Christian Morality Ends Another Career

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Christian Morality Ends Another Career

Quote:

Is John Edwards’ political career over? Posted: 06:41 PM ET

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

In the end, he was too good to be true. John Edwards rode onto the national stage with a compelling message about poverty, about corporations that prey on the vulnerable. He had a record of standing up for the little guy…and he got very rich doing it.

He was tailor-made for politics – good looking with “aw-shucks” kind of country boy charm. He got to the Senate, onto the ticket as vice president in 2004 and was in the running for the White House himself for a while earlier this year.

Now it’s all over. After denying it for months, John Edwards has finally admitted in an interview to be broadcast on ABC’s Nightline tonight that he had an extramarital affair with a woman who worked on his campaign.

When the National Enquirer first reported this story in October of 2007, Edwards denied everything, saying “The story is false, it’s completely untrue, it’s ridiculous.”

Interesting the story breaks late on a Friday and the ABC interview will be broadcast the same night the opening ceremonies are running on NBC. None of this is an accident.

Speculation around Edwards had included a possible spot on the Obama ticket as Vice President, or perhaps as attorney general in an Obama administration.

By tomorrow morning, he’ll be lucky to get his calls returned by Howard Dean’s housekeeper.

 

I'm not about to suggest that Edwards did a good thing by cheating on his wife.  However, as I have clearly demonstrated (On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture, What Science Says About Human Sexuality) science shows us with certainty that the American model of legislatively enforced strict monogamy is almost historically nonexistent, and there is no particular evidence that it is an ideal to be striven for.  Part of the evolutionary benefit of being a powerful man is that you have lots of available women.  It's not a pretty thing to talk about, but it's real.  If Edwards swore to be faithful to his wife, that's one thing, and he should be held accountable for making the promise, whether that means making child support payments after the divorce, or whatever else might be appropriate for his personal situation.  However, the public vilification and subsequent disqualification for public office is a perfect example of what happens when you let irrational moral codes from a 2000 year old mythology trump rational understanding of a human being.

For one thing, where his penis has been has very little (if anything) to do with his foreign policy or views on healthcare.  For another thing, I notice that there are a lot of congressmen on the Rethuglican side of the fence who haven't led exemplary marital lives, and nobody's calling for their resignations.  This is clearly an example of religiostupidification mixed with partisan politics, and as usual, it's had the result of forcing a decent man out of politics.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You just said that,

 

Quote:
You just said that, unless you mean that people are equally culturally respected when they live together without getting married.  After all, you just said that culture is the measure of marriage, so it must also be the measure of non-marriage.  Culture (American) clearly thinks that marriage is better than living together.

I'm not saying at all that it is immoral because of cultures view.  I'm saying that marriage is a cultural event, and marriage entails promises.  I am saying that a person is to be measured with the stick they chose to walk with.  If Edwards had a non-traditional marriage, then he certainly wasn't lying.  Now, I don't know, but my guess is that he did not.  My guess is he went into a church, and he took the vows of a traditional wedding.  This is a guess, since I really know nothing of the man.  But, if that is what he did, and then he broke that promise, then he lied.  

 

Quote:
(Or, we could just take my road and tell people to fuck off when they try to dig into our personal business.)

 

Like my relationship?  Because I'm certainly not married, but I am in a (probably) life long monogamous relationship.  That's because neither she nor I wanted the moniker of 'marriage'.  Because it means something to people that we don't want to convey.  (though..  I wonder what I would have done had she pressed me for marriage..  I probably would have given in.  That probably would have been immoral.)

 

Quote:
Um... some of us are trying to change the system.  Others aren't, apparently.

Quote:
 However, a better understanding of human nature might very well lead people to a more laisse faire approach to those who do not fall into the broad categories.  In the same way that it is culturally ok in most big cities for gays to be seen together in public now, it might one day be considered ok to have multiple relationships, open relationships, or whatever else.

That's not a fair assessment of my position at all.  Look, it seems our disagreement is about one thing.  What to do with the meaning of the word marriage.  I think the word carries a lot of baggage and should be tossed aside, you think it should be a banner under which people learn to change our world.  (We may also have a disagreement in that I think people should do what they say they will regardless of how stupid what they are saying really is.)

 

I never said that breaking this lie made a person a bad politician.  I never said that someone not making such a promise was less of a person.  I never said that we should sit in darkened rooms and cry over the fact that large parts of our fellow humans are saying and doing really stupid things while doing nothing about it ourselves.  In fact, if memory serves, Obama admitted to an affair, right?  Immoral.  Still going to be pres?  Probably.  Still got my vote?  yes.  Why?  Because that particular immoral act in no way is an indictment of the man himself.  In fact, it wouldn't have crossed my mind at all except for this conversation going for as long as it has.

 

Quote:
Still, I am trying to explain my position to you in the hopes that you will change your mind,
  

I think I do understand your position.  I simply don't think we are so far away from one another.  I think that you believe that my saying someone has done something immoral is an indictment of their entire life.  I am not Ray Comfort, I believe that morality is a pretty simple thing, and people walk that line all the time and step to both sides quite often.  I worry constantly about the moral quality of my job.  I work in an industry that is thoroughly immoral (insurance); that fact bothers me, and I am looking for something else to do that pays even close to the same.  (Not likely any time soon).  I don't think that it makes me a bad person, I don't think that it invalidates other things I do in my life.  It's merely an instance of a choice that is immoral.  To label something with a moral value is not the same as ascribing motivation to that person.

(there is also the seperate issue of a politicians personal life being public.  While I wouldn't advocate today's level of intrusiveness, I do want to know more about those I chose to lead me than, say, a person I go to work for.  Though this is a different, and probably amoral, topic.)

Quote:
or at the very least, perhaps be more tolerant of those whose concepts of morality are not as rigid as yours.

 

Have I ever expressed intolerance?  Of anyone?  Ever?  Not that I can recall.  I think it is important to show people that are being immoral that they are, but I don't think that it necessarily entails anything else.  I'm not advocating that people lose their jobs for the simple fact that they have done something immoral, not advocating that we censure them.  Wouldn't this be a cool scenario:
Edwards gets caught, then says 'Oh, but that's cool.  My wife said that it was all good.'  Actually says that.  That would be laudable, not because of the moral quality of the statement, but because it would be a major victory for perception of interpersonal relationships.  He would still probably lose his job, but the people of his home state (NC?) would have to confront the fact that a man that seemingly did so much good acted in a way that they (in general) believe infers a 'corrupted spirit' or whatever their terminology is.  

 

If we continually point out how married people are constantly breaking their promise to one another, maybe someday when a person meets another and declares they are in a relationship, it could spark an interesting debate about the nature of their personal attachment.  What if we do that with all sorts of nonsensical moral values?  Then we can make a difference.  Then we will be doing something.

 

Anyway, I'm out of town for a week, so I probably won't reply again.  All I ask is that when you read what I write, don't draw conclusions about behavior or belief that I didn't assert.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Conclusion ? NO one is

Conclusion ?  NO one is perfect because fucking is a sin ? Because every time you fuck every one must know ? Because if you are married, and break those rules you are bad, unfit for government office ?????????? 


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Interview

 

   And yet another program on TV showed just how much Edward's was "lying" in his interview.  Checking his body language ie. eyebrows, eye blinking, head shaking and nodding.  These people will do about anything to get their rocks off.  Somebody seems very concerned to find the father of the baby, and yes while that information is vital to the child I don't think it should be made public.

 

                                                  


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
The chosen one

 

    What's the problem here anyway, it's not like he was the in the running for VP candidate of choice was he?


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Is he even an incumbent at

Is he even an incumbent at any level of government currently?

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm saying that

Quote:
I'm saying that marriage is a cultural event, and marriage entails promises.  I am saying that a person is to be measured with the stick they chose to walk with.

And I'm trying very hard to get you to see the inconsistency of this statement.  Marriage, if we want to get technical about it, is a legal contract that gives both parties rights and obligations, including parental rights and responsibilities, rights to property, limited power of attorney, and others.  In many states, when two people get married, their sexual activity is no longer illegal.

Marriage to a Mormon includes the promise by the wife to obey her husband in everything.  This is not part of the legal ramifications the state recognizes, but if you're a Mormon, it's part of the cultural definition of marriage.  To some fundamentalist Christian churches, marriage includes the obligation to reproduce.  To some Pagans, marriage includes the promise to tend to your partner with first priority among your sexual partners. 

If you go through most states' legal codes regarding marriage, you'll find an interesting thing.  The promise of fidelity is not part of the legal end of marriage.  In other words, the state can't do a damn thing about someone cheating.  In most states, infidelity is a potential grounds for divorce -- IF and only if one spouse sues for divorce on those grounds.  Of course, you don't actually need grounds for divorce anywhere now, so that's pretty much irrelevant.

The point is that marriage is NOT the culturally homogenous institution you're making it out to be.  The majority of Americans view marriage as a promise of fidelity between two people who intend to stay together for life, but this is just the majority.  It is not the totality.  Don't you hate it when people assume you won't mind praying before dinner, or swearing on the bible, or joining in the singing of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?  Why are you insisting on imposing the same kind of majority rule on people who love each other, but don't care to do marriage the way that the majority does?

Quote:
My guess is he went into a church, and he took the vows of a traditional wedding.  This is a guess, since I really know nothing of the man.  But, if that is what he did, and then he broke that promise, then he lied. 

And again, I say it.  First, it is his wife's business if he lied.  Not yours or mine or any other voter's.  There is no correlation between marital fidelity and political effectiveness.  There might actually be an inverse correlation -- that is, people who are prone to be unfaithful might make better politicians.  Second, jumping on the bandwagon to publicly vilify John Edwards is equivalent to condoning their tactic of using "personal values" to eliminate the competition, something they've gotten really good at doing in the last couple of decades.  John Edwards is as decent a politician as you're going to find in this part of the country, and because of this public lynching, he's not going to be effective anymore.

Quote:
Like my relationship?  Because I'm certainly not married, but I am in a (probably) life long monogamous relationship.  That's because neither she nor I wanted the moniker of 'marriage'.  Because it means something to people that we don't want to convey.  (though..  I wonder what I would have done had she pressed me for marriage..  I probably would have given in.  That probably would have been immoral.)

Really?  It would have been immoral to take whatever vows you wanted and get married if it meant a lot to the woman you love?  I'm being totally sincere when I say that I feel bad for you that you take the majority so seriously in your moral judgments.  Maybe you mean that you are personally very opposed to getting married, and it would be wrong of you to commit to marriage against your own value system?  You would resent having been forced into marriage, so it would be wrong to commit to a course of action that would put a wedge between you and your partner?  In any case, I'm trying to get you to understand that it's not immoral to do anything to "marriage."  Marriage is a contract, and cannot be personally harmed.  It's immoral to knowingly do things to other people that will harm them unnecessarily.  Are you harming Joe Republican by getting married in a non-traditional way?

Two of my best friends are married, and they regularly have sex together with one of about three girls they both like.  They got married because they plan to stay together, and the legal and financial advantages of marriage were kind of a big deal to them.  Everyone that knows them well knows they don't have a "traditional" marriage, and when they're not with people who know them well, it doesn't matter a whit whether or not others think they have a mainstream arrangement.  Another couple I know is married but spends about half of the year in separate countries.  They both have bed-buddies during their time apart, and again, all their friends know it.  Nobody else seems harmed by their wedding rings.

Quote:
I think the word carries a lot of baggage and should be tossed aside, you think it should be a banner under which people learn to change our world.  (We may also have a disagreement in that I think people should do what they say they will regardless of how stupid what they are saying really is.)

You think the word or the institution needs to be tossed aside?  The institution is necessary on some levels for the welfare of children, division of assets at death, and other legal considerations.  (Consider how many lesbians and gays have not been allowed to stay in their lifelong home after their partner's death, or who have been unable to make crucial medical decisions when their partners were incapacitated, or act on their behalf to make car payments, etc...)

I don't see any reason to end legal long term partnerships, and I can't imagine ever removing the word "marriage" from them.  What I do see is a need to remove the rigid religious cultural baggage that you're clinging to so tightly.  When we learn that someone is married, it would be nice if all we know from that piece of information is that they plan to be with their partner for a long time.  We shouldn't know a damn thing about their sexual preference, their sexual practices, or their state of monogamy or polygamy.

We are also in disagreement about keeping dumb promises.  If someone got married, and it was a bad idea, they should get unmarried.  Saying "til death do us part" in a ceremony ought not be the only thing keeping them in the same house with someone they despise for the rest of their life, and effectively forcing them into celibacy or unpleasant sex.  Do you see how much your assertion sounds like the Christian model?  Just say the magic words, and no matter what you do for the rest of your life, you get to go to heaven.  Just say the magic words, and then you're locked into the Christian model of marriage for the rest of your life  -- because you promised, and good people don't break promises.

Quote:
Because that particular immoral act in no way is an indictment of the man himself.  In fact, it wouldn't have crossed my mind at all except for this conversation going for as long as it has.

So you agree with me that the John Edwards lynching is a travesty and that he has been the victim of Christian morality gone stupid?

Quote:
I think I do understand your position.  I simply don't think we are so far away from one another.  I think that you believe that my saying someone has done something immoral is an indictment of their entire life.  I am not Ray Comfort, I believe that morality is a pretty simple thing, and people walk that line all the time and step to both sides quite often.  I worry constantly about the moral quality of my job.  I work in an industry that is thoroughly immoral (insurance); that fact bothers me, and I am looking for something else to do that pays even close to the same.  (Not likely any time soon).  I don't think that it makes me a bad person, I don't think that it invalidates other things I do in my life.  It's merely an instance of a choice that is immoral.  To label something with a moral value is not the same as ascribing motivation to that person.

All of this is fine, and I agree with you.  I also don't think we're far from each other, but I can't for my life figure out why you can so easily recognize moral ambiguity in so many areas, and yet you still want to assign an absolute value to the institution of marriage.

Quote:
(there is also the seperate issue of a politicians personal life being public.  While I wouldn't advocate today's level of intrusiveness, I do want to know more about those I chose to lead me than, say, a person I go to work for.  Though this is a different, and probably amoral, topic.)

Yeah... different topic, but briefly, I do think there needs to be a certain level of transparency with politicians, particularly with regard to their finances, their job history, their voting records, political allies, campaign contributors, and a few dozen other things that directly relate to their job as politicians.  I don't care to know anything about any politician's love life, and I don't think there's any legitimate reason for anyone else to get that information unless the politician wants them to.

Quote:
Have I ever expressed intolerance?  Of anyone?  Ever?  Not that I can recall.

I may be interpreting your writing incorrectly, but to me, the suggestion that everyone who has taken a marriage vow ought to conform to the majority opinion of marriage is intolerant and rigid.  It seems contrary to your own stated goal of removing the stigma from people's personal choices regarding their long term partnerships.

Quote:
Edwards gets caught, then says 'Oh, but that's cool.  My wife said that it was all good.'  Actually says that.  That would be laudable, not because of the moral quality of the statement, but because it would be a major victory for perception of interpersonal relationships.  He would still probably lose his job, but the people of his home state (NC?) would have to confront the fact that a man that seemingly did so much good acted in a way that they (in general) believe infers a 'corrupted spirit' or whatever their terminology is. 

But Bal, if his wife was cool with it, then it IS cool, and him losing his job is a travesty, regardless of anything else.  The moral wrong in this case is being perpetrated by the voters, not by Edwards.  It would not be a major victory.  It would be a continuation of the status quo.  Man tries to buck the system..  man gets thrown on the trash heap.  Next contestant please.

The only way for this kind of thing to end is to challenge the notion that marriage and politics have anything to do with each other.  The only way to do that is to strongly support politicians that deserve support, and strongly criticize anyone and everyone who tries to censure, fire, or vilify a politician because of unjust generalizations about a personal matter.

Quote:
If we continually point out how married people are constantly breaking their promise to one another, maybe someday when a person meets another and declares they are in a relationship, it could spark an interesting debate about the nature of their personal attachment.  What if we do that with all sorts of nonsensical moral values?  Then we can make a difference.  Then we will be doing something.

I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that people constantly break their wedding vows.  What needs to happen is that we need to stop pretending like it's a travesty of morality and admit that people are not designed to be with one person for fifty years.  When marriage was invented, the average lifespan was around thirty years and the average marriage would have been approximately as long as the rearing of one or two children.  The notion that a vapid promise in front of a Justice or pastor somehow constitutes a magic formula for bucking human nature is absurd.  The notion that nearly everyone will have several long term partners in their lives, and that divorce is a normal and natural part of the process of being human is concurrent with good science, and reflects an accurate understanding of human nature.

I know....  if you aren't ready to commit to one person til you die, just don't get married.  But I already showed you why this is flawed.  Some people die in their thirties, or get debilitating illnesses.  Some people have children.  Some people want to buy houses together, even if they don't plan on dying in them fifty years hence.  Even when there is a very real possibility that two people will not spend their entire lives together, there are many good reasons to get married, depending on the situation.  Denying them these tangible benefits simply because they don't want to conform to the current Christian morality is inexcusable.  There is no particular reason why we ought to automatically flinch when we hear that 50% of marriages fail.  Personally, I flinch when I hear people say things like, "Well, you said 'I do' so you're stuck to the bitter end.  Live with it.  You made a promise."

Quote:
Anyway, I'm out of town for a week, so I probably won't reply again.  All I ask is that when you read what I write, don't draw conclusions about behavior or belief that I didn't assert.

I'm really glad you replied.  Like I said, this is a discussion board, and I'd much rather understand precisely how and why we disagree then have either of us take our ball and go home.  I don't mind disagreement.  I voice my opinions strongly because I believe them strongly, but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to shout you down or make you slink off into a corner.  If you've got reasoning that justifies your position, then I'd like to understand it.  So far, your position looks inconsistent to me.  This could be from several things.  Maybe you're not expressing your real beliefs accurately.  Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.  Maybe your position is inconsistent.  Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, and that's altering the way you're responding to me.  In any case, hashing out the details and defending your position can only help.

I can only draw the conclusions that follow from what I've perceived from your writing.  If you still feel that I'm incorrectly judging your beliefs, I'd appreciate it if you try to explain it to me again, if only for my personal benefit.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


PorkChop
Rational VIP!SuperfanSilver Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:    So

Boon Docks wrote:

    So what is the difference between the married man having multiple affairs and the polygamist ?  Their both getting some from more than one partner.

The difference is HUGE, in my opinion.  Polyamory = mutual agreement...affairs = deception.  Simple.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
late arriving

I am late arriving in this thread...and I wont pretend to have read *everything*...But I am going to maintain that other than the country beleiving in the invisible all seeing all knowing omnoptent man who lives in the sky...the biggest farce that the masses have been conditioned to beleive in is monogamy.... This country is as sex-o-phobic as it is theocentric.

Monogamy?...hilarious. Most people who champion monogamy are as full of shit as those who preach the word of god....most people are as faithful to one another as their options.

Here is something to consider...over half of all marriages in this country end in divorce...the majority of the remainder are either miserable or in denial. The monogamy myth which makes people deny their natural inclinations is largly to blame.

there are millions of married people in this country who successfully engage in negotiated non monogamy...yet this practice is villified because of the *RELIGION BASED* beleif that monogamy is the standard by which matrimony must exist.

If you want to try to exist for the rest of your life sharing one set of genetalia...well...best of luck to you... Just as some of us have come to the realization that there is no god...others have come to the realization that monogamy is simply not natural for most people.

there is a t-shirt in the Hustler store that sums it up best: "Relax...it's just sex"

Oh...and Hamby fucking rules.

 

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I am even later in arriving

I am even later in arriving to this thread but anyway the latest...

Seems Rielle has a friend who is sticking her nose into the fray now.

"Stool" Pigeon O'Brien says the actual affair started earlier than what John is admitting.

How the hell could this possibly be her business???

Then again, I can't fathom at all, anyone suggesting that personal relationships between consenting adults are the business of anyone other than those directly involved in it. 'S got nothing to do with politics. Nothing to do with whether we consider someone to be a "role model" and therefore we can peer into every facet of their life.

Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, now Edwards and many more just around the corner. Everyone should be allowed a personal life. Politicians, sports figures, Hollywood celebs... etc etc. No one should be allowed to violate the private space of another. It's downright silly that we, as a nation, condone the actions by a select few who for the most part are prying where they don't belong. It's always over money and power.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This is old, but I finally

This is old, but I finally found this song online. It's a parody of that old Tony Orlando "Tap 3 Times" song, but about Larry Craig.

LINK

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
       Tidy bowl man * *

 

  Sing    Tidy bowl man * * *

means you'll meet me in the stallway... Laugh

 

Flush


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
There was another one that

There was another one that was around more at the time called "My Men's Room Date's a Senator" to the tune of "Centerfold. "

MY MEN'S ROOM DATE'S A SENATOR
Parody of the J. Geils Band's "Centerfold"(Justman)
Lyrics by M. Spaff Sumsion

PERFORMED BY ROBERT LUND
From the CD Politicked Off!

Concourse B? Concourse D?
Concourse S and M?
I like the airport men's rooms
'Cause they frequently have men

One guy sat beside me
And tapped my one-inch wall
We made a tight connection
In that tight airport stall

Weeks go by and there's my bathroom boyfriend on C-SPAN
Ironic he's Republican - that ends with "public can"!

I flush to score!
My hot spot is a cold tile floor!
My men's room date's a senator
(Men's room date's a senator)

My john's hardcore!
His policy is open door!
[Doo doo da doo doo doo]
My men's room date's a senator

First he peeked into my space
With special interest on his face
I just smiled and tapped my feet
And whistled "Paper Moon"

Soon he's in the next-door loo
Nudgin' me with his ortho shoe
Something made it clear to me
That we'd have congress soon

Who knows who's beside you?
This restroom game's a rush
How lucky I got dealt a queen
To help complete my flush!

My stud's mature!
My homeland's feeling quite secure!
My men's room date's a senator
(Men's room date's a senator)

He's fun galore!
He's number one - or two for sure!
[Doo doo da doo doo doo]
My men's room date's a senator

It's okay, I understand
You're still a Family Values man
But if you blame your real wide stance
You must wear ultra-stretchy pants

They'll make fun, yes they will
Let those bloggers mock us
But I'll stand up - or sit for you
And help you poll your caucus

The right wing should be proud, you know
You put da ho in Idaho
Oh no, don't let 'em spoil it
Oh yeah, I'll meet you in the toilet!

One! Two! Two! Two!
I flush to score!
My hot spot is a cold tile floor!
My men's room date's a senator
(Men's room date's a senator)

My john's hardcore!
Hey, bring your camera, Michael Moore!
[Doo doo da doo doo doo]
My men's room date's a senator!

© Spaff.com 2007+

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cool, to funny Matt, and

Cool, to funny Matt, and fuck yeah, Ron Wood ie man .... Enjoy a stiff one.