Bush is a hero
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170759 Oct 24, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>That's silly. With your way of thinking we should only go for the sure thing and if that were the case we'd all have British accents. I'm sure glad I haven't given up my belief in the impossible dream, like you. It makes you dull.
Okay, your opinion is yours and that's fine but I like to think I'd have helped make costumes or put make-up on the faces of the men who dressed up as Indians to go dump the tea. Or maybe I would have even tried to tag along.... Anyway, I'll leave you with this.

The Sons of Liberty- the members of the original (((Boston))) Tea Party.... their primary objective when they dumped the tea, was protesting FOR colonial representation in Parliment. That's what they wanted. Representation. Did you know btw, that some of our founding fathers were opposed to that act? Some felt destruction of private property was the wrong way to go about change. But no matter. My point is, Americans already HAVE representation in our federal government which we democratically elect so I'm somewhat bewildered why todays Tea Party swiped the name of the original Boston Tea Party.
Anyway, I don't know what our founders would have thought about the Tea Party of today but I'd pay big dollars to be a fly on the wall to watch them debate it.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#170760 Oct 24, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>In an earlier post you seemed to suggest that Obamacare was somehow responsible for your predicament.
That's the only thing I'm questioning, lisw.
As I've always understood it, disability under Social Security is for people of working age, and is separate from retirement under Social Security. Once a person reaches regular retirement age they move from one program to the other.
You often read me wrong, maybe on purpose. Do you think it's okay for SS to refuse to send proof to someone for a definite purpose because they want to see you as only retired, not disabled? I couldn't possibly explain to you how important the designation is to his ability to get services.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170761 Oct 24, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>
1) I'm tired of hearing about the voters who haven't decided yet.

2)I see things and know things because of my experience and I'll be danged if I'll be moderate about it.
===

1) 3 weeks ago you were undecided about how you felt about Ted Cruz. Have you decided yet?

2) Other people see things and know things because of their experiences too, lis. Sorry, but you don't get to own that one.

And please don't confuse moderate with inactive or passive. Moderates are very staunch in their positions. We believe in community, pragmatism, common sense, political and intellectual honesty. Justice is a big one for us and a limited but compassionate government is another big one. Alot of us would prefer it it if our neighbors and our government would stay out of our personal lives more but nosy neighbors who know best and nosy governemnts who know best seem to be reproducing themselves like rabbits.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#170762 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, your opinion is yours and that's fine but I like to think I'd have helped make costumes or put make-up on the faces of the men who dressed up as Indians to go dump the tea. Or maybe I would have even tried to tag along.... Anyway, I'll leave you with this.
The Sons of Liberty- the members of the original (((Boston))) Tea Party.... their primary objective when they dumped the tea, was protesting FOR colonial representation in Parliment. That's what they wanted. Representation. Did you know btw, that some of our founding fathers were opposed to that act? Some felt destruction of private property was the wrong way to go about change. But no matter. My point is, Americans already HAVE representation in our federal government which we democratically elect so I'm somewhat bewildered why todays Tea Party swiped the name of the original Boston Tea Party.
Anyway, I don't know what our founders would have thought about the Tea Party of today but I'd pay big dollars to be a fly on the wall to watch them debate it.
That's exactly what Ted Cruz was doing, representing his constituency. He broke no law, Lyndi. Or is the primary purpose of those who supposedly represent us in your opinion to " go along to get along?"
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170763 Oct 24, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly what Ted Cruz was doing, representing his constituency. He broke no law, Lyndi. Or is the primary purpose of those who supposedly represent us in your opinion to " go along to get along?"
Ted Cruz hijacked the US government and held it captive until his demands were met or someone blinked. The fallout from it was awful.
His demand was simple.
Defund a law of the land ---> or ELSE <---.
A LAW mind you which had 2 national elections based on it, it passed through both houses, it was signed by the POTUS and given the stamp of approval by SCOTUS.
Now, if you can make a case that minority groups (or people representing their constituencies) should be able to do that every time they dislike a law then at least I can set my watch to when this democracy will begin to unravel. Because if that is what we are now viewing as democracy, if interrupting the lives of 300 million and alarming the world so as to satisfy a few is okay because it didn't break a law...... we are in my opinion big blanking trouble.

And just so we're clear, I detest the ACA as much as you do and probably more.
What I detest and FEAR more, is a government run amok.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#170764 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
===
1) 3 weeks ago you were undecided about how you felt about Ted Cruz. Have you decided yet?
2) Other people see things and know things because of their experiences too, lis. Sorry, but you don't get to own that one.
And please don't confuse moderate with inactive or passive. Moderates are very staunch in their positions. We believe in community, pragmatism, common sense, political and intellectual honesty. Justice is a big one for us and a limited but compassionate government is another big one. Alot of us would prefer it it if our neighbors and our government would stay out of our personal lives more but nosy neighbors who know best and nosy governemnts who know best seem to be reproducing themselves like rabbits.
1) I wasn't undecided, I think you have me confused with someone else. I thought what he did was brave despite my feelings that he would get lots of criticism. I always thought that. 2) Never said I owned that. But I do believe that is one of the best ways to remain on the side of the right thing to do. problem is experience isn't valued much in today's world. I am a moderate and I would add to your list that moderates believe they can be moderates because of the fringes. Otherwise how would we know what moderation is. I also believe as you do that people can say anything they wish under the constitution. Problem is that is not what is happening. People on the left can make very bigoted remarks about anyone on the right, but it doesn't work the other way. That makes the teeter totter a big stick in the ground.
Lost In Transition

United States

#170765 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, here are todays scoops.
Scoop 1)
Obama & Co. is going to fan out on the fundraising campaign trail again......(shocking, huh?) only this time to raise $$$'s for 2014 democrat challengers. He and his advisors think this is an excellent time to work toward replacing republicans in the House with democrats because they feel the GOP is seriously weakened due to the Tea Party inspired shutdown.
How great is THAT?(There's that nasty little ammunition I was telling you about which your little Teddy Bear Cruz handed them on a silver platter and they're now shooting republicans with.)
Good job!
Scoop 2) Moderate GOP is going on the warpath to oust Tea Party members to push for moderate republicans because they think the Tea Party is responsible for the low poll numbers brought about by the architect, Ted Cruz and his little band of usurping revelers.
Scoop 3) Tea Party polls are nosediving brought about by the fact that most Americans think the 24 billion dollar price tag it cost for Cruz to get his name up in lights was a bit steep. Many Americans also think Obamcare was headed for a meltdown anyway and the whole shutdown thing was all for naught. And judging from the reviews, the Tea Party performance in DC will never make it to Broadway. No one knows what to name it anyway. Was it much ado about nothing or was it a tempest in a teacup? Voters will have to decide in a year.
Scoop 1a) obama never left the fundraising/campaign trail. That's why he's the most ignorant president regarding current events, both foreign and domestic, to ever tinkle on the toilet seat of Air Force 1.

Scoop 2a) Moderate GOPs have always been against the T-Party because them guys and gals just don't know their places. Especially the JUNIOR senator, Cruz. That boy just doesn't appreciate, or respect, the position of being JUNIOR. Damn upstarts shoulda just stayed on the farms.

Scoop 3a) Bernanke prints over 24 $billion$ in a week. Every week. Week after week. Even in weeks that have 3 day weekends. Using 24 !!$billion$!! as a battle cry is so..... yesterday. A real snoozer. obamacare is still a "meltdown", and will be a bigger influence on the '14 elections than a government shut down ever would. Heck, most people couldn't care less about the government. Worse than that, they don't even like the government. Few Dems will run on the slogan "I saved obamacare". In fact, a they've already lining up to start running on "I tried to change obamacare". The TP is polling at 25%, and that will only rise as more people are hurt, as more businesses point out how it's affecting their hiring and expansion plans. Or lack there-of. The TP's should break off, start a 3rd party. They have little in common with todays R's. They should try to woo the Pauly's, they're much closer to them. They'll never win a national election, but they can continue their success at the local and state levels. Eventually, it will be those levels that challenge the status quo of Washington. As it should. It will never be seriously challenged from within. And I think that has already started.
Lost In Transition

United States

#170766 Oct 24, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
I was so far on the fringe in 1980 that I voted for the independent John Anderson - a centrist Republican who thought Reagan was too far right. That was after being so far on the fringe in 1976 that I voted for Ford.
So you've got potential, it's just dormant. 33 years dormant. There may still be hope, we got Picard back.
I had a Ford once. It was like one of todays kids, just wanted to sit at the curb and smoke. I'll never vote Ford again.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#170767 Oct 24, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You often read me wrong, maybe on purpose. Do you think it's okay for SS to refuse to send proof to someone for a definite purpose because they want to see you as only retired, not disabled? I couldn't possibly explain to you how important the designation is to his ability to get services.
I often read you wrong?

"I wasn't complaining, Willie. I was merely giving an example of discovery. Already people are finding out that Obamacare may not be the panacea they had hoped."

This isn't a question of what how social security wants to classify your husband, lisw. This is a question of what the laws that govern social security REQUIRE.

My suggestion to you is that you contact the Disabled American Veterans or some other advocacy group. They'll probably know what other documentation will suffice to procure the services he needs.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170768 Oct 24, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Scoop 1a) obama never left the fundraising/campaign trail. That's why he's the most ignorant president regarding current events, both foreign and domestic, to ever tinkle on the toilet seat of Air Force 1.
Scoop 2a) Moderate GOPs have always been against the T-Party because them guys and gals just don't know their places. Especially the JUNIOR senator, Cruz. That boy just doesn't appreciate, or respect, the position of being JUNIOR. Damn upstarts shoulda just stayed on the farms.
Scoop 3a) Bernanke prints over 24 $billion$ in a week. Every week. Week after week. Even in weeks that have 3 day weekends. Using 24 !!$billion$!! as a battle cry is so..... yesterday. A real snoozer. obamacare is still a "meltdown", and will be a bigger influence on the '14 elections than a government shut down ever would. Heck, most people couldn't care less about the government. Worse than that, they don't even like the government. Few Dems will run on the slogan "I saved obamacare". In fact, a they've already lining up to start running on "I tried to change obamacare". The TP is polling at 25%, and that will only rise as more people are hurt, as more businesses point out how it's affecting their hiring and expansion plans. Or lack there-of. The TP's should break off, start a 3rd party. They have little in common with todays R's. They should try to woo the Pauly's, they're much closer to them. They'll never win a national election, but they can continue their success at the local and state levels. Eventually, it will be those levels that challenge the status quo of Washington. As it should. It will never be seriously challenged from within. And I think that has already started.
Scoop 1) True!

Scoop 2) Little did John McCain know what he was giving birth to when he chose Sarah Palin as a running mate, hmm?
How do those two reconcile that partnership I wonder....

Scoop 3) "obamacare is still a "meltdown", and will be a bigger influence on the '14 elections than a government shut down ever would."
True! Which is why we didn't need Cruz doing what he did. GOP polls were higher BC.
*BC = Before Cruz.

Scoop 4) You skipped the Red Sox scoop! That's ok. Just gives me a chance to say it again.
Red Sox 8- YAY!
Cardinals 1- BOOOOOOOO

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170769 Oct 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
1. War is necessary when bad people (either in power or militants) murder or abuse other people (usually innocent men, women, & children) and refuse to stand down.
I posted,

1. Good people are being killed daily by bad people in other countries.
How many must be killed in order to justify War on those nations?
10, 100, 1000, 10,000 etc…
Should War be declared when your standard is met? And without bias?
Which countries should engage in this War?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There's a point where murdering good people stops being the responsibility of the local police force, and converts to genocide.
Human rights violations are a global concern, when the country involved either cannot handle the problem, or it's leadership is the root cause. MY "standards" are irrelevant. Bias should not be a determining factor. Engaging, supporting, or sitting out a war is up to the individual countries. Some join because they're allies. Some maybe because they feel the same way. Some may sit out because they believe NO war is ever justified for any reason.
Seems noble enough but not without criticism and controversy.

Excerpts taken from a Wiki article,

Inter-governmental bodies and commission reports composed by persons associated with governmental and international careers have rarely discussed the DISTORTING SELECTIVITY of geopolitics behind humanitarian intervention nor potential hidden motivations of intervening parties.- Richard Falk. "Humanitarian Intervention: Elite and Critical Perspectives." Global Dialogue 2005

Others argue that dominant countries, especially the United States and its coalition partners, are using humanitarian pretexts to PERSUE OTHERWISE UNACCEPTABLE GEOPOLITICAL GOALS and to evade the non-intervention norm and legal prohibitions on the use of international force.- Anne Orford. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

A third type of criticism centers on the event-based and inconsistent nature of most policies on humanitarian intervention. These critics argue that there is a tendency for the concept to be invoked in the heat of action, GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY for Western television viewers, but that it neglects the conflicts that are forgotten by the media or occur based on chronic distresses rather than sudden crises. Henry Kissinger, for example, finds that Bill Clinton's practice of humanitarian intervention was wildly inconsistent. The US launched two military campaigns against Serbia WHILE IGNORING more widespread slaughter in Rwanda, justifying the Russian assault on Chechnya, and welcoming to the United States the second-ranking military official of a widely recognized severe human rights violator - the communist government of North Korea.
-Henry Kissinger. Does America Need a New Foreign Policy? New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001

The norm of non-intervention and the primacy of sovereign equality are still cherished by the vast majority of states, which see in the new Western dispensation not a growing awareness of human rights, but a regression to the selective adherence to sovereignty of the pre–UN Charter world.- Aidin Hehir. "Institutionalizing Impermanence: Kosovo and the Limits of Intervention." Global Dialogue 2005.
--
You sound like an honorable guy and I think YOUR standards, if met, would most likely change the world for the better. However, it seems as if there IS bias after all and War will continue be selectively waged as suits the best interest of the one initiating it. Land Grabs have become more subtle these days.
--
Full article can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_int...

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170770 Oct 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>2. War is necessary when ruthless dictators threaten nearby smaller nations
or invade nearby nations, or refuse to abide by the resolutions of a world governing body (UN). Without military intervention, despots have nothing to fear and will continue doing bad things.
I posted,

2. Do you think the U.N. is a viable form of Government?
Do the Nations respect its authority?
Do you think that the “despots” as you put it, fear its teeth?
And again, when your standard is met, should War proceed without bias against the guilty Nation(s)? And by whom?

To which you replied,
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>2) The UN needs to be reformed (IMO), after they're booted out of the US. However, they happen to be the only global entity we have, when operated justly & properly, to call another nation (or nations) for severe violations. Despots have little fear because some permanent members of the Security Council refuse to allow military force on the table, even as a last resort. Also there is nothing to fear from endless paper resolutions if there is no force to back it up.
The dog has no teeth!
I guess they’ll be no help from this entity.
Nor justice for the dead or the soon to be dead.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170771 Oct 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
4. War is necessary if another country attacks the US. If asked, the US may
go to war to assist an ally being attacked or threatened by invasion.
I posted,
4. What if the ally is known to be corrupt and to also, from time to time, engage in unacceptable hostility against their own citizens?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
4) Corrupt allies of the US won't remain allies if the leadership refuses to cease these "hostilities" under insistence from US leaders. I know of no such US allied country fitting this description.
America does have some truly questionable allies; Pakistan and Kazakhstan immediately jump to the fore. They also are strategically located to a sh*t load of oil.

Here is a link to an article that highlights some embarrassing U.S. relationships; you’ll have to decide if any are corrupt.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01...

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170772 Oct 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>3. War is also necessary when bad people are a threat to ANY western interests overseas, such as taking control of oil fields, oil production or oil transporting, and shipping lanes.
I posted,
3. Are you associating these bad people with Nations / Governments / Extremists?
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
3) Some yes, some not. Radical Muslims have hijacked a religion in order to justify their crusade against the west. Out of 1.6 billion Muslims, this small percentage of terrorists come from all corners. Many are brainwashed at a very early age, most are forced into wahabis and from there, into terrorist training camps including methods & reasoning for suicide attacks.
If I understand this correctly, you are not advocating War on any particular country but rather on a group or groups of people, yes? However, if the country was directly responsible then you would declare War on them.

Which group / groups / countries come to mind? I haven’t heard of any U.S. interest abroad being hijacked or restricted unlawfully or otherwise.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170773 Oct 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 4 more points Flash. You have no further comment on any of them?
Sorry for the delay, got a little side-tracked.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170774 Oct 24, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody knows that there was no way the Colonials could beat the World's strongest Empire. Especially when there were as many Colonials that were loyal to the crown as there were those that wanted to separate from British rule. Winning the Revolutionary War was the 'impossible dream'.
As John McCain would have said, "We can't win", and he would have been 100% right, IF we surrendered before we even tried. However, when we tried, things worked out a just a little differently than everyone thought they would.
Texas should never have been able to defeat The well equipped and well trained numerically superior forces of Santa Anna and his Mexican Army... but Texans gave it a try anyway.
Can you please stop with the drama? I'm BEGGING you.

In March of 2010,(with 34 Democrats) and >ALL< 178 Republicans voting against it, the ACA passed. The very next day republicans began the task of trying to repeal it. We've already been over this bobin... the multiple people and efforts and campaigns republicans have waged over and over and over against the ACA, the 40+ times in the House trying to repeal it etc. And so now we have Captain Cruz showing up late to the dance, to save the day- and go one more round with a plan that Obama was going to VETO even if it made it to his desk.
Why oh why don't you get that part?

V
E
T
O

Btw, where was Cruz in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170775 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, your opinion is yours and that's fine but I like to think I'd have helped make costumes or put make-up on the faces of the men who dressed up as Indians to go dump the tea. Or maybe I would have even tried to tag along.... Anyway, I'll leave you with this.
The Sons of Liberty- the members of the original (((Boston))) Tea Party.... their primary objective when they dumped the tea, was protesting FOR colonial representation in Parliment. That's what they wanted. Representation. Did you know btw, that some of our founding fathers were opposed to that act? Some felt destruction of private property was the wrong way to go about change. But no matter. My point is, Americans already HAVE representation in our federal government which we democratically elect so I'm somewhat bewildered why todays Tea Party swiped the name of the original Boston Tea Party.
Anyway, I don't know what our founders would have thought about the Tea Party of today but I'd pay big dollars to be a fly on the wall to watch them debate it.
If I may, this might interest you.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may...

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/04/th...

http://www.historynet.com/debunking-boston-te...
Chris Clearwater

Hollywood, FL

#170776 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! You're going to be one busy guy if you plan to "address" adjectives used against the Tea Party that you don't think are valid. You might want to wear a helmet because I think you might be banging your head against the wall a lot. And don't forget, Chris, there's that little document called the Constitution which protects the right to free speech and I'm pretty sure the fact that you don't like particular messages being communicated (like Mexican music being played while "bashing" Ted Cruz)...... unless they're in some way violating the law, they still have the right to say it.
The cool thing about the Constitution? Everybody gets to use it!
==
Here are a couple of questions I was wondering about that maybe you can answer.
1) If the religious right in the Tea Party are opposed to gays being free to be gay for example, is that considered bigotry in your opinion?
2) If the bible says one thing about homosexuality and the Constitution tells them another, which one wins?
Right you are dear. Don't need a helmet as I've come to expect most on the left to say one thing do a other. I do have a problem with bigots and racist like the one on cnbc that I posted about. Never once said or thought any law was viotlated. In fact I wish more folks on the left took off the mask and really spoke what they feel. If you have a problem with me calling out racist I guess it sucks to be you as I plan to do it until I breathe my last. Point one I think that's called muder as in what happens to gays in Iran. I'm open about being part of the 9 12 project but have yet to hear anyone try to stop gays from anything. In our Pinellas chapter don't think we have once spoken on it. Point two I'm not aware of the U.S. Constitution saying anything about homosexuality? I'm aware that big parts of it were inspired by the bible and guess that's why so many lefties hate it but don't wish to live in a man made theocracy. That never works out too well.
Chris Clearwater

Hollywood, FL

#170778 Oct 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! You're going to be one busy guy if you plan to "address" adjectives used against the Tea Party that you don't think are valid. You might want to wear a helmet because I think you might be banging your head against the wall a lot. And don't forget, Chris, there's that little document called the Constitution which protects the right to free speech and I'm pretty sure the fact that you don't like particular messages being communicated (like Mexican music being played while "bashing" Ted Cruz)...... unless they're in some way violating the law, they still have the right to say it.
The cool thing about the Constitution? Everybody gets to use it!
==
Here are a couple of questions I was wondering about that maybe you can answer.
1) If the religious right in the Tea Party are opposed to gays being free to be gay for example, is that considered bigotry in your opinion?
2) If the bible says one thing about homosexuality and the Constitution tells them another, which one wins?
Also thinking on your question more, if ANYONE wants to try and stop people from being free its not good. It could be bigotry. When I first posted in topix I think in 07 a poster named wip posted. She said she had seen Christians on the mission field in poor nations withhold food unless people converted. I quested that as any Christian I've met will share the gospel and leave it at that. Again I'm thinking of what nations on this earth compel people to act and believe certain things or be killed. It's not here and I don't think you will find many (any?) in the evil tp that wish to see less freedom for anyone. We do have a potus and some in the admin that have said outright they do wish to limit freedom by words and deeds.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#170779 Oct 24, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text> Point two I'm not aware of the U.S. Constitution saying anything about homosexuality?
This is one that opponents of >anything< pull out as needed. Rather than talk about such constitutional silliness such as just how Due Process might "say something about homosexuality", or how the 14th Amendment might "say something about homosexuality", let's just try a little experiment to show just how self-servingly ignorant the above statement is as written.

Let's take this here and apply the same "logic":
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>I'm aware that big parts of (the Constitution) were inspired by the bible
I'm not aware of the U.S. Constitution saying anything about the Bible?

See that? Same exact construct applied to a different subject. Betcha dollars to donuts you don't care for it like THAT....

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
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 1 min Ricky F 24,115
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min June VanDerMark 599,470
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Aura Mytha 864,070
News Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 15 min Poverty Sucks 150
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 18 min sangili karuppan 7,489
The Christian Atheist debate 44 min feces for jesus 1,954
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 54 min hpcaban 221,984
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr -Stray Dog 6,417
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Epiphany2 612,897
More from around the web