Its a start.Well, i guess you're right. As long as he keeps men out of women's restrooms everything will be fine.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Its a start.Well, i guess you're right. As long as he keeps men out of women's restrooms everything will be fine.
Its not. As long as you aren't effecting children and forcing everyone else to affirm your delusion.Why is it bad to allow delusional people to live out their delusional lives, (the way that they see fit)?
Does it matter? Is there a line where you would say its too many?How much did it actually happen?
While we often say "children" we simply mean those who are "innocent" and deserve to keep said innocence.
We aren't upset that a two year old who is completely unaware of self might see a 1 year old get a diaper change.
We don't want our sons and daughters sexualized by government agencies into sexual degeneracy (from the age of 5 to the age of 18) and our daughters left unsafe in society because of it.
Sex is not meaningless and it can be absolutely destructive and life altering when applied in any kind of improper context.
We have a duty to protect our children.
"supposedly" ????Because she supposedly "cackles". Got it. Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to judge the policies of political candidates. Better to focus on that and what might have happened if she were elected than talk about the current disaster of an administration. For example, starting what the WSJ called "The Dumbest Trade War in History".
That wasn't my point.You would have voted for Hariss except that you didn’t like how she laughs?
No?
Then why mention “how she laughs” at all?
Yup! The protection of women and girls is indeed very important.Its a start.
Well, you voted for the person whom you voted for for your own reasons and I shan’t question any of that.That wasn't my point.
No.
I didn't vote for Harris because I didn't accept or like her policies.
Also, my point about "her laughs" is she is very hard to take seriously as a leader.
Thank you.Well, you voted for the person whom you voted for for your own reasons and I shan’t question any of that.
It would seem that you’re still happy with how you voted and we will see if that joy continues for the next two years.
Have an excellent day.
And sometimes judges agree with themSometimes...
She laughs -> is unelectable. Is a convicted felon -> vote for the guy. "Interesting" decision matrix, "interesting" enough that it makes posts like these hard to take seriously.Also, my point about "her laughs" is she is very hard to take seriously as a leader.
I thought personal attacks were against the forum rules now.She laughs -> is unelectable. Is a convicted felon -> vote for the guy. "Interesting" decision matrix, "interesting" enough that it makes posts like these hard to take seriously.
Could be, not sure what that has to do with assessing the content of a post to determine how seriously to take it.I thought personal attacks were against the forum rules now.
Beyond her laughing was her terrible policies.Could be, not sure what that has to do with assessing the content of a post to determine how seriously to take it.
Also, my point about "her laughs" is she is very hard to take seriously as a leader.
She laughs -> is unelectable. Is a convicted felon -> vote for the guy. "Interesting" decision matrix, "interesting" enough that it makes posts like these hard to take seriously.
I didn‘t catch that “personal attack”, can you point it out to me?I thought personal attacks were against the forum rules now.
I didn’t vote for Trump he’s a convicted felon. I voted for him based on his policies.I didn‘t catch that “personal attack”, can you point it out to me?