If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Let's ask some U.S. politicians about the age of the planet   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 37
    More: Scary, U.S., young Earth, national academies, United States presidential election, Paul Broun, expediencies, first world countries, United States rankings  
•       •       •

6074 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 7:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-21 01:11:40 AM
15 votes:

Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.


Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.
2012-11-21 09:20:32 AM
3 votes:

SlothB77: I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


There is a huge difference between forgetting the exact number and 9000 years. It is all about orders of magnitude, how about this:

We know there are 8 planets in the solar system since Pluto was demoted. You probably learned there were 9 planets back in the day. However if you were asked how many planets are in the solar system, even if you did not remember or know about Pluto you wouldn't answer "hmm I believe there are about 3billion planets".

That's how far off or wrong these people are, it is completely insane.
I don't remember how many elements there are on the periodic table, I probably knew it at one time but I bet my guess of "About 120 or so" is reasonable and I wouldn't be ridiculed for saying that, but if I said 20,000 I should be ridiculed and I would STILL be orders of magnitude closer than those claiming the earth is 10,000yrs old or less, just like these senators should be ridiculed, particularly those on the science committee.
2012-11-21 08:20:09 AM
3 votes:

keylock71: I love that some of these clowns think religious dogma and creation myths should be treated as equal to scientific theories based on research and observation.


The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.
2012-11-21 08:35:17 AM
2 votes:

t3knomanser: Or, even if you believe in the judeochristolamic deities, you could agree that the creation myth is a myth, and the details are not meant to be representative of actual events.


My Mythology class at a Catholic High School pointed out that most of the Old Testament were Myths. That every culture has a creation story, that every culture has a great flood story. If the Catholic Church can admit why can't they?
2012-11-21 08:17:53 AM
2 votes:
U.S. politicians make decisions concerning global warming, pollution and whether or not to clean particularly bad sites up, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, The National Institutes of Health, the department of Energy, the department of heath and human services, the patent office, DARPA, etc. etc.

If the person is a scientifically illiterate dumbass, they has no business running for national office.
2012-11-21 08:14:01 AM
2 votes:

wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


I hate this type of argument. Why not just lead in with the biblical passage "2nd Peter 3:8" and say "A day is like a thousand years" and claim that it isn't a "day" per se, but a period of time and the bible is only using the word "day" as a general period of measurement?

My high school chemistry teacher used to say stuff like that (yes, it was a Catholic school). He used to say "Sure, evolution is the way life developed. But who CAUSED that evolution?" The issue here is that suddenly the creation story is all symbolism and no fact. But he still expected us to believe the "great flood" was literal. And so is the idea of heaven and hell-- they are actual places we will go to. Where does the goal post finally come to rest?
2012-11-21 07:16:08 AM
2 votes:
Forget the Twinkie thing, these two and others like them on your F-ing science committee is why the rest of the world points and laughs.
How did you guys get to the moon with guys like this in charge?

/knows they weren't in charge then...
//wonders how they are now.
2012-11-21 07:11:02 AM
2 votes:

Frederick: That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


Yeah, I wouldn't relate intelligence and college degrees. Look at any MBA program.
2012-11-21 02:46:41 PM
1 votes:

piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.


So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.
2012-11-21 01:17:46 PM
1 votes:

Frederick: The US has an approximate rate of 40% for college degrees among 25+ yo. I havent verified it, but I'd imagine that more than 40% of US politicians have college degrees. That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


Roughly two in three of US college graduates denies that humans evolved from earlier species of animals; a hair more than one in two, among graduates who identify as strongly Republican.

Frederick: The point I was trying to make is that politicians likely intentionally misrepresent themselves to appeal to their base.


The odds are, better than half the GOP don't need to.

Chummer45: Of all science to take issue with, why fight your battles over something as stupid as young earth creation theory?


It undermines Scriptural Inerrancy, which undermines the garden of Eden story, undermining the concept of original sin, undermining the necessity of the crucifixion sacrifice. Or at least, that's what Answers In Genesis points to.

Warning: that site is a morass of ignorance.

GentDirkly: We can prove that the features may have been created by sediments and tectonics, but we can't prove that those features didn't come about some other way.


Which gets into the nature of what's meant by "proof" in empirical matters, the problem of induction, and the nature of Parsimony. Short form: the proposed alternatives are more probably wrong.

theknuckler_33: Awww.


He's apparently retired from Fark, if you check the link in his profile.
2012-11-21 01:05:27 PM
1 votes:

wippit: dywed88: Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.

Common usage? That's not very scientific.


In online discussions of evolution/creationism, the word "creationist" is used to describe a person with a fairly specific set of attributes. This is true of every message board/comment thread I have seen on the topic in the last twenty years. If you think this is unfair, or unserious, or unscientific, or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody else is using a well understood and agreed upon definition. Insisting on using a definition used by pretty much nobody else in the conversation is only going to derail the discussion
2012-11-21 12:50:24 PM
1 votes:

wippit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.


Look, if you want that badly to try and shove yourself into that box with that label, I can't stop you. But that is the most watered down definition you could possibly produce, to the point it is devoid of all meaning in a connotative sense, and practically all meaning in a denotative sense. It would essentially mean that anyone of any religion of any era that thought 'god' had a role in the beginning of the universe is a creationist.

I don't see how being that willfully obtuse benefits you or any serious conversation on the matter.

Contemporary U.S. creationism insinuates that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, interventionist, sentient deity specifically created the earth universe and man in essentially the form they are in now over a literal period of 6 earth days as stipulated in the Old Testament.

Words. They mean things. And not always what we want them to mean.

==========================

Oxford online:
creationism
noun
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

another term for creation science.

creation science
noun
the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

dictionary.com
cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2012-11-21 12:32:58 PM
1 votes:
Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.
2012-11-21 12:24:00 PM
1 votes:

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process. I'm of no organized religion (was bought up Catholic), although I am married to a Jehovah's Witness, which makes for some good debates now and then.


At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.
2012-11-21 12:18:38 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Forgetting the exact number does not disqualify you from being a senator. But being so dense you actually think that is even remotely the point does disqualify you from holding any position requiring basic critical thinking and communication skills.
2012-11-21 12:16:19 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


So you're saying you couldn't ballpark that number? Are you saying that religious viewpoints as to the age of the earth should also be given equal consideration to scientific fact?

What should disqualify you from being a Senator is pretending (or actually believing) that some book written thousands of years ago by people who had no idea how to calculate the age of the earth should be considered a reasonable source for determining the age of the earth.
2012-11-21 11:53:08 AM
1 votes:

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you're not a Creationist in the sense that that word is used by pretty much everyone in these discussions.
2012-11-21 11:26:53 AM
1 votes:

wippit: That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you are almost certainly a "theistic evolutionist" and not a "creationist". Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Kenneth Hamm ministries, the creation museum in Kentucky, Kent Hovind ministries, etc. all agree that no one who admits that evolution has happened can be considered a "creationist".
2012-11-21 10:32:52 AM
1 votes:

Zeb Hesselgresser: Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you-and maybe they already have-"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live-that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008. 

He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man. He's a politician.

Mugato [TotalFark] 2012-11-19 05:12:45 PM

Would you people try to stop being deliberately obtuse for one minute? Of course we're most likely never going to know how old the earth is to the minute. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that he doesn't want to piss off the mouth breathers who still think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, based on the ramblings of a book that also said some guy got every species of creature known and unknown to man at the time to fark on a boat.

GAT_00 2012-11-19 11:12:27 AM

So much for Rubioclaiming he wanted to move the GOP away from social values. You're just as bad as Huckabee. At least he's honest that he thinks Jebus made the planet and that's why he should be President. You claim to disavow these people yet ...


Obama essentially said: I don't believe the Earth was created in six days, but some Christians do.
Not the same as asserting that nobody knows how old the Earth is.
2012-11-21 10:25:53 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Correct enough answers include:
A few billion years (which is what I would go with if asked without expecting it or a chance to look it up)
I am not sure of the figure, but will look it up. After checking, it is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Incorrect answers include:
Anything that considers 6000 years as a possibility.

And, no, a poor background in science shouldn't preclude you from being elected, but it should keep you off of science committees.
2012-11-21 10:19:59 AM
1 votes:

wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.


Then someone needs to tell Turkey.

Acceptance of Evolution in various countries
scienceblogs.com
2012-11-21 10:17:28 AM
1 votes:

pxsteel: The age of the earth and Universe are not 'verifiable facts', they are estimates. The age of the earth, 4.3-5 is roughly based on the age of our star. The universe is calculated on how long we believe it took 'light' to reach us from a star at the far end of the universe. Are the 4.3 & 13 numbers correct, probably not, but they are a farkload closer than 6k.


Well it's verifiable that it is in that range. Although there are more than just those methods of getting to those numbers. The age of the universe is also calculated by using the temperature of the universe and other methods that all help narrow it down.
2012-11-21 10:15:58 AM
1 votes:

pxsteel: ghall3: MayoSlather: That's assuming people are perfectly rational players; they are not. When our logical minds fail to understand the world around us they turn to any alternative explanation they can find, and often that is religion. Religion requires far less effort and is much more comforting than often cold nihilistic sounding scientific ideas.

I know, it just frustrates me that people setting policy in this country can hold on to such insane ideas. You can have religion if you want, but not at the expense of verifiable facts.

The age of the earth and Universe are not 'verifiable facts', they are estimates. The age of the earth, 4.3-5 is roughly based on the age of our star. The universe is calculated on how long we believe it took 'light' to reach us from a star at the far end of the universe. Are the 4.3 & 13 numbers correct, probably not, but they are a farkload closer than 6k.


It's a verifiable fact we can rule out the Earth being 6000 years old.
2012-11-21 09:17:45 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator?


Depends. When you forgot the 4,500,000,000 years, did that fact get replace by 7 days? And will you try to write legislation to get the 7 days number taught in public schools?
2012-11-21 09:07:27 AM
1 votes:

t3knomanser: Frederick: That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).

Yeah, I wouldn't relate intelligence and college degrees. Look at any MBA program.


After more than a decade of working on a college campus, my conclusion is that higher education is only very weakly correlated with intelligence*. It is much more strongly correlated with perseverance: The ability to set a distant goal and to work towards achieving that goal. That applies to undergrad, grad, and doctoral degrees. I've met many a "Doctor J. Quentin Flimflam, PhD" who couldn't grasp some relatively simple concepts, even ones that I'd expect a high school kid to understand. It's also been my experience that the ones who want you to call them "Doctor Flimflam" or that use their title ostentatiously are the least intelligent of the lot. The ones who are obviously intelligent tend to be low-key about the title. Perhaps they don't have to flaunt it, whereas the ones who do are insecure about their mental abilities.

*There are, of course, degrees that do highly correspond to intelligence, mostly in the hard sciences.
2012-11-21 08:55:37 AM
1 votes:

wippit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?

In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality.

I've read nothing in the Bible that 'trumps' reality.


If you advocate the idea that God wished the world into existence in a day and then took a nap for a billion years just to make the math work out correctly, then yeah you are letting the Bible trump reality.
2012-11-21 08:44:00 AM
1 votes:
You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you-and maybe they already have-"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live-that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008. 

He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man. He's a politician.
2012-11-21 08:31:29 AM
1 votes:
Also, nobody's posted this yet?

imgs.xkcd.com
2012-11-21 08:29:44 AM
1 votes:
I think it would be absolutely spectacular if pandering to YECs became a "thing" for republicans in the next election cycle, and here's why:

When Richard Mourdock made his infamous "rape babies are a gift from God" comment, it was more than just an artless gaffe; He had been impaled on the horns of a couple of classic theological dilemmas. One was a very basic version of the Problem of Evil: Is God sovereign? Can God prevent rape? If he can and doesn't, isn't that tantamount to approval? The other, of course was simple "Free Will vs. Predestination:" Does everything happen according to God's plan? Even the birth of children conceived from rape? And if so, was not the rape also part of the plan?

When Mourdock made his comments, he was simply picking possible answers to these questions and stating them briefly, in theologically unsophisticated terms. In plain speech, basically any answer that you give to these questions is either going to offend Christians or make God out to be a...less than agreeable being.

Here's the thing: Trying to reconcile the scientifically determined age of the earth with a religious account that says the earth is much younger is fraught with similar theological (and political) pitfalls. If the Earth is 6000 years old, you've basically got a God who left a ton of evidence to the contrary in order to deceive people and send them to hell. If you come out and say the earth is not 6000 years old, you offend the majority of the Republican base. If you try to reassure your base that the earth can be old and the Bible is still true, you've opened yourself up for a sharp reporter to ask: "What does it even mean to say the Bible is true if you don't know what it's actually saying." (I would absolutely love to see a politician struggle to answer that one on camera.)

If you're expressly pandering to religious voters with religious reasoning, then I would argue that it's absolutely fair game for reporters to ask religious questions. Especially if you've already painted yourself into a corner.
2012-11-21 08:16:18 AM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.
2012-11-21 08:16:13 AM
1 votes:

WinoRhino: wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?

I hate this type of argument. Why not just lead in with the biblical passage "2nd Peter 3:8" and say "A day is like a thousand years" and claim that it isn't a "day" per se, but a period of time and the bible is only using the word "day" as a general period of measurement?

My high school chemistry teacher used to say stuff like that (yes, it was a Catholic school). He used to say "Sure, evolution is the way life developed. But who CAUSED that evolution?" The issue here is that suddenly the creation story is all symbolism and no fact. But he still expected us to believe the "great flood" was literal. And so is the idea of heaven and hell-- they are actual places we will go to. Where does the goal post finally come to rest?


You can either believe its all allegory or you can accept science and reserve God for the unexplained, which unfortunately for the believer means an ever-shrinking god.

Or you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la"
2012-11-21 08:11:56 AM
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


Hard to disagree with this in the general sense. Then again, I don't have a hard time separating my beliefs (God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, etc.) from what I know (the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution is real, etc.). Belief for me recognizes there's little to no substantial proof.
2012-11-21 08:10:57 AM
1 votes:
We should ask them, how do we determine the age of the Earth? Radiometric dating, or the old testament? Before answering: do you banish your wife to the desert while she's menstruating? Or do you think only part of the OT is the inspired word of god, and the rest you can ignore?

If you said radiometric dating, which scientist uses that to come up with 9000 years? Or anything less than at least 2.8 billion years? We can use a good laugh.
2012-11-21 08:02:49 AM
1 votes:
Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.
2012-11-21 07:29:40 AM
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.


I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.

But, they're also FAR LESS moral...which is why they say such stupid things: they're pandering to the (very stupid) masses. 

/at least in Washington
//worked in government there for a couple of years
///that town is FULL of well-educated people saying ridiculously stupid things. On purpose.
2012-11-21 07:23:24 AM
1 votes:
I'm to depressed by the article to comment on it.
2012-11-21 06:37:36 AM
1 votes:
Georgia should be ashamed they elected Broun, and our nation should be ashamed that he serves on the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report