Bush is a hero

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159212 Feb 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>It must lie in a difference in personalities. For me, if we can't know a thing for certain, what's the point of addressing it at all? What good does it do us to assert an absolute must exist, while acknowledging we may not know for certain what it is?

I don't think it follows that if there are no absolute truths than anything goes. Actually that's pathological thinking. Back up now - not saying you're pathological for proposing so, you're just formulating an argument for absolute truth. I just disagree with your path to that conclusion. Societies agree in concert the basics of right and wrong. Those societies that disagree over those basics, generally don't play well together.

It might seem to be an absolute truth that murder is wrong. Some things are universally agreed upon, at least at core. At it's most basic concept, taking a life is murder. Recognizing murder as a wrong is universally realized to be, if not "truth", then at least socially beneficial. But we quickly add qualifiers to that concept, and equivocate what constitutes "murder". We ourselves cause this absolute truth to be relative. I don't think it can be both things at once. Very few societies have managed to reject the taking of life in total, at any time, for any reason. No major society, philosophy, or religion has done so. Therefore it seems that murder as a concept is universally recognized, but what exactly constitutes "murder" is relative.

If I lived alone on an island, there would be no reason to elaborate sets of rules. I am free to decide for myself what is right and wrong. It's when people chose to live together in groups that a social structure became necessary. It's a fundamental of society to decide together what is right and wrong. They decided that taking a life within the group was detrimental to that society. Taking a life from that group over the hill? That's where it gets murky, and little has changed over the years, no matter the "absolute truth" each allegedly adheres to. Nonetheless, a basic concept of murder has been universal across all time, and all societies, from the savannah to the city. Thus we can say with validity that flying a plane into a building is unacceptable to society at large, no matter the certitude of the perpetrator. It's not an absolute, because we can and have rationalized the taking of life ourselves as the situation arises. But it is an accepted truth.

There are certain absolute truths - we need air to survive, gravity sucks, the actual cost of a repair is always more and never less than the estimate, the phone always rings just as you sit on the pot, and so on. But I've yet to see an absolute truth in social structures. Just accepted conventions.
PART I

I agree with some of what you've said, so I'll confine my reply to the points where I don't.

1. First and foremost, you said "if we can't know a thing for certain, what's the point of addressing it at all?" You surprise me, Hip. Isn't it obvious that when we don't know for sure what is right and wrong, the point of addressing it is TO FIND OUT?

2. I’m not talking about “absolute TRUTH” here. I am speaking of absolute MORALS. That is a separate issue, although I grant you it is closely related. One of the most damaging and most pernicious lies of the times we live in is that “there are no moral absolutes, it all depends on your values/worldview,” etc.(By the way, I remembered yet another name for this poisonous nonsense,“situational ethics.”)

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159213 Feb 6, 2013
PART II

I maintain that indeed there ARE moral absolutes. Right and wrong—good and evil—exist independently of an individual’s “values.” For instance, I might have no use at all for the quality of mercy, even if Shakespeare’s Portia does ;) I might favor strict justice, never cutting anyone any slack at all for any reason whatsoever. But regardless of whether or not I personally value the quality of mercy, I think you’ll agree with me that mercy is a good thing and the kind of justice I described may very well be an evil in itself.

3. There's nothing pathological about acknowledging that if absolutes of right and wrong do not exist, then anything goes. That's just human nature, that's just the way it is. We human beings have an inexhaustible capacity for rationalizing what we have done, or want to do. Some people want to hurt others, and they’’ll find ways to rationalize that, for instance the abusive husband telling his wife “You MADE me hit you, it’s YOUR fault!”

4. Yes, many issues of right and wrong, murder for instance, are affected by differences between individuals, cultures or nations. Al-Quaeda calls flying jets into the World Trade Centers and killing 3000 people “justice” or “jihad.” WE call it murder. That is a valid issue, but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t plain old right and wrong at the bottom. You said “Some things are universally agreed upon, at least at core.” Certainly, and I’m sure you’ll say that means that most of the world agrees on certain moral standards, and that shows that moral standards are subjective rather than objective. But you’d be mistaken, Hip. What it shows is that within each and every human being is a CONSCIOUSNESS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, that “still inner voice.” And that indicates to human beings having been specially equipped with this knowledge, something not given to animals. A conscience, knowing right from wrong, isn’t something one can choose to have or not have. After all, when we do wrong—when we sin (surely, Hip you realized I’d “go there,” so get over it!)—who would CHOOSE to feel guilty about it? When a spouse cheats and then feels guilty about it, is he or she CHOOSING to feel guilty about it?

5. If you lived alone on a island, would there be reasons for sets of rules? I don’t know, Hip, but either way, right would still be right and wrong would still be wrong. Even if you’re alone on that island, if a tourist is kidnapped and murdered 1500 miles away, that’s still wrong, isn’t it? Even if Man Friday suddenly shot up through the sand and murdered YOU, that would still be wrong, wouldn’t it?

6. Last, and I’ve said before, no, it’s not always easy to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil. But we MUST NOT DENY THAT THEY EXIST. We must keep looking for the truth—this is where the related issue of absolute truth comes in. To do all that, we need an objective standard to guide us, rather than our own desires. We need God.

You knew I’d go there, Hip ;)

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#159214 Feb 6, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Sometimes the coach gives you the take sign and the next pitch comes across the plate as big as a watermelon...
(five days from spring training, doncha know...)
I'm a 49ers fan... still trying to get the tears to stop. Thank goodness the baseball season is so close behind. C'mon Phillies!!!!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159215 Feb 6, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a 49ers fan... still trying to get the tears to stop. Thank goodness the baseball season is so close behind. C'mon Phillies!!!!
It was a hell of a second half ....

Needless to say, go Cards, he says, listening to the Pacers play the Sixers

;-)

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#159216 Feb 6, 2013
The entire fiasco could have been avoided if it went through congress the way it was supposed to. If the congressmen didn't let the president step all over the constitution and did their job and actually voted on whether or not to declare war and not some half assed "authorization of force", you can bet your butt a lot fewer congressmen and women would have been hesitant to put their vote behind it. There would have been more debate and discussion and maybe we wouldn't have ended up in this 10+ year quagmire with countless soldiers and civilians dead for no reason. Can't completely blame Bush though, the same thing happened with all "wars" since Korea to the best of my knowledge. They've all been illegal engagements according to our very own constitution.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#159217 Feb 6, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a 49ers fan... still trying to get the tears to stop. Thank goodness the baseball season is so close behind. C'mon Phillies!!!!
Hi, Bobin. Missed you earlier, but good to see you now....

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#159218 Feb 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Republicans can't win in the eyes of the liberal. All candidates bring their families into the limelight, it's supposed to be a good thing. I'll bet you're talking about she shouldn't have brought her pregnant unwed daughter out, should have hidden her, huh, not to mention her baby with downs syndrome, who wants to see THAT! Now Cheney was criticized by same liberals for not bringing his lesbian daughter out and parading her around. They said he was trying to hide something. Palin would have been fresh meat no matter what she had done. Those who go on and on about her make me ill. So you won't be getting more from me. You and Hip can have a free for all.
I guess you must have missed the part where I opined that the slurs against her children were un-called for....

Why am I not surprised?

The thing is, she got MILEAGE out of her children's afflictions and foibles, and I doubt I'm not alone in thinking she did that calculatedly. Which is one of my biggest problems with the woman....I never had a problem with her kids.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159219 Feb 6, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
Anyone bothered by drones being used on U.S. citizens? I remember Bob from Tx. was quite outspoken against it. Looks like he was right. Even nbc seems to be a tad upset.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16...
Yes, I'm bothered by drones being used on U.S. citizens.

I'm also bothered by U.S. citizens giving 'aid and comfort' to an enemy entity that has been at war with the United States since at least 1996.

If you have an easy solution to this, I'm all ears.

These drone attacks have been conducted 'in the field', or as close to a 'field' as the war on terror has. Those places are a little out of reach for conventional law enforcement entities tasked with dealing with criminal civilians; they're not even within reach of military units up to and including special forces.

Now, we could call time out and ask that the American citizen 'ineligible player down field' be taken out of the game and turned over to the appropriate authorities, but I'm not sure the other guys are playing by those rules.

Again, if you have an easy solution to this, I'm all ears.

This IS a slippery slope, and I know it - but what's the alternative? Declare hands off on al Qaeda operatives overseas who might be American citizens? Is that a risk we want to take?

One more time, with feeling, if you have an easy solution to this, I'm all ears.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159220 Feb 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Aw, now, is that fair? For meself, the reason I keep coming back is because people here tend to be well-read and know things like, oh, like, who these people even are.
;)
I know exactly what you mean by that, and for once, Hip, I wholeheartedly agree with you :) I don't expect everyone I meet have Ph.ds after their names, but I do expect them to know, at least, that life before football DID exist, beer and potato chips are NOT a basic food group, there are adjectives which contain more than four letters and Canada is NOT one of the 50 states! I just don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't have at least that much between their ears.That's about as minimal as it gets, don't you think?

After that, certain cultural niceties, such as knowing not to scratch your genitals in public, there IS more to life than the latest hairdos and shades of fingernail polish, that some people don't care what the Kardashians are doing, or find wondering who "is my baby daddy" on TV to be sickening, to say the least.

Finally, if you really want to step up, some awareness of great literature, music and drama, some knowledge of history and geography are helpful. And anyone who thinks that all a POTUS has to do for anything to happen is say "My will be done" is automatically disqualified.

I know exactly what you mean, Hip. I like discussing issues with people who not only know that the United States of America has a vice-president, but what the name of the current one happens to be, who not only know who wrote "THE INFERNO" but just as important, actually CARE that they know.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159221 Feb 6, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
I know exactly what you mean by that, and for once, Hip, I wholeheartedly agree with you :) I don't expect everyone I meet have Ph.ds after their names, but I do expect them to know, at least, that life before football DID exist, beer and potato chips are NOT a basic food group, there are adjectives which contain more than four letters and Canada is NOT one of the 50 states! I just don't want to associate with anyone who doesn't have at least that much between their ears.That's about as minimal as it gets, don't you think?
After that, certain cultural niceties, such as knowing not to scratch your genitals in public, there IS more to life than the latest hairdos and shades of fingernail polish, that some people don't care what the Kardashians are doing, or find wondering who "is my baby daddy" on TV to be sickening, to say the least.
Finally, if you really want to step up, some awareness of great literature, music and drama, some knowledge of history and geography are helpful. And anyone who thinks that all a POTUS has to do for anything to happen is say "My will be done" is automatically disqualified.
I know exactly what you mean, Hip. I like discussing issues with people who not only know that the United States of America has a vice-president, but what the name of the current one happens to be, who not only know who wrote "THE INFERNO" but just as important, actually CARE that they know.
Dan sumptin' or other, weren't it?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159222 Feb 6, 2013
Pernrider wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, really? Some societies agreed in concert that it was okay to eat the flesh of their conquests. Some societies agreed to cut the heart out of living breathing humans to give to their gods. Some societies sacrificed their babies on heated bronze altars. Some societies decided it was for the good of the volk to kill the inferior, the idiots, the infirm before they could breed. Some societies decided that gypsies and Jews were vermin. Those societies as a whole decided these were good things, necessary things, and the world would be a better place once they were implemented to their fullest.

Humans can justify anything.
Basic world views on display here are that man is basically good and that man is inherently evil and will descend to depravity with the right incentive. You and I have opposing world views. Only one is correct.
Which one is there more evidence for?
Well said :)
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#159223 Feb 6, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I'm bothered by drones being used on U.S. citizens.
I'm also bothered by U.S. citizens giving 'aid and comfort' to an enemy entity that has been at war with the United States since at least 1996.
If you have an easy solution to this, I'm all ears.
There is no easy solution, there are only hard decisions. I tend to side with this opinion written by Erick Erickson.
<edited because of length>

"Though Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was squeamish about such things, President Obama has taken on a very Nixonian-Cheneyesque view of such things. Now, NBC News has uncovered a Justice Department memo making clear what President Obama’s evolved view on terrorists is — kill ‘em regardless of citizenship and do not worry about such small things as constitutional due process.

According to the Justice Department memo, if intelligence confirms an American is involved in a terrorist plot as a ranking member of Al Qaeda and extraction of that American is not possible without putting military lives in jeopardy, the United States should have no hesitation in killing him without making an attempt to arrest him and give him his due process.

President Obama’s view of terrorists has evolved. Today it's kill ‘em regardless of citizenship and do not worry about such small things as constitutional due process.

Perhaps, they should all pay attention to one key part of the newly uncovered memo.

The memo includes this fascinating portion:

“…the condition that an operation leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”

In other words, there need not be immediacy in the definition of “imminent.” As long as a plan is in continuation, the United States could proceed.

The battlefield has shifted over the past two decades. The president has already killed one American on a battlefield with a drone. His chief role is to keep the nation safe. In the twenty-first century, in the remote caves of Afghanistan and deserts of the Middle East, it is both impractical and unnecessary to strap a speaker to a drone in order to shout down to an American Al Qaeda operative, read him his Miranda rights, then caution him to step back a quarter mile to wait for his arrest while the drone unleashes hell on all his terrorist friends.

Just kill them before they kill us. At some point, we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of Al Qaeda from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe.

Frankly, it should be American policy that any American collaborating with Al Qaeda is better dead than alive. Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney would be proud."

=====

I wish this "drone" conversation had taken place during the campaign but as I recall the "war on terror" were words frowned upon by this administration and we were repeatedly reminded {and I'm being generous with that word} that Al Qaeda had been "decimated" and "was on the run."

What a difference a day makes.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159224 Feb 6, 2013
The link to the article Lyndi posted is here

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/06/ski...

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#159225 Feb 6, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no easy solution, there are only hard decisions. I tend to side with this opinion written by Erick Erickson.
<edited because of length>
"Though Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was squeamish about such things, President Obama has taken on a very Nixonian-Cheneyesque view of such things. Now, NBC News has uncovered a Justice Department memo making clear what President Obama’s evolved view on terrorists is — kill ‘em regardless of citizenship and do not worry about such small things as constitutional due process.
According to the Justice Department memo, if intelligence confirms an American is involved in a terrorist plot as a ranking member of Al Qaeda and extraction of that American is not possible without putting military lives in jeopardy, the United States should have no hesitation in killing him without making an attempt to arrest him and give him his due process.
President Obama’s view of terrorists has evolved. Today it's kill ‘em regardless of citizenship and do not worry about such small things as constitutional due process.
Perhaps, they should all pay attention to one key part of the newly uncovered memo.
The memo includes this fascinating portion:
“…the condition that an operation leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”
In other words, there need not be immediacy in the definition of “imminent.” As long as a plan is in continuation, the United States could proceed.
The battlefield has shifted over the past two decades. The president has already killed one American on a battlefield with a drone. His chief role is to keep the nation safe. In the twenty-first century, in the remote caves of Afghanistan and deserts of the Middle East, it is both impractical and unnecessary to strap a speaker to a drone in order to shout down to an American Al Qaeda operative, read him his Miranda rights, then caution him to step back a quarter mile to wait for his arrest while the drone unleashes hell on all his terrorist friends.
Just kill them before they kill us. At some point, we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of Al Qaeda from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe.
Frankly, it should be American policy that any American collaborating with Al Qaeda is better dead than alive. Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney would be proud."
=====
I wish this "drone" conversation had taken place during the campaign but as I recall the "war on terror" were words frowned upon by this administration and we were repeatedly reminded {and I'm being generous with that word} that Al Qaeda had been "decimated" and "was on the run."
What a difference a day makes.
I'm sitting here listening to Bill Maher pontificate on this situation. He sounds a lot like the fellow you quoted, only funnier.

Even the libs are disgusted with Mr. Obama.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159226 Feb 6, 2013
Lyndi, you left off one of the most important (imo) paragraphs in the article:

"More importantly, this news exposes partisans who have surrendered intellectual consistency for party cheerleading. Some Republicans who would have been happy with President Bush doing this are now upset. Some Democrats who denounced Bush are now cheering on Barack Obama."

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159227 Feb 6, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Pern, you disappoint me. That's a very narrow framing of a woman's place in society, and a very twisted view of a man's sexuality. Also, while most women actually DO gestate, keep, and lovingly raise our children, not every woman is cut out to be a mom. I truly believe it is more loving (not to mention sensible) to leave the decision as to whether or not to become a parent, up to the person who will (or won't) be gestating...certainly not to the government, or to any particular religious viewpoint, unless it is her own.
JMO
While I agree that not every woman is cut out to be a mom, and the government should not force her to try to be one, why does that mean she should abort the baby? Why can't she deliver and then put it up for adoption? Then she wouldn't have to raise the child, but it will live and most likely be raised by loving parents who ARE capable of raising it.

Why, WHY is adoption so seldom part of these conversations?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#159228 Feb 6, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Lyndi, you left off one of the most important (imo) paragraphs in the article:
"More importantly, this news exposes partisans who have surrendered intellectual consistency for party cheerleading. Some Republicans who would have been happy with President Bush doing this are now upset. Some Democrats who denounced Bush are now cheering on Barack Obama."
I wrote "<edited for length>" prior to posting it. I didn't include alot of the article and the part you just pointed out has nothing to do with your comment and invitation: "if there are easy answers, I'm all ears."

The essence of the article did not hinge on his unnecessary opinion that "R's are happy" and "D's are upset" and if you wanted to discuss who's upset and who's happy about the issue you should have said so and not wasted my time posing fake interest in the opinions of others on the actual TOPIC.
==

Or maybe this is just you blowing smoke because you resent my bringing up this administration lying to the country about the
WAR
ON
TERROR and they haven't been remotely DECIMATED.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#159229 Feb 6, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree that not every woman is cut out to be a mom, and the government should not force her to try to be one, why does that mean she should abort the baby? Why can't she deliver and then put it up for adoption? Then she wouldn't have to raise the child, but it will live and most likely be raised by loving parents who ARE capable of raising it.
Why, WHY is adoption so seldom part of these conversations?
I don't think you're going to like my answer to that, but here it is anyway. I think giving away one's child is probably more devastating to women, than having an early abortion. It leaves one with an actual, physical person, one they've felt growing inside them for quite some time, and labored, sometimes for days, to deliver, and held in their arms, and fallen at least halfway in love with, out there in the world, wondering why mommy didn't want them. I think that would be very hard to live with, even if the pregnancy wasn't desired in the first place.
I think this, because the women I know who have given their babies up for adoption, were far more depressed about and obsessed with it, than the women I know who've opted for abortion.

I guess you could say that's a selfish perspective, and you'd probably be right, but you asked...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#159230 Feb 6, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I wrote "<edited for length>" prior to posting it. I didn't include alot of the article and the part you just pointed out has nothing to do with your comment and invitation: "if there are easy answers, I'm all ears."
The essence of the article did not hinge on his unnecessary opinion that "R's are happy" and "D's are upset" and if you wanted to discuss who's upset and who's happy about the issue you should have said so and not wasted my time posing fake interest in the opinions of others on the actual TOPIC.
==
Or maybe this is just you blowing smoke because you resent my bringing up this administration lying to the country about the
WAR
ON
TERROR and they haven't been remotely DECIMATED.
I can find Fox News and RedState all on my own, but thanks for republishing someone else's opinion.

You're quite right - Obama, running for reelection, overstated the degree to which al Qaeda was 'decimated' and 'on the run'.

Imagine that ... an American President underplaying problems before an election. Shocking ... just shocking.

Or not. Not a crook/not covering up a third rate burglary; I didn't have sex with that woman/Everything's hunky-dory in Iraq ...

I think this is an issue important enough to be discussed outside the confines of partisan politics, without any finger pointing between Rs and Ds, liberals and conservative. The article tries hard to appear to do that, but I don't think it succeeds in passing itself off.

My gut agrees with Erickson: "Frankly, it should be American policy that any American collaborating with Al Qaeda is better off dead than alive", although I'd have added the caveat 'in the field'.

My head, however, recognizes what a slippery slope that is. This is yet another issue that's confronted us in the last dozen years, and two Presidents from different political parties, as we try and figure out how a nation of laws fights a stateless entity.

Still looking for that easy answer ...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#159232 Feb 6, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you're going to like my answer to that, but here it is anyway. I think giving away one's child is probably more devastating to women, than having an early abortion. It leaves one with an actual, physical person, one they've felt growing inside them for quite some time, and labored, sometimes for days, to deliver, and held in their arms, and fallen at least halfway in love with, out there in the world, wondering why mommy didn't want them. I think that would be very hard to live with, even if the pregnancy wasn't desired in the first place.

I think this, because the women I know who have given their babies up for adoption, were far more depressed about and obsessed with it, than the women I know who've opted for abortion.
I guess you could say that's a selfish perspective, and you'd probably be right, but you asked...
You're absolutely right, that's exactly what I say. My gosh, is that what has resulted in FIFTY MILLION abortions? Ordinary dog-in-the-manger "If-I-can't/don't-want-it -you-can't-either" selfishness? I'm horrified, absolutely, completely disgusted.

I'd better go. I think I'm about to need a couple minutes bending over a toilet.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min okimar 2,437
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min PadMark 678,910
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 32 min Tony 6,260
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 39 min ROCCO 118,945
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 41 min New Age Spiritual... 33,215
______ *ANTICHRIST in plain view / (*News) ______ 51 min GlobalNewsYTube 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 54 min trifecta1 982,134
More from around the web