for discussion, which I can not help myself:
How serious a hysterical hyperventilierender be made human, the basic statement in any attack on itself like?
I find it somewhat boldly, combine renowned as rainbows or the gull to accuse lump sum, they would all be for nothing anyway useless anyway and bring nothing but the bad mother support insidious in their plans. as an interested club I would say a suit because of this superior.
in the excitement is in the discrediting of the good man but a true cardinal error happened: it went on with his verbal abuse rainbows namely not once to the children.
he made his indignation that rainbows had not given him the right to have his child - oooops! What makes rainbows again? support the child ? It is there merely to the children and not about his right? so then ... the club must indeed be useless, right? [And have the audience is inclined to know if his children have benefited from rainbows? no. ? And I wonder why not]
we take it - only for a minute - now, it would not be a man sitting at this point, but a woman. a woman who falls every / m in the round immediately to the word, because they put such discriminatory place. A woman that echauffiert because they do not want to take note that in the discussed case is not heard a majority but a minority. a woman who claims that all These are minimum sacred birth right which is denied. be directed male flat rate companies accused of sinister, whose sole purpose is to prohibit their exercise of nature from existing rights - a woman who all - are now the decision prosecutors courts, associations, such as rainbows, etc.. because: right can surely be only that which concerns their imagination of power.
what was about this woman be said? na? hmmmm?
I [personally understand why his ex-wife ... but ok. is not subject]
0 comments:
Post a Comment