Donna Hughes panties?!?!?!??
1st: that ain't right and is just downright nasty!!!!
2nd: you don't wear panties, you wear 'boxers' as any self-respecting, free-ballin' male does.
more bs rhetoric about '****/traffiking', yet all their grandstanding/law-changing has resulted in what?
squat!!!!!
if ed is so worried about violence in our society, why doesn't he write something about the 'teabaggers' death threats to members of congress/senate and the (obviously conservative) lance corporal who threatened the president?
(and why this lunatic isn't locked up?!?!?)
plain and simple: because sex sells!
there are things that need attention, but his choice is yet another example of a writer who does not do their homework and spouts publicly a single-sided, incorrect version of a situation.
ms hughes/ ms shapiro are angry lesbians who's (disguised) self-loathing, man-hating agenda grants them the 15 minutes of fame they are so deperately seeking.
if either cared anything for these victimized women they so vocally (pretend to) protect, why is it they didn't bail out these 3 'victims' upon their arrest and care for their well-being?
because they don't care!!!!
i'm sure if you took a poll of amp employees who they thought 'cared' more for them (their customers or donna hughes/ri gov), the results would be seriously one-sided.
another guess i would be pretty sure in putting forth is ea did his research and chose to ignore all but the donna hughes/melanie shapiro agenda.
more to follow,
j
[quote=donna hughes]looks like donna hughes is at it again. she must have her panties in a bunch because the prostitution cases aren't going anywhere. today's projo even mentions the conversations of this board.
[url]http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/cl_achorn23_03-23-10_9khnjgh_v12.4059bc7.html?ocp=2#slcgm_comments_anchor[/url][/quote]