In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36585 Aug 21, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
How bout you prove your God actually exists before you start attributing things to it.
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time. When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed. Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.

There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36586 Aug 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature may appear ordered when you don't actually study it, but it's not really that ordered. Nature accounts for all of the universe now, FYI
Chemistry is predictable, that does not demonstrate order. Order would entail that something demonstrated a planned and predetermined function before it came to be as it is. What purpose does the blue in the flame serve? To us it's a marker, but other than that there is no purpose to it, it's just the result of the chaotic event of burning, atoms and molecules going into randomness momentarily.
Well, it seems we have different perceptions of order. To me, anything that is predictable, is displaying order. To me, order need not have any function. The blue in the flame may serve no purpose, but it is a product of different molecular vibrations absorbing certain frequencies of light and allowing others to pass through, during combustion. All of that depends on the different atoms constituting the molecule, their mass and electronegativity, which is the same everytime. The blue flame is the product of a series of physical and quantum laws, never broken, always observed and obeyed. In other words it is a product of order.

It would burn in that way every single time, and if there was true chaos and randomness, it simply would not do that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#36587 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time. When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed. Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.
There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?
You're a theist liar who doesn't understand science. Why would anyone give a flying f*ck about your opinions about science, when you're a proven idiot who doesn't even get it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36588 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
Every single leaf of a mango tree in a mango orchard will look the same as if built in one factory. That is order and hence the tree is part of nature.
Seriously? There is immense variation from leaf to leaf.
True Truth wrote:
Burn some copper chloride and you will get a blue flame every single time, given the conditions are the same.

That reveals order,
Weren't you just telling me that atheists believe that everything is random? Did you think that I don't know about regularities like that in the universe?
True Truth wrote:
that reveals a plan.
Not to me, nor to a rapidly growing contingent calling themselves unbelievers. You pretty much have to assume that there is a god to attribute the regularities in nature to it.

If you need to anthropomorphize the forces of nature, you can call them Mother Nature instead, and skip the worship. Mother Nature only gets respect. She doesn't doesn't have a plan, and she doesn't require your cooperation. Breaking her laws is not possible. Does that resemble a god at all, which can be ignored and even blasphemed?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36589 Aug 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Chemistry is predictable, that does not demonstrate order. Order would entail that something demonstrated a planned and predetermined function before it came to be as it is.
I see order in chemistry. That's why there is a periodic table, and why there is a mathematical treatment of chemistry possible, as with enzyme kinetics: V = Vmax[S]/Km +[S] and stoichiometry: O2 + 2H2 &#8594; 2H2O

What isn't apparent is purpose or intent.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36590 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems we have different perceptions of order. To me, anything that is predictable, is displaying order. To me, order need not have any function. The blue in the flame may serve no purpose, but it is a product of different molecular vibrations absorbing certain frequencies of light and allowing others to pass through, during combustion. All of that depends on the different atoms constituting the molecule, their mass and electronegativity, which is the same everytime. The blue flame is the product of a series of physical and quantum laws, never broken, always observed and obeyed. In other words it is a product of order.

It would burn in that way every single time, and if there was true chaos and randomness, it simply would not do that.
I agree with that. What person familiar with science doesn't?

So I am still amazed that you say that a skeptic attributes observable nature to random chance. That seems like a typical straw man argument that you found in some apologetics resource, and just repeated without thinking about what you were saying.

As best we can tell, all of reality is the result of repeated iterations of four forces on the particle zoo. And we know that such simplicity can generate enormous complexity, as demonstrated by both cellular automata: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomato... , and organic chemistry, where entire families of carbohydrates and lipids are all merely permutations of C, H, and O, and vary in function from energy storage molecules to structural components of cells.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36591 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that there have been no patterns identified yet that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer except those known to have been made by mortals on earth.
<quoted text>
I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does.
I also don't believe that everything around me is the product of chance. There are laws of physics that have a little to do with it. For example, drop an apple in a gravitational field, and it's path, time of falling, velocity on impact, momentum and more are all predictable, not random.
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a cause. It is a process, like rusting. Evolution has a cause, like rusting, but is not properly called a cause. A cause is a physical force, like gravity or an impact.
You have the whole "God the gaps" argument enfused into you and you are not even aware of it. So you are telling me, that looking for evidence of a god, entails finding a pattern that can only be explained by "positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.". In other words, you are looking for a god of the gaps. As an atheist, you should know how ridiculous it is when theists cannot explain things and conclude "God done it!", and yet that is the same criterion you are using when discussing a god.

"I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does." - Well this is a first for me. So tell me, how do you approach abiogenesis? All atheists that I know, argue the odds. They argue that the chances of life arising from non life in any particular place are slim, but considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and solar systems, it is hence theoretically possible that at least at some location, life would arise in this way. That is the common atheist argument.

Atheists don't believe that every single event occurs through chance, but they do believe that life arouse on this particular planet as a result of chance. Even though the laws of physics exist throughout this universe, it is at this particular solar system that the laws resulted in creating a planet suitable for life (as far as we know at this point). And even when the chances of life arising from a particular pool are slim, there were many pools, hence increasing the odds in life's favour. Is that not the general atheist argument? Is that not the general atheist belief?

Renowned atheist, Carl Sagan believed that somehow out of the various lifeless complex molecules, at least one molecule would've begun the process of replication, and thereafter evolved from then on. Is that not basically what you believe? You may state abiogenesis as the cause and technically that would be correct, but its evolution right from then on.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36592 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? There is immense variation from leaf to leaf.
<quoted text>
Weren't you just telling me that atheists believe that everything is random? Did you think that I don't know about regularities like that in the universe?
<quoted text>
Not to me, nor to a rapidly growing contingent calling themselves unbelievers. You pretty much have to assume that there is a god to attribute the regularities in nature to it.
If you need to anthropomorphize the forces of nature, you can call them Mother Nature instead, and skip the worship. Mother Nature only gets respect. She doesn't doesn't have a plan, and she doesn't require your cooperation. Breaking her laws is not possible. Does that resemble a god at all, which can be ignored and even blasphemed?
It is not about anthropomorphic arguments for me. I'm not an animist. Your statements about the growing number of unbelievers, as well as religious rituals and laws are of no relevance to what we are discussing. We are discussing the bottom line: Is there something which has caused and propagates life, or has life happened by a freakish event of the convergence of the laws of the universe suitable for life to form? Were these laws created by some kind of creator, or did they conveniently always exist?

That is the bottom line.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#36593 Aug 21, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And did he have to build them all individually?
Or did he teach some other little microbe to do it for him.
Face it. Thee's a crapload of flagella out there.
Still high on his wildly successful Bacterial Flagella design tour, the Intelligent Designer Dude (IDD) started work on his Magnum Opus ... human anatomy. Unfortunately for us, he seems to have been a "one trick pony" in the perfection department ... throwing out flaws left and right. Nearsighted and farsighted irreducibly complex eyeballs, anus's subject to hemorrhoids and fistulas, exploding vestigial organs such as appendixes and tonsils. Lest we forget ... there's that nagging pain thing and the wonderful slow corruption to misery and death called aging. Oops ... I forgot ... we brought all that onto ourselves.

Intelligent Design is a joke. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out. The evidence isn't hidden away in subtle little gene counts or microscopic details ... it's obvious, it's blatant, it's SLAP YA IN THE FACE CLEAR that IF there was a "designer" involved ... he's incompetent, oversightful, cruel and unworthy of our admiration. Nature, to the MOST CASUAL OBSERVER, is the driving force in our existence and cares no more for us than the blessed flagella equipped bacteria. Like them, we best get on about our reproductive duties or we will cease to exist. She would probably breath a sigh of relief.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36594 Aug 21, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Still high on his wildly successful Bacterial Flagella design tour, the Intelligent Designer Dude (IDD) started work on his Magnum Opus ... human anatomy. Unfortunately for us, he seems to have been a "one trick pony" in the perfection department ... throwing out flaws left and right. Nearsighted and farsighted irreducibly complex eyeballs, anus's subject to hemorrhoids and fistulas, exploding vestigial organs such as appendixes and tonsils. Lest we forget ... there's that nagging pain thing and the wonderful slow corruption to misery and death called aging. Oops ... I forgot ... we brought all that onto ourselves.
Intelligent Design is a joke. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out. The evidence isn't hidden away in subtle little gene counts or microscopic details ... it's obvious, it's blatant, it's SLAP YA IN THE FACE CLEAR that IF there was a "designer" involved ... he's incompetent, oversightful, cruel and unworthy of our admiration. Nature, to the MOST CASUAL OBSERVER, is the driving force in our existence and cares no more for us than the blessed flagella equipped bacteria. Like them, we best get on about our reproductive duties or we will cease to exist. She would probably breath a sigh of relief.
For something that doesn't exist, you have a lot of opinions about it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36595 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

How is that an argument against the Wedge Document having been a private internal document that was leaked?
By showing it was neither "private" nor "leaked".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36596 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
You have the whole "God the gaps" argument enfused into you and you are not even aware of it. So you are telling me, that looking for evidence of a god, entails finding a pattern that can only be explained by "positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.".
What would you consider to be evidence for a sentient, purposive, potent creator?
True Truth wrote:
In other words, you are looking for a god of the gaps.


I don't think so. I'm not looking for any god.

But if we need one, it is only for the gaps. When we didn't understand lightning bolts, we needed a god to throw them. Now, if we need a god, it's to produce the singularity that produced the universe that produced the lightning. If that's what you mean, then yes, if I require a god, it will be to account for what is not yet explainable naturalistically.
True Truth wrote:
As an atheist, you should know how ridiculous it is when theists cannot explain things and conclude "God done it!", and yet that is the same criterion you are using when discussing a god.
I don't understand your criticism. What am I doing that is as ridiculous as saying "goddidit"? Suggesting that a god is not needed unless the gaps cannot be filled in naturalistically?

I'm not sure I said that, but I would agree with it.

I thought that we were talking about existing evidence for gods. You were talking about designs implying a creator. I answered you with, "I meant that there have been no patterns identified yet that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer except those known to have been made by mortals on earth."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36597 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
"I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does." - Well this is a first for me. So tell me, how do you approach abiogenesis?

All atheists that I know, argue the odds. They argue that the chances of life arising from non life in any particular place are slim, but considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and solar systems, it is hence theoretically possible that at least at some location, life would arise in this way. That is the common atheist argument.
The odds of life? I thought we were talking about "the odds against the vastness of the universe" - its magnitude. Your casual use of language in conversations such as these is an impediment to progress.

But regarding the odds on life, it either arose spontaneously or was made and put here. They both seem possible, the former seems much more likely, but that's the of mathematical analysis: semiquantitative answers, not odds.

What more can you say about odds? That the chances of a god existing uncaused are untold orders of magnitude smaller than the odds of a singularity coming into existence uncaused? Maybe.

That the chances of a omnipotent and loving god that wants to be known still being less obvious than the sun are nil? I can go with that, too.
True Truth wrote:
Atheists don't believe that every single event occurs through chance, but they do believe that life arouse on this particular planet as a result of chance.
That's really not correct. Given the earth and its history, abiogenesis and evolution were probably inevitable, as they likely are on most or all other planets and moons where life is possible.

Is this what you meant by the "vastness of the universe"?
True Truth wrote:
Carl Sagan believed that somehow out of the various lifeless complex molecules, at least one molecule would've begun the process of replication, and thereafter evolved from then on. Is that not basically what you believe?
That's close enough. Is this what you meant by "weigh[ing] the odds against the vastness of the universe." If som there was no way to know that you did.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36598 Aug 21, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The Folks Behind the Leak of the “Wedge”
That doesn't constitute a "leak". That constitutes taking someone else's mail and posting it on the internet.

Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend
In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight.

To raise financial support for the Center, Discovery Institute prepared a fundraising proposal that explained the overall rationale for the Center and why a think tank like Discovery would want to start such an entity in the first place. Like most fundraising proposals, this one included a multi-year budget and a list of goals to be achieved.
2. The Rise of an Urban Legend
That’s when members of the Darwinist fringe began saying rather loopy things.
Barbara Forrest, a Louisiana professor on the board of a group called the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, similarly championed the document as proof positive of a sinister conspiracy to abolish civil liberties and unify church and state. Forrest insisted that the document was “crucially important,” and she played up its supposed secrecy, claiming at one point that its “authenticity…has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute.” Poor Prof. Forrest—if she really wanted to know whether the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask.(She didn’t.)
There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
--Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
--At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
--Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.
3. What the Document Actually Says
First and foremost, and contrary to the hysterical claims of some Darwinists, this document does not attack “science” or the “scientific method.” In fact, it is pro-science.
What the document critiques is “scientific materialism,” which is the abuse of genuine science by those who claim that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism.

“The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized.” It’s shocking but true—Discovery Institute actually promised to publicize the work of its scholars in the broader culture! What’s more, it wanted to engage Darwinists in academic debates at colleges and universities! We are happy to say that we still believe in vigorous and open discussion of our ideas, and we still do whatever we can to publicize the work of those we support. So much for the “secret” part of our supposed “conspiracy.”

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36599 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
It is not about anthropomorphic arguments for me. I'm not an animist.
I don't think you understand what anthropomorphosizing means. It's not an argument.

And animism would be only one form of it. Theism is another. And so are concepts like Father Time and Lady Luck.
True Truth wrote:
Your statements about the growing number of unbelievers, as well as religious rituals and laws are of no relevance to what we are discussing.
You said, "that [order] reveals a plan," and I said, "Not to me, nor to a rapidly growing contingent calling themselves unbelievers. You pretty much have to assume that there is a god to attribute the regularities in nature to it."

If my reply is irrelevant, then your claim that order reveals a plan is irrelevant. They're two opposite opinions. And of them, yours is the existential claim, earning you the burden of proof to raise your words above the level of personal opinion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36600 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
We are discussing the bottom line: Is there something which has caused and propagates life, or has life happened by a freakish event of the convergence of the laws of the universe suitable for life to form?
I have trouble with your language. That's not my bottom line, unless you mean did life arise spontaneously or was it deliberately fashioned. Where does "freakish" come in? Why stick it on the naturalistic side of the question? I think that the possibility of a god existing may be freakishly low. Maybe we should ask if life arose perforce, or did a god come into existence in some freakish manner and create it?
True Truth wrote:
Were these laws created by some kind of creator, or did they conveniently always exist? That is the bottom line.
I think that the bottom line is, did a replicator manage to self-assemble then evolve after eons on a Goldilocks planet - perhaps inevitably - or did some creator conveniently pop into existence and then conveniently "poof" life into existence?

The language matters, doesn't it?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#36601 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time.
Because that was a hypothesis that allowed for specific predictions of a large collection of observed data about chemistry. The actual existence of atoms was hotly debated until the early 20th century *because* they hadn't been observed. Some (like Ernst mach) thought they were simply convenient calculational gimmics.
When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed.
In this case, also, it was because it was part of a larger hypothesis that explained a very large collection of observed phenomena. Also, until the actual verification of existence, that hypothesis was held as tentative and not definitive.
Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.
We do have detection of dark matter--via its gravitational effects. We do not yet know what it is actually composed of, but we do have detection. Similarly for dark energy.
There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?
But scientists *do* scrutinize the scientific proposals. If a hypothesis is not required for an explanation, it is eliminated. If it does not give measureable, testable predictions, it is eliminated. If a simpler alternative is found that explains the details just as well, the more complicated explanation is eliminated. The important aspects are: testable detailed predictions, as few assumptions are possible, and as broad of an explanation of detailed observations as possible.

How does your hypothesis of a creator stack up? You claim the creator gave us the laws of physics and chemistry, which produces the observed complexity around us. OK, why not simply have the laws themselves? What testable prediction does your hypothesis make that is not already made by the mere existence of the phsyical laws? If you can give none, then in good scientific tradiation, that hypothesis shoudl be eliminated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#36602 Aug 21, 2012
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems we have different perceptions of order. To me, anything that is predictable, is displaying order. To me, order need not have any function. The blue in the flame may serve no purpose, but it is a product of different molecular vibrations absorbing certain frequencies of light and allowing others to pass through, during combustion. All of that depends on the different atoms constituting the molecule, their mass and electronegativity, which is the same everytime. The blue flame is the product of a series of physical and quantum laws, never broken, always observed and obeyed. In other words it is a product of order.
It would burn in that way every single time, and if there was true chaos and randomness, it simply would not do that.
OK, so we both agree there are physical laws. Why is the additional assumption of a creator required?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36603 Aug 21, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
Barbara Forest and her band of hooligans got hold of it because it was sent out in the mail in a fundraiser. Regular U.S. Mail. It was not registered, required no signature, and no oath of secrecy. Futher, it contained the same information they had made known publicly in a variety of forums.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How is that an argument against the Wedge Document having been a private internal document that was leaked? Are you implying that this letter to Barbara Forrest, which is news of no apparent import to me, was the initial viewing of this letter by a Discovery Institute outsider?
Buck Crick wrote:
By showing it was neither "private" nor "leaked".
You didn't do that. You claimed that the Discovery institute published its Wedge Strategy, but not that it hadn't been a "TOP SECRET" internal memo that had already been leaked by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes around January 1999). What month and year(s) are you referring to here?
Buck Crick wrote:
That is not a "leaked document". Anyone making the claim is lying.

[QUOTE who="It aint necessarily so"]So you say. Where is your support for these claims?
[crickets chirping]

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#36604 Aug 21, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
For something that doesn't exist, you have a lot of opinions about it.
A large number of people have gone through considerable effort to convince me otherwise. My opinions reflect, as at least a dim echo, current scientific perceptions.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News PICTURES: Triumphant homecoming for Glaswegian ... (Nov '12) 8 hr Tudorian Loyalist 11
News Ben Affleck: Republicans 'had a chance' (Oct '12) Thu Lawrence Wolf 81
News Church: Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (Apr '13) Thu Mork 17
News Supreme Court hands President Obama a major vic... (Jun '12) Jul 27 swedenforever 3,703
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Jul 26 swedenforever 26
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... Jul 26 Captain Yesterday 64
News Romneyites Think the 47% Are Parasites (Oct '12) Jul 26 Bravo Uniform Mike 54
More from around the web