SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:34:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)  (Read 7439 times)
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2012, 09:19:14 AM »


Given that perceived 'biological differences' between the sexes and the resulting capacity or capability of each sex being able to do or not do specific tasks is the root cause of sex discrimination, why should an exemption be made for it? Surely 'biological difference' can be used to justify hiring a woman over a man in a child nurturing role or a man over a women in a labour role?
Yes!!! What is the problem with this? If a man is more physically able to hold a job in construction, why shouldn't I be able to hire him for that reason?
Because it's a stereotype and it's hurtfully discriminatory. I get the feeling you wouldn't be suggesting that its ok to discriminate against blacks because they might be "better suited as janitors or basketball players".
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2012, 09:20:53 AM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is SJoyceFla's proposal but with an added clause... this clause is meant to protect Moose International and Women's Clubs, organizations along those lines and not for example Augusta National. If you believe there is better wording avaiable- please suggest

I am adding the bolded clause based upon the following 1998 New Mexico Supreme Court case... http://nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL12.98/Doug.html



I am a little confused here. Do you want to tag onto the ERA Amendment an amendment effectively outlawing elective abortion?

The New Mexico Constitution in this example states; 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.'

The ruling in [/i]New Mexico Right to Choose NARAL v Johnson[/i] concerned funding for 'medically necessary' abortions, not elective abortion.

(Citation: 'New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment requires a searching judicial inquiry to determine whether the Department's rule prohibiting state funding for certain medically necessary abortions denies Medicaid-eligible women equality of rights under law. We conclude from this inquiry that the Department's rule violates New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment because it results in a program that does not apply the same standard of medical necessity to both men and women, and there is no compelling justification for treating men and women differently with respect to their medical needs in this instance.')

It was concerning a ruling that defined an abortion as “medically necessary” when a pregnancy “aggravates a pre-existing condition, makes treatment of a condition impossible, interferes with or hampers a diagnosis, or has a profound negative impact upon the physical or mental health of an individual.”

The ERA does not allow for abortion 'on demand'; it would however ensure that a woman could not be denied a termination without due consideration given to her medical need. A position, I am sure, that most Senators will find entirely reasonable.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: August 22, 2012, 09:24:07 AM »

I am also not in favor of including anything related to abortion in this amendment.  This amendment was not meant to address the abortion issue; that is a discussion for another day.
 Peace!

It's a dirty but textbook tactic, bringing abortion up where it obviously isn't relevant. Here it's used as part of an "everything but the kitchen sink" strategy of opposition. It's problematic first for implying that abortion isn't already guaranteed by the Constitution under our right to privacy and perhaps more importantly, part of a larger sexist history where men oppose women's rights by hiding behind abortion. Do any of our Senators look at this
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
and see anything relevant to elective abortion? If so, please keep it to yourself because it would make you look quite foolish. No judge is going to rule in favor of elective abortion because women are given equal rights as men. Roll Eyes
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: August 22, 2012, 09:36:10 AM »

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.


Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

It only guarantees that the facilities be provided equally for each sex. No one with a law degree would agree with this conclusion. It's illegitimate.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: August 22, 2012, 09:39:32 AM »

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.


Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

Now some use the analogy of segregation in that there used to be seperate facilities for people of colour and of course now there are not. The difference is however that white men and black men do not have have different bodily functions requiring seperate bathrooms. The division there was a constructed one as political definitions of 'racial difference' was being used as a reason to seperate individuals

May I also remind Senators of the legal strength of privacy laws which would covers the continued seperation of public toilet and changing facilities.

Thanks. I wanted to know why that analogy could not be used in court to create uni-sex bathrooms and I think you made a strong argument. Men and women are different with different bodily functions which would justify the use of different bathrooms. Does this not suffice Clarence? Also I am concerned about the language in your amendment being too vague. What you are trying to get out of your amendment, I think is already how this constitutional amendment is going to be interpreted.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: August 22, 2012, 09:48:37 AM »

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.


Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

It only guarantees that the facilities be provided equally for each sex. No one with a law degree would agree with this conclusion. It's illegitimate.

The real question was how to separate this from the "separate but equal" argument made to justify segregation. I think Afleitch explained it pretty well that since men and women do have different bodily functions, separate bathrooms can be justified. It is different from race since people of different skin tones of the same gender are not really that different, compared to the differences between genders. We have been dancing around this the whole debate, but Afleitch explained it very well. I am satisfied that this amendment will not lead to uni-sex bathrooms, and thus any amendment from Clarence would be unnecessary. Not to mention the vagueness could open up a whole new can of worms.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: August 22, 2012, 09:51:42 AM »


Given that perceived 'biological differences' between the sexes and the resulting capacity or capability of each sex being able to do or not do specific tasks is the root cause of sex discrimination, why should an exemption be made for it? Surely 'biological difference' can be used to justify hiring a woman over a man in a child nurturing role or a man over a women in a labour role?
Yes!!! What is the problem with this? If a man is more physically able to hold a job in construction, why shouldn't I be able to hire him for that reason?

All the ERA would require of you is to give everyone equal consideration. It is probable most of the people most capable of doing the job will be men, but that's not necessarily true. I was watching this documentary about the new Bay Bridge and there was a woman working on the construction team. And she seemed to be doing a good job.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: August 22, 2012, 12:55:30 PM »

OK... I am going to do my best to respond to all of these points in one post. If I miss some one's comments, please let me know...

Vagueness of my Amendment

I find it very amusing that this is the criticism of my amendment... this is my point about the ERA as a whole! If your concern is that a judge could conceivably interpret my amendment in a way that you would not want- please understand that a judge could do the same for the ERA which leads to my next point....

Abortion

Considering the fact that I provided a link to a state Supreme Court case in which ELECTIVE- not medically necessary- abortions were mandated to be covered due to the ERA, it is hardly irrelevant. It is clear that the ERA opens up a can of worms which none of us can predict and while Scott may not have proposed the ERA to spefically address abortion- it is clear that the issue has been connected in the past and could easily be in the future. Afleitch- my amendment also does not ban elective abortion... it simply makes it clear it is not a right provided by the ERA

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Napoleon- this is absurd on two levels. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest I'd be fine with that, but it is also absurd to say that it is hurtfully discriminatory if I hired some one because they were more physically able. Is it discriminatory that I preferred to hire a woman whenever I hired a nanny or babysitter for my children? Perhaps you think it might be... but there are certain qualities that men and women have in more abundance. I am not offended that I could've never been a basketball star because I am 5'9...why would you take offense to a woman losing out on a construction job because other applicants were physically stronger or a man losing out on a job as a nanny because the parents felt more comfortable with a woman watching their children?

Restrooms

Sbane- while I agree that Afleitch's testimony on this issue is comforting, both Napoleon and especially Scott have made comments in this debate supporting the ride of a man who identifies as a female to use the women's restroom. This is very concerning to me. My amendment is an attempt to avoid this issue without specifically putting restrooms in the constitution
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: August 22, 2012, 04:38:05 PM »

It doesn't matter what Napolean or Scott argue, it is how the amendment will be interpreted by the court that matters. Your concerns are being looked after in the amendment written as is.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: August 22, 2012, 07:45:06 PM »

OK... I am going to do my best to respond to all of these points in one post. If I miss some one's comments, please let me know...

Vagueness of my Amendment

I find it very amusing that this is the criticism of my amendment... this is my point about the ERA as a whole! If your concern is that a judge could conceivably interpret my amendment in a way that you would not want- please understand that a judge could do the same for the ERA which leads to my next point....

Actually the text as written is typical of constitutional law and validated by the opinions of many legal experts. What you propose is vague, unclear, and unsuitable.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Your amendment implies that abortion isn't already a constitutional right.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Napoleon- this is absurd on two levels. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest I'd be fine with that, but it is also absurd to say that it is hurtfully discriminatory if I hired some one because they were more physically able. Is it discriminatory that I preferred to hire a woman whenever I hired a nanny or babysitter for my children? Perhaps you think it might be... but there are certain qualities that men and women have in more abundance. I am not offended that I could've never been a basketball star because I am 5'9...why would you take offense to a woman losing out on a construction job because other applicants were physically stronger or a man losing out on a job as a nanny because the parents felt more comfortable with a woman watching their children?[/quote]

I don't know why you keep making this argument. It is a poor one. To suggest that no women could ever be as physically capable as a man is flat out wrong.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if that is so, could you explain to us how inequality of restroom convenience and quality is "biologically necessary"?
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: August 22, 2012, 07:56:50 PM »
« Edited: August 22, 2012, 08:19:14 PM by Senator Scott »

Napoleon brings up an interesting point about abortion.  Quite frankly, if Atlasia were to have a Roe v. Wade-esque case on its hands, I think the justices could easily rule that abortion be legal across the board on the basis that the Constitution protects privacy rights, even if abortion is not explicitly referenced in said document.

Clarence, I understand that your primary objection to the amendment is that it is what you see as 'vague,' but trying to clarify a vague amendment by proposing another vague amendment will not solve the problem.  If 'biologically necessary' is not defined by law, then the door can be opened to all sorts of different interpretations, and this could grant the go-ahead to judges for them to decide to what extent equal gender rights can be protected.  After considering this, I've become very reluctant to make any drastic changes to the amendment because I do not feel they are necessary as the ERA would not significantly alter current law.

And in my opinion, the notion that men are automatically more capable at something than women is extremely outdated; there are women that are stronger than men at certain things just as there are men that are stronger than women at other things, which is why I believe that the individual, not the gender, should be examined based on his or her personal traits.  If a construction company is choosing between a man and a woman for a job, and it chooses the man who happens to far less qualified than the woman, that is completely inexcusable and the woman should have the right to sue for that if she can prove gender bias being a factor.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: August 22, 2012, 08:06:12 PM »
« Edited: August 22, 2012, 08:08:50 PM by Senator TJ »

Napoleon brings up an interesting point about abortion.  Quite frankly, if Atlasia were to have a Roe v. Wade-esque case on its hand, I think the justices could easily legalize abortion across the board on the basis that the Constitution protects privacy rights, even if abortion is not explicitly referenced in said document.

Actually you will find this is different in our Constitution than it is in the US because Article III of the Third Atlasian Constitution says:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whereas in the US, judicial review is held as an implied power in Marbury v. Madison instead of explicitly defined and pertains to implicit rights such as privacy.

Granted, the justices could still rule that way (or any way really) if they wanted, but it would require a few logical gymnastics not necessary in the US.


However, I don't see how this amendment would apply to abortions at all, seeing as how men cannot have abortions there can't really be government-induced inequality on the topic...
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: August 22, 2012, 08:08:58 PM »

Yeah, I still think the Court could find a way around that.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: August 22, 2012, 08:12:27 PM »

Yeah, I still think the Court could find a way around that.

If they do on the basis of privacy rights, it would be grounds for impeachment seeing as that would be a blatant violation of the Court's powers given in Article III. At some point we have to assume the Court would follow the literal meaning of the Constitution when we write these sorts of amendments, or else there's really no point in having a Constitution at all; the Court would just make whatever laws they want Tongue
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: August 22, 2012, 08:17:33 PM »

Yeah, I still think the Court could find a way around that.

If they do on the basis of privacy rights, it would be grounds for impeachment seeing as that would be a blatant violation of the Court's powers given in Article III. At some point we have to assume the Court would follow the literal meaning of the Constitution when we write these sorts of amendments, or else there's really no point in having a Constitution at all; the Court would just make whatever laws they want Tongue

I know, but courts have a way of surprising people sometimes, so I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to find a legal way of justifying it. Tongue
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: August 22, 2012, 11:32:19 PM »


By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.


If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: August 23, 2012, 04:18:52 AM »


By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.


If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?

It was added because ironically it was the issue of sexual orientation that I considered would have been the controversal inclusion. From past experience people don their skis and set off down the slippery slope thinking that making any concession to same sex adult relationships on the basis that same sex sexual orientation is inherent in some people means we'll be mandating paedophilia and dog sex.

For me the interpretation of the law even without the addition of the word 'adult' would be clear. Bear in mind that by 'sexual orientation' this amendment is not exclusively about LGBT individuals. So using an example a man can have a heterosexual attraction (that is paedophillic or ephebophillic) to a young girl but it is naturally against the law for him to act on it as minors are incapable of consent. However there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sex with minors, children, dogs and lampposts for example are categorised as sexual/psychosexual disorders. I very much doubt that this classification will change. However I decided to include the term 'towards adults' in order to help define the terms in which the umbrella term of 'sexual orientation' would be protected. This is less direct that actually outlining precisely what sex acts are deemed okay (consenting adult to consenting adult) as I would never want that put in the constitution.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: August 23, 2012, 06:20:02 AM »

It doesn't matter what Napolean or Scott argue, it is how the amendment will be interpreted by the court that matters. Your concerns are being looked after in the amendment written as is.
This is my concern- which is why I put a link to the NM Supreme Court case which interpreted this the way I feared...
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2012, 08:43:39 PM »
« Edited: August 23, 2012, 09:29:51 PM by shua, gm »


By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.


If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?

It was added because ironically it was the issue of sexual orientation that I considered would have been the controversal inclusion. From past experience people don their skis and set off down the slippery slope thinking that making any concession to same sex adult relationships on the basis that same sex sexual orientation is inherent in some people means we'll be mandating paedophilia and dog sex.

For me the interpretation of the law even without the addition of the word 'adult' would be clear. Bear in mind that by 'sexual orientation' this amendment is not exclusively about LGBT individuals. So using an example a man can have a heterosexual attraction (that is paedophillic or ephebophillic) to a young girl but it is naturally against the law for him to act on it as minors are incapable of consent. However there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sex with minors, children, dogs and lampposts for example are categorised as sexual/psychosexual disorders. I very much doubt that this classification will change. However I decided to include the term 'towards adults' in order to help define the terms in which the umbrella term of 'sexual orientation' would be protected. This is less direct that actually outlining precisely what sex acts are deemed okay (consenting adult to consenting adult) as I would never want that put in the constitution.
Normally, there is a distinction between acts and attraction, and this is important both in legal and psychological contexts. But from what you have said I see this amendment is meant to cover both as different aspects included under "sexual orientation."
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2012, 06:20:29 PM »

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

Also, when do we vote on Clarence's amendment?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2012, 07:36:09 PM »

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

Hmm... that was boring Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: August 26, 2012, 01:58:06 AM »

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

Also, when do we vote on Clarence's amendment?

Whenever he actually introduces one. Just posting a text is not enough to be considered as an actual amendment. Why? Because their have been dozens of different texts of various things posted here in this thread. Unless it is labled "Amendment Proposed/Offered/Introduced/Filed" or he says "I offer this amendment" it is just another text that is meant to spur the debate along. I didn't see him do this when he posted the text being referred to as "Clarence's Amendment". The only appearence of the word amendment that I saw is the same that is present in the underlying text signifying that it is being offered to amend the constitution. So that doesn't count. Tongue
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: August 26, 2012, 12:11:04 PM »

Oh, my understanding was that Clarence had proposed an amendment because he said he was a few posts before he wrote the text.  Nevermind.

In any case, the administration has requested that I call for a final vote on this bill.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: August 26, 2012, 12:52:42 PM »

I'm going to propose the following amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: August 26, 2012, 01:03:04 PM »

For reasons previously stated, I consider that amendment unfriendly.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.