Cameroni

Of course they do. You're 100 years old but they like you for your handsome face and sexy body. How are the autobiography pre-orders going?

Just dresses like one:

At least the Catalan nationalists are held in check currently. If they're let loose property prices will really go down the toilet, as the Catalans are the most vile nationalist foreigner hating people in Europe today. Anyone who's had the misfortune to buy property in Spain has my condolences.

Hopefully Trump can then strong-arm Zelensky into making concessions to make the little nationalist see sense. Zelensky's war is totally pointless. He should have given up a long time ago.

I visited Washington and I can't say I was struck by the homeless being a major issue. Of course this was in 2004, so not all that recent. Have things changed so much?

Vile cardboard filth. Most inferior chocolate there is.

Sure, as soon as you indicate where I said that you had that.

They sound good. Obviously not the same as an AV receiver hooked up to 6 external speakers, but that is overkill for most people anyway.

It's probably these kinds of perversions that hamper success with Thai women for both your nations. No wonder Russians are killing it.

Also some cheap ones.

You can buy the cheaper Samsung soundbars which have sub-woofer. If you have a Samsung TV they can be controlled with the TV remote.

I can well believe Fareed would stab people in the heart, he does look like a demented ghoul from a horror movie. Evil incarnate.

Unfortunately not. The 1930s were when the feminists really started to make a mark. In fact Hitler was a feminist. In the 3rd Reich women were treated equally under the constitution and allowed to vote and work. Have we learned nothing from the horrors of Nazism?

Actually this is the ultimate argument to remove the vote for women, as it has been well documented that it was in fact the female vote that brought Adolf Hitler to power. In a real sense, removing the vote for women is an anti-fascist policy.;

That's what they said in 1932. In fact that's what they said when Trump ran for office. Life can be full of surprises.

Anyway, let's not get bogged down in the failures of Pol Pot or the policies of Julia Gillard. Let's stay on topic and think this through, how this could in fact look like. Obviously politicians passing laws most people disagree with is not the issue, this happens all the time. Let's suppose a bill were introduced and passed which removes the female vote. That would of course only be a first step. To truly reap the potential benefits of this controversial move then a number of other measures would need to be implemented: 1. Re-design family law in favour of men, to incentivize women to stay at home and reduce divorce rates, and to have children again. 2. Pass a bill that would restrict women from driving, again women would be confined to the home. 3. Icentivize women who have a lot of children with prizes like Iphones, Ipads and anti-ageing creams (all made in the USA of course by then). 4. Re-design anti-discrimination laws to make the workplace more male-friendly, and with the ultimate aim of removing women from the workforce entirely. Realistically these measures are probably too controversial for Trump, this is more something for JD Vance or even Barron. Still, it looks like steps in the right direction are being made. We need to de-sensitize the public to the possibility of women losing the vote. Obviously decades of pro-feminist programming will not be easy to erase and there will be stiff resistance by those men whose mind has been truly colonised by feminism, however, with sufficient will and iron determination a turnaround can be achieved.

As bad as their failures were, and they were very bad, each and every one of those leaders has contributed some major positive achievement as well. The women named in the list you responded to have not.

Julia Gillard did not just fail to deliver on the carbon tax promise, she also promised a budget surplus and never delivered, her emission trading scheme was a failure too. The mining tax was a failure. She pandered to populism but never solved the boat people issue. She opposed gay marriage but saw it implemented anyway. As the Guardian said: "An unsettling sort of contingency for Australians unused to their prime ministers living so obviously hand to mouth." The only thing she excelled in was whining about "misogynists" "haters" and men. Achievements, not so many. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/26/julia-gillard-where-go-wrong

Let's not be emotional about this issue, that would not be a manly way to approach the problem, that's more of a womanly approach. If we look at it like men, ie, rationally, we need to ask: "Is it really such a bad thing if women lose the vote? Do the pros or cons prevail?" Looking at it rationally removing the vote for women would solve many of the main issue afflicting the world today. For instance declining birth rates are a major risk for almost all industrial nations. Women refusing to have children is one of the key concerns of economic observ ers, as it makes the budget deficit a real issue If too few taxpayers are born to sustain older populations, if too few workers are born to sustain economic growth, the economic collapse of the nation is inevitable. What would incentivize women more than anything to have children again? If by attaching themselves to a man their quality of life improves and women do not have the option to go to work outside the home. This would give birth rates an instant boost and safeguard the economic development of society. Only removing the vote for women could achieve this. One of the other ills of society, massive divorce rates, falling marriage figures and infidelity, all these are encouraged by lax family laws that favour women. What would incentivize women to not file for divorce, to marry and to stay faithful? A radical revamp of family law in favour of men. Only removing the vote for women could achieve this. Then there is the environmental issue of countless millions of women driving on our roads, exacerbating traffic jams, pollution and environmental problems. A total ban on women drivers is not illusory, Saudia Arabia has shown for decades that it is perfectly possible to implement. Only removign the vote for women could achieve this. Sure, there would be protests to contend with, that would have to be ruthlessly put down by imprisoning the feminist agitators, however, would the benefits of this controversial policy not be worth the pain?

Actually I think the whole world is wishing it had a Trump that could shape the global economy in their favour, make peace, and slap down the domestic forces of agitation and instability, not to mention reverse illegal immigration. Almost super-human achievements by this president which are the envy of almost all citizens of the world who have the mifortunte of not being Americans.

No, I'm very much against that. Why remove the vote for blacks? They are not the ones causing the dangerous decline of the Democrat Party, congestion on the roads, or causing employment issues, the general decline of society by refusing to have children, causing divorce and other societal ills, that's women. Blacks are just a minority, why should they not have the vote? Makes no sense. Many black men are homeowners too, so they should definitely have the vote. Black men who do not own property could, just as whites who do not own property, have a somewhat reduced voting right once those who own property have their voting rights amplified. Sure. But a wholesale removal of the vote for blacks would be excessive and extreme. After all some of our best comedians, athletes and musicians are blacks.

That's a serious problem of course, but it's not just that - In every country where women have been allowed to occupy the top ranking political position the situation for that country has invariably got worse. Germany - Angela Merkel's period in office is basically the marker for modern Germany's decline. UK - We can see today some of the most ineffective and perverse policies in the office of Home Secretary, headed by Yvette Cooper, and also one of the worst stints any Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever inflicted on the UK people. It's not just her crying, all of the UK is crying. Arguably the ascent of Margaret Thatcher precipitated the UK's current economic decline. Ukraine - Yulia Timoshenko paved the way for total corruption and total war with Russia. Australia - Julia Gillard oversaw the beginnings of Australian decline, hung parliaments and general instabliity as even the Guardian conceded. Her main achievement? A lecturing speech on the misgony. of men. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/26/julia-gillard-where-go-wrong Brazil - Delma Rousseff was forcibly removed from power and impeached, having been unable to adhere to budgetary laws in Brazil. One of the worst leaders Brazil ever had. Thailand - Yingluck Shinawatra precipitated a war with Cambodia and was dsitinguished mostly by her attempt to cling to remnants of power by assuming a cultural minister position having achieved nothing. Slovenia - Alena Bratusek of Slovenia was forced to resign after corruption investigations, but not before she nominated herself for a top post in the EU. The list of truly catastrophic female political leaders is endless.

Well, if you include songwriting it's not a contest really, as Elvis' songwriting was confined to writing a few words for some songs. If you just take performance and singing though, Elvis is probably better than Mercury, in my view.

Imagine how much the world would improve if the vote were removed for women. It would pave the way to withdraw women's driving privileges, which would solve traffic congestion and improve the environment. It would pave the way to remove women from the work force, discrimination laws could be reversed, which would solve the unemployment problem. TV quality would probably get worse though, as women would stay at home and dictate even more what programmes are on TV.

Please let''s not be silly, this is a serious topic.