|
cafel posted:Haha, no devices developed incorporating relativity? I hope Andy doesn't use GPS, or I've got bad news about how he's been benefiting directly from the theory of relativity. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Global_Positioning_System quote:Don't revert Andy's edits unless there is a grammar or spelling error. This has been discussed before, and a consensus has been reached. The article reflects that consensus; don't change it. JacobB 17:32, 13 January 2010 (EST) Edit: Also, http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_relativity#GPS_and_Relativity quote:Good point. Anyone who asserts on this site that GPS was designed based on the Theory of Relativity needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no Nobel Prize has been given for verification of the Theory of Relativity with GPS.--Andy Schlafly 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT) RoyKeen fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 8, 2014 |
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
I am seriously shocked that there is a really well supported counter to this idiocy on Conservapedia itself. Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity Which contains this excellent line which I suspect Andy believes is wholly sincere and not at all sarcastic. quote:Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals. The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to. Many of them have cited articles that have nothing to do with relativity. Tides, and earthquakes, do not disprove relativity. It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page. Andy of course responds with his usual "2+2=4" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
So the 2011 Noble Prize must be false then. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/12/nobel-prize-in-physics-2011/ quote:The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt, and Saul Perlmutter for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. Using that pesky Einstein's general relativity stuff and such of course. drat Nobel Prize liberals!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
quote:The references are hearsay. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result. Who cares about your sources and references (to articles I linked without reading), I have logic-ed this out by myself and you can't beat that.  e: hahaha those talk pages are pure gold quote:Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--Andy Schlafly 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT) quote:Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--Andy Schlafly 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT) e2: oh my loving god, my sides are splitting quote:The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no Nobel Prizes have been given for GPS confirming the Theory of Relativity?--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT) quote:If you want to use the Nobel Prize as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to: quote:GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--Andy Schlafly 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT) That's it liberals unless a Nobel prize is given for relativity as applied to GPS then relativity is false. e3: Holy loving poo poo, there is no loving way this man ever took a physics or mathematics class. I'd love to know who he payed for that diploma. quote:"Mathematical physicists" (an oxymoron - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than precisely 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the Theory of Relativity, the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be precisely 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--Andy Schlafly 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT) Which leads to the obvious: quote:The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). Jloveday 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT) And is countered with: quote:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else. An engineer ladies and gentlemen, a motherfucking engineer! 
MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Wait, has there been a Nobel prize awarded to something in any way related to GPS? Maybe the problem is that GPS doesn't actually exist. Either way, gotta love Andy's flailing. Sure the clocks might be set to different rates to account for time moving differently, but it's based off observations and not theory drat it! Just because those observations mesh with a particular theory doesn't imply anything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:Also, the whole obsession with the "if anything is ever corrected in science then the whole of science is questionable" argument is just enthralling. That really comes from people that don't understand science and look at it from the angle of religion. The entire point of science is "well we're pretty sure this is how poo poo works but we could be wrong and the theories and information are always open to further testing and development." A major difference between science and religion is that religion says "this is right, I'm right, end of story, if you disagree you go to hell." Science goes "OK here's a poo poo load of information I gathered and what I think is right, feel free to tear it apart and make sure I'm right." Generally speaking, the people that went "Stephen Hawking is a moron because he was wrong about something and openly admitted it" don't understand science. Being able to say "Well, turns out I was wrong about some stuff" actually makes Stephen Hawking a good scientist.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
quote:Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--Andy Schlafly 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST) e: gently caress meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee  quote:Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. Marnick 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST) quote:The orbits crash ... when? The orbits are not going to be significantly different over reasonable periods of time for an exponent that only slightly differs from 2.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 25 February 2010 (EST) quote:At first glance that is the most logical deduction. However I challenge you to run the simulation with any commercial or free physics or mathematic software suite. I'm sure you can give this as a homework assignment to one of your students. The orbits change in very significant ways, and as I said, they are going to move through the sun (not near, exactly through).Marnick 13:56, 25 February 2010 (EST) quote:My statement is not merely at "first glance ... the most logical deduction." It is the only logical deduction. It is true with a mathematical certainty, which is why the denial of it is so illustrative of a closed mind.--Andy Schlafly 14:40, 25 February 2010 (EST) quote:You accuse ME of having a closed mind because I actually looked for evidence? The evidence might not be what you want it to be, but that doesn't make it less true. 2.00000001 will crash the planets into the sun, that's a mathematical and physical fact. I dare you to test it with a simulation, that would really show how open minded you are. Also admitting you're wrong is part of being open minded. I'm correct. Run the tests and admit it. You're so proud of your open mind, this shouldn't be a difficult task, now would it? Really mr Schlafly, run the simulation. As I said, I doubted my teacher so with my open mind I immediatly did some tests. And they confirmed what I learned. Sometimes logical deductions are simply wrong.Marnick 09:16, 26 February 2010 (EST) quote:Marnick, it's not necessary or helpful to run a simulation to test a logical truth. One doesn't "look for evidence" that "2+2=4", and your claim that the planets "will crash" into the sun (within a reasonable time) for any value of the exponent slightly different from 2 is mathematically fallacious. For starters, it implies an absurd discontinuity in the limit as the exponent approaches 2. Open your mind, please, and let logic in.--Andy Schlafly 10:39, 26 February 2010 (EST) A motherfucking engineer. Jesus loving christ! MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:33 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
quote:As for "prematurely" archived, that is a pretty subjective statement you made. In any event, I heard you were leaving on vacation. I know it will do you a world of good to step back and re-focus your efforts to help. Send us a postcard, bon voyage! 'Perhaps friend it is time for you to take a rest in Siberia. You don't seem to be thinking objectively'  I saw another comment where Andy says the errors in GPS come from 'quantum mechanics', which are totally independent of Einstein's work in relativity.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Brian, are you open minded enough to admit that maybe everything every scientist ever observed and measured is wrong and that this number I pulled out of my rear end might be correct? If you aren't even willing to admit that everything I say is right despite every proof in contrary I really don't see the point of this discussion. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I'm starting to see why Andy hasn't actually worked as an engineer in about 30 years…
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Finnankainen posted:I am seriously shocked that there is a really well supported counter to this idiocy on Conservapedia itself. I love how many of the rebuttals are people trying to figure out what the hell the "counterexample" had to do with relativity. Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity posted:22. The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense." Conservapedia really seems to be hung up on "some scientific result is unexplained, therefore relativity is wrong" and "[scientist] got something wrong or did not himself predict all subsequent developments in a field, therefore every theory associated with [scientist] is wrong." The second one seems to always come up with Einstein and relativity, and Darwin and evolution. Current evolutionary theory is not identical to Darwin's theory, looks like evolution is wrong and the Bible is right. Einstein disagreed with some aspects of quantum mechanics, therefore relativity must be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
I want to make a case for why it's actually kinda reasonable to equate Relativity with atheism and moral relativism. The issue lies not (I believe) in the theories themselves, but rather in the conceptual framework that leads to them. The major piece of this framework is that there is no special objective frame of reference from which to view the universe. What this means is that two people can disagree about something as minor as the speed of a train and both are correct. For Andy especially, for whom practically everything has to be split into a Liberal/Conservative dichotomy where Liberal is always objectively wrong and Conservative objectively right, it's easy to see how this would be intolerable. And if two people can both be right about something simple like motion, why not something much more complicated like morality? Furthermore, think about this from Andy's perspective (ha). He believes that God is an actual person that exists; do you think he'd be okay with claiming that God's perspective on the physical universe is no more privileged and "true" than that of any other being? Because I'm pretty sure that follows from the Principle of Relativity. Does it make sense to trust such a god as a keeper of objective morality? e: So ultimately that's why Andy doesn't give a poo poo about whether Relativity predicts planetary orbits better or any other thing based on the actual results of the theory. His real problem is the foundational assumption. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 23:03 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:01
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Brian, are you open minded enough to admit that maybe everything every scientist ever observed and measured is wrong and that this number I pulled out of my rear end might be correct? If you aren't even willing to admit that everything I say is right despite every proof in contrary I really don't see the point of this discussion. I know Andy Schlafly is functionally a moron, but I didn't realize until now how utterly craven he is. What an incredible intellectual and moral coward.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:A motherfucking engineer. Jesus loving christ! Here's my theory on Andy and his educational background: Andy is just smart enough to realize that if he memorizes some formulas and textbook material and spits them back out at exam time that he'll pass his courses and end up with a degree. Maybe his transition to complete loving idiot occurred later in life but it doesn't really matter. He worked at Intel as a device physicist which makes absolutely no sense in his current state of mind because he'd be fired the minute he tried to argue that the math involved in processor design didn't actually exist and is part of a liberal conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Here's my theory on Andy and his educational background: Andy is just smart enough to realize that if he memorizes some formulas and textbook material and spits them back out at exam time that he'll pass his courses and end up with a degree. Maybe his transition to complete loving idiot occurred later in life but it doesn't really matter. He worked at Intel as a device physicist which makes absolutely no sense in his current state of mind because he'd be fired the minute he tried to argue that the math involved in processor design didn't actually exist and is part of a liberal conspiracy. I had a conversation, a long one on an overnight bus, with an electrical engineer who was convinced that he'd been electronically tagged and that was why automatic doors opened for him. He also believed that if you ask a question to a guy who works in IT and then ask them another one while they're thinking about the first one, the fact that they can't answer right away was a sign that 1. they were "in virtual reality" to find the answer to the first one and 2. they'd also been electronically tagged. Further, he couldn't seem to differentiate between electronic tagging and tasing. He also believed that overhead power lines caused headaches, and had used his short-term stint on a radio show to "prove" this. The fact that you have some technical knowledge about how some things fit together and what math goes where does not preclude you from having some hosed up ideas about how other things fit together or why the things you know how to make fit together work the way they do. It also doesn't prevent you from retroactively applying 'new knowledge' to your old knowledge, even if that new knowledge breaks all of the old stuff. For reference, this guy was retired and seemed to know absolutely nothing about how the internet actually worked. I suspect that computerised systems of all kinds were beyond his ken.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:For reference, this guy was retired and seemed to know absolutely nothing about how the internet actually worked. I suspect that computerised systems of all kinds were beyond his ken. Well that and he seems to be struggling with some form of schizophrenia.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The fact that you have some technical knowledge about how some things fit together and what math goes where does not preclude you from having some hosed up ideas about how other things fit together or why the things you know how to make fit together work the way they do. Everybody knows da red wunz go fasta!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Here's my theory on Andy and his educational background: Andy is just smart enough to realize that if he memorizes some formulas and textbook material and spits them back out at exam time that he'll pass his courses and end up with a degree. This is probably the right one, I've seen Christian internet forums where someone will talk about how they're taking a biology class and are learning about evolution and have to write a paper on it, and the response they'll usually get is "Say what the teacher wants to hear so you can pass the class and then just go on knowing that it's all wrong."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Yeah it pretty much dogfucks the differential equations that describe planetary motion for that exponent not to be exactly two by preventing something that should be canceling out from doing so, I guess Andy also doesn't believe in diff-eqs?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Scientists, who have been extremely eager to promote the idea of black hole existence, have shown a strong aversion to the white hole theory, even though, like a white hole, a black hole has never been observed directly. This may reflect an anti-creation bias on the part of scientists who are uncomfortable with the idea that matter and energy can be created outside of what scientific theories dictate should happen. Dr. Russell Humphreys used a white hole in his model of the universe during Creation week to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
killstealing posted:Dr. Russell Humphreys used a white hole in his model of the universe during Creation week to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth. I love that bit. Funny they don't mention what happens to the built up light and poo poo. Or the size of the White Hole itself. From Rationwiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/White_hole_cosmology quote:The idea requires that the universe outside the solar system is as old as contemporary scientists hold it to be[5] - 13,700,000,000 years.[6] They then say that while all this time passed outside the vicinity of the earth, only six days (creation week) passed on earth. The stars outside the dilation field would still be emitting light towards earth at the same rate which would have to be compressed into six days of time, which would cause celestial objects outside the dilation field to appear roughly 833,416,666,666 times brighter inside the field, raising the surface temperature of the earth to hundreds of thousands of Kelvins. and quote:White hole cosmology states that the black hole from which the universe came from was an even 2 light years across, a nice even number that seems to fit his theory perfectly. The width of Humphrey's black hole would not be such a small pleasant number though. So you solve one problem in your crazy bronze age book, but create two more.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:So you solve one problem in your crazy bronze age book, but create two more. Ah, but those two problems aren't in the book, so they don't count.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
quote:White hole cosmology states that the black hole from which the universe came from was an even 2 light years across, a nice even number that seems to fit his theory perfectly. The width of Humphrey's black hole would not be such a small pleasant number though. Are we really sure that it has to be exactly 2 light years across? What if it is was 2.00000001? Would that really make a difference?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:Are we really sure that it has to be exactly 2 light years across? What if it is was 2.00000001? Would that really make a difference? Clearly you're not open-minded enough to accept the possibility that it was exactly 2 light years across.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:Are we really sure that it has to be exactly 2 light years across? What if it is was 2.00000001? Would that really make a difference? this whole discussion was so loving stupid
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Its only logical that it is precisely 2 light years, are you open minded enough not to do any calculations regarding this issue since you can't contradict logical statements that way which means that any numbers you can come up with are illogical by definition?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
The Ape of Naples posted:http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Global_Positioning_System Lol, from the shitheels that declared the NP meaningless when it was awarded to Obama....I wonder sometimes how many medications some of these people need to be on
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
The first time I ever heard about Conservapedia was when Andy went on the Colbert Report. Steven really did a good job showing this guy acts intelligent, knows the necessary steps needed to sound intelligent, but in the end he isn't all mentally there. Plus that whole "the bible isn't conservative enough" really showed that this was all a joke about extreme denial of reality.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I've been following the thread but I really just need someone to spell it out for me: Why does Andy not believe in black holes again? Is it because they're predicted/supported by the theory of relativity? Do they throw literal 6-day creation into question?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Binowru posted:I'm sorry, I've been following the thread but I really just need someone to spell it out for me: Why does Andy not believe in black holes again? Is it because they're predicted/supported by the theory of relativity? Do they throw literal 6-day creation into question? Black holes relate back to the theory of relativity -> relativity is one half of the term moral relativity -> moral relativity implies there is no true morality in Andy's mind this means no god -> therefore the theory of relativity can't be accurate -> no black holes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Lol, from the shitheels that declared the NP meaningless when it was awarded to Obama....I wonder sometimes how many medications some of these people need to be on They declared the Purple Heart null and void because Kerry had one a few.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Binowru posted:I'm sorry, I've been following the thread but I really just need someone to spell it out for me: Why does Andy not believe in black holes again? Is it because they're predicted/supported by the theory of relativity? Do they throw literal 6-day creation into question? It's the second part. From the talk page on black holes: Andy Schlafly posted:Offhand, I say that science does have a role in predicting whether something exists. But the problem is that atheists and liberals misuse and distort science to pull students away from the Bible and God, and that needs to be exposed and stopped.--Andy Schlafly 23:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Yeah, Andy's ilk certainly doesn't distort science to fit their 6 day creation bullshit claim, and i use claim because none of them actually has a complete idea of how the system worked, let alone anything to form a theory or even a hypothesis. Their whole deal boils down to the bible says X, thus X is true and everything else is a liberal lie and we'll twist and misuse science and anything else to prove such while bashing science and anything else Funny, I'm not seeing anything for "banana theory" there which was their best shot at the whole mess before they were laughed out of the lab.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
What baffles me the most in that theory isn't even that it's a text book example of creating a theory with the results already pre-established, no what baffles me the most is the futility of it all. If outside the bubble everything went exactly like the scientists say it did then whats the point of it all from god's perspective? He still had to set everything up and "wait" for the rest of the universe to reach the point it's at so why bother with that whole thing with our solar system? He could just do what he did everywhere else and get exactly the same results so why bother with this charade? Just to fool us? What for?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
To test us, of course. To lead the weaker in belief astray, despite the claim he is an all loving god that wants us all to be saved, despite creating a hell to torture you forever and ordering the deaths of millions when he simply couldn't be bothered to flood the planet again or plague the gently caress out of egypt or something.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I know you can come up with all sorts of hollow far fetched justifications that raise even more questions but my point is that not even the people creating this nonsense bother to think this poo poo through. Say what you will about the catholics but at least they try to put some thought into keeping things as consistent as possible withing the constrains of a supernatural belief system. These guys on the other hand try to pass themselves off as some sort of great theologians but they aren't really that good at it. They not only fail at playing scientist, they fail at being theologians.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Yeah, I know you can come up with all sorts of hollow far fetched justifications that raise even more questions but my point is that not even the people creating this nonsense bother to think this poo poo through. Say what you will about the catholics but at least they try to put some thought into keeping things as consistent as possible withing the constrains of a supernatural belief system. These guys on the other hand try to pass themselves off as some sort of great theologians but they aren't really that good at it. Catholics want science to be a testament to the glory and intricacy of God's amazing creation, an investigation into the methods and nature of God's incredible handiwork. These people, on the other hand, just don't want to have to think.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Yeah, I know you can come up with all sorts of hollow far fetched justifications that raise even more questions but my point is that not even the people creating this nonsense bother to think this poo poo through. Say what you will about the catholics but at least they try to put some thought into keeping things as consistent as possible withing the constrains of a supernatural belief system. These guys on the other hand try to pass themselves off as some sort of great theologians but they aren't really that good at it. The entire idea of Biblical literalism, apart from Ussher's calculations (which were laughed out of the academy even in his era), sprang out of a fear of people teaching evolution in schools. Their reasoning always boils back down to fear of science which implies that things were not as they were described in the Bible. When your belief system is structured around fear rather than hope, you end up with some mighty strange reasoning going on.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Somfin posted:apart from Ussher's calculations (which were laughed out of the academy even in his era) Some devil's advocacy in defense of Ussher's chronology as reasonable in the context of what was known at the time here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_house-ussher.html Although even Gould points out that Ussher's sectarian prejudices threw his calculations of the date of creation off by about a month...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Somfin posted:They declared the Purple Heart null and void because Kerry had one a few. Mothers almost always unconditionally love their children> some of these children will be liberals> a mother's love is worthless and anti conservative.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
