Prove there's a god.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665975 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I like Hannity, too. But I also like Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Like this:

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665976 Oct 21, 2013
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>You are full of sh!t [RR].
That explains why there is no difference between what comes out of his A$$ and what comes out of his mouth.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665977 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text> And you called that proof....
Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.

The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics. The question remains: why these attributes, why the virgin birth on December 25th, why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection, why 12 disciples or followers? To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs.

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem, his birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings or magi followed to locate and adorn the new savior. He was a child teacher at 12, at the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry. Jesus had 12 disciples which he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, he was also known as the "King of Kings," the "Son of God," the "Light of the World," the "Alpha and Omega," the "Lamb of God," and many others. After being betrayed by his disciple Judas and sold for 30 pieces of silver, he was crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

[Born of a virgin
Born on Dec. 25
Star in the East]

First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise — the birth of the sun.

The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo in Latin means virgin. The ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered "m". This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrra, or Buddha's mother Maya begin with an M. Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to "house of bread". Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665978 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just thick-headed.
pot/kettle

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665979 Oct 21, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am quite white.
You are white trash.
And a racist.
And apparently stupid, too.
LOL!!!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665980 Oct 21, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like Christianity and the bible.
Excellent!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665981 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Except for Josephus probably no writer of antiquity has been more relied upon by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus than the Roman historian, Tacitus. In the Annals he related the measures taken by Nero to lessen the suffering brought about by the great fire in Rome in 64 A.D. as well as remove its traces and, then allegedly made the following statements: "But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters.
First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44).

The number of problems associated with this paragraph are almost too numerous to mention:

to be continued

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665982 Oct 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a "profesor"? And yes, you meet the classic definition of apologist. Therefore you are one.
a professor is one who professes what he knows - duh! are you gonna (gonna = going to) sweat me over spelling on a blog? do you do the same when texting, nerd?

i will only apologize to you if you humble yourself and apologize to me/us Christians; otherwise we're on opposite sides of the epic war of good vs evil and YOU are on the evil side of the battle!:-)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665983 Oct 21, 2013
continued
(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance. That the founder of Christianity was put to death under Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate must have been discovered in the same archive which, according to Tertullian, also said the sun was darkened at midday when Jesus died.
(2) The phrase "multitudo ingens" which means "a great number" is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 A.D.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later.
(3) Death by fire was not a form of punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State. The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs.
(4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.
(5) Suetonius himself says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason, then can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect.
(6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people.
(7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. It is hardly probable that Nero would have incurred the risk of a second fire by his living torches.
(8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.
(9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
(10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665984 Oct 21, 2013
(11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no "inimitable" style for the clever forger, and the more unususal, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.
(12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.
(13) What does it matter whether or not Tacitus wrote this passage? He could only have received the information, a hundred years after the time, from people who had told it to others. It doesn't matter, therefore, whether or not the passage is genuine.
(14) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians."
(15) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.
(16) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.
(17) The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a "Christian" could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665985 Oct 21, 2013
(18) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.
(19) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.(20) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.
(21) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
(22) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
(23) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works.
(24) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.
(25) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?(26) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665986 Oct 21, 2013
What else, then, can be said about the historicity of Jesus?
(1) Many writers, such as Renan, have attempted to write his biography but failed, failed because no materials for such a work exist.
(2) If Jesus was an historical person, how is it that not only does the Talmud never mention him but Paul's Epistles do not tell a single special fact about the life of Jesus? Read the other Epistles of the NT. Nowhere in any of the early Christian documents do we find even the slenderest reference to the mere man Jesus, the historical personality as such, from which we might infer that the author had a close acquaintance with him. His life, as described in the gospels, seems to have been entirely unknown to the authors. His speeches and sayings are hardly ever quoted and where this is done, as in the Epistle of James or the Book of Acts, they are not quoted as sayings of Jesus.
(3) What can Josephus or Tacitus prove? They could at the most merely show that at the end of the 1st century not only the Christians but their traditions and Christ-myth were known in Rome. When the latter originated, however, and how far it was based on truth, could not be discovered from Tacitus or Josephus.
(4) And finally, it should be mentioned that some writers are notable for what they didn't say about Jesus:
(a) Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, these events were not mentioned by him.
(b) Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was allegedly involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Yet, Seneca and Pliny the Elder, who recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and elipses they could find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the event.
(c) Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#665987 Oct 21, 2013
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gree...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-st...

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10751277._I_ha...

Just some interesting links that can be linked, but you have to connect a lot of dots.

Refer to my previous post concerning the first link.

The same for the second. This is because the sun's magnetic pole is due to flip any moment. That means the previous energy flow polarization is weakening, thus reducing the effects here on earth that drive that extreme weather, which is just energy transfers seeking a balance. You will get a surge after it does. You can liken it to a hurricane hitting you with winds in the opposite directions after the eye passes over. What might have withstood the first winds might not from the opposite.

The third relates to mass consciousness and being facets of the same beastie with some shifts in the alignment of that consciousness. Energy creates that consciousness.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665988 Oct 21, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
You would say so; you are a liberal, defending Obama and the liberal party. The Capitol Mall was open for illegal aliens to demonstrate, but the WWII memorial was closed to the people for whom it was dedicated.
You can thank the liberals for that.
<quoted text>
You deliberately ignored mine. You *still* haven't told me which Fox reporters you saw that are blatant right-wing propagandists; surely, their names would have stuck in your mind.
But somehow, I just don't think you will.
Oh; and you called me a racist by claiming I opposed Obama's policies because he was black.
You are the racist here, not me. You are the one who needs to play the race card.
<quoted text>
The very first time I told you I was opposed to Obamacare, and that I watch Fox News.
<quoted text>
How do I do that? Or is this just your way of saying you don't like what I ask because I come from a fairly conservative point of view and you're unable to answer honestly?
<quoted text>
You accused the entire station of being propagandist. I simply asked you which reporters you were referring to; I asked for specific names, since they obviously would have stuck in your memory. Is *that* what you call "framing the question in a dishonest way?"
What you are *really* saying is that you just don't want to answer me, yet you expect me to answer you. That's very right-wing christian of you.
<quoted text>
I asked for proof; you won't give any. Pretty much the same way the christians here refuse to offer up any proof of their god.
<quoted text>
Very easily; I watch them, and judge for myself. Some of the commentators *are* right-wingers, and they make no secret about it. Others are not. I mentioned this to you before, and you just don't want to accept it because it goes against your fundamentalist liberal point of view.
<quoted text>
I repeat: NAME ONE. NAME ONE. NAME **JUST ONE.** Back up your claim, christian. I mean, liberal.
<quoted text>
It is; I've watched *them,* too.
<quoted text>
Why, because you say so? You don't even watch them, so you do not know what you're talking about.
<quoted text>
How would you know? Does "god" tell you? Because you obviously don't watch them. Are you afraid to watch them, even for one day? Do you really believe that they'll invade your brain somehow, like in "Videodrome," and that you'll become a conservative against your will?
<quoted text>
Damn straight.
<quoted text>
No, it's because I can think for myself and because I have a really, really good bullshit detector. You have convinced yourself that I believe *everything* they say; I don't. But that doesn't compute with you, does it?
You still haven't told me which "journalists" you trust. I can understand why; I imagine you get *your* info from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. You want to criticize me for watching Fox, but I'm betting you rely on Comedy Central. Now,*there's* a news organization!
"The very first time I told you I was opposed to Obamacare, and that I watch Fox News"

as this whole world escalates to its expected end, the only people who won't compromise and become completely fascist (i.e. so-called "liberal") will be the Christians (as it has been in every communistic/socialistic/antich rist society)

why not just repent and join the body of Christ now?:-)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665989 Oct 21, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text>And God knows that people like her, and you, and many others, are REAL IGNORANT, but He loves the human race anyway! That's why He sent His Holy, Innocent Son to this sinful, spiritually fallen world!!: To bear the shame and the agony of the Cross!! And God also knows that HELL will be FOREVER for all who choose to live their short time in this current, dying age that is quickly coming to an end!! And because of that Almighty God has chosen to be patient towards many who daily reject His Holy Son! But that still doesn't change the REALITY that TODAY is the day of salvation!! For you are not promised tomorrow!!!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rtU-NinFcGEXX
Prove it con-artist.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#665990 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists and skeptics claim it can't be proven unless it's demonstrable and repeatable.
Can you demonstrate that you love your family?
If not, they'll tell you that you have no evidence.
Apples and oranges moron.

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority.

["Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."]

It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665991 Oct 21, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
I stand by that.
<quoted text>
I never said any such thing, but don't let that stop you from making any more false accusations about me, liberal.
<quoted text>
Because the way "liberal" is popularly used today is not accurate. The true liberal movement got hijacked by the fundamentalist liberals.
Juan Williams, for example. As I've already told you (and you won't even address it), he was a commentator for NPR and for Pacifica. After 9-11, he expressed, through his Free Speech First Amendment rights on NPR radio, his discomforture at riding in the same airplane with people of obvious Arabic descent.
Those grand supporters of First Amendment Free Speech FIRED HIM for making such a "racist" statement over their airwaves.
"Their" airwaves.
I was always under the impression that the airwaves belonged to the public...as NPR and Pacifica always remind us.
Anyway, I also told you that he is now a Fox News consultant, where he is still speaking out on hils liberal views; and you said he was a Fox "token." Liberal, that is.
"Because the way "liberal" is popularly used today is not accurate. The true liberal movement got hijacked by the fundamentalist liberals"

you are SO close to the truth, yet (spiritual) worlds apart!

here's a lil hint to help you with a piece to the puzzle:
GOD is FOR the people, but the devil (aka the spirit of antichrist in this world) is narcissistic and in it for SELF GLORIFICATION AND POWER/CONTROL!

"for God so loved the world...."

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665992 Oct 21, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
it's really too bad that moralists and the self-righteous pagans like you have forgotten the simple gospel message of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and receiving His gift of righteousness in lieu of thier own.....:-(
<quoted text>
Brilliant, but wassie will just tell you that you're a tool of satan. Wassie has *all* the answers, y'know,'cause he's got "de holey spirit o' jeeeeebus" in him.
and you have a problem with this, why?;)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665993 Oct 21, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's just one of the reasons why you can't get laid.
We didn't really need to know that, assie. From now on, please keep your perversions to yourself.
<quoted text>
To borrow a phrase from you? "What's right for you is wrong for me, and what's right for me is right for you." How's that work for you, pervert?
i don't think we're really all that different from each other, except you are fighting against who you know you should be but i'm not:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#665994 Oct 21, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
No he didn't; he never existed. He's a myth.
<quoted text>
There aren't any. You lose again.
<quoted text>
Actually, not true. The only two religions on earth that prozelytize and threaten with punishment are christianity and islam; that's because they believe in the same god of abraham. No other religions do that.
<quoted text>
Debate is an intellectual process; since you hold nothing but disdain and contempt for the intellect, as you've told us before, it is obvious that you are not here to 'debate,' but rather to proselytize and demand fealty.
<quoted text>
You *can't* answer me. You know I'm right, you know you are wrong, and we both know you're a hypocrite. You demand that everyone practice what you preach, yet you won't do it yourself.
That's what makes you a hypocrite.
i've answered you at least 100 times, but you still can't answer me:

how can you say Jesus is a "myth" when there's so much documented history and a living Church proving that He's not???

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 10 min skyedove 31,210
My "thorn in the flesh" God won't fix....this s... 23 min Poo Bears 7
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 57 min Rosesz 687,333
Are Quadroons and Griffes Considered Mulatto? (Aug '10) 2 hr Johnny 47
dried poppy pods (Mar '13) 3 hr gurmail singh gosal 38
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 4 hr Johnny 186
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr David S Pumpkins 286,590
More from around the web