0
   

Women of A2K, have you seen this ?

 
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 06:03 pm
I fully understand your conflict, Diane, with the notion of compromise, especially when that compromise will directly affect the lives of people in need.

There is no easy answer. The idealist in me says "no compromise, never ever", but the pragmatist says "swallow the bitter pill, you have no right to put principle before relief, even just a measure of relief, for those in need."

A dilemma to be sure.


One that I have to believe tortures the "real liberals" you referenced.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 11:59 pm
A bitter pill indeed, Angie. Over the years i learned that pragmatism is what gets things done in politics, but at times it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. I get so fuhking sick of shooting immigrants just this side of the border, whether it is someone with autism trying to get a condo or a mother trying to get day care or the Mexicans giving their lives for the possibility of working for slave wages in order to send most of it back to their families--that's what I call family values!!

I swear, this administration has left me more depressed about the future of this country than any other in my lifetime.

End of whine.
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 06:52 am
Thank you, angie for this thread.

I have always had the impression that Bushco, as well as the GOP in general, don't particularly like women and our issues.

The Dallas Country Club crowd is largely male, white and oh so conservative. They are a scary lot.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 09:31 am
Diane, the Bush crowd is no more about family values than they are about patriotism. They have managed, however, to co-opt both labels, and that is the fault of the American electorate many of whom will just not make the effort to get at the truth.

That same electorate, however, can only be pushed so far, and we're rapidly approaching the time when real Americans with real family values will take to the streets to, as Dean said, take our country back.

If Bush does manage to get his sorry, narrow-minded, arrogant a$$ re-elected, he will have an awful four years ahead of him. There will be no "getting behind" this punk. He has deliberately and hatefully divided the American people along class. policy, and culture lines, and the divisions run deep.

I personally believe it is those divisions and the havoc they reap upon our society that will be George W. Bush's ultimate legacy.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 09:38 am
greenumbrella,

Women constitute over 50% of the American electorate. Hello ??? How could ANY woman support Bush given the kind of people ith whom he surrounds himself and the way they view women.

Ths sad truth is there ARE women who do. (One of them came to this thread, basically ignored the comments posted by Bush appointees (in the original list), and proceeded to attempt todefend him indirectly based upon the flaws in some law that one of those appointees opposed. Unbelievable !!)


I do believe that most women, however, if hown the information in the list, would stand against these appointees and the awful small-minded, bigoted man who made them. Whish is why I posted it here, and may also be why ONLY ONE BUSH SUPPORTER SHOWED UP.

I have mailed the list to numerous media outlets, and will continue to do so to try to get the facts out.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 10:02 am
Yay, Angie! Good for you to send that information to the media.

Women can make a difference in a lot of ways. It is interesting that Thomas Barnett, in his rather scary view of the world, The Pentagon's New Map, says that one of the ways to see if a country is integrating itself (with the rest of the world) is how it treats its women. Here is the administration of the United States, telling everyone that "we" can be the world's police... yet their own treatment and respect for women is slipping.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:11 pm
Did you read the responses from a female Bush supporter above ?

I do not need to comment on them; they truly speak for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 03:57 pm
What the Bush supporter above said is that at least one of the items you presented was misleading, and she assumes more are, as well. To simply say Bush appointed a woman to a committee studying a women's issue, who was against VAWA, makes it appear that Bush is against protection for battered women.

This is highly misleading.

(For purposes of full disclosure, I was that Bush supporter. I changed my e-mail addy some time back, and had to re-apply for membership.)

A fair reader would also admit that I said some of your items may have substance. To discover which ones do, require reading them in context, and doing background work on each subject. This is something I intend to do--but you hadn't done so before posting the list.

Wouldn't you say that is a fair assesment of my comments thus far?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 05:54 pm
http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=661

Statement in context--battered womens' ...outlived usefulness...


It shows that the laws enacted to protect women from battering have impeded a woman's ability to make decisions for herself--and most likely cause her more trouble than she had before.

In this context, I agree with the statement.

The wrap-up of along article--

Like so many projects of the feminist agenda, the battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings, which was to help women leave violent relationships and persuade the legal system to take domestic abuse more seriously. Now they have brought us to a point at which a single complaint touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events. This could well have a chilling effect upon victims of real violence, who may be reluctant to file police reports or to seek help if it subjects them to further battery from the authorities. And it certainly won't help violent men if they emerge from so-called treatment programs no more enlightened but certainly
more angry, more resented, and as dangerous as ever.

Aggression is a deeply personal and complex behavior, not a social defect expressed through the actions of men. Yet to feminists, it can only be the sound of one hand slapping: the man's. So long as this view prevails, we won't be helping the real victims; indeed, we will only be exposing them to more danger.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 06:06 pm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108atO88Z::

The Family Flexible Time Act.

I can't understand how anyone could think this is anything but a good idea. It just gives the OPTION of choosing time off, in leiu of OT.

What fault do you find with it? I used to choose it frequently. More vacation time. But, if you don't like it, choose your OT. Don't you like more choices?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 06:12 pm
Can't find Wade Horn's quote in context. Could you provide a link?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 06:50 pm
Sofia (?) / Lash: Although I stated above that I would not continue to respond to your posts because I felt (and still do feel) that you did not address the intent of this thread, I will give it one more try.

You wrote: "To simply say Bush appointed a woman to a committee studying a women's issue, who was against VAWA, makes it appear that Bush is against protection for battered women. "

Not what I was saying at all. The fact that the woman was listed as against the VAWA was entirely incidental to my intent. What I found appalling, and still do, is the comment by that woman that "The battered women's movement may have outlived its useful beginnings." The 'battered women's movement' consists of vastly more that the VAWA. It at least involves scores of local and state agencies who provide advocacy and shelter for women. Women are still being battered; as long as that continues, the movement will certainly NOT outlive its useful beginnings.

Re the Holmes quotes. The entire list was posted at emilyslist.org. Apparently they update their lists on a regular basis. Perhaps you could check with them for a copy of the list, and for confirmation of the quotes they used. I am perfectly satisfied with their veracity.

I would imaging that one could find more such quotes via a web search. The man has written a book full of that stuff, shouldn't be difficult to track down. Especially since his House confirmation hearing is not too far off.

Can I assume that, if you were to have confirmation that this Holmes person did in fact say these things, you would then find the statements objectionable? And would you then perhaps aggree that he might not be fit to serve on a UNited States district court, or in amy court for that matter?

Just wondering before I try to find his book / quotes.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 07:11 pm
angie wrote:
Sofia (?) / Lash: Although I stated above that I would not continue to respond to your posts because I felt (and still do feel) that you did not address the intent of this thread, I will give it one more try.
How else can one address the intent of the thread, without taking each point, and discussing it? This is what I've been attempting to do.

You wrote: "To simply say Bush appointed a woman to a committee studying a women's issue, who was against VAWA, makes it appear that Bush is against protection for battered women. "

Not what I was saying at all. The fact that the woman was listed as against the VAWA was entirely incidental to my intent. What I found appalling, and still do, is the comment by that woman that "The battered women's movement may have outlived its useful beginnings."
Does that particular collection of words bother you, or do you care about what was meant by that statement? The statement in context IMO is more important that the first blush feeling one derives from seeing the statement. I brought the argument the IWF makes against the battered womens' movement, which contains their reasoning, and the quote in context.

The 'battered women's movement' consists of vastly more that the VAWA. It at least involves scores of local and state agencies who provide advocacy and shelter for women. Women are still being battered; as long as that continues, the movement will certainly NOT outlive its useful beginnings.
This is rather short-sighted, IMO. If the 'battered womens' movement' is indeed impeding the very problem it sought to serve, it has outlived its' usefulness, don't you agree?

Re the Holmes quotes. The entire list was posted at emilyslist.org. Apparently they update their lists on a regular basis. Perhaps you could check with them for a copy of the list, and for confirmation of the quotes they used. I am perfectly satisfied with their veracity.
Being completely satisfied with the veracity of a partisan source with an obvious agenda should give one reason for pause. I won't accept emilyslist as a stand alone source. I did google him and some key words, and didn't find such a quote by him.

I would imaging that one could find more such quotes via a web search. The man has written a book full of that stuff, shouldn't be difficult to track down. Especially since his House confirmation hearing is not too far off.
I did look. Maybe since you are making the claim, you can provide proof?

Can I assume that, if you were to have confirmation that this Holmes person did in fact say these things, you would then find the statements objectionable?
At first blush, it looks bad, but as I did with Pickering, research can prove these accusations are or aren't true, or are intentionally taken out of context. I give him the benefit of the doubt, until I have evidence.

And would you then perhaps aggree that he might not be fit to serve on a UNited States district court, or in amy court for that matter?
If I see the quote in context, and it reveals those were his actual sentiments, I would not approve him.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 07:35 pm
1st, a correction: as explained in one of the links below, Holmes was nominated for a seat of a District Court, not the Appellate Court. The former is a lower court than the latter. My contention that he ought not to sit on ANY court still stands.

Here are a few links that reference the quotes, and more to the point, explain why many people have a problem with this appointment, including five Republican senators, three of whom are women. Interestingly, one of the Democrats who voter FOR Holmes is none other than Zell Miller.

With all the people available to Bush for appointment, why would he ever choose such a man? Why, indeed.


Tomorrow after work, I will try to find the actual article Holmes wrote with his wife.



http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.com/archives/print000102lest_ye_be_judged.html


http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/holmes.html



http://www.theocracywatch.org/homes_approved_july6_04_times.htm
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 07:36 pm
BYW, Lash, thank you for your reasonable response to my question.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 07:57 pm
You're welcomed.
-----
I would like to point out that 'theocracywatch' is one of the naysayers--concerned that a Christian may become a judge--

Here is a pertinent excerpt--
Mr. Hatch said it was unfair to use that quote against Mr. Holmes because he made it more than 20 years ago and had since apologized and repudiated the comment. He also said Mr. Holmes was being penalized for his religious views as a Roman Catholic.

Unlike most other judicial nomination battles during the Bush presidency, Mr. Holmes is not a candidate for the appellate bench, the level just below the Supreme Court where judges have considerable authority to influence the law. Instead, he was nominated to a district court seat, a trial court where judges have far less leeway and consequently nominations to that level rarely produce such major fights.

In the end, six Democrats voted in favor of Mr. Bush's candidate, while five Republicans broke ranks and opposed him. In addition to John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the other three Republicans voting against Mr. Holmes were all women, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine.

In addition to Senators Lincoln and Pryor, the Democrats who supported the nomination included Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John B. Breaux and Mary L. Landrieu, both of Louisiana
-----
So, Zell wasn't alone in Dem support--and some GOPers dissented.

But, Specter has a valid point. I will bet the writings were of a religious nature. And, the remarks seem to have been made 20 years ago AND for whatever reason, repudiated.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 08:18 pm
Re: Women of A2K, have you seen this ?
angie wrote:

10. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Bush's first choice to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Mary Sheila Gall, opposed efforts to regulate baby walkers, baby bath seats, bunk beds, and voted to eliminate the standard for fire-resistant sleepwear during her ten years on the commission (she was appointed by Bush's father). Gall's rationale for putting children at risk? Parents should take more responsibility for protecting their infants.


I will be the first to admit that I used to laugh at fire-resistant sleepwear for young children when my own children took naps in clothing that I'm sure you could set a match to. What's up with fire-resistant sleepwear? I would rather have smoke alarms in my house. Feel free to explain that to me!

As far as the rest of it goes, of course, parents should be responsible for their children's safety. That doesn't mean that living in a country of such great wealth, that we should tolerate unsafe equipment that we use for our babies and young children. We are parents. We can't stare at our kids 24/7, as suggested to be responsibility. I remember putting my kids, when very small, in a play pen or bouncy seat, anything that kept them contained and safe while I went to the basement to do laundry. Is this saying that I was an irresponsible parent for doing laundry? Give me a break!


angie wrote:
9. Even more ironic than rain on your wedding day.

Bush chose Nancy Pfotenhauer, president and CEO of the right-wing Independent Women's Forum, to serve on the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. The IWF actively opposed the Violence Against Women Act. According to IWF's web site, "The battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings."


Domestic violence recently happened to me. I was thrilled to see that it was being taken seriously by police and judges. It never was throughout the 80' even, where cops would give my husband a ride to someone's house and leave him to come get me in the morning. It wasn't fun and not taken seriously.

Don't get me on my soap box about this issue! It could take pages!! "Just get out." is not so simple for those who have never had to live it. I feel that this has just take women back to the stone ages.[/quote]

angie wrote:
8. But women are already 1.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs!

Bush slammed the door shut on the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach, which worked with women's advocacy groups on public policy and political issues. His 2004 budget eliminated funding for the Women's Educational Equity Act to promote equity for girls and women in education.


What?? Deal with the figures of what men make a year, an hour, a week, opposed to women. How about how many divorced or single parent households are run by women that can't have career opportunity because they have to attend to kids, which is plenty demanding enough after 8+ hours of work. There is only so much stress an individual can take. Someone has to care for the kids and it usually is a woman.

Both, men and women need to be educated to support their families today. I give my daughter the exact same standards as son, maybe even a little higher. She may be a single parent wanting her children. I don't mean this as any disrespect to any father at all. I believe it has genetic origin, if you look closely. Women need their children, psychologically. Men need to feel their family is provided for, again, psychologically speaking. Big difference!

I don't mean to come off as a battle of the sexes at all. I am only stating my own observations of behavior, which is different. I see men working overtime, at a high stress, and higher paying job so their family can have what they need and/or want. I have seen women, with lower paying jobs do so for flexibility, to be there and not get fired over their childrens needs coming first. Both are to be respected for their efforts, although differing mentality behind why they choose a differing way of providing, not insulted for differences.

angie wrote:
7. Juggle this.

Under the guise of helping working families, particularly working mothers, the Bush administration proposed' tHe so~called FariilyTime' Flexibility Act to abolish federally mandated overtlme pay for .. workers. Democrats prevented this bill from coming to the floor, but Bush pushed the new rules through the Department of Labor and said he'd veto any legislation that attempted to block the rule changes.


Give me more info on this. Are you saying that there is no such thing as time and a half for working overtime as helping the American worker? How does this help>

angie wrote:
6. Head Start/False Start

Bush appointed Wade Horn as assistant secretary for family support in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. As president of the National Fatherhood Institute, Horn said that low-income kids whose parents aren't married should be last in line for Head Start and other benefits. Horn tried to back away from tnese statements at his confirmation hearings. Then, after Horn's appointment, HHS began to offer special services to welfare recipients - if they agree to marry.


Personally, I do not like this Head Start Program at all. We are working people. We have a house, with payments, employer assist health insurance, bills coming out our ears. I'm sure most can identify. We had nothing left over, after bills.

Then, I hear our local public school has a pre-school program. Checked out the prices on pre-school lately? My youngest is now 13 and it was very expensive then. I could only afford to send her once a week. If I were on food stamps or some sort of welfare, my daughter could have gone to our local public school for a few hours a day, five days a week, but not our kid. We have too much money or assets?

If it isn't open to all, especially in a public school, shut it down. Since when did small children with food stamp parents need pre-school any more than a working person, scraping to get by? Get rid of it!! It was a luxury that my daughter really didn't need, but I felt would ease her into school.

kindergarten wasn't even required, when I went to school. I lived without it. My mom didn't even know how to drive a car, so I got no introduction. You can't really work and get food stamps. Check out the limits, if you don't believe me. What makes food stamp kids more in need of preparation for public school than any working person's child?


angie wrote:
5. So now do we need a Department of Homeroom Security?

Secretary of Education Roderick Paige called the National Education Association, which represents teachers across the nation, a "terrorist organization." Paige later said his comment was a bad joke. The union angered Paige by raising concerns about Bush's signature No Child Left Behind Act, which his administration has refused to adequately fund.


I hate to be dumb as a rock, but would someone explain to me exactly who our president is, Bush or Hitler reincarnated? I don't get this issue.

.
angie wrote:
4Did we say medical privacy? We meant medical piracy.

The Bush Department of Justice attempted to subpoena the medical records of women who had abortions, claiming they needed the records in their efforts to defend a challenge to the so-called partial-birth abortion ban, signed by the president last year. The Department of Justice dropped its efforts to collect records after a judge ruled that the action would threaten women's medical privacy, but the DOJ is still pursuing records from other providers.


As a practicing RN, it is illegal for me to give a family member that does not have POA any information as to what medications they are receiving. I am not allowed to state a medical diagnosis. This is clearly illegal to share any information, last I noticed, meaning last night at work. There are things reported, for efforts of eliminating disease, which doctors report, with no names attached, like rabies. They report cases, not individuals.

angie wrote:
3. Barefoot,cpregnant, and in sync with their inborn nature.

President Bush chose Leon Kass, MD to head the President's Council of Bioethics. Kass has written, "For the first time in human history, mature women by the tens of thousands live the entire decade of their twenties - their most fertile years - neither in the homes of their fathers nor in the homes of their husbands; unprotected, lonely, and out of sync with their inborn nature."


Sorry to go brain dead with this. Please explain the meaning of this issue.

angie wrote:
2. Physician, heal thyself.

In June 2004, Bush re-appointed Dr. W David Hager to the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Hager has written about Christ's ability to heal women's illnesses and reportedly refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager was the leading force behind the FDA's rejection of over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception, over the overwhelming recommendation of two FDA advisory panels.


Brain dead again! What does this mean to women of today?

angie wrote:
1. It'll be a cold day in Miami...

The Senate in July 2004 approved Bush's nomination of James Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas. Bolmes, an anti-Abortion Rights activist, supports a Constitutional amendment to ban all abortions and said that "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has also spoken out against the separation of church and state, and co-wrote (with his wife) an article proclaiming that, "The wife is to subordinate herself to the husband... and... place herself under the authority of the man." Holmes' views on women's rights can be summed up in his belief that supporting feminism ultimately contributes "to the culture of death."

www.emilyslist.org


Sorry if anyone doesn't like it, but there is separation of church and state, with good reason.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 06:41 pm
Sofia, do you really think the objections being voiced against Holmes are based upon the fact that he is a Christian? Or do you think those objections are based upon the fact that he is perceived to be an extremist ? Not all Christians are perceived to be extremists, and numerous Christians nominated by Bush HAVE been approved.

Holmes is what he is, and again, I ask, why would Bush go there? What does it really say about him?


Wildflower:

First of all, I am sorry to hear that you have been a victim of domestic violence. I'll bet you don't agree that the "movement" has outlived its useful beginnings.

Additionally, I am one who heartily supports the Head Start program for poor children. I'm not sure I understand your objection to the program. As I see it, if these children, for whatever reason, enter first grade already behind, they are almost certainly headed for failure. Head Start is early intervention to prevent this, at least to some extent. I believe education is pretty much the only way out, the only way to break the cycle of poverty and violence for these kids.

When I read the quote (above) by Kass, I was disturbed by what appears to be a suggestion (at least) that a woman ought to be spending her "fertile years" either in the home of her parents or the home of a husband. Huh? How about spending those years in HER OWN home? And what about the woman who CHOOSES not to have children? Perhaps that is HER INBORN nature. At the very least, it's her choice, don't you think? (There's that word again: choice! )


Regarding objection to prescribing over-the-counter emergency contraception. What, other than a religious argument, could possibly be justification for this objection? Even if the drug were to become available, it is not being forced upon anyone.


And regarding the need to appoint people who support separation of church and state, I think you have probably figured out where I stand on that one.

Glad to have your participation here. Welcome.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 08:20 pm
Re angie's following comments--

Sofia, do you really think the objections being voiced against Holmes are based upon the fact that he is a Christian?

S~Yes. That is the one most maligned, discriminated against, openly denounced group in the country currently. I don't know if anti-Christianity fuels the abortion argument--or pro-abortion fuels the anti-Chritian argument, but they are intertwined, with Christians taking it on the chin. You can't openly denounce or slander any other group the way you can this one--with no criticism. Appointees' lives are gone through with tweasers, trying to find evidence of Christianity--and if it is found, they are smeared, like Pickering.
-------
Or do you think those objections are based upon the fact that he is perceived to be an extremist ?

S~What is an extremist?
-------
Not all Christians are perceived to be extremists, and numerous Christians nominated by Bush HAVE been approved.

S~I'll have to look into the statistics on how many Bush Christians have been approved--unless you have them handy.
-------

Holmes is what he is, and again, I ask, why would Bush go there?

S~Where? Why would he nominate a Christian?
-------
What does it really say about him?

S~That he doesn't discriminate?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 09:31 pm
Sofia, I honestly think you are wrong. But I fully acknowledge that you truly believe what you are saying, and that disheartens me.

There are many Christian denominations that support a woman's right to choose and are entirely affirming of gay rights. They are predominantly Protestant, though I have heard of a few Roman Catholic priests who have broken with the official hard line on these issues and, for example, have embraced gay people and their right to enjoy the same civil rights that straight people enjoy (Matthew Fox (?) comes to mind), as they believe Jesus would have done.

Moderate Christians, IMO, are those who hold a faith in Jesus and his teachings, but do not feel the need to impose that faith or their beliefs on everyone else. Extremists are those who do feel that need, and also (in some cases) judge and condemn those who do not believe as they do. Jerry Falwell is an extremist. He is adamently opposed to gay rights. He believes gay people were responsible for 911. He is an idiot. Leon Holmes is an extremist. He believes that wives ought to subordinate themselves to their husbands because some guy (not Jesus) in the Bible says so. JESUS never said this, and even if he had, so what? Not every American believes in Jesus, so why should public policy be shaped around that belief?

Now, I will say that often Christian beliefs and moral beliefs overlap, even non Christians and non believers of any sort will agree to this, and in those cases where general moral principles are held to be valid, then laws based upon those principles are legitimate (thou shalt not kill), but not because they are "Christian" principles, rather because they are "moral" principles. We have separation of church and state in this country for very good reasons. Of course there are situations where the morality is not as clear cut, as with "choice", but the law right now gives women that choice, and those sworn to uphold the law have to be able to work within that framework.


So, I stand by my comments that not all Christians are extremists. And I still believe that Christians who generate opposition do so because of their extremist philosophy and agenda, not because of their Christian beliefs.

Curiously, I do believe, based upon my past study of the Bible (New Testament), that if Jesus were here today, he's be entirely inclusive regarding gay rights, and ...... brace yourself .... he'd be a feminist !


(off to sleep now, back tomorrow night)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 04:19:52