The subject of domestic violence later in Schroeder public disgust

To attack the law on domestic violence, his supporters — it means to stand on the position of the people with whom I wouldn’t want to share carbon-based life. If they have a good Breakfast with scrambled eggs — I want cereal, they are in the beard — will shave, they are men — sorry, it hurts, but cut already.

But hell-it definitely radish is not sweeter the second party shall bear such unimaginable, such unimaginable nonsense to calm the soup, as lying through the word — which God forbid to find himself on their side.

With such supporters, with their 14 000 killed in the year of the women, with their correction proposals, from which the eyes on the forehead climb, with their hysteria, their educational aplomb to address grey and bloodthirsty people that bast soup slurp, and in between the wife’s cross — opponents do not need.

Any random person looking at what they say and write to lobbyists act, realizes that a) he is lying in the face b) lie to my face like he’s banned in Google, in) is considered semi-wild, dark fanatical Pashtun, who only drastic measures can prevent a person from primitive blood.

It is difficult to overestimate all the damages they caused not even the law God would have it, but the idea of preventing domestic violence.

The only reasonable position in this case appears to be: Yes, a plague on both your houses, there is already crossed among themselves eternally. You before do not differ stylistically, but the ideological gap will go away on its own.

And this is bad. Because the topic is important. To put it in Schroeder public disgust with the level of discussion is a bad idea.

© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.