[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - rgio - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:30am
 
Offline Cache not working anymore - jarro - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:26am
 
Steven Wilson - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:11am
 
Regarding cats - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:09am
 
Trump - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:05am
 
The No Phone Zone - Proclivities - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:56am
 
LeftWingNutZ - islander - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:35am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:34am
 
Race in America - sirdroseph - Feb 24, 2021 - 5:32am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Feb 24, 2021 - 5:06am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - haresfur - Feb 24, 2021 - 12:55am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - kurtster - Feb 23, 2021 - 10:54pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Feb 23, 2021 - 7:14pm
 
American Justice - Red_Dragon - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:49pm
 
Questions. - Red_Dragon - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:32pm
 
Movie Quote - Antigone - Feb 23, 2021 - 3:56pm
 
World Music - deltaindia - Feb 23, 2021 - 1:08pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:41pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - haresfur - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:34pm
 
Name My Band - rgio - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:26pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - sirdroseph - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:18pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - JrzyTmata - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:05pm
 
volcano! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Feb 23, 2021 - 10:58am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 23, 2021 - 10:50am
 
The Obituary Page - cc_rider - Feb 23, 2021 - 9:52am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Proclivities - Feb 23, 2021 - 9:36am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Feb 23, 2021 - 8:53am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:46am
 
Mars Exploration Rover Mission Status - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 7:13pm
 
Automotive Lust - kurtster - Feb 22, 2021 - 5:29pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:46pm
 
Messages in a bottle. - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:33pm
 
What did you have for lunch? - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:03pm
 
2020 Elections - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:51pm
 
Ted Cruz - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:47pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:09pm
 
Israel - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 11:47am
 
What is the meaning of this? - GeneP59 - Feb 22, 2021 - 9:19am
 
Brave Browser - rgio - Feb 22, 2021 - 8:12am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Feb 22, 2021 - 6:16am
 
How's the weather? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 21, 2021 - 8:55pm
 
Gardeners Corner - whatshisname - Feb 21, 2021 - 7:37pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Feb 21, 2021 - 12:38pm
 
Kodi Addon - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 21, 2021 - 11:58am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - Zep - Feb 21, 2021 - 11:53am
 
songs that ROCK! - rhahl - Feb 21, 2021 - 10:44am
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - miamizsun - Feb 21, 2021 - 10:16am
 
Madonna's latest - miamizsun - Feb 21, 2021 - 8:15am
 
New Music - Proclivities - Feb 21, 2021 - 6:38am
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 8:10pm
 
Get the Quote - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 5:30pm
 
Career Opportunities - GeneP59 - Feb 20, 2021 - 4:05pm
 
Thanks, Grizzly Bear! - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 1:17pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Feb 20, 2021 - 11:07am
 
Outstanding Covers - sirdroseph - Feb 20, 2021 - 9:28am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Feb 20, 2021 - 9:26am
 
Queen - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 6:31am
 
Classical Music - rhahl - Feb 19, 2021 - 6:47am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - sunybuny - Feb 19, 2021 - 5:58am
 
A Brave Woman - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 5:23am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Feb 19, 2021 - 4:45am
 
Immigration - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 4:39am
 
Terrorist Watch! - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 3:17am
 
Questions I'd like to ask at tonight's debate - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 3:12am
 
Republican Party - R_P - Feb 18, 2021 - 8:24pm
 
I play the drums... - KarmaKarma - Feb 18, 2021 - 8:04pm
 
NASA & other news from space - GeneP59 - Feb 18, 2021 - 6:30pm
 
China - Ohmsen - Feb 18, 2021 - 4:17pm
 
Pictures you have taken of your feet. *snort* - Ohmsen - Feb 18, 2021 - 3:39pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Feb 18, 2021 - 2:02pm
 
I am Thinking of: - miamizsun - Feb 18, 2021 - 1:56pm
 
Favorite Scriptures...Leave Pontificating at the Door - oldviolin - Feb 18, 2021 - 1:18pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Feb 18, 2021 - 12:51pm
 
how do you feel right now? - GeneP59 - Feb 18, 2021 - 12:03pm
 
Things You Thought Today - black321 - Feb 18, 2021 - 9:46am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Derplahoma and Other Points of Interest Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 76, 77, 78  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 2, 2010 - 9:00pm

  • In a poll conducted by SoonerPoll.com, 49 percent of voters polled stated that they were for the measure. The poll surveyed likely registered voters in the state, which included 385 Democrats, 340 Republicans and 31 independents. The margin of error was reported to be 3.57 percentage points and was commissioned by the Tulsa World.<9>
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
July 16-21, 2010SoonerPoll.com49%24%27%755

Two measures aimed at illegal immigration received even greater approval. State Question 751, which would make English the state's official language, was favored by 85 percent; SQ 746, to require photo identification to vote, was favored by 83 percent.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20100805_16_A9_Amswhr19725





And


State Question 755 has received national attention, and Duncan has been interviewed about the proposal by several national news outlets.

However, the proposal appeared less controversial among Oklahoma legislators. House Joint Resolution 1056 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 82-10 vote and cleared the Senate on a bipartisan 41-2 vote.

Duncan has predicted the measure will receive similar overwhelming support from voters. Recent polling indicates the measure will pass, although many citizens remain uncertain. A poll conducted July 16 to 21 for The Tulsa World found that 49 percent of likely voters supported State Question 755, while 24 percent opposed it and 27 percent were undecided.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:55pm

 kurtster wrote:
Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 



 
Great.  Just great.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:44pm

 cc_rider wrote:

Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?
 
Ayup.  'Zactly what George was talking about.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:40pm

 kurtster wrote:


No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.
 
I'm not quite sure which components you are referring to, but the first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

It rightly says that Congress (the State in this case) doesn't support or interfere with any religion directly. People can gather up under any peaceful cause they want and complain to their representatives without interference.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. Sharia, like many other sets of "God's laws" has many different interpretations depending on if the followers are modernist, fundamentalist, evangelical...
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:55pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
 
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:50pm

Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:52am

 kurtster wrote:
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

For the most part that's true—international treaties have only indirect effects on people's behavior within a state*. Which makes the OK proposition both pointless and in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

*One of the few areas where state law gets involved with treaties is in regard to extradition, tho usually the impact is the other way around—the state law can interfere with exercising a treaty.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:35am

 kurtster wrote:

We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the ERA Amendment.

 
I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm confident that there are any number of commerce treaties that have significant impact on businesses and individuals here in the US. If we sign a treaty that says we won't impose the death penalty, that would preclude any state from imposing the death penalty. If we sign a treaty that says we will no longer manufacture lead-based paint, then none of the states get to give any of their pet manufacturers a pass on the Pb. A treaty specifying we will sell stealth technology only to our NATO allies means companies that manufacture stealth components have some pretty significant restrictions on their sales and marketing.

Again, I'm not in favor of Sharia law or any kind of "separate but equal" justice system in the US. We all need to be held to the same standards. I'm saying that the existing separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution already covers that. I'm saying that we don't need to keep proliferating laws to cover situations already covered under existing law. And I'm saying that logically if you're going to pass a law excluding one specific set of religious traditions from our judicial system, you need to exclude them all or it's discriminatory. You can't say "your religious traditions are unacceptable for our system of justice, but mine are okay".

So instead of saying "Sharia law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Buddhist law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Jedi law is not to be used for judicial decisions", it's easier and fairer to stick with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I don't see how adding redundancy to the already burdensome body of law in this country is going to maximize my rights.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:14am

 winter wrote:

My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.

And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.

I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.
 
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the proposed ERA Amendment.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:19am

 winter wrote:

I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.
 
Yes, it was.  However, George did make exception to his principle concerning temporary alliances in time of war - as distinct from long-term alliances like say, NATO or the UN.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:17am

 buzz wrote:

The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 

 
I'd prefer my daughter live in country with laws based on logic, reason and equality not any religion.  Too bad Vulcan is a made up place.  Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time.  Christianity, while its current practitioners are not as blatant about it, is just as misogynistic as Islam.  Ever been a girl in a christian community?  Its not a very equal place to be.  That is one of the reasons I reject organized religion.  I got tired of being told I was lesser because I had a uterus.  At least I think I have one, I've never actually tested the theory.

When was the last time you voted for someone who did as promised?  I've always referred to elections as choosing the least of the evils.  I wish we could execute reform guaranteeing us the right to a lobbyist free government; politicians who do as they are asked to by those they represent; justices who rule based on law and reason instead of their own personal agendas.  It's bizarre that we even have to vote on this in any state.  Why wouldn't ruling be based on our own laws?  But then again, how many rulings are based on deals, agendas, personal views and political alliances?

I know, I know.  I 'm a dreamer.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:15am

 oldslabsides wrote:

What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
 
I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:13am

 winter wrote:

Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment.

Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.

 
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:09am

 buzz wrote:

The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 

 
My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.

And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.

I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.

buzz

buzz Avatar

Location: up the boohai


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:54am

 winter wrote:

Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma?

And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory.

The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.
 
The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 
winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:45am

 oldslabsides wrote:

Never did care much for article 6.
 
Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment.

Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:34am

 winter wrote:

Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma?

And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory.

The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.
 
Never did care much for article 6.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:09am

 kurtster wrote:

Good for Oklahoma.  This should be the United States' next Constitutional Amendment.

Oklahoma International Law Amendment, State Question 755 (2010)


The Oklahoma International Law Amendment will appear on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.<1><2>

 
Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma?

And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory.

The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 5:53am

 Manbird wrote:

That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area? 

{#Lol}
See,these are the words from a thinking man !
{#Yell}Manbird for President and Chief of UN !

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Oroville, Ca
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 6:34pm

 kurtster wrote:

You know, you are quite right about that.  It is carbon neutral.  Perhaps, I was too hasty.
 
That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area? 


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 76, 77, 78  Next