RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again

RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 7:56:57 AM)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/01/rick-perry-abortion-doctrine Rick Perry's demeaning abortion doctrine The Texas governor's real anti-abortion agenda – enforcing sexual abstinence – not only insults women; it doesn't work Rick Perry's chances at passing himself off as a reasonable Republican were diminished considerably yet again this week, when the Centre for Reproductive Rights secured a victory against a draconian anti-abortion regulation Perry rushed through the legislature in May, claiming while doing so that it was an emergency measure. When US district judge Sam Sparks rejected the law and blocked enforcement, he created an occasion for the national media to look more closely at Perry's record on women's rights. What they'll find is that Perry goes far beyond the usual anti-abortion platitudes: he not only bears a zealous hatred of abortion rights, but also a hostility to contraception and sex education. While many states have mandatory ultrasound laws, the Texas bill rushed into law by Perry goes many steps further. The law requires a woman seeking an abortion to endure an anti-choice lecture delivered by a doctor who doesn't agree with the content, which gave judge Sparks the chance to reject the law on freedom of speech grounds. But what's truly alarming about the law is the searing contempt for women's dignity and intelligence baked right into it. Women would be required to go through an uncomfortable, invasive vaginal probe sonogram in order to get the picture and audible heartbeat required. They would then be sent home 24 hours to "think" about the decision, putting the Texas government in the position of a schoolteacher sending women to the corner. Probing "dirty girls" with vaginal wands and then punishing them as though they were naughty children? This seems like Perry and the Texas legislature have mixed up writing laws with scripting pornography. Unfortunately, for the women of Texas, these ritual humiliations dreamed up by Republican legislators aren't actually sexy fantasies but miserable realities - but for a federal judge remembering that women, too, have constitutional rights.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:15:07 AM)
Lucy, I'm not here to defend attempts to ban abortion or make the process any more dehumanizing than it already is. I haven't read the law there, but will say that the free speech defense could be overturned depending on what else the doctor has to tell the patient. That was specifically dealt with in the South Dakota case. It may be totally different so there's no way of telling unless it's appealed and goes up the line again. All I'm trying to say in this entire thing is that support for abortion exists for the plurality of people up to a point. I agree with that point. I don't agree with efforts to make it acceptable in all cases. I can accept privacy issues and the its my body defense up to a point. Beyond that, I can't. That point is not a static target. It's one that will be redefined by medical advances over time. In ruling that abortion rights are protected up to the point of viability, the supreme court has created a built in life-span of RvW anyway. As viability is pushed back, the protections will erode by default. I also understand how those who want all abortion ended have a problem with PP. My personal stance on PP is that when it comes to cuts, that's probably the wrong place to make them. I said that much to them when I signed their petition to block funding cuts. I also told them when they wrote me back asking for me to "stand" with them, that I'd pretty much already made that stand, but would not go further.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:25:30 AM)
quote: It didn't deserve a response. Next time, I'll draw pictures. Maybe that will help in being able to tie the concept of less dollars to fewer services. Good to know the deaths of women doesnt deserve a response from you. [;)]

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:42:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It didn't deserve a response. Next time, I'll draw pictures. Maybe that will help in being able to tie the concept of less dollars to fewer services. Good to know the deaths of women doesnt deserve a response from you. [;)] As disappointing as it is to know that you can't equate lack of money to those same deaths? I'd already addressed the deaths in ways you couldn't understand. I saw no reason to follow you to the porn industry.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:50:36 AM)
No, truly, I can see how you would not associate the two at all. [8\|]

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No, truly, I can see how you would not associate the two at all. [8\|] impossible for him to do, he has shown that more than once. Im just extremely happy that so many bills that were rushed thru are being turned down in the courts, but have to point out that the financial cost of getting so far only to get pissed off, is another point against the bastards.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 10:00:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan So what I have are your words, and those issued by the Supreme Court in this instance, which was related to the language not being used to invalidate rvw. It is very, very simple. They looked at it, saw the wording was not used to invalidate RvW, and said there was no constitutional issue. That wording led to another challenge in South Dakota on different grounds. So all in all, I have the Supreme Court reviewing the wording and saying, it's ok cause it's not invalidating our previous stance. And I have DomKen saying, the language has never been under review, never been upheld, and doesn't matter when the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to note it in their ruling. Now every legal discussion on this topic anywhere, including liberal sources will tell you that the Supreme Court upheld the language. So who am I to believe? The SC itself, every other source available, or dk, who refuses to recognize the fact that the SC chose to note no clash on constitution grounds? Maybe you should just quit arguing when you're wrong. Or maybe, hell, you should take them to court yourself. I mean it's not hard to find where the language affects abortion providers, is it? No, you have the facts saying you are wrong. The Webster ruling said they didn't consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. Appelate courts including SCOTUS only rule on the issues the involved parties request rulings on. Go back and read the Webster ruling, not whatever anti abortion site you got all this stuff from. You'll find that since the rules in question were about the state paying for abortion and the actual law superseded the fluff in the laws preamble they did not consider the preamble. Try and understand that all kinds of nonsense is stuck into preambles of bills. None of it matters in the least little bit.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 10:38:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan So what I have are your words, and those issued by the Supreme Court in this instance, which was related to the language not being used to invalidate rvw. It is very, very simple. They looked at it, saw the wording was not used to invalidate RvW, and said there was no constitutional issue. That wording led to another challenge in South Dakota on different grounds. So all in all, I have the Supreme Court reviewing the wording and saying, it's ok cause it's not invalidating our previous stance. And I have DomKen saying, the language has never been under review, never been upheld, and doesn't matter when the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to note it in their ruling. Now every legal discussion on this topic anywhere, including liberal sources will tell you that the Supreme Court upheld the language. So who am I to believe? The SC itself, every other source available, or dk, who refuses to recognize the fact that the SC chose to note no clash on constitution grounds? Maybe you should just quit arguing when you're wrong. Or maybe, hell, you should take them to court yourself. I mean it's not hard to find where the language affects abortion providers, is it? No, you have the facts saying you are wrong. The Webster ruling said they didn't consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. Appelate courts including SCOTUS only rule on the issues the involved parties request rulings on. Go back and read the Webster ruling, not whatever anti abortion site you got all this stuff from. You'll find that since the rules in question were about the state paying for abortion and the actual law superseded the fluff in the laws preamble they did not consider the preamble. Try and understand that all kinds of nonsense is stuck into preambles of bills. None of it matters in the least little bit. I understand preambles dk. I also understand the ruling, which states The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that: The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. That means they looked at it, found no issue with it in terms of exactly what it says above. The law to which this was part of the preamble was what the SC reviewed, and they note specifically that court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion site in question is Wikipedia, although I did read a discussion of the same case off the ACLU's site yesterday, which as well, noted the preamble. I mean you can argue until you're blue in the face, but the text of the case from start to end references the preamble. What you cannot state truthfully is that these words have not been under judicial review.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 11:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan So what I have are your words, and those issued by the Supreme Court in this instance, which was related to the language not being used to invalidate rvw. It is very, very simple. They looked at it, saw the wording was not used to invalidate RvW, and said there was no constitutional issue. That wording led to another challenge in South Dakota on different grounds. So all in all, I have the Supreme Court reviewing the wording and saying, it's ok cause it's not invalidating our previous stance. And I have DomKen saying, the language has never been under review, never been upheld, and doesn't matter when the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to note it in their ruling. Now every legal discussion on this topic anywhere, including liberal sources will tell you that the Supreme Court upheld the language. So who am I to believe? The SC itself, every other source available, or dk, who refuses to recognize the fact that the SC chose to note no clash on constitution grounds? Maybe you should just quit arguing when you're wrong. Or maybe, hell, you should take them to court yourself. I mean it's not hard to find where the language affects abortion providers, is it? No, you have the facts saying you are wrong. The Webster ruling said they didn't consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. Appelate courts including SCOTUS only rule on the issues the involved parties request rulings on. Go back and read the Webster ruling, not whatever anti abortion site you got all this stuff from. You'll find that since the rules in question were about the state paying for abortion and the actual law superseded the fluff in the laws preamble they did not consider the preamble. Try and understand that all kinds of nonsense is stuck into preambles of bills. None of it matters in the least little bit. I understand preambles dk. I also understand the ruling, which states The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that: The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. That means they looked at it, found no issue with it in terms of exactly what it says above. The law to which this was part of the preamble was what the SC reviewed, and they note specifically that court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion site in question is Wikipedia, although I did read a discussion of the same case off the ACLU's site yesterday, which as well, noted the preamble. I mean you can argue until you're blue in the face, but the text of the case from start to end references the preamble. What you cannot state truthfully is that these words have not been under judicial review. Not only are preambles to laws reviewed but legislative history that didnt even make it into the actual laws.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 11:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble This statement says the court did not consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. How much cleaer does it have to be?

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 12:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble This statement says the court did not consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. How much cleaer does it have to be? How much clearer does what have to be? That they reviewed the law, the preamble, decided they didn't need to rule on its constitutionality? That part is crystal clear. What they didn't say was it had no bearing. They said quite clearly that the preamble was not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under RvW, and thus did not need a ruling on its constitutionality. Now if you're saying they put on blinders when they saw it, prayed to Themis to keep fluff out of their court, and wrote nothing about it in their decision, that part needs to be clearer. All of which is tied to one line, and one line only, that being A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. Apparently semantics is all you're able to argue. Fortunately, most people in the world understand that if they let it stand, its usage in that instance is not unconstitutional. Which equates to that language being upheld in the form it was used. Wanna argue it? Take it to court on the exact same premise. You will get absolutely no where as the SC has already reviewed its usage in that context and ruled. Now find a law that uses it to ban abortion, or uses it in some other form, and maybe you will get somewhere. In this case, and in light of the laws that are subject of the debate, you will not. So stand over in the corner all day long and say the language has not been reviewed and it's constitutionality unclear in this instance. But you're wrong, and any court in the nation will prove it to you if you put it in front of them under the circumstances I used above. Try it dk. I'm tired of arguing this point with you. Prove me wrong ace. Go for it. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if you do.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 12:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Apparently semantics is all you're able to argue. Why should this thread be any different than any other thread of his?

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 12:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Apparently semantics is all you're able to argue. Why should this thread be any different than any other thread of his? Lol, indeed, why should it?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 2:16:09 PM)
When they've made it impossible for you to have a doctor take care of it, what do you suggest people do? quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Just in case anyone needs an abortion, here are the instructions for a D&C. Remember, take the antibiotics, as the infection is the usual cause of post-procedure issues. [snip] This is scary information at best. Practising medicine without a license, to be sure and not offering the best of information on top of it all. I like how they state the importantance of antibiotics, but they don't offer up the names of any in particular. There are more than just one type. And the pressure cooker to "sterilize" the instruments? OMG!! Even if something like that were to work, 30 minutes would be the minimum amount of time. Wow. This is just bad.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 3:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble This statement says the court did not consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. How much cleaer does it have to be? How much clearer does what have to be? That they reviewed the law, the preamble, decided they didn't need to rule on its constitutionality? That part is crystal clear. What they didn't say was it had no bearing. They said quite clearly that the preamble was not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under RvW, and thus did not need a ruling on its constitutionality. Now if you're saying they put on blinders when they saw it, prayed to Themis to keep fluff out of their court, and wrote nothing about it in their decision, that part needs to be clearer. All of which is tied to one line, and one line only, that being A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. Apparently semantics is all you're able to argue. Fortunately, most people in the world understand that if they let it stand, its usage in that instance is not unconstitutional. Which equates to that language being upheld in the form it was used. Wanna argue it? Take it to court on the exact same premise. You will get absolutely no where as the SC has already reviewed its usage in that context and ruled. Now find a law that uses it to ban abortion, or uses it in some other form, and maybe you will get somewhere. In this case, and in light of the laws that are subject of the debate, you will not. So stand over in the corner all day long and say the language has not been reviewed and it's constitutionality unclear in this instance. But you're wrong, and any court in the nation will prove it to you if you put it in front of them under the circumstances I used above. Try it dk. I'm tired of arguing this point with you. Prove me wrong ace. Go for it. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if you do. They said quite clearly they did not rule on the constitutionality of the preamble, not that they found it so! If you don't uinderstand the very significant difference then go slap your English teachers. I already proved you wrong! I pointed you to the Missori statutes. No where in there does it define human life as stated in that preamble, because as I said preambles are fluff not part of the enfrceable part of a law. If Missouri had changed that definition then abortion would be outawed as it would be murder. This would have certainly been litigated and it hasn't ipso facto the fluff is not the law in Missouri and was not upheld in Webster. Otherwise you are arguing it would be constitutional to define a class of people it is legal to kill. Are you really saying that is legal in Missouri?

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 4:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble This statement says the court did not consider the preamble because it had no bearing on what they were asked to rule on. How much cleaer does it have to be? How much clearer does what have to be? That they reviewed the law, the preamble, decided they didn't need to rule on its constitutionality? That part is crystal clear. What they didn't say was it had no bearing. They said quite clearly that the preamble was not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under RvW, and thus did not need a ruling on its constitutionality. Now if you're saying they put on blinders when they saw it, prayed to Themis to keep fluff out of their court, and wrote nothing about it in their decision, that part needs to be clearer. All of which is tied to one line, and one line only, that being A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. Apparently semantics is all you're able to argue. Fortunately, most people in the world understand that if they let it stand, its usage in that instance is not unconstitutional. Which equates to that language being upheld in the form it was used. Wanna argue it? Take it to court on the exact same premise. You will get absolutely no where as the SC has already reviewed its usage in that context and ruled. Now find a law that uses it to ban abortion, or uses it in some other form, and maybe you will get somewhere. In this case, and in light of the laws that are subject of the debate, you will not. So stand over in the corner all day long and say the language has not been reviewed and it's constitutionality unclear in this instance. But you're wrong, and any court in the nation will prove it to you if you put it in front of them under the circumstances I used above. Try it dk. I'm tired of arguing this point with you. Prove me wrong ace. Go for it. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if you do. They said quite clearly they did not rule on the constitutionality of the preamble, not that they found it so! If you don't uinderstand the very significant difference then go slap your English teachers. I already proved you wrong! I pointed you to the Missori statutes. No where in there does it define human life as stated in that preamble, because as I said preambles are fluff not part of the enfrceable part of a law. If Missouri had changed that definition then abortion would be outawed as it would be murder. This would have certainly been litigated and it hasn't ipso facto the fluff is not the law in Missouri and was not upheld in Webster. Otherwise you are arguing it would be constitutional to define a class of people it is legal to kill. Are you really saying that is legal in Missouri? Bullshit. You have proved nothing. And if you don't think wording it that way wasn't a way of highlighting the fact we do indeed have a constitutional class of people it is legal to kill, you'd have to be mentally slower than dirt. Why don't you quit putting words in their mouths? They said, again, slowly for you, that The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to review the law in context of the preamble. Again, bullshit. Take it to court. I'll find you a test case. Try it under the same law. I'm willing to bet you don't get past the first judge that hears your case. Note, willing to bet... so you want to put your money where your mouth is? I am.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 6:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Bullshit. You have proved nothing. And if you don't think wording it that way wasn't a way of highlighting the fact we do indeed have a constitutional class of people it is legal to kill, you'd have to be mentally slower than dirt. Why don't you quit putting words in their mouths? They said, again, slowly for you, that The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to review the law in context of the preamble. Again, bullshit. Take it to court. I'll find you a test case. Try it under the same law. I'm willing to bet you don't get past the first judge that hears your case. Note, willing to bet... so you want to put your money where your mouth is? I am. Not to be insulting, although I should be the way you are behaving, but can you read for comprehension. You are acting like that sentence is verbatim from the ruling. What the court actually said quote: This Court need not pass on the constitutionality of the Missouri statute's preamble...The extent to which the preamble's language might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the state courts can definitively decide, and, until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning. IOW SCOTUS is not considering the preamble language unless someone tries to use it to make abortion murder which is what I already said several times.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/1/2011 8:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Bullshit. You have proved nothing. And if you don't think wording it that way wasn't a way of highlighting the fact we do indeed have a constitutional class of people it is legal to kill, you'd have to be mentally slower than dirt. Why don't you quit putting words in their mouths? They said, again, slowly for you, that The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to review the law in context of the preamble. Again, bullshit. Take it to court. I'll find you a test case. Try it under the same law. I'm willing to bet you don't get past the first judge that hears your case. Note, willing to bet... so you want to put your money where your mouth is? I am. Not to be insulting, although I should be the way you are behaving, but can you read for comprehension. You are acting like that sentence is verbatim from the ruling. What the court actually said quote: This Court need not pass on the constitutionality of the Missouri statute's preamble...The extent to which the preamble's language might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the state courts can definitively decide, and, until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning. IOW SCOTUS is not considering the preamble language unless someone tries to use it to make abortion murder which is what I already said several times. I'm assuming you read this. The link below is from Cornell. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0490_ZS.html If you can read that, and assert this language received no judicial review, leaving it intact as is, then I'm not going to slap my English teacher. I'm going to hunt down yours. For clarity the justices reviewing it are noted as REHNQUIST, C.J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II-C, the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined The context of the decision is noted in the second sentence, noting the error the Court of Appeals had made in invalidating the preamble. Nice how you skipped that part. Ellipsis are convenient, aren't they. They certainly can hide the exact consideration you insist never happened. The decision: THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C, concluding that: 1. This Court need not pass on the constitutionality of the Missouri statute's preamble. In invalidating the preamble, the Court of Appeals misconceived the meaning of the dictum in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 444, that "a State may not adopt one theory of when life begins to justify its regulation of abortions." [p491] That statement means only that a State could not "justify" any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade on the ground that it embodied the State's view about when life begins. The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162. This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment. The extent to which the preamble's language might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the state courts can definitively decide, and, until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning. Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 460. Pp. 504-507.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 2:53:22 AM)
SCOTUS said the preamble had no bearing on the case and the lower court had erred by considering it at all. If they had wanted to say the lower court erred and the language was constitutional then that is what they would have said. If that is still unclear I will invite you to go talk to a constitutional law professor at the nearest law school

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 3:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen SCOTUS said the preamble had no bearing on the case and the lower court had erred by considering it at all. If they had wanted to say the lower court erred and the language was constitutional then that is what they would have said. If that is still unclear I will invite you to go talk to a constitutional law professor at the nearest law school And you are full of shit, not to mention dishonest. If that's unclear, too fucking bad. This would be the point in court, where I would rest my case and watch them drag you out kicking and screaming.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02