| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
Not to put words but is your argument, Cole, that the ‘new’ human is originated when the male fertilizes the egg and a new strain of DNA is formed?
Yep. That is it. I am contending that when that sperm fertilizes that egg to make that new cell, that it is whole person. It has not grown all the organs it will grow, nevertheless it is all of that person. It is just like a child that has not grown teeth yet, a girl that hasn't grown breasts yet, a boy that hasn't grown a beard yet; we know it is going to grow them if we do not take action to stop it from growing. (The whole purpose of abortion) Someone can say it is only a potential human. That is clearly nonsense. The woman only wants an abortion because she knows that it is human.
The intent of my DNA argument was to dispell the notion of "it is a part of the womans body." When a chickens lays an egg it is not part of the chickens body. In a sense, women just keep their eggs inside their body until they are ready to hatch. If you could take a cell from the imaginary potential human being, test it and store it until 18 years later when you tested the fully developed, adult human, the test would say that this is the same person. This is clearly obvious, but because a fetus is so helpless some people want to take advantage of it.
In my last thread I made this comment.
quote:
Point #2 - I have another concept I will introduce regarding this but I don't have the time now. I will do that in a later post.
Roqua began to make that point. It goes to what I was saying earlier,
1. that the power to make the decision and the responsibility for the decision should rest with the same person. AND
2. the point at which men and women decide to have children is at the moment of sex.
Abortion attempts to violate both of these principles, which are simple natural law.
Example. Two separate couples have sex on day one (1). They each get pregnant. On day 100, woman 1 decides to have an abortion. Man 1 objects but the law says that on day 100 it is solely her decision. The man has nothing to do with it. The child is part of her body. She has her abortion. Man 1 has no say in the matter.
Also on day 100, man 2 asks woman 2 to get an abortion. Woman 2 doesn't want to get an abortion. She has the baby and petitions the court for child support from Man 2. Man 2 must pay. Woman 2 chose to have the child on day 100 and he must pay for that decision.
The law is inconsistent is this manner. If it is soley the woman's choice to have the child on Day 100, then the man should not be held responsible for this, a decision that he can not influence. What the law is saying that it is solely within a woman's power to decide whether a man becomes a father or not and that she can do so against his will. Note: that this is the same thing that the law says that we should not do to women. This is biased towards women against men, how can you decide whether I will be a father a make me responsible. Well...
The answer lies in that the Man 2 did decide to become a father, on day one. He chose to have sex and that means he chose to be a father. Thus, he is responsible for the welfare of the child, as he has been from day one. Similarly, the mother also chose to become a mother on day one, and is also responsible for the child, as she has been from day one.
If the pregnancy is a threat then she can kill (abort) the child. I want to make clear that she would be killing a child. Abortion is simply a legalized murder, without regard to the threat posed by the child.
While were are on topic I would like for some pro-abortion advocate to tell me why it is NOT an entire human child. Please be specific.
Roqua, You think Democrats have more money than Republicans? OOOkkayy.
Sounds like you got a lot of pent up anger. Breath in, Breath out, Picture yourself in a happy place... 
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:15 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
While were are on topic I would like for some pro-abortion advocate to tell me why it is NOT an entire human child. Please be specific.
Here is a rather long and difficult to read, but still cogent, rebuttal of some pro-life argument. I googled this when considering your question:
http://www.imaginando.com/literatura/archivos/000015.html
I will boil it down to say that an embryo is not conscious, therefore is not the same as a human and you are not depriving it of a life since it is not aware of it's own existence yet.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:16 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Yep. That is it. I am contending that when that sperm fertilizes that egg to make that new cell, that it is whole person. It has not grown all the organs it will grow, nevertheless it is all of that person. It is just like a child that has not grown teeth yet, a girl that hasn't grown breasts yet, a boy that hasn't grown a beard yet; we know it is going to grow them if we do not take action to stop it from growing. (The whole purpose of abortion) Someone can say it is only a potential human. That is clearly nonsense. The woman only wants an abortion because she knows that it is human.
You STILL don't get that it is only a potential human? It has a good sucess rate of dieing naturally while in the womb. Ever heard of miscarriage?
And yes, it is still an extension of the mother's body through the naval cord, it can't survive on it's own, unlike a person. And yes, it still presents the woman with the POSIBILITY of being a lot of trouble, something that she should be able to avoid if she could.
quote:
the point at which men and women decide to have children is at the moment of sex.
In case you didn't know, sex isn't just about reproduction. And if it where, shouldn't condoms be banned as well? As soon as the act is started, why then the baby's practically born!!
quote:
Hexy, if it is just another part of the mother's body, why does it not share her genetic code like the rest of her? Is it still a part of a woman's body if it is male DNA?
So according to your logic, since men can decide what happens to their sperm and women what happens to their eggs, both should be able to decide what happens to the combination?
quote:
Rape is a beastial act. People who rape should be subjected to the harshest penalties. Abortion is also a beastial act, involving invasive procedures that cut things that were not designed to be cut, and killing life that was not meant to die in this way.
A life that was meant to start that way? According to you rape + forcing someone against their will = right?
Could you tell me how lives are meant to end, since you seem to be the judge of such things?
quote:
You are trying to draw comparison to put me in the position of a mother. Well, I can never truly understand what it takes to be a mother but let's try. First, your question needs to be tweaked to make it resemble the situation more closley.
So, you're saying that you really don't have an understanding of the situation from the part which it affects the most, the mother? So you're basically saying that you shouldn't be able to controll her body? That's true... wonder why pro-lifers so often are males?
Furthermore, you completely disregard birthcontroll and overpopulation. |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:05 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
I could almost support the Libertarians, if it wasnt for the fact they've screwed things up so much in local races for my party in the past. Oh yeah, and the fact they have completely unrealistic positions on a couple of my major issues. When it comes to immigration and narcotics, the Libertarian stance on both are pretty much "anything goes". I still am of the opinion that third parties are ultimately a major nuisance and a waste of time anyway, but that almost childlike position on drug policy and immigration really finalize it. With positions like that, the only type of libertarian I'll ever be is lower case.
I'm suprised that it took this long for Godwin's Law to raise it's ugly head in this discussion. Time to drag out 'ol Adolf and his cronies once again for another impossibly hypothetical reign of terror. 
I agree with you on the state of the Democrat party tho, Roqua. I come from a Detroit union worker Democrat family myself, and tho alot of the family back East has remained union, the last decade or so has seen them become either Republican or independent. They can deal with the abortion and economic issues, but they cant stand with a party that feels it must consistently side with the enemies of this nation. The nerve of Dems to dare rip open the wound of Vietnam in the first place wasnt too smart in itself, but to rub salt in it by running a candidate who is literally in the Ho Chi Minh City commie museum as a great hero of the VietCong is just mind-blowing. Who in the hell is running this party? Id never have thought our "October Suprise" was going to be in Bin Laden's endorsement of the Democrat candidate, but Ive come to not be suprised about anything when it comes to the Dems. I dont know who to thank more, Mikey Moore or Osama.
But I dont so much fault the rank and file Dems as much as I do the leadership of the party. And believe me, when I say leadership Im using that term quite loosely. Theyre the ones that have created the current political climate, and the reason for the desperation of the party itself. Theyre the ones that have put their party officially before the welfare of the nation itself. Instead of building an empowering and inspiring political movement, they have done all they can to rile people up and "get out the hate vote".
Unfortunately for them, the hatred has ended up being directed at them as much or even more than it has at their opponent. I can say without pause that I literally, vehemently, hate with a passion the current Democrat party leadership. My whole family does, and we range from Left of Center to far Right, but we all are awestruck by the complete and total lack of maturity, respect, dignity, civility, loyalty, and quite frankly, intelligence on the part of these individuals. I dont hate the run of the mill Democrat voter out here in the trenches with us, I dont fault them half as much as I do the leadership. I may dislike some rank and file Dems and am quite happy to see them defeated, but I fault them more for their lack of judgement and gullibility than anything else. You might say "Sammy, I totally agree with Kerry and Edwards. If you hate them, you hate me, because I agree completely with their statements and positions."
To that, I say that I hate everyday Democrats as much as I hate the citizens of North Korea. I dont hate them at all, it's not their fault that their leaders have chosen this path for them. Todays Democrats leaders remind me of how people prepare a bull for a bullfight. They rile it up and get it totally enraged, then set it loose on the matador. Im not saying rank and file Dems are mindless zombies or something, or dont have free will. But I do acknowledge the fact that the leadership of political, social, and religious movements are largely responsible for the overall direction those movements take. They set the agenda, policy, strategy, and yes the overall tone of the movement itself. I fault numskulls like Al Gore, John Kerry & Edwards, Howard Dean, Hillary & Bill, Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, Nancy Pelosi, and the list goes on and on. If rank and file Dems ever put 2+2 together and looked at a graph that showed the decline of their party since the current crop of head honchos took the stage, half those people would be selling hot dogs at baseball games for a living or something.
Everyone wants to talk about what happened "on who's watch", well the Dems lost their hold on the House of Reps after 40 years, and the Senate seats and governorships started trending ours as well on Clinton and McAuliffe's watch. These people have done nothing but consistently lose power and influence for a decade. Yet they are never held accountable or replaced for some reason. Darrius himself said that he thinks Clinton is an asset, well I couldnt disagree more, I think he's a liability. They lost everywhere slick willy campaigned for them, except one stronghold, I forget off the top of my head. Regardless, the man does more for our voter turnout than it ever has for theirs, the same thing happened when he campaigned for the congressional races in 2002. Now they are threatening Hillary in 2008, I would love to see that. You havent seen the Right mobilized in this country yet, Democrats.
Particularly these last 2 elections of 02' and 04' stand out, which have been just crushing defeats that they truly needed to win. Instead of taking a new route or getting some new blood, they even pulled in all the old Clintonistas once again to run the Kerry campaign in the end. They just keep right on wheeling out Al Gore, the Clinton mob, and complete and utter failures like Jimmy Carter and toadies like Bob Shrum. The rank and file had better wise up and start holding these people accountable or replacing them, or theyre gonna wake up one day and realize that they have, because of being thrown out of most seats of govt power, the political strength and influence of a large and totally impotent 3rd party. I guess then the Libertarians perhaps might be able to win something significant, for once.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:28 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
For the record I've never said abortion wasn't murder or that the child wasn't human as an embryo: It just has no bearing on my stance.
I'm a firm believer in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. An unwanted child can be a burden not only physically, emotionally, and financially for the parents ... but supposing the parents already had children they could barely afford it could jeopordize their health as well.
With over-population due to decreased child mortality rate and longer human lifespan becoming more and more a possibility the governments of the world should be looking more towards advising birth control. An abortion is not a replacement for birth control and I loathe those who see it so. It's a decision that must be come to with a very great deal of thought and consideration... but I believe it must be an available option.
I firmly support stem cell research ... but I fully agree with the British legislation on the matter: The subject must be terminated before a certain period of time elapses (the exact number of days escapes me at the moment). This time is the length of time it takes for the developing person to lay the laticework for a rudimentary nervous system. And yes, I am aware that it's hypocritical that I support killing someone but not causing them pain while doing so.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:01 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
You did not actually disagree with me.....
Oh, in that case... I disagree with you.
BTW, coming from a country with multiple parties in the parliament (close to 10), the political spectrum in the US appears to be rather narrow to me. Also, the democrats would probably be a party in the political centre here, with the republicans right of that, but not too far away.
I'm sure you'll disagree with my perception of how close together they actually are 
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:34 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Ha ha! ...not really 
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:50 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
By Myrthos
Oh, in that case... I disagree with you.
BTW, coming from a country with multiple parties in the parliament (close to 10), the political spectrum in the US appears to be rather narrow to me. Also, the democrats would probably be a party in the political centre here, with the republicans right of that, but not too far away.
I'm sure you'll disagree with my perception of how close together they actually are.
You may disagree with something I said in other posts, but your last post before the one above did not disagree with me.
I would not be suprised at that. Though I don't carry a membership card, I always vote Democrat, and I am to the right of the party of some issues. Moreover, the vote majority swings back and forth over the years, so the two parties can not be that far apart on a true global scale.
I would like to ask though. In your country do you view our Republican party as center-right or far-right?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:54 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
I don't know, they are somewhere to the right I think we have a couple of smaller religious parties that are even more to the right though.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:05 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
I don´t really care for the result of the elections. Kerry would have been more to my taste because I abominate tendencies of intolerance, but Bush is better for Germany because now we can wait for _him_ to approach us for (financial) help in Iraq, while Schroeder would have had to offer help to Kerry.
The thing I really don´t like about the whole American voting system is the idea of forcing potential voters to register before they are allowed to do their duty in a democracy. Sounds rather undemocratic. It opens the door for manipulation
The German system is much better in this point. I get a notification 6 weeks before the election. If I choose a clever time -for example immediately after a formula 1 race- I can walk to the place, vote and return home in less than 15 minutes.
All German citizens of an age of at least 18 years automatically get such a notification for every election relevant for them. This avoids a lot of trouble.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:59 am |
|
|
Dez
King of the Realms
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 455
Location: Fortress of Tell Halaf |
I'll just have to say: i feel sorry for you all the sane americans there.Usa got 4 more years of stupidity.It really amaizes me that something like abortation became the head subject on presidental elections.
I mean how would such thing concern anyone beside the one, who is deciding to do or not to do it? I'm really certain when i say this.An abortion is a heavy burden for a woman to carry and i know nobody who takes it lightly.Sometimes It just has to be done.Think about a situation when two teens are having fun on friday night and they use broken condom.What else could you possibly do?Both are in school, both are young, both surely are not ready to carry such heavy responsibility for their misfortune.
It just doesn't feel RIGHT that some idiot from texas can possibly decide what these young inviduals must do in a serious situation like that.
Religion+polictics= a terrible thing.Lets not even start how Bush has balls to criticize arabian countries who do the exact same thing as he does now.
It really depresses me to notice how powerfull weapons FEAR and HATE can become in politics.but then again stupidity is a great foundation for them to grow and Bush surely knows this.
btw check this out http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
_________________
The focused mind can pierce through stone |
|
Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:33 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
...BTW, coming from a country with multiple parties in the parliament (close to 10), the political spectrum in the US appears to be rather narrow to me. Also, the democrats would probably be a party in the political centre here, with the republicans right of that, but not too far away.
I'm sure you'll disagree with my perception of how close together they actually are
Nope, I believe you about how close the two parties actually are. When the main differences are about such things as abortion rights being a federal issue vs state issue .. well, that about says it all.
@all - I have been a big propenent of a new third party. The battle lines drawn by the current two parties are so ... arbitrary. I'd love to have a viable third choice. The last 4 elections I've really not liked either candidate (for different reasons) ... no that is too weak a statement ... I have voted for a person I really dislike 4 presidential elections running, only because I disliked his oppenent more. That is NO WAY to vote!!!
As to third party viability, the republican party was new in (I believe) 1852. It's first serious national contender ran in 1856. Lincoln was the first elected republican president in 1860. So it was only 8 years for the party to get off the ground.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:27 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
@Dez: Hoax!
@Roqua: I'm not a Libertarian, although I do find some of their stances appealing. I just think that they are a better opposition party for the Republicans here in Utah than the Democrat's are. Utah Dems and Reps are practically the same. Utah Libertarians seem to be the only ones that want some real fiscal responsibility. So, I'll vote for them on the state level to check the Reps and Dems.
@Darrius: Then why did Bush gain ground in practically every state and not just those where the definition of marriage was on the ballot?
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:38 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
@Val, I don't really know what post you are responding to directly. However, I can still respond to your question.
1. Faith matters in all 50 States and everywhere in the world.
2. Focus
3. Homogeneity
1. Faith - just because an issue is only on the ballot in one state doesn't mean that people in other states do not care about that issue. Thus if Southern Baptists in Mississippi are energized by an issue a the party will get a certain amount of mileage from the issue in Tennessee. When one party comes to be defined as "the party of faith and morals" then they will gain an advantage in each state from every faith/moral issue that makes national news, even if it is truly a local issue to Massachusettes or California.
2. Focus - Because everyone was so confident that Bush was going to carry every southern state, Democrats conceded far too many states. Thus, Bush was allowed to spend more time on states where he was not as strong. You always gain when your fighting in his yard rather than your yard.
3. Republicans have a more homogenous base, consisting of mostly white people and they tend to speak to men over women. Having a homogenous base allows for the communication of simpler ideas because they have fewer groups that they have to appease. When people get bombarded by many different issues, they seem to ignore most of the new information and stick to what they believed before the bombardment began. Democrats try to cater to a larger number of small groups and thus have to find a way to motivate a larger number of different groups.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:39 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
@Gorath- Of all the things to harp on, this is the first time Ive ever actually seen someone cite voter registration as an issue.
It is first and foremost an attempt to try and curb rampant fraud, people running around and voting several times for instance. Even with the registration itself, we have seen voters registered such as children, cartoon characters, household pets, non-citizens, and dead people who apparently rose from the grave just to vote. We've seen more voter registrations than there are eligible living, breathing human voters in the district itself. It's also a way to determine the amount of polling places that are needed relative to the number of expected voters in any given district. Precincts need to be split up accordingly, so there arent 5,000 people jamming up one polling place, and 50 at another. We have an arguably larger task than that of Germany when it comes to the voting process, as we have literally triple the population of Germany.
@Dez- First of all Dez, abortion wasnt one of the official big issues in this campaign season at all, and for that matter, neither was gay marriage. Yes, the ballot initiatives in the 11 states banning it were passed, but neither candidate really harped on either issue during their campaigns. This campaign revolved mainly around 2 primary things, the war in Iraq & on terrorism in general, and the hateful and contradictory rhetoric of the desperate Democrat party and it's ultra-Liberal supporters.
I think your post is a perfect example of just that. I know you arent an American Liberal, but your post and mistaken interpretation & tone pretty much match one. I dont think we disagree on the fact that abortion is impossible to fully get rid of & necessary at times, that's where I split from the hardcore anti-abortion crowd in my party. However I do believe it is everyone's "business", for we all need to determine the direction our society is going to ultimately head on such matters.
For example, it is totally my business whether my little sister, niece, or future daughter can secretly get an abortion. I feel the same when it comes to the concept of marriage. It is indeed my business when a small percentage of the population feels that they have the right to stomp around and redefine this nation's traditions and customs as they see fit. I wont allow it, we wont allow it, and it's totally our business. And when I say "we", Im not only talking straight white christian males. You go down to the black, hispanic, and asian communities and ask them what they think about re-defining marriage. There's a reason Kerry and Edwards both said during the debates that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and it's because internal polling among their rank and file shows overwhelming opposition to messing with it.
But again, I think you and alot of other people totally misinterpret the opposition behind mine and the vast majority of Americans' refusal to re-defining marriage. They have done a very good job of spreading the belief that the defense of our traditions and customs is "hate". It isnt hate, and I'm not trying to deny anyone anything. It isnt out of malice, marriage isnt for 2 people of the same sex, and it never has been. We arent hatefully trying to make people suffer, we're desperately trying to cling to our traditions, customs, institutions, and symbols that are under an unyiedling and uncomprimising 24/7 assault.
If anyone is guilty of being consumed with hatred, it's the people who have nothing but venom and contempt for the common citizenry of this country and their traditions and customs. You look at the downright mean and literally seditious things that not only supporters of the Dems have said, but the official representatives of the party have said, and it's just disgusting to most people. The neverending assault on our President, soldiers, and war effort, and taking the side of the enemy. Taking every opportunity they get to spit on the good and proud people of the South, denigrate people of faith, stir up racial conflict, and pit groups of Americans against each other. Am I being partisan? You bet. But I'm speaking the truth as far as I see it.
Yes, abortion and marriage are an issue, but I feel it's more of an issue in the way the opposition party has completely mishandled the issues more than anything. My party and I believe in the traditions and people of this country, and see the people overall as intelligent, competent, and good natured. I genuinely love and admire this country and it's people, and I always have and will. I just dont get the feeling that is the same on the other side of the political fence, and that is to their detriment. The people themselves know best and are ultimately the final arbiters of how this country will run, and what traditions and customs we choose to practice as a nation. If that makes us all a bunch of Nazi Bigots From Hell in your eyes, then so be it.
-edited for brevity. really!
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
