calls for investigating, not claiming one thing or the other.
It's not a subject that's easy to talk about though, and I personally don't have an investment in it, so i don't consider it my role to do much about it. I'd just like for different sides to at least sometimes consider points that are worth looking into more, even if they don't agree or don't want it to be the case.

And same way, I think even with abortion there's a case for both sides to consider more. That includes for pro-life to consider more the rights of the woman/pregnant person. I think the harder issue to talk about might be the 'responsibility' when having sex.

Personally I think it's more an issue when a fetus starts to have consciousness, which they say can develop around the 5th month. Because then you're dealing with something sentient. Still doesn't mean making illegal is the answer. But may be something worth more talk.

Anyway, just dropped by the topic, not sure I'll post back in the thread. will see.
 
Last edited by Windsall,
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,101
Trophies
2
XP
18,223
Country
United States
but that there was no evidence of voter fraud was a talking point, while there was evidence, and more grew as time went by. At the time it wasn't easy to show that it might be widespread. It 'could' be, especially with everything that came out later, but besides that I agree that at the time saying 'widespread' would've been a bit much, and they should've started with less assumptions. They went further than that and said it was 'stolen'. I think it was a mistake to do that, but besides that there's plenty to investigate.
There's no evidence of any significant amount of voter fraud whatsoever. What was put forward has been shown to be made-up nonsense.

I've never said both sides are wrong or equal. Both could do a lot better, yes, and from a more center point of view (even if I consider myself a kind of liberal), there's a lot lacking on both sides, depending on the issue.
There's one side in particular that could do a lot better, and it's probably the side that has decided to reject democracy when things don't go their way and try to overthrow the government.

but just because it has doesn't mean it's right.
It's demonstrably right.

There's statistical analysis some did brought up a lot of really big concerns that could be investigated, and then besides just word of mouth stuff around the voting areas, the actual extensive footage of voting muling and other issues is a big one. In some states it's even illegal to cast votes for others, so when you see so much footage of ballots being brought by bulk, by the same person, that kind of does raise bigger issues too.

Though again I would just say it calls for investigating, not claiming one thing or the other.
It's not a subject that's easy to talk about though, and I personally don't have an investment in it, so i don't consider it my role to do much about it. I'd just like for different sides to at least sometimes consider points that are worth looking into more, even if they don't agree or don't want it to be the case.
These things have been investigated and debunked.

And same way, I think even with abortion there's a case for both sides to consider more. That includes for pro-life to consider more the rights of the woman/pregnant person. I think the harder issue to talk about might be the 'responsibility' when having sex.
Sex, responsible or not, is not consent to get pregnant. In addition, consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. The right-wing nutjobs also can't really talk about "responsible sex" when they have done everything in their power to limit access to contraception and education about safe sex.

Unless you think your bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save my life, you can't say with any consistency that a pregnant person's bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save the life of a fetus.

Personally I think it's more an issue when a fetus starts to have consciousness, which they say can develop around the 5th month. Because then you're dealing with something sentient.
Unless you think your bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save my life, the sentience of a fetus is irrelevant.

Still doesn't mean making illegal is the answer.
Then why are you wasting people's time? What's your point?

Anyway, just dropped by the topic, not sure I'll post back in the thread. will see.
If all you're going to do is hem and haw about bothsidesism and platitudes, you're probably not contributing much to the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SyphenFreht

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,146
Country
United States
Go cry a river and drown in it, Roe v. Wade is still bye-bye.

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/poll...YQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QggXOMlfI3ueA3LZYRcxR

For now. Apparently an overwhelming number of U S. citizens suddenly lack confidence (and support) in the current 6-3. Conservative led Supreme Court, and

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-support-ending-filibuster-protect-abortion-access

Dropped a little Conservy news site for ya too. Even if things don't turn the way we hope, we're still gonna put up a helluva fight. Much better than that insurrection crap on the 6th. But I guess riots only count when they accomplish something subjectively good, right?
 

Korozin

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
302
Trophies
0
Location
Magical place of Nunya
XP
330
Country
United States
most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.
This is something I was actually going into in some of my earlier posts. I'm well aware that just saying "gender is social" is a very wide stroke - but going into full depth with it in this thread would yield very little results as not everyone is open minded enough to accept the information. As I said it can also boil down to development and upbringing, this is a large part of it. And as I said in one of my earlier posts..

As I said not everyone has the same upbringing or mental attitude as you. Because of this diversity not everyone will fall into the same roles, nor the ones assigned to them. It is because of this mental differentiation that not everyone thinks and acts the same way. As I said in my earlier post, someone's upbringing also has a lot to do with it, not to mention the fact that the male and female brain structures have been proven to be shaped, and work in fundamentally different ways. And it is possible for a man to be born with the brain of a woman, this is not because of a mental disease, or as you said "sticking it to the patriarchy" this is a genuine genetic phenomena that occurs.

There is much more involved that just it being a social construct; I am well aware of this. But it is also one of the easiest ways to explain the reasoning behind the prospect. While it may not be a purely social construct, there it definitely a difference between physical, biological sex and gender - they are not one and the same.

most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.

Agreed ;)
 

lokomelo

Edson Arantes do Nascimento
Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,889
Trophies
1
Age
36
Location
São Paulo
Website
3ds-style.blogspot.com.br
XP
2,511
Country
Brazil
the second amendment also guarontees US citizens to form a well armed army of citizens incase a autocrat assumes power unchecked basicly discharging any treason charge that may happen so if trump became (or becomes in 2024) a dictator we could fight without fear of getting the needle
you with your comment made me read the text itself for the first time:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People fight over the end of the text (keep and bear arms is a right), but the very first word is much more terrifying. The constitution do textually allows Americans to form private armies. Now I don't know that the courts made out of those words on their decisions over the years, but the text itself is scary.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,889
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States
i read something that coservitive female justice said basicly fuck the seperation of church and state baked into our constitution the church should run the show isn't that mostly the reason or part of it that we rebelled against england if the first place? (thought the UK is a different place than in the 16-1700's freedom wise
 

SScorpio

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
161
Trophies
0
XP
1,216
Country
United States
i read something that coservitive female justice said basicly fuck the seperation of church and state baked into our constitution the church should run the show isn't that mostly the reason or part of it that we rebelled against england if the first place? (thought the UK is a different place than in the 16-1700's freedom wise
Separate of Church and State as most people believe it to be isn't actually in the Constitution nor any of the amendments.

Wikipedia has a well written good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Here's a primary excerpt.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As the 19th-century historian Philip Schaff observed:

The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself... The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
330
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
683
Country
Portugal
As for politics and votes and all that, there's quite a bit of messed up talking points, it's too bad people don't listen to each other and try to see what's really going on. If someone's watched 2000 mules (or seen summaries), they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a lot that could've been better, including using better language or focusing on 'investigating' instead of claims that make people rile up.

The elections were investigated, the conservatives were happy with the conclusions of those investigations that the election was clean. Donald Trump wouldn't shut up that the elections were stolen because that's how he is, he lies and tries everything to get what he wants, without a care for procedure, the law or the consequences. That movie you mentioned has been debunked as well, their source is a partisan organization and the director also doesn't have credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,889
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States
Separate of Church and State as most people believe it to be isn't actually in the Constitution nor any of the amendments.

Wikipedia has a well written good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Here's a primary excerpt.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As the 19th-century historian Philip Schaff observed:
heres the only issue with that is they only want white christans to rule the US (not even aethiestcc) the GOP was first showing their racist and sectist selves back in obama admin not only was he black but a muslim and yet he did not impose muslim law imposing Christion beliefs and Vatican Laws is bad cause not all people in the USA are christans
 

SScorpio

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
161
Trophies
0
XP
1,216
Country
United States
heres the only issue with that is they only want white christans to rule the US (not even aethiestcc) the GOP was first showing their racist and sectist selves back in obama admin not only was he black but a muslim and yet he did not impose muslim law imposing Christion beliefs and Vatican Laws is bad cause not all people in the USA are christans
We were told multiple times that Obama wasn't Muslim, are you saying he and many others lied about that?
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,166
Country
Poland
you with your comment made me read the text itself for the first time:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People fight over the end of the text (keep and bear arms is a right), but the very first word is much more terrifying. The constitution do textually allows Americans to form private armies. Now I don't know that the courts made out of those words on their decisions over the years, but the text itself is scary.
What’s scary about it, exactly? Do you think the state should have the monopoly on organising armed militias? What’s a Neighbourhood Watch if not an organised militia that exists for the purposes of protecting a neighbourhood? There are around 200 organised constitutional militias in the United States, it’s not exactly news.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,889
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States
What’s scary about it, exactly? Do you think the state should have the monopoly on organising armed militias? What’s a Neighbourhood Watch if not an organised militia that exists for the purposes of protecting a neighbourhood? There are around 200 organised constitutional militias in the United States, it’s not exactly news.
i think he meant more like an armed militia people who would shoot first ask questions later
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,166
Country
Poland
i think he meant more like an armed militia people who would shoot first ask questions later
There are circumstances in which that approach is perfectly reasonable and justifiable. Whenever this subject comes up I can’t help but think about the 1992 LA Riots and the situation in Koreatown after the police effectively withdrew from the area, leaving the local population to fend for itself. It made perfect sense for them to band together and start defending each other, especially considering their livelihoods were being destroyed. The state failed to protect them, so they had to protect themselves. This kind of situation is exactly why the second amendment exists. The people living in Koreatown had nothing to do with Rodney King’s arrest or the subsequent trial - they just happened to be convenient targets with no representation, no political power and no support from law enforcement. They did have guns though, and they knew how to use them.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName:
    Too bad doctor confirmed it was big
    Gift
  • KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName:
    Man $14 for 1 ticket Fu imax
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    Which movie?
    Gift
  • Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo:
    Boobs in iMax
    Gift
  • Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo:
    I would watch that....
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    You say that but isn't imax just high rest?
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    Tits in high res, along with many the actresses having them, do not look so great
    +1
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    It was a noted problem even in the shift to HD according to various purveyors of such films
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    The more resolution, the better
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    And framerate. I know people are against a framerate above 24fps in movies, because it betrays that it's fictional, but I prefer high framerate
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    Of course, higher resolution only betrays the false boobs - which could lead to a revolution in the acceptance of the unadulterated bodies
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    I know this falls somewhat into the realm of porn - but I'm encompassing the overarching scope of all movies
    Gift
  • KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName:
    Got free food cause they messed up the order
    +1
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    Always found that bizarre in the US
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    One time was there and they had forgotten to get it out of the freezer. Manager came over, said that and gave it to us for free still frozen to take home and eat later
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    In the UK they would be all nah mate we don't have it, do you want something else?
    Gift
  • KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName:
    Well in some places we aren't total dicks to each other
    Gift
  • KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName:
    Order gets messed up they make up for it without fuss
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    I found a great subreddit for memes yesterday... and I forgot the name
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    great subreddit? Is that not a contradiction in terms? Bit like pleasant twitter conversation.
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    Anyway shilling my own threads. Lord of the Rings (and various related properties) bought by Embracer group
    Gift
  • Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras:
    I don't look for intellectual plenitude on the internet...
    Gift
  • FAST6191 @ FAST6191:
    Pity. There is plenty of it.
    Gift
  • Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo:
    Mostly it seems literate people on the internet....
    Gift
  • Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo:
    The pain on the planes, comes mostly from the stains?
    Gift
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: The pain on the planes, comes mostly from the stains?