| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2007 09:46:04 AM |
| Object: |
'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=311ee048-8eba-4e69-aae0-d7d219e23bc4
'Mommy gene' will win in the end
Alberta and Quebec are in the midst of a mini baby boom, buoying the
country to a seven-year high in births in 2005.
A Canadian scientist has published a provocative study that predicts
decreasing fertility rates in developed countries will reverse their
decades-long trend and the "maternal instinct" will naturally return.
Statistics Canada reports that in 2005, Canada recorded its highest
number of births in seven years -- but still fell well below the
natural population "replacement" rate.
But Queen's University biologist Lonnie Aarssen told CanWest News
Service the way nature works, women should soon become more interested
in becoming mothers, despite the many social changes that have led
many of them to forgo motherhood or to reduce the number of children
they're having.
In short, he argues, Darwinism should eventually doom the DINKs -- the
"Double Income, No Kids" category of popular demographics.
"If there's a gene associated with attraction to parenthood -- this
"mommy gene," if it exists, or sets of genes that might affect a
woman's attraction to being a mother, or any 'maternal instinct' that
has a genetic basis -- then we can expect that people in future
generations are going to inherit those," said Aarssen. His paper,
'Some bold evolutionary predictions for the future of mating in
humans,' is published in the latest edition of the ecology journal
Oikos.
"The people leaving descendants are the ones who want to have
offspring," added Aarssen. "And the ones who would rather have
extensive vacations and save up for a career or become famous" or
otherwise choose to not have children, are not transmitting the genes
that may lie behind those choices.
"The bottom line from a biology viewpoint is: in order to have your
genes live on, you've got to have kids. If you don't, then they're
going to disappear," says Aarssen.
Last week, in a major release of statistics from the 2006 Census,
StatsCan noted record highs in the number of childless couples, and
single Canadians living alone.
Also for the first time, there were more unmarried adults living in
Canada than legally married adults.
But in his paper, Aarssen argues those who bemoan society's declining
interest in having children may be ignoring the inevitable impact of
evolutionary biology -- even within a few generations -- on attitudes
toward reproduction.
"The implications for the future survival of marriage and parenthood
as cultural institutions look dismal in the short term, but promising
in the long term," he writes in Oikos, a Swedish-based international
journal of ecology that ranks among the discipline's most influential
publications.
.
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 10:10:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
Shove your pious ***** up your *****.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=311ee048-8eba-4e69-aae0-d7d219e23bc4
'Mommy gene' will win in the end
Alberta and Quebec are in the midst of a mini baby boom, buoying the
country to a seven-year high in births in 2005.
A Canadian scientist has published a provocative study that predicts
decreasing fertility rates in developed countries will reverse their
decades-long trend and the "maternal instinct" will naturally return.
Statistics Canada reports that in 2005, Canada recorded its highest
number of births in seven years -- but still fell well below the
natural population "replacement" rate.
But Queen's University biologist Lonnie Aarssen told CanWest News
Service the way nature works, women should soon become more interested
in becoming mothers, despite the many social changes that have led
many of them to forgo motherhood or to reduce the number of children
they're having.
In short, he argues, Darwinism should eventually doom the DINKs -- the
"Double Income, No Kids" category of popular demographics.
"If there's a gene associated with attraction to parenthood -- this
"mommy gene," if it exists, or sets of genes that might affect a
woman's attraction to being a mother, or any 'maternal instinct' that
has a genetic basis -- then we can expect that people in future
generations are going to inherit those," said Aarssen. His paper,
'Some bold evolutionary predictions for the future of mating in
humans,' is published in the latest edition of the ecology journal
Oikos.
"The people leaving descendants are the ones who want to have
offspring," added Aarssen. "And the ones who would rather have
extensive vacations and save up for a career or become famous" or
otherwise choose to not have children, are not transmitting the genes
that may lie behind those choices.
"The bottom line from a biology viewpoint is: in order to have your
genes live on, you've got to have kids. If you don't, then they're
going to disappear," says Aarssen.
Last week, in a major release of statistics from the 2006 Census,
StatsCan noted record highs in the number of childless couples, and
single Canadians living alone.
Also for the first time, there were more unmarried adults living in
Canada than legally married adults.
But in his paper, Aarssen argues those who bemoan society's declining
interest in having children may be ignoring the inevitable impact of
evolutionary biology -- even within a few generations -- on attitudes
toward reproduction.
"The implications for the future survival of marriage and parenthood
as cultural institutions look dismal in the short term, but promising
in the long term," he writes in Oikos, a Swedish-based international
journal of ecology that ranks among the discipline's most influential
publications.
"Creationists make it sound like a "theory" is something
you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 10:20:10 AM |
|
|
"jemcd" <1> wrote in message
news:0svcf3ta008tfdv8mnubdboonkghq0ungj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
Well said.
Shove your pious ***** up your *****.
Careful. This loon will think you're talking dirty to him.
"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking experience."
From: (J Young),
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Subject: best done with help
Date: 5 Oct 2003 18:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310051700.31b4eb95@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anarchore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 11:04:04 AM |
|
|
It happens that LC formulated :
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
It's the third world way, that our 'leaders' are busy importing here.
We need to stop immigration to Northern countries completely.
There will be race wars beyond your nightmares, totally engineered by
the usual suspects, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 04:01:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:04:04 -0600, Anarchore <e@t.me> wrote:
It happens that LC formulated :
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
It's the third world way, that our 'leaders' are busy importing here.
We need to stop immigration to Northern countries completely.
There will be race wars beyond your nightmares, totally engineered by
the usual suspects, of course.
Immigration, legal or illegal is not the problem.
North America needs immigrants.
We can do some good in the third world without becoming isolated and
xenophobic.
We need to work better in the 3rd world, that's simply where a lot of
the big numbers are, and they already have overpopulation problems.
So who are the usual suspects in events that haven't happened yet?
And how do you know what my nightmares are?
"If forgiveness is divine, why is there a hell?"
Anon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anarchore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 03:53:02 PM |
|
|
jemcd submitted this idea :
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:04:04 -0600, Anarchore <e@t.me> wrote:
It happens that LC formulated :
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
It's the third world way, that our 'leaders' are busy importing here.
We need to stop immigration to Northern countries completely.
There will be race wars beyond your nightmares, totally engineered by
the usual suspects, of course.
Immigration, legal or illegal is not the problem.
North America needs immigrants.
We can do some good in the third world without becoming isolated and
xenophobic.
I agree but opening our country up to them by the hundreds of thousands
every year is not the solution for the problems of the 3rd world.
This is exacerbated by the fact that those who tend to come here are
the skilled professionals, who are badly needed in their home
countries.
We need to work better in the 3rd world, that's simply where a lot of
the big numbers are, and they already have overpopulation problems.
So shouldn't we should fix the problem now, because if you believe the
environmentalists, the consumption footprint of a person living in
North America, especially Canada is much larger, given the great
distances and extreme cold, which requires greater energy to meet each
additional person's needs. It makes sense to import 300,000 more
people a year into this hostile-and-energy-hungry-by-necessity
environment, HOW??
If we are serious about a better planet, people should be moving to the
tropics from the temperate and arctic regions, not the other way
around.
Canada doesn't 'need' immigrants, there are enough people out of work
within Canada.
The problem is an increasing housing bubble(again fueled by too much
immigration), which is driving up rents in the places there is work so
people can't afford to move there. Who wants to live on the streets of
Calgary, and try to hold down a job?
Canada needs to eliminate immigration for a few years, in order to cope
with the problems it has brought us, like third world crime, literally
hundreds of gangs, an untenable speculative housing market, and a
multilateral politics of appeasement and political correctness that
prevents an honest discussion of real problems facing Canada.
So who are the usual suspects in events that haven't happened yet?
They're the ones promoting 'multiculturalism' and crying to ban free
speech.
And how do you know what my nightmares are?
"If forgiveness is divine, why is there a hell?"
Anon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 06:08:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:53:02 -0600, Anarchore <e@t.me> wrote:
jemcd submitted this idea :
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:04:04 -0600, Anarchore <e@t.me> wrote:
It happens that LC formulated :
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
It's the third world way, that our 'leaders' are busy importing here.
We need to stop immigration to Northern countries completely.
There will be race wars beyond your nightmares, totally engineered by
the usual suspects, of course.
Immigration, legal or illegal is not the problem.
North America needs immigrants.
We can do some good in the third world without becoming isolated and
xenophobic.
I agree but opening our country up to them by the hundreds of thousands
every year is not the solution for the problems of the 3rd world.
It's not possible to solve the 3rd world's problems with immigration
to North America, of course. So what is Canada taking in now, about
200,000 net immigrants each year?
Toronto's labour market is already dependent on immigration, it needs
it, so stats can says.
This is exacerbated by the fact that those who tend to come here are
the skilled professionals, who are badly needed in their home
countries.
There's a reason they come though, most of the immigrants to Canada in
the 90's were Asian, I'd hazard a guess that high population and
economy is a big part of their reasons. They are higher educated than
the average Canuck eh? They usualy take jobs below their
qualifications. For some reason their qualifications and experience is
not recognized. That costs you 4 to 6 billion a year according to
stats can.
I wouldn't worry about the brain drain hurting Asia.
Iraq certainly has a problem with it.
We need to work better in the 3rd world, that's simply where a lot of
the big numbers are, and they already have overpopulation problems.
So shouldn't we should fix the problem now, because if you believe the
environmentalists, the consumption footprint of a person living in
North America, especially Canada is much larger, given the great
distances and extreme cold, which requires greater energy to meet each
additional person's needs. It makes sense to import 300,000 more
people a year into this hostile-and-energy-hungry-by-necessity
environment, HOW??
I would have to see credible statistics that Canadians consume more
energy than Americans, I know about Canadian winter, but the USA is a
gluttonous consumer of energy by comparison to pretty much everyone.
Teach them how to build igloos, it never gets below 28 degF....
The environmental footprint of western nations, especially North
America (I think the USA is worse) is excessive and unsustainable.
That's our problem to figure out, and it will take sacrifice.
he exploding populations elsewhere is also our problem, if not now
then soon, and it's our interest to figure that out too. Teaching
abstinence and other short sighted ***** and so on is our fault, and we
should put everything we can afford into it before it's a catastrophe
on our doorsteps. Leveling population growth and truly helping them
become self sustaining is important. Not easy at all, but very
important. The trade agreements we have now are no help.
Does Canada still send agriculture professors to the third world? That
was a good little program.
If we are serious about a better planet, people should be moving to the
tropics from the temperate and arctic regions, not the other way
around.
Canada doesn't 'need' immigrants, there are enough people out of work
within Canada.
According to your government statistics, Canada needs immigrants.
The problem is an increasing housing bubble(again fueled by too much
immigration), which is driving up rents in the places there is work so
people can't afford to move there. Who wants to live on the streets of
Calgary, and try to hold down a job?
Who wants to live in Calgary even in a house? HA!
Don't get pissed, I lived there too.
Almost half the immigrants settle in Toronto, I don't see why you're
so upset!
***** at your mayor, ***** at your rep. in your riding, be mad as hell
and don't take it any longer!
Did they ruin Canmore yet? I loved that place in the 70's / early
80's.
Canada needs to eliminate immigration for a few years, in order to cope
with the problems it has brought us, like third world crime, literally
hundreds of gangs, an untenable speculative housing market, and a
multilateral politics of appeasement and political correctness that
prevents an honest discussion of real problems facing Canada.
Harper is a ***** eh? Seriously, Canadian government thinks it needs
the immigrants, it's published as such.
Just don't let the politics go the American way, politics is really
fucked up in the USA.
Housing has been insane in Calgary since the 70's. Not used to it yet
huh.
Isn't sitting on all that gooey oil making the Albertans happy?
Does it bother Albertans that they are one of the worst environmental
offenders on the planet now? You can't reclaim the ruined sands
projects worth a *****, water is consumed like never before, fisheries
endangered, aquifers shrinking, I read you can see the mess from space
for *****'s sake. You are dumping a shitload of greenhouse gasses into
the atmosphere.
Is fueling the 900 lb gorrilla that important to Canadians now?
Slow down the tar sands to a pace you can handle, don't let greed ruin
northern Alberta.
Is Al Kline (Klein?) fuckin things up? Is he still premier? He was a
joker reporter in Cowtown when I was there. I couldn't really tell if
he was serious, so I called him on a radio show and asked him. His
answer was yes, he was serious despite the joking around, and there
was a clause that said if he won the mayoral election he was required
to take the job seriously. I still wasn't sure. Still not. I do
remember him bitching about professional politicians. That was 30
years ago, so does he call it a hobby now? I doubt it.
I would have thought Alberta could have really taken care of its
people great with all the oil money, where's it all going?
Multinational corporations? Al's personal South Pacific Island?
So who are the usual suspects in events that haven't happened yet?
They're the ones promoting 'multiculturalism' and crying to ban free
speech.
Multicultural pride was something Canada was always proud of, I know I
was, you guys get a lot of fox news up there now or what?
Multiculturism and curtailing free speech seem incongruous to me, why
is that happening?
I do remember the Canadian government seizing a book at customs that I
ordered from the states, it was about sex, fairly mild I thought, and
I was pissed that those fuckers thought they were supposed to protect
me from what they thought was immoral material. What the ***** ever
happened to the government a decade or two earlier that went by the
slogan "what goes on in the bedrooms of Canada is not the government's
business." I take it they got worse.
Morality police is not what anybody needs, like you are pointing out,
there are *real* problems to deal with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
29 Sep 2007 06:57:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:08:53 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
Is Al Kline (Klein?)
I remembered later it's Ralph, not Al.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 04:20:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 10:10 am, jemcd <1> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
In his case, he means it literally.
Shove your pious ***** up your *****.
The little pervert may ask for your assistance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 04:42:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:20:26 -0700, Gwyneğ Bennetdottir
<bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 10:10 am, jemcd <1> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
In his case, he means it literally.
Shove your pious ***** up your *****.
The little pervert may ask for your assistance.
ég veğmál şiğ leiğrétta Benetdóttir
(i bet you're right)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
24 Sep 2007 12:25:54 PM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 11:10 am, jemcd <1> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
It doesn't even mention abortion in the article, or even hint.
Life would go on longer if morons like you catliks didn't advocate
cranking out babies until we are falling off the damn planet starved
and poisoned by overpopulation.
Ever hear about the experiments with too many mice in a cage? What
happens when the little happy group gets too crowded? They are
ravaging each other like your biblical genocides.
A sensible human birth rate would actually keep the planet at the
population where it is now, or even decline, that would be better for
our long term health and survival. Simple. We are stressing the planet
now, look around you blinkered boy, turn your neck more to compensate
for the blinders.
You are whining about babies that aren't born, but once their born,
you say *****'em.
Shove your pious ***** up your *****.
The population is out of control, and more importantly than The
Ratopolis Experiment is the Lesson of Easter Island(population grew to
a point that when they realized it was too much, no tree was left
large enough to support the trip to the nearest inhabitable island,
whole population went cannibal)
Also of note is that the current population is more than five times
that it was when the oldest person currently living was born. That's
dangerous.
Hatter
The writer of "Children of Men" can kiss my *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
24 Sep 2007 11:49:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young wrote:
This will be a sad day for the Ray Fischer's of this world; babies being
born that won't be described as some horrible torture.
Yeah when we have artificial wombs...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Mommy gene' will win in the end |
23 Sep 2007 12:10:55 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:46:04 -0700, J Young wrote:
being born that won't be described as some horrible torture. Life will
go on, despite the best efforts are the pro-abortionists.
Hmm. I have never yet - in person or in this group - encountered a
pro-abortionist. I know a lot of people who are pro-choice, but none, so
far, who are pro-abortion.
I'm sure you'll show us who these people are, without any dishonest
***** like calling pro-choicers "pro-abortion", right?
[side note: fully expecting crickets chirping or some dishonest spewage on
that one; he does appear to be another anti-choice liar.]
--
“Mulder, toads just fell from the sky.†-- Scully
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
