Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#77 Nov 20 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, pointing to something from 50, 60, 80+ years ago isn't really relevant to today. If you wanted to show that the modern Planned Parenthood is about eugenics, then you should do that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Nov 20 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I literally do not know a single pro-choice person who isn't highly interested in increasing access to birth control and sexual health education, specifically because it would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and by extension abortions) in the US. Major pro-choice organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, are generally strong, reliable sources of the information and products that help curb the number of unwanted pregnancies and, through that, reduce the demand for abortions.


What a surprise that this just happens to also match up with the agenda of Eugenics. The point is to reduce the birth rate among "unfit" populations. Birth control and abortion both work to accomplish this.

Is it really about reducing the number of abortions? Or reducing the number of births? And what neighborhoods does PP focus most of their efforts in?

Quote:
In an ideal world, no one would be getting abortions, because no woman would be ending up with an unwanted pregnancy (be it by her "fault" or another's).

Very, VERY few abortions are performed because women change their mind about wanting to be pregnant, unless there's another medical reason the woman would want to terminate. Nearly all abortions occur because the woman never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.


Again, none of which changes the point I was making about the population control agenda having a significant influence on this issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Nov 20 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, pointing to something from 50, 60, 80+ years ago isn't really relevant to today. If you wanted to show that the modern Planned Parenthood is about eugenics, then you should do that.


Contrast the distribution of PP centers based on ethnicity Joph. African Americans make up what? 13% of the total population? Want to bet on whether PP has more or less than 13% of their nationwide resources located in predominantly black neighborhoods?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Nov 20 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Were you going to actually provide evidence of something or were you hoping ham-handed insinuation was going to be just as good?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Nov 20 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Let me put this another way: We're either left to accept the absurd idea that our otherwise racist/sexist society decided that poor minority women should be the primary recipients of the "right" to reproductive control *or* that these services are targeted to them as a means of decreasing the relative rate at which they reproduce. I mean, if we were to apply normal logic to this and assume that the whole thing really started as a pure rights argument, wouldn't we expect that wealth white women would be the first to enjoy that right, then have it gradually spread to the poor folks?

I mean, lets see. Right to vote. Male property owners. Then male white men. Then males. Then finally females. Hmm... So shouldn't abortion and birth control have been first available to wealthy white women, then wealthy non-white women, then the working class, then finally to the poorest minority groups? Strange that in this case it went in the opposite direction.

It's not strange at all if you drop the idea that this was really about rights and realize that it's about getting poor minority folks to breed less quickly relative to wealth white folks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Nov 20 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let me put this another way

Why don't you put it the way where you provide some actual evidence?

Hahaha... just kidding. We both know the answer to that. Wait: "It's just obvious", right?

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 8:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Nov 20 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And, by the way, your logic tonight is really, really bad. I mean, even for you this is terrible.

People oppose ultrasounds because it adds unnecessary additional barriers and steps to a legal procedure. There is zero medical need for a sonogram, much less for the pregnant woman to see the sonogram. However, she now has to schedule extra time and pay extra money for a wholly unnecessary procedure just to have a legal procedure done and for no reason other than people casting judgment on her morality. Wanting to "increase the number of abortions" doesn't factor into it.

And wealthy white women have always had... hang on, let me crunch the numbers... infinitely more access to abortions than poor minority women. A wealthy white woman in 1916 or whatever could actually, you know, pay for discreet medical services in an actual clean, medical environment and from an actual medical professional. Or have her husband/family/lover/whoever slip the doctor an extra $2 (hey, $2 was a lot of money back then) and say "It's your opinion that this is necessary to save her life, right?" and have her admitted into a hospital for it. Did you actually believe there was ever a time when poor minority women had more access to abortions than wealthy white women? Ever? A hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? Today?

Seriously? Are you just fucking retarded?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Nov 20 2013 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,222 posts
Quote:
Contrast the distribution of PP centers based on ethnicity Joph. African Americans make up what? 13% of the total population? Want to bet on whether PP has more or less than 13% of their nationwide resources located in predominantly black neighborhoods?


Yes, heaven forfend anyone offer low-cost birth control, checkups and mammograms to low-income women.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#85 Nov 20 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Low income women, eh? I wonder where one could find the densest populations of low income women in order to maximize the effectiveness of their clinic? Maybe some sort of urban area...?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Nov 20 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Were you going to actually provide evidence of something or were you hoping ham-handed insinuation was going to be just as good?


Sure. How about this surely legitimate and truthful source.

Ok. That was a bit of fresh meat, but regardless of how conspiratorial we think this is, the statistics they're using aren't wrong. Here's a somewhat less hysterical article.

Black and Hispanic women have abortions far out of proportion to their relative population. There's really no question about that. Now, is that occurring because of other socio-economic factors (higher rates of poverty meaning higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, resulting in higher abortion rate)? I'm sure there's some degree of that as well. It's hard to isolate this sort of thing. It would be interesting to find out if poor white neighborhoods are as likely to have a planned parenthood presence as poor black or latino ones. I can only speak anecdotally about PP locations in the town I live in and say there's a pretty clear pattern in terms of where they are focused.

In San Diego, poor minority neighborhoods are mostly right to the south and east of downtown (city heights and logan heights areas), and then more south down into Encanto and Chula Vista. Looking at a map of PP locations, they are clustered in pretty much those exact locations, with a couple outliers located in the Mira Mesa and Mission Beach areas (um, but both of those are better described as working class and mixed). While I'm not surprised to not see PP offices in locations well to do neighborhoods like Rancho Bernardo or Del Mar, it is interesting that there isn't one located in say El Cajon. A poor to working class neighborhood, but one in which you're more likely to see the local troublemakers riding Harley Davidson bikes and wearing chains and not so much driving caddy's and sporting gold teeth, if you know what I mean.

For the slow that means that the primary poor white neighborhood in my county doesn't have a PP anywhere near it, while 6 out of the 10 PP locations in the county are located smack dab in predominantly poor minority neighborhoods. That's just where I live though. Maybe you can go look at where PP locations are in Chicago and will find a totally different pattern.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Nov 20 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, having a clinic in or near a neighborhood isn't the same as "targeting" someone.

That said, the Chicago area Planned Parenthood locations seem fairly well distributed between different neighborhoods. Everything from Englewood to Wicker Park. They even have one in the Loop so those downtrodden wealthy white women don't feel left out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Nov 20 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Another abortion thread, huh?

If anyone needs me, I'll be dead. Having killed myself. Better start practicing necromancy now, you'll need to get good at it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#89 Nov 20 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
******
49,660 posts
gbaji wrote:
Simply declaring something a right, with the implication that this means that it can't be infringed in any way at all, is absurd.
Unless you call it a religion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Nov 20 2013 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
Better start practicing necromancy now, you'll need to get good at it.

I figured we'd practice on this barrel of fetus bits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Nov 20 2013 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

That's not example. Specifically provide me a quote where I pretended to come off as "intellectual" (key part) but came off ignorant. I usually admit to my own ignorance.

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.


That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.
The problem isn't that people can't understand English, it's that you're making no sense whatsoever which is the case for both your favourite post and this new sentence you've thought of.


This is a prime example of your own ignorance. No where in that statement did I allude that people couldn't understand English. I said the exact opposite. You're so caught up in your fairy-tale land that you speak from the stuff that you make up. Your allegations are so absurd, that they expose the fact that you really have no idea what you are talking about. So, in other words, every time you talk, you're admitting your own ignorance in a way that you think is benefiting yourself. I find that weird. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need further explanation?

Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.


Alma wrote:
Quote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality.


Besides for religious reasons, I don't know of any scenarios that justify discrimination against homosexuality that aren't bigoted. Do you?


Yes, we literally just discussed this in the post that you never replied to in the other thread. Why don't you reply to my post in that thread if you want to continue this conversation.

I find it hilariously hypocritical that you claim that I don't explain myself when you said that disagreeing with black lifestyle = racism. Yet you refuse to define "black lifestyle" and how disagreeing with it is racist as opposed to personal preference and/ or bigotry.

I've explained myself, you just disagree, which you admitted in the other thread. In your mind, you think if you continuously ask me, then one day my answer would change in hopes of saying something bigoted.
#92 Nov 20 2013 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Jophiel wrote:
People oppose ultrasounds because it adds unnecessary additional barriers and steps to a legal procedure. There is zero medical need for a sonogram, much less for the pregnant woman to see the sonogram.


I never said there was a medical need for it. I said that if we required women considering an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus, fewer women would go forward with the decision to have an abortion. That this is a true statistic suggests strongly that some women are making the decision to have an abortion based on false or incomplete information about what exactly is involved. We can speculate about the degree to which pro-abortion literature may cause that gap in information, but given the consistency with which the whole "it's just like removing cancer cells" gets tossed around in here, is this really speculation? Point being that if showing a women a sonogram of the fetus reduces the odds she'll go through with an elective abortion, I kinda consider that a good thing. The women who would change their minds as a result of such a thing are presumably also the exact same women who will be most likely to suffer psychological harm later as a result of that decision.

Quote:
However, she now has to schedule extra time and pay extra money for a wholly unnecessary procedure just to have a legal procedure done and for no reason other than people casting judgment on her morality.


Seriously? "No other reason". How about "let's give her time to make a better and more informed decision". Again, the very fact that a statistically measurable percentage of women change their minds after seeing a sonogram more or less proves that these women are making the choice for the wrong reasons, or with the wrong information, or in haste, or whatever. If showing women a sonogram never changed their decision and someone pushed to require it anyway, you'd have a point. We would be doing it purely to make the whole process more expensive and time consuming and putting unnecessary obstacles in the way.

But that's not the case, is it? Women do change their minds after seeing a sonogram. To me, that's reason enough to require them.

Quote:
Wanting to "increase the number of abortions" doesn't factor into it.


It doesn't? Then why? If we were talking about used car salesmen fighting against a requirement that potential buyers be able to view an accident report of the car they're thinking about buying, no one would doubt that their opposition was because they want to maximize the number of cars they sell, even if the customer will later regret buying it. Why would you assume that abortion is any different?

Again, you'd have a point if no one ever changed their minds as a result of seeing those sonograms. But they do. Just as people might change their minds about buying a car after seeing the reports and that's why we require sellers to make them available to the buyer.

If that's not the motivation, then what is?


I'll also argue that the extra cost isn't as high as you might think. Given that a sonogram is very inexpensive relative to an abortion procedure, even if just a small percentage of women change their mind, we will have reduced the total cost. And honestly given the importance of a decision like abortion, I just don't see how one extra office visit is that much of a burden. Give people the time and information to make a good decision. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Did you actually believe there was ever a time when poor minority women had more access to abortions than wealthy white women? Ever? A hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? Today?


Access to? Or actual abortions? You get that you're making my point for me, right? In the absence of organizations like Planned parenthood pushing for abortion as a right (and providing funding and services to fulfill that right), wealthy white women would have much greater access to birth control and abortion than poor black women. So, the net effect of the "abortion is a right" movement and the creation and proliferation of organizations like planned parenthood serves the effect of reducing the relative population growth among poor minorities.

Shocking, isn't it? Wealthy white women did not need a "reproductive rights" movement for them to have access to birth control and abortions. However, eugenicists like Margaret Sanger needed to create a reproductive rights movement in order to legally operate the kinds of clinics and sexual education programs needed to get poor minority women to reduce their birth rates. Now we can imagine that she did this out of the goodness of her racist heart, but it seems much more likely that she did it because it was the only way to push the eugenics movement forward in a society that was growing increasingly suspicious of the traditional eugenics arguments.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 7:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Nov 20 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I never said there was a medical need for it

Great. Then there's your reason to oppose putting additional barriers in front of it.
Quote:
Access to? Or actual abortions? You get that you're making my point for me, right?

I dunno... was your point that you're an idiot? You just whined that "access to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. When it's pointed out that it DID, you think that was some sort of score for you.

Ok then. You sure know how to make a compelling argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Nov 20 2013 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... You realize though that you just confirmed exactly the point I was making, right? It's not really just about the right to control ones own body (ie: not being forced to go through the physical trauma/risks of pregnancy). It's also about the right to not have to care for the child. Currently, abortion is the only means to avoid both circumstances.

I also happen to agree with you on the whole "transfer the unwanted pregnancy to an artificial womb and put the resulting child up for adoption" bit. I think that would be an ideal solution. My musing is that I suspect that at least for some on the pro-choice side, that solution would still be opposed. You have to remember that while we today talk about women's rights with regard to abortion, the earliest pushes for legalizing abortion had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with eugenics. The concern was that if you didn't legalize abortion there would be too many children born and population growth would get out of control. And for some the issue was that there would be too many dark skinned children born.


It would be interesting to see what the response to that sort of artificial womb solution would be. The problem with it is that it does not solve the population control angle of abortion. I think it's relevant to recognize that the reason many people fight for the right to abort is not necessarily the same as the reason others created the issue and got people to feel strongly about that right in the first place.

I think you'll find the earliest pushes for legalizing abortions had to do with the number of girls and women dying from backyard abortions. There was already contraception in the form of gut condoms. The artificial womb scenario is interesting, and I suspect you'd get a sort of half/half take-up on that. Some women would be okay about giving a fetus away that they hadn't bonded with, if the operation for removal was safe and not damaging. Some women couldn't give their fetus away because, like me, it would tear them to bits and make them suicidal because they were incapable of looking after their own child. Still more would not give them away, because like me, they would be extremely concerned about passing on intolerable genes to the given away child, to parents who don't know what to look out for.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 10:39pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#95 Nov 20 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I'm gonna fill this thread with passive-aggressive rebukes, when I could easily just not open the thread in the first place.
-
This thread's still going? Really?

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 3:43am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#96 Nov 20 2013 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If your mother wasn't going to hold you as a baby, she could have at least aborted you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Nov 20 2013 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I never said there was a medical need for it

Great. Then there's your reason to oppose putting additional barriers in front of it.


And... you just ignored the rest of my point. There's no sales reason to require accident reports before selling a used car either, is there? We could make the exact same argument that requiring accident reports be made available to buyers only serves to create a barrier to the sale. Want to at least try to address the point I made?

The fact that a percentage of women do change their minds about having an abortion after viewing a sonogram of the fetus is why we should require it. Do I really have to continue to try to explain to you why?


Quote:
You just whined that "access to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. When it's pointed out that it DID, you think that was some sort of score for you.


Um... I said that the "right to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. In the same way that the "right to vote" started with male property owners, then white men, then men, then finally women. The fact that wealthy white women had "access to abortion" without requiring any sort of assumption that there was a "right to abortion" involved supports my argument that the "right to abortion" was less about some realization that this should have been a right all along, as it was a means for those who wanted to lower the relative birth rates among poor colored populations to do so.

I mean, it's not like the history of Margaret Sanger is hidden or anything. While there's some questionable reports of her motivations (and often a complete downplaying of her eugenics beliefs), the pattern of the actual actions she took is quite clear. There is no doubt that her reasons for promoting the use of birth control and abortion grew from her eugenics position. I mean I suppose we could pretend they didn't, but that would be pretty dumb. You've got someone who believes in an ideology that strives to reduce the population growth among poor colored people, and that person then goes out and opens up clinics distributing birth control information and assistance in obtaining abortions for poor colored women in poor colored neighborhoods. What are the odds! I'm sure it was her humanitarianism that caused her to do this. Smiley: oyvey

And there's no doubt that this caused her to get into legal trouble because there were laws against publishing information about birth control, and laws against providing birth control, and laws against providing abortions. She fought against those laws purely because they were obstacles to her being able to operate her eugenics programs. That's it. Fast forward 90 years and we still have the same organization she created doing the same thing, and largely among the same populations. We can sit here and talk about how the motivations of those running it have totally changed so it's not really the same thing, but does that actually make a difference?

They're still doing the same thing. Does it matter if those who support (or even operate) PP honestly believe that everything they're doing is about protecting the reproductive rights of women? Does that mean that what they're doing suddenly becomes moral? Or does it just mean that Sanger was incredibly successful at wrapping her eugenics program in the mantle of women's rights that people continue to push her agenda forward 90 years later without even realizing what they're doing?

My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control. Or that they fight for the rights of women with regards to those things. My issue is that somewhere along the way the issue got turned into such a "for/against" thing that anyone advocating against choosing an abortion is labeled as being against the "right to choose". Somewhere along the line we forgot that the right to choose includes the right to choose *not* to have an abortion. So Planned Parenthood presents a skewed view of the choice to their customers, clearly acting in the advocate position *for* abortion. And it actively works to prevent any attempts to provide counter information to their potential customers, under the guise of claiming that this violates their right to choose (yeah, ironic).

It's ok for public money to be used to fund PPs health and education operations, which happen btw to include positive messages about abortion. Yet, heaven forbid we require a sonogram which might just change someone's mind. So yeah, to me it's incredibly obvious that PP cares less about a woman's right to choose as it does that women choose to have abortions. And that does bother me. It should bother a lot more people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Nov 20 2013 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
My brain isn't going to be buying a used car from my uterus.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#99 Nov 20 2013 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And... you just ignored the rest of my point.

Wasn't necessary. The reason people oppose sonograms is because they create unnecessary barriers for receiving legal medical care at no benefit to the patient. They have zero medical benefit; they exist purely to appease people making a moral judgement upon the woman.

You can disagree with that if you want but it'll still be the reason, not some fever dreamed "anti-minority population" conspiracy theory you read about last week.
gbaji wrote:
Um... I said that the "right to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women.

Quote:
So shouldn't abortion and birth control have been first available to wealthy white women

Aside from being wrong, great point.

Look, it's fantastic that you just read a blog about Sanger and got super excited to share your new knowledge. Honest. It's good that you're trying to learn new things. But you should really try to cobble this into some cohesive and evidence-based argument instead of randomly trying to say "But what about THIS? Hrrmmmm...? That MUST prove it!"
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.

It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 10:49pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Nov 21 2013 at 3:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,660 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.

It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.
Last year his argument was that all funding for PP should be taken away because somewhere, at some point that some of that money might have been used to pay for a light bulb in an office that could have had an abortion procedure done in it. Because there are soup kitchens in churches.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101 Nov 21 2013 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

That's not example. Specifically provide me a quote where I pretended to come off as "intellectual" (key part) but came off ignorant. I usually admit to my own ignorance.
Usually's a bit strong don't you think? Let's go with occasionally. Also, I really have nothing to gain in this, so I'm not sifting through your posts to find an example. Reading 1-2 of your posts is annoying enough. Ask Iddiggory again.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)