To: monomaniac
do i read this freaking nonsense right? was it proposed in an allegedly civilized nation that someone within 5 years of age 14 (i.e. a nine-year-old) is capable of "consensual" sex?
Memo to canada: i know you don't believe in God, but you should thank Him anyway that I'm not God, 'cause if I was, I'd have pushed your Button by now.
2 posted on
09/15/2007 8:19:58 PM PDT by
the invisib1e hand
(life is like "a bad Saturday Night Live skit that is done in extremely bad taste.")
To: the invisib1e hand
Worse: 15-10, 16-11, 17-12?, 18-13.
Sick! :-(
6 posted on
09/15/2007 9:19:37 PM PDT by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here. ;-)
To: the invisib1e hand
Oops - helps to read the article: "The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age clause that means young people 14 or 15 can have sexual relations with someone “less than five years older.” "
8 posted on
09/15/2007 9:25:28 PM PDT by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here. ;-)
To: the invisib1e hand
Memo to canada: i (sic)know you don't believe in God, but you should thank Him anyway that I'm not God, 'cause if I was, I'd have pushed your Button by now.Well my friend, I'm not impressed in the way my country is going either. However, I've always had this philosophy: look in the mirror.
14 posted on
09/16/2007 9:25:41 PM PDT by
mirado
('...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson