Glenn Beck: You know what’s killing America? Godlessness
posted at 7:40 pm on September 29, 2009 by Allahpundit
Give him credit for consistency: The second “core principle” of the 9/12 Project is, after all, “I believe in God and He is the center of my life.” I complained about that not long ago and a bunch of Beck fans jumped in to remind me that he’s said one needn’t believe in all the “core principles” to be part of the movement. No? Watch this clip and tell me how optional you think the God principle is in his mind.
I take his point about some liberal atheists filling the spiritual void with belief in government — it’s a pet peeve of an evangelical Democrat friend of mine, in fact — but (a) it’s not true of all nonbelievers, especially of the conservative stripe, and (b) personally, if I were inclined to get on my knees and wish/hope/pray for intervention from either God or Barack Obama, I’d call out for The One too. After all, there’s at least a chance he might show. I don’t get the either/or dichotomy Beck draws between social justice and eternal justice either; for starters, I can imagine Martin Luther King objecting rather strenuously to that. Nor do I understand the snotty, presumptuous accusation that atheists are “filling the void” with money and careers. Personally, I don’t feel any spiritual void, and even if I did, I’d rather not be lectured about it by a guy who has his own media empire and who’ll make more money this year than my entire extended family has made in the past century. What “void” in Beck’s soul is he filling with his fantastically popular show? See how condescending it is to even ask that?
And one more thing. If the key to American governance is the passage in the Declaration of Independence about god-given inalienable rights, why’d the authors of the Constitution go ahead and enumerate some of those rights anyway? And why, if they’re inalienable and god-given, weren’t those rights made exempt from amendment or repeal via Article V? The touchstone of the Constitution isn’t God, it’s rule by popular consent; religion may well influence the public in deciding which rights are so critical that even the popularly elected government should be forbidden to touch them, but when push comes to shove, it’s your call, not God’s. Slavery was once a right too, after all, and I’m sure there were plenty of apologists who found religious backing for that, fair or not.
Exit question: Why does he keep pushing the argument that his show isn’t about Democrat vs. Republican? That’s true, strictly speaking — he’s a libertarian, not a party apparatchik — but the Dems have been the party of big(ger) government for the past 40 years, at least. They’re antithetical to his philosophy. Saying his show has, or should have, no partisan resonance is like Janeane Garofalo insisting that she’s not about Dems or Repubs, just “truth.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next »
Jesus isn’t gone…I see him “hangin’-20″ each day I pass the local baptist church. Seems he’s right where he belongs.
Good4Onan on September 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM
with pieces of sh** like you….
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I think it’s cool so many Christian HotAir commenters are so supportive of Beck’s Mormonism. Too many from traditional Christian churches aren’t.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM
we’re not cool with his theology…we’re cool with his politics…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM
So the Torah was initially written during the Babylonian exile, and can generally be trusted as historically accurate from that point forward. This isn’t helping your case.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM
you are just delusional.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM
If Godlessness is the problem, is Beck’s God or view of God part of the solution?
exception on September 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Why are you looking for a stronger basis for morality than observations of human nature and a general element of public consent?
(Truth be told, I’m not sure what Nihilism is exactly, or, more to the point, what you are trying to evoke with it.)
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Howdy hawksruleva. Yup, I do realize he is a libertarian and I agree with how you described Beck’s main lament. My generalizations still stand, however, and my reason for drifting that direction is mainly because I disagree with Beck in that our downward spiral is directly linked to a lack of religion.
The problem I have with it is that it tends to look back to “the good’ol days” as some idyllic standard. Everything is relative and I will give some examples. The middle ages were very “religious” but I would not want to live in those times! The golden era of the USA ’50′s was great for some, but not so great for blacks living in the south that still lived with the fear of being lynched. Most of the folks there/then were very religious. Iran is very religious…
Anyway, this is my point – at every point in history it has sucked on Earth somewhere…
yubley on September 30, 2009 at 1:39 PM
you know I don’t agree with the jews either…but I would sure rather live in a jewish state, than an atheist state…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM
And overall it has always sucked harder than it does today. Less war, less disease, less starvation, less oppression, it goes on…
exception on September 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM
You have some agreement with Jews, but I understand your point. Is a false religion better than no religion?
exception on September 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I was under the impression that we were a Republic-not a strict mob rule Democracy.
Popular consent would give mob rule-something our Forefathers did not want.
Badger40 on September 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Ok…where am I wrong?
long_cat on September 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I wouldn’t consider the jews a false religion..
and some religions are better than others…islam is incompatible with freedom I believe.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Yup, exactly.
yubley on September 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM
You know what, I think I may have just come across a major problem in the way you interact with science.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your Jesus-centric world view, things start off pure and are corrupted over time, right?
The development of science works the other way — things start off corrupt, incomplete, or otherwise rough, and are purified over time and continued work. As such, you keep talking “hairy-god Darwin”, thinking this is an attack on the core of evolutionary theory, when it is really just nibbling at the roughest edges. Darwin barely knew what he was talking about, and we can do much better today.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Did you forget the /sarc tag?
I don’t fool myself that people here are cool with us LDS folks.
I’m well aware of the prejudice that exists.
Irregardless of what Beck’s religion is:
core beliefs in some moral system are better than nothing.
I’m sure many atheists have some sort of core belief.
But IMHO based on my interpretations of historic observations is that without a belief of some benevolent higher power-some belief of a purpose beyond what is on this Earth.
Bcs if all we do is live & die & nothing else-what hope is there for the beyond?
And hopelessness breeds apathy which breeds iniquity.
In the end, we’ll all find out when we die.
I’m taking my bets on the Christianity side.
Badger40 on September 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Amen.
Christian Conservative on September 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Humanists & secularism has brought us to present times.
And it’s not that great in the whole scheme of things.
Badger40 on September 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I agree.
Others would gasp at your assertion.
Truth hurts.
Badger40 on September 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Do athiests, through their words and actions, promote godless-ness in our society? Yes or no.
long_cat on September 30, 2009 at 1:54 PM
but we don’t do any better today. the only thing that has changed about darwinism is the synthesis…the mechanism…the atheism…the whole concept, is still the same.
ok then, since we know so much…name the mutations that led to the eye..IN ORDER…you cannot…yet you believe the eye evolved…which makes it faith.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM
very true. the suicide of the west…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM
link
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Beck is just an ideologue. Shock jock type, wrapped in a different flavor.
He broke two really good stories. But, like KO or any of the other pundits, real stories require real journalism, not just opinions.
AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some religions are better than others, and various forms of Christianity are right up there.
I’m not entirely sure Islam is incompatible with freedom, but a lot of evidence points in that general direction. Being based on the dictates of a cult leader cum Emperor, it doesn’t exactly have the most solid of beginnings.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM
My experience is that nobody promotes or demotes spiritual principles. That’s a very private matter.
AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I love reading history, and it’s interesting that even our forefathers dealt gently with this issue.
AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Yet a lot of comments think he’s 100% right about being away from God as a big problem. I’m just wondering if all think he is part of the problem he describes.
I think some of the best messages to come from a church were those LDS TV spots decades ago. They just showed people doing good, normal stuff. Only brought up the Church at the end.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Incorrect. I assume that the eye evolved, because that is the most reasonable explanation for it. Presented with convincing evidence of some other origin, I would thereafter assume that origin (until an even more reasonable explanation came along).
You seem to be making some incorrect assumptions about my thought process, here.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Some do, the vast majority don’t.
Do Christians, by their words and actions, promote larger government through meddling in people’s private lives and “protecting morality” rather than liberty?
Newsflash for Glenn Beck fans; violence, brutality, immorality, and cowardice have always existed and always will. They are endemic to humanity itself and have no end.
Conservatives recognize this and resign themselves to it. Liberals do not.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM
no its your faith that causes you to believe it…you have never seen evolution..nor has it been seen in the lab, or the field, or the fossil record.
the eye is obviously designed….what need would there be for an eye to evolve? bacteria does just fine without an eye, correct? what advantage does EACH STEP in the evolution of the eye confer? thats why you need to know what each mutation that caused it to evolve is…its like blood clotting…it had to exactly right…too much, you die…too little…you die…its very hard to think how a step-by-step process could create something like this.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I wonder if there is a emote for a raised eyebrow…
Anyway, that looks like a list of observed, contemporary examples of evolution. There is a whole world of evolutionary examples derived from fossil and genetic information, probably more than any one person knows about.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM
no…but let me guess…you’re talking about abortion..and gay marriage…which take away rights from others for some privileged few….some pigs are more equal than others…..
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM
when a bacteria becomes resistant to an anti-biotic…does it cease to be a bacteria?
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM
and that ‘one person’ is a world-renowned scientist/evolutionist…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM
That one isn’t even hard. Eugenia have a light-sensing eye organelle that helps them find a good spot to photosynthesize — anything that might want to find food where there is light would also find it useful. When you go to multi-cellular, having light sensitive cells allows you to do the same thing. Clustering those together give you a way to do basic detection, and arranging them in a cavity can give you a rough resolution. Through in a lens for focus, and you have your basic eye.
If you are looking for the exact mutation, though, heck if I know. Maybe someone has worked that out, but you are missing the basic point that it is reasonable to assume it all worked out.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I don’t choose to be an atheist because I think it’s wonderful. To be honest, I’d much rather believe I was going to live forever, and that all my questions about life, the universe, and everything were answered a couple thousand years ago. Then again, if I was going to choose a religion based on how emotionally satisfying it was, I think I’d go with something more reincarnation-y. Just seems fairer, I don’t know.
“Good” doesn’t make any more ontological sense whether it’s the divine will of an inscrutable super-entity or it’s a serendipitious byproduct of biological necessity. Either possibility leads to some tough questions. As far as I’m concerned, merely asking the questions is purpose enough for either of us.
RightOFLeft on September 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM
If you believe that those things should be dealt with on a federal level, then yes.
What I was really referring to was Pew and others polling that shows Christians overwhelmingly supporting the federal government doing more to protect morality, and surprisingly the environment, through regulation. This while claiming to want limited government.
You either believe in limited government and liberty or you don’t.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Too cease to be a bacteria, it would have to develop characteristics of things we would classify as something other than bacteria. Perhaps you mean to ask if it cease to be the same species of bacteria — that’s a bit more of a fuzzy question. To my knowledge (kind of week here), our classification of bacterial species is kind of arbitrary, since they don’t really do sexual reproduction.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Do Christians, by their words and actions, promote larger government through meddling in people’s private lives and “protecting morality” rather than liberty?
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Every law is tied to morality and enforcement of laws take away someone’s liberty…so which “Christian” law are you speaking of that you are opposed to?
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Frankly, I think the entire issue is ridiculous. I don’t care if people think there is a God or not.
They surely understand they aren’t God. That’s really all that’s important.
We don’t make the trees grow, for heaven’s sakes. We don’t make the sun shine.
It’s the arrogance behind no spirituality that causes human problems. It’s overstepping natural boundaries.
Other than that? If people wish to lie without faith, that’s their business.
AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM
a nice story…no surprise…bacteria does quite well without an eye, or an ‘light sensitive patch’ you are assuming the Eugenia evolved…you assume evolution…and tell a story to fit the facts…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM
no one has a good definition of species…but clearly it is still a bacteria…and while anti-biotic resistance provides an advantage from that particular substance, it of ten weakens the bacteria in other ways..Spetner says it is a loss of information that causes the resistance.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:29 PM
and of course you ignored the question about each step…because according to evolutionary theory, each mutation would have to provide an advantage…else it would be bred out of the population…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Still going and going….amazing.
How about let the believers believe. Let the non-believers not believe. Agree to disagree and let God sort it all out. Oh, oops..God or..the universe? lol
bridgetown on September 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM
You either believe in limited government and liberty or you don’t.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Limited is not the same as no. I believe in liberty and limited government…but I don’t believe in the right to kill your unborn baby…because that conflicts with the baby’s right to live. I believe in liberty to be gay…just don’t require me to accept the behavior as normal and force me to accept gay marriage…as that takes away my freedom of religion.
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 2:31 PM
so you have no problem taking away the rights of an unborn babie..or the freedom of religion for christianity…
some pigs are more equal than others…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM
To be correct, each change would have to not provide an insurmountable disadvantage. Every plant and animal has many things with them that are problems.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I believe in micro-evolution…within species. Anyone familiar with breeding understands this. But you are right, there is no proof that macro-evolution exists. The only they can honestly say is that there are a lot of similarities between different species. That is science. The faith leap is taking the evolution theory and assume it equivalent to Gravity ( which they can’t explain either, but I digress ). The sheer possibility that a male and a female are created in the same area, who can’t procreate with the species of their parents…only with each other…and that this happened a million times over, yet we can’t find one example…its statistically zero.
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM
you know a mutation is either benficial, or not…I don’t see a neutral mutation…because it would take a certain amount of energy to maintain…and if it does not offer any advantage..then why bother?
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Actually, that’s not true. Negative characteristics (or those that lack a positive one, depending on how you look at it) often persist a long time in the gene pool. If the think can still survive, and is only at a slight competitive disadvantage, there are a lot of random environmental factors (including the presence of beneficial genes on the same chromosome) that allow the gene to linger on, particularly if it is recessive. You end up with a kind of exponential tail.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM
yeah…..and it was awful clever of evolution to make male and female to begin with, wasn’t it?? at just about the right time?
the evolutionist sees micro, and think its ‘adds up’ to macro…but they run into Haldane’s dilemma…and things like the tuatara…which has the fastest ‘micro’ evolution ever seen…and yet is a living dinosaur…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM
It depends on your definition of normal.
Murder has always been and we can expect that it will continue for as long as there are humans. Therefore, unfortunate or not, homocide is a normal behavior of humans.
Does the fact that people kill each other, contrary to the commands of your God, take away from your freedom of religion?
Nobody is forcing you to accept anything.
I think Bono sucks. Giving him a grammy doesn’t infringe on my ability to think he sucks.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM
There is no “why bother.” If it doesn’t significantly harm survival odds, it will happen and spread through the gene pool, with some probability.
You are requiring too much certainty, too much determinism in a process that is quite chaotic.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM
To a libertarian, the problem is forcing anyone to accept anyone else’s marriage. I don’t want to be told I have to provide anything to the spouse of an employee, straight or gay. I can imagine letting the government define my relationships at all. For some people getting married in their church isn’t definative, binding, or significant enough.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM
if its recessive, then it doesn’t really matter…you are basically contending with evolutionary theory, not me…sorry.
but you know that even too many positive mutations are harmful, right?
link
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM
One mutation does not generally a new species make. It is the accumulation of differences between too isolated populations until they can no longer interbreed that makes them separate species.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM
first I don’t think there are ‘neutral mutations’ they are either beneficial, or not…but even if such a thing existed…it would take a certain amount of energy to maintain that mutation…and pass it on….
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Creatures survive with unbeneficial traits all the time. There aren’t any perfect animals. They don’t need to max some theoretical spec sheet; they just have to breed well enough to survive.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Actually, I’m pro-life and have three children. I have no problem with the states deciding that abortion is murder. It’s not a federal affair.
Your second point (if you can call it that) is to stupid to reply to.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:46 PM
yeah so the story goes…
link
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM
gay marriage will obviosly restrict freedom of religion for christians..and others…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM
You know, you should really try to understand the things you try to use as evidence before you link to them.
That really isn’t relevant to what we were discussing.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM
really, give examples.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM
How?, i’d appreciate if your answer would inform me on your viewpoint without petty or condescending.
Equanim1ty found on September 30, 2009 at 2:52 PM
obviously it is…do you understand it??? apparently not. since mutations are the mechanism of darwinism, it is very relevant.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:52 PM
How much “micro-evolution” do you believe in? To look at a well-known example of the results of selective breeding, dogs can vary in size, facial features, shape, hair, and intelligence. Some of the same features, in fact, that distinguish us from our distant cousins (really, really distant — far more distant than any two dogs) in the primate family.
RightOFLeft on September 30, 2009 at 2:53 PM
?! Which one is perfect? Either type or individual?
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:53 PM
link
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Nifty. Almost, but not quite, separate species. If they were categorized as different species, rather than different subspecies, someone goofed.
But, as always, it fails to support your argument.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:54 PM
this is a ridiculous argument…either a mutation confers benefit, or not…according to evolutionary theory, if it does not, it is bred out of the population…
you all are arguing against your own theory when you say harmful mutations are passed on and not bred out of the population…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Oh obviously. How could you properly worship Jesus, knowing that somewhere two gay dudes gave each other some rings.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Myopia.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM
you know you always say that…keep trying to convince yourself….
newsflash: your theory ‘goofed’ the geogrphic isolation hasn’t worked out in that case..
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM
But they did for doing gay stuff.
Is it okay to limit the freedom of people who do not want to give benefits to spouses at all?
exception on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM
you know you are arguing against your own theory, right?
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM
they also do that for drug stuff…so?
the gays have no problems in limiting the freedom of those who oppose them…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Murder has always been and we can expect that it will continue for as long as there are humans. Therefore, unfortunate or not, homocide is a normal behavior of humans….
I think Bono sucks. Giving him a grammy doesn’t infringe on my ability to think he sucks.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM
But isn’t thou shall not kill a Christian law? ( I know its not limited to Christianity, just proving my point that laws are moral based )
Giving Bono a grammy doesn’t allow him marriage rights…which include adoption, which includes a church could down the road be shut down because they “preach hate” even force that church to perform gay marriages. It may not happen in the first pass, but it will happen, its the logical conclusion of where the laws are heading. You want to be gay…I don’t care. You want to create a contract that gives makes your partner that to be of a “spouse”…don’t care. Where I draw the line is with kids. Kids need a mother and a father. Yes they can survive with a single parent or a father and father or mother and mother…even with 10 sets of parents ( polygamy ) But kids do better when they have a healthy mother and a healthy father. There is enough damage to the family with the divorce rate…we don’t need to damage the institution more with gay marriage. For example, in MA before if the topic of gay marriage came up, the schools had to send notice to parents. Since its legal, they no longer have to notify parents.
To me its the same with drugs. You want to use drugs…don’t care. Just know I will support the state to come in and put your kids in foster care.
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Yet.
Which is why it is interesting.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM
are you this stupid in real life?
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM
What theory?
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 2:59 PM
keep the faith.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM
evolution
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM
How?
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM
What faith?
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I thought in evolution, bad traits were bred out..you know, the whole eugenics part of evolution??
your obvious and laughable faith in evolution…you have a ‘darwin of the gaps’ theory….it’ll evolve someday BY DARWIN!!!!
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM
That’s silly. There are thousands of genetic disorders in humans caused ny mutation. There’s no theory that expects only the survival of the pefect. They just have to be good enough to thrive.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM
While I may agree with some of your points, none of those things is the business of the federal government.
Not marraige, adoption, or “hate-speech”.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM
RightOFLeft on September 30, 2009 at 2:53 PM
And yet given dog breed A, he can still mate and produce an offspring with dog breed B and the puppy will grow up to be able to mate and produce offspring. The only cases where it becomes difficult is when you have a great Dane versus a little yipper, but if the act of sex doesn’t kill the dog…they can breed.
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Well, now you an understand why that’s not part of the theory. If there weren’t bad traits pesistant in successful species I would not have had to sit so far back from my screen after I turned 40.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 3:06 PM
survival of the FITTEST..yes humans are an interesting case…..thats why darwin was an advocate of EUGENICS!!!
you know, kill off the disabled, don’t let them breed…
amazing.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Why, I do believe you have just stumbled on a reason Eugenics doesn’t actually follow logically from the theory of evolution. Bravo.
Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM
you don’t understand your theory OBVIOUSLY.
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Possibly even stupider.
LOOKOUT! The North American Union’s trying to steal Christmas.
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM
you’re lucky we don’t follow darwin’s eugenics program…
right4life on September 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Man, it stinks like bullshit in here. Must be some Christians around, complaining about atheists again.
mr_B on September 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM
SCBradley on September 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Definitely not hate speech…as that is against freedom of Speech.
Marriage and adoption, its a gray area…because they tax differently based on marital status and how many kids you have. Change the law to a flat tax or national sales tax…and you will have a stronger case.
Conservative Voice on September 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Dogs aren’t only considered to be a single species, but donestcated dogs are classed as the same subspecies. You can even breed a wolf to the little yipper. But please don’t.
exception on September 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next »