Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mr. Intenseone on January 11, 2007, 06:23:34 PM
-
Discuss!
-
I think their plans involve more brainwashing of youth into homosexual activities, more complaning about this country when it's the greatest place to live in the world and noone is stopping them from fucking leaving, more orgies, more drugs, and more rampant idiocy. Oh yeah and more whining we need to pull out of Iraq, when any logical person can see that if we did it would lead to WW3, and more bitching about bush when he's basically trying to clean up fuck tard clintons mess.
-
I think their plans involve more brainwashing of youth into homosexual activities, more complaning about this country when it's the greatest place to live in the world and noone is stopping them from fucking leaving, more orgies, more drugs, and more rampant idiocy. Oh yeah and more whining we need to pull out of Iraq, when any logical person can see that if we did it would lead to WW3, and more bitching about bush when he's basically trying to clean up f**k tard clintons mess.
LOL! Bitter Republicunts make for great entertainment. :D
-
LOL! Bitter Republicunts make for great entertainment. :D
Always ;D
-
I think their plans involve more brainwashing of youth into homosexual activities, more complaning about this country when it's the greatest place to live in the world and noone is stopping them from fucking leaving, more orgies, more drugs, and more rampant idiocy. Oh yeah and more whining we need to pull out of Iraq, when any logical person can see that if we did it would lead to WW3, and more bitching about bush when he's basically trying to clean up f**k tard clintons mess.
Yeah that's right huh? Clinton invaded iraq with poor intel, too few troops, a lousy exit strategy, put us 400 billion in debt, cost the lives of 3000 americans, destablized the area, increase the number of terrorists etc....
that fucking bastard.....we ahould throw him and all his follwers into jail.
And the current administration (BUSH) doesn't have the fucking BALLS to do what is neccessary (Ruthless campaign of domination with 200,000 more troops, torture rooms, death camps etc..) becuase they are too busy trying ot act like smart politicains at the same time trying ot impress the democrats by getting them to think republicans actually have common sense.
Un-believable isn't it?
-
Yeah that's right huh? Clinton invaded iraq with poor intel, too few troops, a lousy exit strategy, put us 400 billion in debt, cost the lives of 3000 americans, destablized the area, increase the number of terrorists etc....
that fucking bastard.....we ahould throw him and all his follwers into jail.
And the current administration (BUSH) doesn't have the fucking BALLS to do what is neccessary (Ruthless campaign of domination with 200,000 more troops, torture rooms, death camps etc..) becuase they are too busy trying ot act like smart politicains at the same time trying ot impress the democrats by getting them to think republicans actually have common sense.
Un-believable isn't it?
Huh :-\!!
Oz, You may be a lib, but I like you...so please for the sake of your family.....quit drinking!
-
Yeah that's right huh? Clinton invaded iraq with poor intel, too few troops, a lousy exit strategy, put us 400 billion in debt, cost the lives of 3000 americans, destablized the area, increase the number of terrorists etc....
that fucking bastard.....we ahould throw him and all his follwers into jail.
And the current administration (BUSH) doesn't have the fucking BALLS to do what is neccessary (Ruthless campaign of domination with 200,000 more troops, torture rooms, death camps etc..) becuase they are too busy trying ot act like smart politicains at the same time trying ot impress the democrats by getting them to think republicans actually have common sense.
Un-believable isn't it?
No but if clinton had any balls whatsoever he would have killed bin laden any one of the numerous opportunities he had. Then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, and saddam would still be the lovable ruthless dictator he was. Pathetic argument, yes bush is a bit lame, but it was never his fault 9/11 happened, and he is attempting to do his best.
-
I love how you libs are totally fixated on this stupid war, but whenever the homosexual agenda is brought up, or rampant drug abuse, or all the stupid shit liberal lawyers are doing in this country, you change the subject. Usually to iraq. Need I remind you of this?
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm
Thats a sure fire way to end society my friend. But lets just focus on how few troops we're sending to iraq. We should just pull out right? WW3 is a much better solution.
-
The short answer is they don't have one.
-
I think their plans involve more brainwashing of youth into homosexual activities, more complaning about this country when it's the greatest place to live in the world and noone is stopping them from fucking leaving, more orgies, more drugs, and more rampant idiocy. Oh yeah and more whining we need to pull out of Iraq, when any logical person can see that if we did it would lead to WW3, and more bitching about bush when he's basically trying to clean up f**k tard clintons mess.
translation : if my daughter/sister ever dated a black dood ..i'd kill her..
-
oooo..
hmm i wanna light a fuse to a bomb..then pull back..and ask yall about "your plan"
lol...
Bush fucked ys for YEARS to come...
i just hope when the terrorists breeding in iraq..due to bush.. do attack..some of yall family mambers do die..
amen..
hey i had a chinky friend die in iraq..i want you all to feel the sting also..soo i'll b praying for some republican soldiers to die..
hey soldiers r gonna die ANYHOW..might as well be the ones that were pro war.. ;)
-
prediction : some white dood..oops..sorry i mean republican is gonna tell me i hate america.. ;D
-
oooo..
hmm i wanna light a fuse to a bomb..then pull back..and ask yall about "your plan"
lol...
Bush fucked ys for YEARS to come...
i just hope when the terrorists breeding in iraq..due to bush.. do attack..some of yall family mambers do die..
amen..
hey i had a chinky friend die in iraq..i want you all to feel the sting also..soo i'll b praying for some republican soldiers to die..
hey soldiers r gonna die ANYHOW..might as well be the ones that were pro war.. ;)
Well first off I am an independent, and swing more libertarian than republican, second off it's very bad to wish death on someoene, and third not all republicans are or were for the war, and for the record EVERY DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN BUT TWO (COUNTEM TWO) VOTED IN FAVOR OF INVADING IRAQ. This is not a republican war, its a united states war. BTW, if we get hit hard in this country again, iraq iran and syria will be large glass bowls out in the desert. You really shouldnt hope for an attack here.
-
i just hope when the terrorists breeding in iraq..due to bush.. do attack..some of yall family mambers do die..
They will breed even more if we pull out!
-
They will breed even more if we pull out!
of course they will..
but were they breeding with saddam in power? NOPE...
he ws too self centered and egotistical to care for ANYONE else...
so ..you r gonna tell me we didn't know it ws gonna be this mess going in?
lol..
intense you r a good man..stop seeing the world as black n white man...let go of your whiteness for juust a bit...lol just for a wee bit man...and i'm saying that as i smile..i dont dislike ya..you r just misguided..
-
I'll defer to my father, Hugo's plan... Good enough ;D
-
They will breed even more if we pull out!
Actually -
1) Sunnis and Shiites will kill each other in larger #s. This means less terrorists.
2) A new dictator will come to power and put the fuckers to work rebuilding society now that the sanctions are gone - people were working when saddam was there. They're killing now.
3) They will not be able to leave iraq (broke asses) and 99.99% of the insurgents shooting our men now will just shoot each other or cuss at their tv. They're not getting on a plane for America anytime soon.
4) Terrorists didn't kill 3-5 americans a day when we weren't there.
I prefer to crush them rather than to leave. But this "maintain" option, the 21,500 number, is worse than leaving. it does nothing but waste time, money, and lives.
-
of course they will..
but were they breeding with saddam in power? NOPE...
Hell yes they were.......he was freaking paying off the families of the "human bombs" $25,000, I don't know about you, but from what I hear $25g's is alot of freaking money in Iraq!
-
Hell yes they were.......he was freaking paying off the families of the "human bombs" $25,000, I don't know about you, but from what I hear $25g's is alot of freaking money in Iraq!
How about we just stop marching around the world kicking hornet's nests. That's a good start ;)
-
I'll defer to my father, Hugo's plan... Good enough ;D
You do realize your an inbreed!
-
You do realize your an inbreed!
Do you even know what an inbreed it ::) The facts are out, I'm not an inbreed, wiki it ;)
-
translation : if my daughter/sister ever dated a black dood ..i'd kill her..
I still haven't figured this one out. I'm not black, I am white as fook and the picture I have is phil ivey, not me.
-
Hell yes they were.......he was freaking paying off the families of the "human bombs" $25,000, I don't know about you, but from what I hear $25g's is alot of freaking money in Iraq!
and how do you know this?
-
Do you even know what an inbreed it ::) The facts are out, I'm not an inbreed, wiki it ;)
Do you REALLY support hugo chavez? If you do you must be poor, usually only poor lazy people embrace socialists.
-
I'm a Conservative, and I've said it before and I'll be glad to say it again: no true Conservative would ever support an administration like the current one. You Republislime are the architects of treason. If this were Bill Clittin' who was doing all of the things Bush is doing, you'd be calling for his public burning at the stake.
-
I'm a Conservative, and I've said it before and I'll be glad to say it again: no true Conservative would ever support an administration like the current one. You Republislime are the architects of treason. If this were Bill Clittin' who was doing all of the things Bush is doing, you'd be calling for his public burning at the stake.
exactly well said Purge, than you!!!
-
Well first off I am an independent, and swing more libertarian than republican, second off it's very bad to wish death on someoene, and third not all republicans are or were for the war, and for the record EVERY DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN BUT TWO (COUNTEM TWO) VOTED IN FAVOR OF INVADING IRAQ. This is not a republican war, its a united states war. BTW, if we get hit hard in this country again, iraq iran and syria will be large glass bowls out in the desert. You really shouldnt hope for an attack here.
I'm a libertarian too. Seems like we're the ones with a voice of reason in these times, yet there aren't enough of US to shed light on what needs to be done.
I don't get how you're saying this is America's war. First of all Bush emotionally blackmailed even the most educated and intelligent Americans into supporting the war with faulty intelligence and lies. The biggest problem is idiots who think they can screw over any nation because of what happened on 9/11, even you think Iraq, Iran and Syria should be blown away if we're attacked again. Newsflash, this is the type of mentality that lead us to Iraq.
-
Discuss!
Their plan is to pull out immediately and make the USA the laughing stock of the world, they would love to make us appear weak as canada when it comes to defending ourselfs. They would send a letter to osama bin laden apologizing to him for making him angry and promising if he will just tell us what he and al quaeda want us to do and most likely would even have our president bow down and kiss bin laden's ass and promise them we will let al quaeda run our country instead of our congress and president. That about sums up the democrats plan.
I've finally figured out that the democrats are possibly more dangerous to our society that terrorists are.
-
Yeah that's right huh? Clinton invaded iraq with poor intel, too few troops, a lousy exit strategy, put us 400 billion in debt, cost the lives of 3000 americans, destablized the area, increase the number of terrorists etc....
that fucking bastard.....we ahould throw him and all his follwers into jail.
And the current administration (BUSH) doesn't have the fucking BALLS to do what is neccessary (Ruthless campaign of domination with 200,000 more troops, torture rooms, death camps etc..) becuase they are too busy trying ot act like smart politicains at the same time trying ot impress the democrats by getting them to think republicans actually have common sense.
Un-believable isn't it?
Nope. Clinton warned us that Iraq was our biggest threat but he did nothing to stop the problem there, refused to go after bin laden. He would bomb a baby milk factory here or there in iraq to sway attention away from him ramming his tiny cock in to monica's mouth in the oval office. He couldn't be concerned with protecting this country, was much too busy blowing his cum all over monica's dress.
Clinton is to BLAME for this entire war because he sat on his ass thrusting his cock into that pigs fat mouth.
Now his wife wants to take up where he left off? hmmm, who is gonna lick that nasty snatch in the oval office while SHE skirts around the real issues? Maybe she and bill will have orgies and such in the white house this time. Yep, that pair is great for america.
-
Clinton is to BLAME for this entire war because he sat on his ass thrusting his cock into that pigs fat mouth.
The sad thing is that you truly believe this, don't you?
You truly believe that the US invasion of Iraq and Bush's inability to commit enough forces to win, the refusal to talk with Syria or Iran, everything else...
It's all Clinton's fault? You're not even worth an argument dude.
-
I think their plans involve more brainwashing of youth into homosexual activities, more complaning about this country when it's the greatest place to live in the world and noone is stopping them from fucking leaving, more orgies, more drugs, and more rampant idiocy. Oh yeah and more whining we need to pull out of Iraq, when any logical person can see that if we did it would lead to WW3, and more bitching about bush when he's basically trying to clean up f**k tard clintons mess.
just what i was thinking.
applause
-
No but if clinton had any balls whatsoever he would have killed bin laden any one of the numerous opportunities he had. Then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, and saddam would still be the lovable ruthless dictator he was. Pathetic argument, yes bush is a bit lame, but it was never his fault 9/11 happened, and he is attempting to do his best.
Ok i found 2 things i like about you already:
1. Phil Ivey.
2. It seems what ever political spectrum you reside in hasn't affected treuly affected your objectivity.
Personally, i think BUSH made some very bad errors. (i'm not saying Gore would have done better)
-
Ok i found 2 things i like about you already:
1. Phil Ivey.
2. It seems what ever political spectrum you reside in hasn't affected treuly affected your objectivity.
Personally, i think BUSH made some very bad errors. (i'm not saying Gore would have done better)
Gore or any other Lib with the exeption of Leiberman would not have done anything after 9/11!
-
Gore or any other Lib with the exeption of Leiberman would not have done anything after 9/11!
Now that's absolutley not true.
I've explain this to you many times and i know you realize that's not realistic in the least.
What Gore wouldn't have done:
1. is invade Iraq.
2. OK the port authority deal
What Gore might have done:
1. Virtually everything Bush did save the above 2
2. Increase spending in home land security by 100 billion dollars putting us deeper in debt.
(Bush has increasded our debt 400 billion with no return)
-
Gore or any other Lib with the exeption of Leiberman would not have done anything after 9/11!
Weird that most of the Dems publicly supported invading Afghanistan.
When I hear (on fox news usually) that the dems "would have done nothing" after 9/11, I have two questions:
1) How can you predict this?
2) How can you explain most of them supporting the invasion?
History (voting record and publoic statements) shows that most dems supported warn in both afghan and iraq. How can you make the prediction they wouldn't have supported invading?
-
Weird that most of the Dems publicly supported invading Afghanistan.
When I hear (on fox news usually) that the dems "would have done nothing" after 9/11, I have two questions:
1) How can you predict this?
2) How can you explain most of them supporting the invasion?
History (voting record and publoic statements) shows that most dems supported warn in both afghan and iraq. How can you make the prediction they wouldn't have supported invading?
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing, Clinton had a chance but in essence did nothing exept to fire a few missiles at a pharmaceutical co. Dems voted to go to Iraq but then went the other way after the war started now they want to pull all the troops out, tell me, what kind of a message does that send to the terrorists?
-
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing, Clinton had a chance but in essence did nothing exept to fire a few missiles at a pharmaceutical co. Dems voted to go to Iraq but then went the other way after the war started now they want to pull all the troops out, tell me, what kind of a message does that send to the terrorists?
Please explain or elaborrate
-
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing, Clinton had a chance but in essence did nothing exept to fire a few missiles at a pharmaceutical co. Dems voted to go to Iraq but then went the other way after the war started now they want to pull all the troops out, tell me, what kind of a message does that send to the terrorists?
Why did most vote to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
-
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing
Are you saying the Dems have avoided war?
Um, is this bad?
-
Are you saying the Dems have avoided war?
Um, is this bad?
I just want to know when dems were weak and avioded going to war.
I want specific examples.
-
Are you saying the Dems have avoided war?
Um, is this bad?
Only when you have a congress and senate full of pacifists, the choice to go to was a last resort for Bush, it wasn't like he jumped the gun!!
-
Only when you have a congress and senate full of pacifists, the choice to go to was a last resort for Bush, it wasn't like he jumped the gun!!
Bush didn't have any other options besides a full scale invasion, regime change, and infrastructure rebuild?
-
Bush didn't have any other options besides a full scale invasion, regime change, and infrastructure rebuild?
........and liberate 25mil people. Sure, we could have not gone in but that would have just left him open to harbor and recruit new terrorists and time to develop weapons like he was doing all along!
-
........and liberate 25mil people. Sure, we could have not gone in but that would have just left him open to harbor and recruit new terrorists and time to develop weapons like he was doing all along!
I'm still waiting for you to elaborrate:
Is your assertion just a opinion or is there any fact to it? I'm sure there is.
-
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing,
You should have a strong list right at your finger tips. You've always talked about how the dems would have done nothing.
Please elaborrate, show us some examples.
-
........and liberate 25mil people. Sure, we could have not gone in but that would have just left him open to harbor and recruit new terrorists and time to develop weapons like he was doing all along!
Can you list the names of the terrorists he as harboring, and how they affected the US?
(this terrorist harboring claim was made by Bush to justify war and never verified)
Can you show me proof he was developing a new WMD program?
(another Bush claim. All we found was 1985 mustard gas canisters less lethal than bug spray. the rants about new WMD were never verified and actually declared incorrect by most world investigative bodies).
I'm all for kililng the shit out of anyone who fucks with us. But starting wars cause of what someone might do is not a good policy.
....and why the hell aren't we invading N Korea yet?
-
I'm all for kililng the shit out of anyone who fucks with us. But starting wars cause of what someone might do is not a good policy.
after 9/11 it's a damn good policy.
-
after 9/11 it's a damn good policy.
Are you aware of the long term problems that come from "the damn good policy" of elective war?
-
this world is much different after 9/11. at least in the US it is.
we cannot afford to sit on our duff and wait for something to happen.
i don't care about any long term problems of war. all i care about is that my children, my family and my friends can sleep at night and not have to worry about if someone will blow up the mall they're going to tomorrow.
yea, i know the US going into iraq can be debated on whether it was for our safety. but from what i've learned about saddam and his past, it was only a matter of time before something would have happened to this country that he would have been directly responsible for. i am convinced of that. i'm sure you will prove me wrong though.
-
this world is much different after 9/11. at least in the US it is.
we cannot afford to sit on our duff and wait for something to happen.
i don't care about any long term problems of war. all i care about is that my children, my family and my friends can sleep at night and not have to worry about if someone will blow up the mall they're going to tomorrow.
yea, i know the US going into iraq can be debated on whether it was for our safety. but from what i've learned about saddam and his past, it was only a matter of time before something would have happened to this country that he would have been directly responsible for. i am convinced of that. i'm sure you will prove me wrong though.
Should we invade N. Korea?
-
Should we invade N. Korea?
if talks and sanctions fail, if kim starts testing again, YES. we better.
however, NK is a bluff. bush admin knows it. kim wants money, and world attention. and rabbits from what i'm hearing now.
-
this world is much different after 9/11. at least in the US it is.
we cannot afford to sit on our duff and wait for something to happen.
i don't care about any long term problems of war. all i care about is that my children, my family and my friends can sleep at night and not have to worry about if someone will blow up the mall they're going to tomorrow.
yea, i know the US going into iraq can be debated on whether it was for our safety. but from what i've learned about saddam and his past, it was only a matter of time before something would have happened to this country that he would have been directly responsible for. i am convinced of that. i'm sure you will prove me wrong though.
There's nothing to prove. You must find the truth outside your programmed fear. Educate yourself. Anyone that's even slightly informed understands the dynamics of what saddam could and could not do. Do be manipulated by fear and drama. Looks at the facts and ask questions.
-
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing,
Still more crickets...............
-
this world is much different after 9/11. at least in the US it is.
we cannot afford to sit on our duff and wait for something to happen.
i don't care about any long term problems of war. all i care about is that my children, my family and my friends can sleep at night and not have to worry about if someone will blow up the mall they're going to tomorrow.
yea, i know the US going into iraq can be debated on whether it was for our safety. but from what i've learned about saddam and his past, it was only a matter of time before something would have happened to this country that he would have been directly responsible for. i am convinced of that. i'm sure you will prove me wrong though.
What did you learn about Saddam? He did absolutely nothing to any citizen of this country and you know it. What's disturbing is that all the evidence is before your eyes and this evidence clearly showed that Iraq was no threat to the United States. Several intelligence agencies have already published reports saying Iraq wasn't a threat and occupation has now turned Iraq into a divided nation.
Of course all your care about is yourself. You don't care that your country falsified intelligence reports to invade a country. Whether Saddam was in power today wouldn't have any fucking thing to do with you and you dumbass family.
I find it funny that you don't mention the nations of Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, two countries where the hijackers trained and came from. But because Bush tells your otherwise, you don't think they're a threat. North Korea has exploded a nuke already and you don't think of them seriously.
-
if talks and sanctions fail, if kim starts testing again, YES. we better.
however, NK is a bluff. bush admin knows it. kim wants money, and world attention. and rabbits from what i'm hearing now.
Why do you want talks and sanctions with NK, but not iran?
-
What did you learn about Saddam? He did absolutely nothing to any citizen of this country and you know it. What's disturbing is that all the evidence is before your eyes and this evidence clearly showed that Iraq was no threat to the United States. Several intelligence agencies have already published reports saying Iraq wasn't a threat and occupation has now turned Iraq into a divided nation.
Of course all your care about is yourself. You don't care that your country falsified intelligence reports to invade a country. Whether Saddam was in power today wouldn't have any fucking thing to do with you and you dumbass family.
I find it funny that you don't mention the nations of Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, two countries where the hijackers trained and came from. But because Bush tells your otherwise, you don't think they're a threat. North Korea has exploded a nuke already and you don't think of them seriously.
Thats all pretty much true, how much of a threat was iraq when we were both buddies? I think saddam hated the US, but mostly because we stabbed him in the back. I'll be more supportive of the democratic party when they distance themselves from liberals when it comes to military issues, and as far as I can tell they'd listen to the bleeding heart sissies a lot more than i would be comfortable with.
-
Why do you want talks and sanctions with NK, but not iran?
i never said i didn't want talks with iran.
but then again, talking won't do much of anything to a dictator.
if it can, good.
the "fool me once" statement would fit here.
-
i never said i didn't want talks with iran.
but then again, talking won't do much of anything to a dictator.
if it can, good.
the "fool me once" statement would fit here.
When did the leader of N Korea fool us before?
And just because we are unsuccessful with the leader of ONE nation, does that mean we should invade 5 others because we MIGHT be unsuccessful again?
Or would it make more sense to at least ATTEMPT to negotiate with these leaders first (nothing to lose - we can talk for the 3 weeks while prepping for war)?
More than HALF of our nation's leaders are calling for talks with iran and syria's presidents. We are not speaking to them because the MINOROTY of leaders choose not to. (So the position that we should negotiate is not only common sense, but also more commonly accepted)
-
Thats all pretty much true, how much of a threat was iraq when we were both buddies? I think saddam hated the US, but mostly because we stabbed him in the back. I'll be more supportive of the democratic party when they distance themselves from liberals when it comes to military issues, and as far as I can tell they'd listen to the bleeding heart sissies a lot more than i would be comfortable with.
Stop turning everything into a liberal v conservative issue. ::) You can't see past two sides of the same coin?
-
Quote from: Mr. Intenseone on January 12, 2007, 11:34:48 AM
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing,
Still more crickets...............
Anyone here have answers to this?
Can someone give me real facts to show me what he is talking about?
-
Quote from: Mr. Intenseone on January 12, 2007, 11:34:48 AM
You know as well as I do that Dems are notoriously and historically weak on defence and have virtually done nothing,
Still more crickets...............
Anyone here have answers to this?
Can someone give me real facts to show me what he is talking about?
The Dems *couldn't* do anything - Bush and the Repub congress was making all the rules.
"Notoriously and historically weak on defense" - Evidence, please. Also I would love to hear the difference between "weak on defense" and "doesn't acquiesce to every request of military complex".
-
I love how you libs are totally fixated on this stupid war, but whenever the homosexual agenda is brought up, or rampant drug abuse, or all the stupid shit liberal lawyers are doing in this country, you change the subject. Usually to iraq. Need I remind you of this?
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm
Thats a sure fire way to end society my friend. But lets just focus on how few troops we're sending to iraq. We should just pull out right? WW3 is a much better solution.
Homosexual agenda? What two consenting adults do in thier bedroom is none of my business.
If a homosexual couple wants to adopt a foster kid and support that child instead of the state supporting that child, I am all for it.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Bisexuality is a whole other thing.
Rampant drug abuse? Like prohibition, trying to stop it doesn't work. Legalize it and tax it. More revenue for the country.
Afghanastan heroin fields are at their prime growth now. It is a cash crop. Illegal drugs are a multibillion dollar business.
Where do you think the terrorists get their money from?
The war, Help the Iraqis stabilize, rule and run thier country. Reduce the troop level to the number it will need to sustain whateve military establishments we set up.
Sandra
-
Homosexual agenda? What two consenting adults do in thier bedroom is none of my business.
If a homosexual couple wants to adopt a foster kid and support that child instead of the state supporting that child, I am all for it.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Bisexuality is a whole other thing.
Rampant drug abuse? Like prohibition, trying to stop it doesn't work. Legalize it and tax it. More revenue for the country.
Afghanastan heroin fields are at their prime growth now. It is a cash crop. Illegal drugs are a multibillion dollar business.
Where do you think the terrorists get their money from?
The war, Help the Iraqis stabilize, rule and run thier country. Reduce the troop level to the number it will need to sustain whateve military establishments we set up.
Sandra
You clearly enjoy taking the words of another OUT OF CONTEXT, and changing them to suit your needs. I shall elaborate on what I said. THERE IS A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THIS COUNTRY, STAUNCHLY BACKED AND SUPPORTED BY THE TERRORIST GROUP KNOWN AS THE ACLU. There are plenty of facts supporting this, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK I POSTED AND TRY TO DEFEND AGAINST MY STATEMENT. Whether or not two men/women have some kind of "sex" with each other is none of my business, but when every time I turn on the tv I see something homosexual, being portrayed in a good way, I cringe. Homosexuals have a tendency to be VERY open about their ways, I don't see many people acting overly straight, yet queers make it a point to let EVERYONE AROUND THEM know they are gay. You say homosexuality is not a choice, but I refute that maam, since when are animals(we are animals, believe it or not) born NOT to reproduce? Show me one example of that in the wild, animals born gay, please just one. It IS a choice, it has to do with experimentation. I shall give you as best a breakdown as I can.
In the human brain, the chemical neurotransmitter dopamine is principally responsible for telling us what is vital for life. After a meal, after obtaining shelter, and after sex our brains kick out higher than normal levels of dopamine to tell us this is "good" and vital for life. You have sex with the opposite sex, and your brain will kick out dopamine, and everything associated with that gender will be amplified. For example, man has sex with woman, man is more turned on in the future by females, their sweat, pheromones, hair, sound of voice etc. If you don't believe me do so research, the same thing happens with drug addicts. A reformed cocaine addict, for example, will get intense cravings upon sight of the powder, or being taken to a place he/she indulged in the drug, this is fact. That persons brain associates the powder and the places the drug was done with a subsequent release in dopamine. Well the same happens in gay sex. If a man is sexually stimulated by another man, at first it will be awkward and uncomfortable, but when the dopamine kicks out, both men will in the future be "turned on" by other men, their smell, appearance, "manly voice" etc. This is fact. Had either men not ever been sexually stimulated by a man, they would inheritlanly be turned on by women, as this is vital for reproduction. You will find also that in women, most lesbians are that way for strange reasons, either they were molested as kids, or they are fooking ugly and no man would want them, and so they then "hate" men, and stick with each other. Or they are insanely attractive, and enjoy men coming onto them all the time, and being turned down. They get a kick out of it. Basically, homosexuality is NOT normal, on any level, and my link to the little black book proves there is an agenda in this country to expose children to it. All these gay and lesbian groups typically are fronts for homosexual perverts to further their cause because, as im sure we all know, homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE. GOD made us that way for a reason. As for homo's adopting kids-HELLFUCKING NO. Almost anyone with half a brain can see that children need to be raised with both a mother and father, that is natural, a dyke with a dildo and shaved head does NOT pass for a man. Even elton john is against homosexual couples adopting kids. I see the predicament though, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so lets push for homo couples adopting, and socially, let's call them "gay", which can also mean happy, so they seem less intimidating, and let's have lot's of them on TV all the time, so they seem more "normal", when they are the furthest thing from it. Please. In twenty years queers will be back in the closet where they belong, this is just a phase in society.
The drug problem, I have to agree with you a bit, however it's the left in the country who totally support and usually engage in that behavior, this is fact. Who do we see in the media on drugs the most? Musicians and actors, easily. And to what side do they lean? Hollywood and the music industry are almost ALWAYS liberal, and when kids grow up and see their idols on televesion doing drugs and getting arrested constantly, it's only natural they will be curious to try it. Going back to when I was growing up, a lot of kids at my schools got into drugs because their parents were hippies, and did drugs around them. VERY responsible. Then there were kids who did it cuz it's "cool", I mean everyone in hollwood is a drug addict! We CANNOT let kids grow up thinking drug usage is ok or cool! And the goverments approach of stupid scare tactics isn't helping either. I believe the war on drugs must be won, but it won't be as long as there is so much money to be made by them being illegal. As a SHORT term solution, yes legalizing and taxing them would be best, as would be free help from the gov to get off them. I'm getting off my soapbox now LOL.
-
You clearly enjoy taking the words of another OUT OF CONTEXT, and changing them to suit your needs. I shall elaborate on what I said. THERE IS A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THIS COUNTRY, STAUNCHLY BACKED AND SUPPORTED BY THE TERRORIST GROUP KNOWN AS THE ACLU. There are plenty of facts supporting this, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK I POSTED AND TRY TO DEFEND AGAINST MY STATEMENT. Whether or not two men/women have some kind of "sex" with each other is none of my business, but when every time I turn on the tv I see something homosexual, being portrayed in a good way, I cringe. Homosexuals have a tendency to be VERY open about their ways, I don't see many people acting overly straight, yet queers make it a point to let EVERYONE AROUND THEM know they are gay. You say homosexuality is not a choice, but I refute that maam, since when are animals(we are animals, believe it or not) born NOT to reproduce? Show me one example of that in the wild, animals born gay, please just one. It IS a choice, it has to do with experimentation. I shall give you as best a breakdown as I can.
In the human brain, the chemical neurotransmitter dopamine is principally responsible for telling us what is vital for life. After a meal, after obtaining shelter, and after sex our brains kick out higher than normal levels of dopamine to tell us this is "good" and vital for life. You have sex with the opposite sex, and your brain will kick out dopamine, and everything associated with that gender will be amplified. For example, man has sex with woman, man is more turned on in the future by females, their sweat, pheromones, hair, sound of voice etc. If you don't believe me do so research, the same thing happens with drug addicts. A reformed cocaine addict, for example, will get intense cravings upon sight of the powder, or being taken to a place he/she indulged in the drug, this is fact. That persons brain associates the powder and the places the drug was done with a subsequent release in dopamine. Well the same happens in gay sex. If a man is sexually stimulated by another man, at first it will be awkward and uncomfortable, but when the dopamine kicks out, both men will in the future be "turned on" by other men, their smell, appearance, "manly voice" etc. This is fact. Had either men not ever been sexually stimulated by a man, they would inheritlanly be turned on by women, as this is vital for reproduction. You will find also that in women, most lesbians are that way for strange reasons, either they were molested as kids, or they are fooking ugly and no man would want them, and so they then "hate" men, and stick with each other. Or they are insanely attractive, and enjoy men coming onto them all the time, and being turned down. They get a kick out of it. Basically, homosexuality is NOT normal, on any level, and my link to the little black book proves there is an agenda in this country to expose children to it. All these gay and lesbian groups typically are fronts for homosexual perverts to further their cause because, as im sure we all know, homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE. GOD made us that way for a reason. As for homo's adopting kids-HELLFUCKING NO. Almost anyone with half a brain can see that children need to be raised with both a mother and father, that is natural, a dyke with a dildo and shaved head does NOT pass for a man. Even elton john is against homosexual couples adopting kids. I see the predicament though, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so lets push for homo couples adopting, and socially, let's call them "gay", which can also mean happy, so they seem less intimidating, and let's have lot's of them on TV all the time, so they seem more "normal", when they are the furthest thing from it. Please. In twenty years queers will be back in the closet where they belong, this is just a phase in society.
The drug problem, I have to agree with you a bit, however it's the left in the country who totally support and usually engage in that behavior, this is fact. Who do we see in the media on drugs the most? Musicians and actors, easily. And to what side do they lean? Hollywood and the music industry are almost ALWAYS liberal, and when kids grow up and see their idols on televesion doing drugs and getting arrested constantly, it's only natural they will be curious to try it. Going back to when I was growing up, a lot of kids at my schools got into drugs because their parents were hippies, and did drugs around them. VERY responsible. Then there were kids who did it cuz it's "cool", I mean everyone in hollwood is a drug addict! We CANNOT let kids grow up thinking drug usage is ok or cool! And the goverments approach of stupid scare tactics isn't helping either. I believe the war on drugs must be won, but it won't be as long as there is so much money to be made by them being illegal. As a SHORT term solution, yes legalizing and taxing them would be best, as would be free help from the gov to get off them. I'm getting off my soapbox now LOL.
NICE!!
-
You clearly enjoy taking the words of another OUT OF CONTEXT, and changing them to suit your needs. I shall elaborate on what I said. THERE IS A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THIS COUNTRY, STAUNCHLY BACKED AND SUPPORTED BY THE TERRORIST GROUP KNOWN AS THE ACLU. There are plenty of facts supporting this, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK I POSTED AND TRY TO DEFEND AGAINST MY STATEMENT. Whether or not two men/women have some kind of "sex" with each other is none of my business, but when every time I turn on the tv I see something homosexual, being portrayed in a good way, I cringe. Homosexuals have a tendency to be VERY open about their ways, I don't see many people acting overly straight, yet queers make it a point to let EVERYONE AROUND THEM know they are gay. You say homosexuality is not a choice, but I refute that maam, since when are animals(we are animals, believe it or not) born NOT to reproduce? Show me one example of that in the wild, animals born gay, please just one. It IS a choice, it has to do with experimentation. I shall give you as best a breakdown as I can.
In the human brain, the chemical neurotransmitter dopamine is principally responsible for telling us what is vital for life. After a meal, after obtaining shelter, and after sex our brains kick out higher than normal levels of dopamine to tell us this is "good" and vital for life. You have sex with the opposite sex, and your brain will kick out dopamine, and everything associated with that gender will be amplified. For example, man has sex with woman, man is more turned on in the future by females, their sweat, pheromones, hair, sound of voice etc. If you don't believe me do so research, the same thing happens with drug addicts. A reformed cocaine addict, for example, will get intense cravings upon sight of the powder, or being taken to a place he/she indulged in the drug, this is fact. That persons brain associates the powder and the places the drug was done with a subsequent release in dopamine. Well the same happens in gay sex. If a man is sexually stimulated by another man, at first it will be awkward and uncomfortable, but when the dopamine kicks out, both men will in the future be "turned on" by other men, their smell, appearance, "manly voice" etc. This is fact. Had either men not ever been sexually stimulated by a man, they would inheritlanly be turned on by women, as this is vital for reproduction. You will find also that in women, most lesbians are that way for strange reasons, either they were molested as kids, or they are fooking ugly and no man would want them, and so they then "hate" men, and stick with each other. Or they are insanely attractive, and enjoy men coming onto them all the time, and being turned down. They get a kick out of it. Basically, homosexuality is NOT normal, on any level, and my link to the little black book proves there is an agenda in this country to expose children to it. All these gay and lesbian groups typically are fronts for homosexual perverts to further their cause because, as im sure we all know, homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE. GOD made us that way for a reason. As for homo's adopting kids-HELLFUCKING NO. Almost anyone with half a brain can see that children need to be raised with both a mother and father, that is natural, a dyke with a dildo and shaved head does NOT pass for a man. Even elton john is against homosexual couples adopting kids. I see the predicament though, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so lets push for homo couples adopting, and socially, let's call them "gay", which can also mean happy, so they seem less intimidating, and let's have lot's of them on TV all the time, so they seem more "normal", when they are the furthest thing from it. Please. In twenty years queers will be back in the closet where they belong, this is just a phase in society.
The drug problem, I have to agree with you a bit, however it's the left in the country who totally support and usually engage in that behavior, this is fact. Who do we see in the media on drugs the most? Musicians and actors, easily. And to what side do they lean? Hollywood and the music industry are almost ALWAYS liberal, and when kids grow up and see their idols on televesion doing drugs and getting arrested constantly, it's only natural they will be curious to try it. Going back to when I was growing up, a lot of kids at my schools got into drugs because their parents were hippies, and did drugs around them. VERY responsible. Then there were kids who did it cuz it's "cool", I mean everyone in hollwood is a drug addict! We CANNOT let kids grow up thinking drug usage is ok or cool! And the goverments approach of stupid scare tactics isn't helping either. I believe the war on drugs must be won, but it won't be as long as there is so much money to be made by them being illegal. As a SHORT term solution, yes legalizing and taxing them would be best, as would be free help from the gov to get off them. I'm getting off my soapbox now LOL.
Is is liking chocolate and not liking vanilla both choices? If it's so repulsive for you to kiss another man how can it be something someone would choose to do? Some poepl eare just born with that desire. You can try an explain it with amature scientific specualtion all you want. Won't change the fact of liking ot not liking chocolate. I've figured out that if i was a woman i'd be a lesbian and i think you'd be one too.
BTW, I know alot of gay people. I live in N. California. About 25% flaunt it, the other 75% you'd have to "get to know them." ;D
When the ACLU stood up for the KKK (went to court for them), that told me everything i needed to know about them. They are what their name stands for.
I agree with you about how Gays are being protrayed in the Media. But i believe it's for differnt reasons. Homosexuality is something that has been around since the dawn of man. It will never ever go away and is a fact of life. People you know are gay and you won;t ever know. What the media is doing is attempting to put a human face on it to curb discrimination.
-
Is is liking chocolate and not liking vanilla both choices? If it's so repulsive for you to kiss another man how can it be something someone would choose to do? Some poepl eare just born with that desire. You can try an explain it with amature scientific specualtion all you want. Won't change the fact of liking ot not liking chocolate. I've figured out that if i was a woman i'd be a lesbian and i think you'd be one too.
BTW, I know alot of gay people. I live in N. California. About 25% flaunt it, the other 75% you'd have to "get to know them." ;D
When the ACLU stood up for the KKK (went to court for them), that told me everything i needed to know about them. They are what their name stands for.
I agree with you about how Gays are being protrayed in the Media. But i believe it's for differnt reasons. Homosexuality is something that has been around since the dawn of man. It will never ever go away and is a fact of life. People you know are gay and you won;t ever know. What the media is doing is attempting to put a human face on it to curb discrimination.
I live in N california too man, I know plenty of homos (stop calling them gay please) and they ALL flaunt it like it's the greatest thing ever. One friend of mine ( i do have queer friends) told me once, in a response to him going back to being straight, he "loves cock SO much" that he's "in love with cock". WHo the fuck says that? This is a guy who at one time was straight, did some E at a rave, got hit on by a homo, tried it out (while on E) and is now flaming homo. This is actually quite common, many queers try out queer sex on drugs, it's very common, and most will fuck anything that walks. They are very slutty, and I think the divorce rate for homosexual couples is something like 80%, or higher. Yet they fight to be married ::)
-
{LOL} Hi I-One, ...I see you received your talking points from
above the bottomless pit again. ;D
-
You clearly enjoy taking the words of another OUT OF CONTEXT, and changing them to suit your needs. I shall elaborate on what I said. THERE IS A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THIS COUNTRY, STAUNCHLY BACKED AND SUPPORTED BY THE TERRORIST GROUP KNOWN AS THE ACLU. There are plenty of facts supporting this, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK I POSTED AND TRY TO DEFEND AGAINST MY STATEMENT. Whether or not two men/women have some kind of "sex" with each other is none of my business, but when every time I turn on the tv I see something homosexual, being portrayed in a good way, I cringe. Homosexuals have a tendency to be VERY open about their ways, I don't see many people acting overly straight, yet queers make it a point to let EVERYONE AROUND THEM know they are gay. You say homosexuality is not a choice, but I refute that maam, since when are animals(we are animals, believe it or not) born NOT to reproduce? Show me one example of that in the wild, animals born gay, please just one. It IS a choice, it has to do with experimentation. I shall give you as best a breakdown as I can.
In the human brain, the chemical neurotransmitter dopamine is principally responsible for telling us what is vital for life. After a meal, after obtaining shelter, and after sex our brains kick out higher than normal levels of dopamine to tell us this is "good" and vital for life. You have sex with the opposite sex, and your brain will kick out dopamine, and everything associated with that gender will be amplified. For example, man has sex with woman, man is more turned on in the future by females, their sweat, pheromones, hair, sound of voice etc. If you don't believe me do so research, the same thing happens with drug addicts. A reformed cocaine addict, for example, will get intense cravings upon sight of the powder, or being taken to a place he/she indulged in the drug, this is fact. That persons brain associates the powder and the places the drug was done with a subsequent release in dopamine. Well the same happens in gay sex. If a man is sexually stimulated by another man, at first it will be awkward and uncomfortable, but when the dopamine kicks out, both men will in the future be "turned on" by other men, their smell, appearance, "manly voice" etc. This is fact. Had either men not ever been sexually stimulated by a man, they would inheritlanly be turned on by women, as this is vital for reproduction. You will find also that in women, most lesbians are that way for strange reasons, either they were molested as kids, or they are fooking ugly and no man would want them, and so they then "hate" men, and stick with each other. Or they are insanely attractive, and enjoy men coming onto them all the time, and being turned down. They get a kick out of it. Basically, homosexuality is NOT normal, on any level, and my link to the little black book proves there is an agenda in this country to expose children to it. All these gay and lesbian groups typically are fronts for homosexual perverts to further their cause because, as im sure we all know, homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE. GOD made us that way for a reason. As for homo's adopting kids-HELLFUCKING NO. Almost anyone with half a brain can see that children need to be raised with both a mother and father, that is natural, a dyke with a dildo and shaved head does NOT pass for a man. Even elton john is against homosexual couples adopting kids. I see the predicament though, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so lets push for homo couples adopting, and socially, let's call them "gay", which can also mean happy, so they seem less intimidating, and let's have lot's of them on TV all the time, so they seem more "normal", when they are the furthest thing from it. Please. In twenty years queers will be back in the closet where they belong, this is just a phase in society.
The drug problem, I have to agree with you a bit, however it's the left in the country who totally support and usually engage in that behavior, this is fact. Who do we see in the media on drugs the most? Musicians and actors, easily. And to what side do they lean? Hollywood and the music industry are almost ALWAYS liberal, and when kids grow up and see their idols on televesion doing drugs and getting arrested constantly, it's only natural they will be curious to try it. Going back to when I was growing up, a lot of kids at my schools got into drugs because their parents were hippies, and did drugs around them. VERY responsible. Then there were kids who did it cuz it's "cool", I mean everyone in hollwood is a drug addict! We CANNOT let kids grow up thinking drug usage is ok or cool! And the goverments approach of stupid scare tactics isn't helping either. I believe the war on drugs must be won, but it won't be as long as there is so much money to be made by them being illegal. As a SHORT term solution, yes legalizing and taxing them would be best, as would be free help from the gov to get off them. I'm getting off my soapbox now LOL.
I love when Im called Ma'am. If it's good enough for the Queen of England, it's good enough for me.
I forget which program I was watching, probably 60minutes where sets of identical twins. one was Hetro, the other gay.
These were children, I think the youngest pair was 6 years old. One boy loved his trucks, his brother loved his barbie dolls.
I don't believe there is a homosexual agenda by the media. Growing up watching television, it was rare to find a show that had a black family on it.
It was all about Leave it to beaver, Father knows best type shows. It was whitewashing. If it's on television, that doesn't make it so since my upbringing didn't have me living next door to the types of families portrayed on television. If you don't like what you see, turn it off or use the Vchip or channel blockers.
Media has expanded to the point of having shows that portray what the real world is like. Good, bad or indifferent.
Raising children in a two parent household may be natural, but it is declining.
The hetro divorce rate is at, if not over 50%. If children do live in a two parent household, they usually both work to make ends meet. Where are the children of said parents?
I feel that loving person, couple who is willing to take care of a child that has been abandoned, drug addicted, mental issues and give them a home and a chance to be a part of a family is a good thing for society. People in this country don't want "troubled" children. The adoption process is long and expensive.
Would you rather have a child being shuffled from place to place until 18, being a burden on society. Or would you rather have a child in a family enviorment?
I do believe that God did create all of us animals for a purpose. In creating homosexuals, are you saying God made a mistake?
Drug users aren't just in Hollywood(Bush, Limbaugh, etc) You never know what people are really like until they are exposed.
I don't believe any of these problems we have are because of libs, repubs, dems, etc.
It is all about money and power. Once you have that, you shit over the people who voted for you.
All political parties in this country are the same.
Sandra
-
I live in N california too man, I know plenty of homos (stop calling them gay please) and they ALL flaunt it like it's the greatest thing ever. One friend of mine ( i do have queer friends) told me once, in a response to him going back to being straight, he "loves cock SO much" that he's "in love with cock". WHo the f**k says that? This is a guy who at one time was straight, did some E at a rave, got hit on by a homo, tried it out (while on E) and is now flaming homo. This is actually quite common, many queers try out queer sex on drugs, it's very common, and most will f**k anything that walks. They are very slutty, and I think the divorce rate for homosexual couples is something like 80%, or higher. Yet they fight to be married ::)
Do you live on Castro Street? ;D, Maybe it's 2 points of perception.
You've never heard a guy talking about how much he loves tits and pussy before? Some of these gay dudes just might be doing that in your presence to get your goat.
Have you ever heard of latent homosexuality? I'm sure you have. What's going on with those people who do drugs and try gay sex happen all the time in the same way latant homosexuality.
They were gay to begin with. How could someone chose to do something that is so repulsive to you and i? If they didn;t have a propensity for it to begin with they could never do it.
-
Homosexuality is not a choice. Bisexuality is a whole other thing.
Sandra
Why is one a choice and the other not?
And the homosexual rights movement includes bisexuality under their umbrella.
-
Why is one a choice and the other not?
And the homosexual rights movement includes bisexuality under their umbrella.
I don't have anything against bisexuality either.
You have tons of girls especially experimenting with girl on girl kissing, gyrating in dance clubs, etc.(Think "girls gone wild" series)
They go on to marry and have families. You don't hear stories about 20 yrs into a marriage they were really gay, tried to make it as a hetro and failed.
Sandra
-
Do you live on Castro Street? ;D, Maybe it's 2 points of perception.
I've been through the Castro district once and also been in S.F. when they had the gay pride parade. Wild stuff man. :o A lot of those people don't really help the homosexual rights movement.
-
I don't have anything against bisexuality either.
You have tons of girls especially experimenting with girl on girl kissing, gyrating in dance clubs, etc.(Think "girls gone wild" series)
They go on to marry and have families. You don't hear stories about 20 yrs into a marriage they were really gay, tried to make it as a hetro and failed.
Sandra
I'm not really talking about whether you accept the lifestyle, I was more focused on how you distinguish homosexuals from bisexuals.
Sounds like you're saying a homosexual doesn't chose to sleep with a person of the same sex, but a "bisexual" person does? I think they both make choices. I also think "bisexual" is an oxymoron. A guy who has sex with another guy is gay IMO, regardless of whether he sleeps with women too.
I don't think God created homosexuals, bisexuals, or transvestites (also included under the homosexual rights umbrella). He created people with the power to choose. Some choose to stray, others don't. Some cross over and come back. It's all about choices and there is no science to prove otherwise.
-
YOU STILL DONT UNDERSTAND= THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::) :-\
-
I'm not really talking about whether you accept the lifestyle, I was more focused on how you distinguish homosexuals from bisexuals.
Sounds like you're saying a homosexual doesn't chose to sleep with a person of the same sex, but a "bisexual" person does? I think they both make choices. I also think "bisexual" is an oxymoron. A guy who has sex with another guy is gay IMO, regardless of whether he sleeps with women too.
I don't think God created homosexuals, bisexuals, or transvestites (also included under the homosexual rights umbrella). He created people with the power to choose. Some choose to stray, others don't. Some cross over and come back. It's all about choices and there is no science to prove otherwise.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of choice about one's sexuality.
Sandra
-
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of choice about one's sexuality.
Sandra
O.K. :)