Quote :

"since we KNOW for a FACT that people have sex, a lot of sex, a lot of premarital sex, how exactly would that work without forms birth control? exclusively anal and oral sex or gay sex?"

Abstinence education would be taught without any regard for what goes on in the bedroom since, after all, what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business.

The only way to get as close to eliminating the spread of STDs and the illegitimacy rate is to teach children that sex is not some kind of casual activity that is to be taken lightly. Self respect is paramount. Glossing over abstinence and teaching about the alternative lifestyles method for supposedly preventing the spread of STDs and such through sex education is nothing more than giving children (who are not capable as a whole of making such life altering decisions in the 1st place) a loaded gun and telling them it's ok to play russian roulette. Sure, the chamber might be bigger, but as we have seen even here in this microcasm known as the Wolf Web, a certain moderator can attest that such methods with every precaution taken can still result in unwanted consequences.

7/1/2006 8:51:15 AM

Youre suggesting we ask duke if he wishes someone taught him how great remaining a virgin is, and that if his education wasnt

Quote :

"Glossing over abstinence"

that he would have remained a virgin, becuase

Quote :

"Self respect is paramount. "

I hope he chimes in.



and

Quote :

"what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. "

if its a matter of public health, of course it is. someone up in NY was arrested for intentionally spreading HIV to a dozen people.

Quote :

"a loaded gun and telling them it's ok to play russian roulette"

you would rather give them a loaded gun, which is fairly bizarre methaphor for hormones, and the only thing you would do differntly is say nothing about 'russian roulette', which i will assume is euphamism for sex. people will still get shot, often. and by shot, im adapted your really bizarre metaphor, so ill remove that and put the simply point what you failed to address earlier below. people will have sex no matter what you tell them. they will eat. and shit, and sleep, too -- no matter what you tell them.


when, in ANY OTHER REALM, is safety education characterized as unsafe? if you tell someone to wear a helmet IF they ride a bike, will they be more likely to ride bikes, a very dangerous activity? by your logic you shouldnt tell people how to do anything that is remotely dangerous in a more safe way. it would only encourage more behavior that could be dangerous. why are people in the NHL forced to wear helmets? dont they know that if that only encourages more hockey playing? dont seatbelts encourage reckless driving? by your logic, yes.


[Edited on July 1, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ser]

7/1/2006 8:57:57 AM

Quote :

"Youre suggesting we ask duke if he wishes someone taught him how great remaining a virgin is, and that if his education wasnt "

NEWSFLASH: He's an adult. He's at least 10 years removed from high school so why would I care about how he was educated all those years ago? I'm talking about NOW. Besides, the point I was making that you ignored is that every sexual precaution in the world isn't fool proof.

I realize people are going to have sex even outside of marriage.

I was speaking solely from a point of view that I would like to see "in my world." It's hilarious that even something as pure as my intentions you have to come along and derail and bastardize them as if they're unabtainable or wrong. I feel for you, having such a negative and complete disregard for your fellow man.

You're happy in your world of 5 year old masturbation classes?

Quote :

"if its a matter of public health, of course it is. someone up in NY was arrested for intentionally spreading HIV to a dozen people."

I bet that someone was an adult. Sex education classes are usually taught to those in public school, FYI. If you were truly concerned with public health like you claim, you'd do everything in your power to find the best ways to prevent them. As of yet, abstinence is the only one that's 100 percent fool proof.

When it comes to killing a child, it's a bedroom/privacy issue. But when it comes to the actual deed, you people want to be there with the condom in one hand and giving pointers with the others, all the while ignoring that the only true way to protect against the spread of STDs and such is to wait until marriage.

Quote :

"you would rather give them a loaded gun, which is fairly bizarre methaphor for hormones, and the only thing you would do differntly is say nothing about 'russian roulette', which i will assume is euphamism for sex. people will still get shot, often. and by shot, im adapted your really bizarre metaphor, so ill remove that and put the simply point what you failed to address earlier below. people will have sex no matter what you tell them. they will eat. and shit, and sleep, too -- no matter what you tell them."

So you're saying that everytime somebody has sex that they aren't taking a potentially deadly health risk?

Eating, shitting, and sleeping are normal everyday activities that you need in order to live. You don't need to have sex to survive.

Quote :

"when, in ANY OTHER REALM, is safety education characterized as unsafe? if you tell someone to wear a helmet IF they ride a bike, will they be more likely to ride bikes, a very dangerous activity? by your logic you shouldnt tell people how to do anything that is remotely dangerous in a more safe way. it would only encourage more behavior that could be dangerous. why are people in the NHL forced to wear helmets? dont they know that if that only encourages more hockey playing? dont seatbelts encourage reckless driving? by your logic, yes."

You can tell a child about bike safety and nobody will be offended. People don't ride their bikes in the privacy of their bedroom, the same with NHL players or the rest.

7/1/2006 10:02:59 AM

Quote :

"You can tell a child about bike safety and nobody will be offended. People don't ride their bikes in the privacy of their bedroom, the same with NHL players or the rest."

you skirted the point. so ill take it the you do infact now believe that safety education on a given subject does not promote the activity referenced.

Quote :

"Eating, shitting, and sleeping are normal everyday activities that you need in order to live. You don't need to have sex to survive."

thats funny, becuase people seem to fuck like its neccesary for survival.

Quote :

"I bet that someone was an adult. "

Quote :

"NEWSFLASH: He's an adult. "

They were all kids at one point, most kids, are in public schools.

Quote :

"He's at least 10 years removed from high school so why would I care about how he was educated all those years ago?"

I retained some things i learned in grades 8-12. Im sorry you didnt, but many people do.

Quote :

"If you were truly concerned with public health like you claim, you'd do everything in your power to find the best ways to prevent them. As of yet, abstinence is the only one that's 100 percent fool proof."

I suppose you are going to tell me that on weekends, you babysit 14 year old virgin who are on dates and you keep them from touching and looking at eachother in non-jesus like ways?

Last I checked, driving cars wasnt essential to everyday survival, if you cared about public health, you would advocate not using automobiles. Not driving in cars in the only 100% foolproof way of no getting into car accidents.

Quote :

"As of yet, abstinence is the only one that's 100 percent fool proof."

Thats also not even true. You can get pregnant from in vitro fertilization and you can get many std from other various activities, please dont ask me highlight them bc youll just prove my point about to sad nature of the lack of real sex edaction in this country. Well in truth, if youre not aware of the differnt NON-SEXUAL ways you can get herpes, chymadia, gonorrhea or HIV, for example, i wish you would ask.




[Edited on July 1, 2006 at 10:33 AM. Reason : dftghu]

7/1/2006 10:25:52 AM

I just wanted to post my response to Wlfpk4Life.

sfduhajaweiovomflksdamgfklsmdklkIWHJEGAWIJVGJKLSDMVKLM TGWEIGVGJKSDKLMAFVISOPKPCKWP[QDLAS,FL;CSKLVMKLXCMKLVMZXDKLGJRDJTOPJKGAEOPKRHOPRAO

I'll add more when I'm fit.

7/1/2006 12:50:38 PM

Quote :

"So you get your pink panties in a wad when I diss liberals but you refer to my religious affiliation as if it's a point of condemnation. Hypocrite much?"

there are tons of other people on this board that disagree with my pov's that i dont ever attack.

youre an easy target to people on here b/c you act like someone who goes around growling and grumbling about liberals and then uses the same old, tired insults to insults those who disagree with you. in other words, youd make a good pundit.

and as a longtime critic of the catholic church (not christianity, mind you, i like christianity), i find the catholic church and the pope to be an abomination.

basically, when you antagonize people and insult their opinion through personal attacks on their morality and political leanings, you should expect to draw people's ire. i mean, there are plenty of respectable conservatives that people dont attack like they do to you on here. what are you doing wrong? it's like pundity in general. george will is a very intelligent man who has helped my perspective on a number of issues. i may not always agree with him, but i respect his opinion and actually stand very close to him in many issues (newsflash: im actually more moderate that you seem to think. not sure why you think im some communist or something wacky). meanwhile, rush limbaugh antagonizes his critics through attacks and insults that appeal to his fanbase, who like to hear liberals made fun of instead of debated with. thus, he draws lots of antagonism and insults in return. now who will you be more like?



[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2006 12:00:28 AM

If you're insulted about being called a liberal or leftist then that's a cross you will have to bear, but really most of what you have said is really empty. If you think my responses are taken to a personal level then you're either a very overly sensitive individual or don't pay attention.

But, pointing out liberal hypocrisy is something that isn't going to change, I'm sorry to say.

What I do have a problem with is this:

Quote :

"and as a longtime critic of the catholic church (not christianity, mind you, i like christianity), i find the catholic church and the pope to be an abomination."

You know, you people (social liberals) pride yourselves on being openminded. As a reformed Protestant turned Catholic, I believe that Catholicism is the correct path for me to get to Heaven but it may not be for everybody (not at the moment at least), and I respect that.

I'm reminded of a story told by the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, who had a dream that he was at the gates of hell and he yelled in, "Are there any Anglicans in there?" And he heard yes. He asked, "Are there any Methodists in there?" Again, he heard a yes. "Are there any Baptists in there?" Another yes. He asked about another denominations and yet again he heard another yes.

In this dream, he winds up at the Gates of Heaven and again asks, "Are there any Methodists in there?" This time he hears no. "Are there any Baptists in there?" Again he heard no. "Are there any Catholics in there?" Another no. He asks about other various denominations and he gets nothing but no answers in reply. Distressed, he asked, "If none of the members of these various demoninations are in Heaven, then who exactly is in Heaven?" In reply, he is told "We do not know the groups that you mentioned, the only people that we know are in here are Christians."

In short, there is nothing that's abominable about a Church that embodies the true love of Jesus Christ. Nor is there anything abominable about the lineage of the Church that can trace its roots all the way back to the very 1st Pope, the Apostle Peter.

7/2/2006 11:45:32 AM

If fucking children is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

7/2/2006 12:20:38 PM

Quote :

"You know, you people (social liberals) pride yourselves on being openminded. As a reformed Protestant turned Catholic,"

holy jesus fuck you became an entirely different kind of christian? doesnt get much more radical then that, did people even reconize the new you?

7/2/2006 12:23:54 PM

id still like to know what world has 5-year olds learning how to masturbate.

last i checked sex-ed was generally not held in kindergarden. there are a few cases to the contrary, but it is definately not the rule and ISNT what 90% of the ppl in this thread are supporting.

7/2/2006 12:48:43 PM

oh no, i dont like the catholic church, i must actually be closed-minded.

i dont give a crap where anyone worships. you have a right to. more power to you. being "open-minded" doesnt mean not being critical. i dont care how anyone else worships, but how should that keep me from having the opinion that the pope is an abomination within christianity? i dont care if you sacrifice goats, thats your perrogative, but i have the free will to be critical of you.

saying that one isnt "open minded" b/c they criticize something...thats just stupid

I have a question: do you think jesus likes how Coulter antagonize the "evil liberals"? I mean, are Christians not supposed to be showing compassion and understanding and not spewing vitriol, regardless if their opposition does or not?

I cant see how Ann Coulter can be considered a "Christian".

[

[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2006 5:34:50 PM

Explain to me how you think that the Vicar of Christ is an abomination to His church. How do you think Christ feels when you attack his "abomination" of a representative of the church on earth.

Making such assumptions especially when you have yet to offer even the smallest shred of evidence is, well, just stupid and reeks of an ignorance that is common with closemindedness, when one is unwilling or unable to consider alterative points of view because they do not align with their own personal biases.

I don't care if you are critical or not but when you state that a leader of the church that includes the majority of Christians on this earth is an abomination to God, you better have your facts straight or suffer looking like an even larger fool.

Who are you to decide who is Christian and who isn't? I can admonish the left all I want especially when most of them either spit in Christ's face or deny Him completely. Apostles died in the New Testament for even mentioning that Christ was Divine while rebuking the evils of their current generation. Being compassionate and kind is pointing out the hypocrisy, not letting somebody mire themselves in it.


[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2006 5:47:56 PM

well, theres lots of reasons to criticise the pope. just pick up pretty much any history book.

the organized church and the corruption within inspired me to leave the church and become a deist, following my own path. i dont see how a supreme earthly ruler of the church fits into gods plan, as stated in the bible, for mankind.

Quote :

"Who are you to decide who is Christian and who isn't?"

all i did was point out an unchristian thing and an issue of hypocricy on your side, chill out. you preach compassion and then someone like coulter goes and screams at those who dare insult her political stance and how it relates to their religion.why not just wait your turn and then prove why your religion is so much more compassionate instead of getting all riled up by the opponents?

too bad you took down the "great one" comment. it was pretty flattering.

[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2006 5:52:57 PM

Quote :

"well, theres lots of reasons to criticise the pope. just pick up pretty much any history book."

Wow, such great references. How could I have doubted you?

Quote :

"the organized church and the corruption within inspired me to leave the church and become a deist, following my own path. i dont see how a supreme earthly ruler of the church fits into gods plan, as stated in the bible, for mankind."

Do you think that there isn't order in Heaven? You have the Holy Trinity who is at the head and then everybody else. It's fixated and no Saint or angel is higher than the One who created or saved them.

If you're going to damn the Roman Catholic Church for having a heirarchal structure, then you might as well damn the Anglican/Episcopalian Church whose leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the United Methodist Church, who has modeled its heirachy after the Catholics and Episcopalians, or any of the Orthodox religions, and even the Southern Baptist Convention, who appoints a yearly president as the head of their convention.

The Church, while divinely inspired, is ran on earth by man until the return of Christ. You are confusing corrupt individuals, in which there have been many in the history of such an expansive and old Church such as the Roman Catholic Church, with its pure intentions, which is to get as many saved as possible through faith and love in Christ. Unfortunately, there are individuals who have brought shame on themselves and at the same time on the Church, but the acts of these people should not be seen as protected or supported by the Church as a whole. You have to be able to separate the human element from the divinely inspired role of the Church.

[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2006 6:03:39 PM

Quote :

"holy jesus fuck you became an entirely different kind of christian? doesnt get much more radical then that, did people even reconize the new you?"

Sure they did. Most people don't understand my reasons for converting but that's ok because I used to ask the same questions that they ask me now.

7/2/2006 6:10:22 PM

oh no, i dont respect church structure, pray for my soul.

7/2/2006 6:11:10 PM

Don't worry, I do that anyway.

7/2/2006 6:11:52 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that there isn't order in Heaven? You have the Holy Trinity who is at the head and then everybody else. It's fixated and no Saint or angel is higher than the One who created or saved them. "

Wait... so you're saying that when people are in Heaven, there's still a chance that Johnny-law can crack down on them?

How exactly does "order" in Heaven work? How exactly does Heaven itself work? You make it seem like it would be like Earth, but you can't die.

7/2/2006 7:35:32 PM

Quote :

"In my world, school students would say the pledge of allegience every morning and learn essential life skills that will prepare them for higher education and the real world, not how to put condoms on bananas. "

It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.

and I think that children should be taught the Pledge of Allegiance, but not required to say it every day.

P.S.

that whole post sounds like one of those stupid chain letter emails falsely attributed to George Carlin or Robin Williams that I can't delete quickly enough.

Quote :

"In my world, every child would be a wanted child, where 2 parents lovingly raise their children to become responsible adults who positively contribute to society."

What makes you so sure that every child born to married parents is wanted?

(not to mention properly raised)

Quote :

"Self respect is paramount. Glossing over abstinence and teaching about the alternative lifestyles method for supposedly preventing the spread of STDs and such through sex education is nothing more than giving children (who are not capable as a whole of making such life altering decisions in the 1st place) a loaded gun and telling them it's ok to play russian roulette."

Well, first of all, I don't think I've ever in my entire life, even once, been accused of lacking self respect (although it's been suggested a few times that I might have a surplus of it). That didn't keep me from getting a girl pregnant.

Now, as far as teaching abstinence goes, I think that everyone knows that it's the only surefire way. That's not news to anyone, and it's not stopping any significant number of people from having sex outside of marriage. What % of people remain virgins until marriage? a couple percent or so (and they often jump into marriage a little prematurely as a result)? Furthermore, out of that tiny percentage, how many of them remain chaste primarily out of fear of STDs and pregnancy, and how many do it because of religion and/or wanting to share it only with their (hopefully) permanent mate?

You can only parrot "ABSTINENCE IS THE ONLY SURE WAY" so many times. It can only be served so many different ways.

What should be done is to give people a better idea of how many pregnancies are unplanned, and often happen even when proper precautions are taken. Since I've been personally affected by this sort of thing, I can't tell you how many instances I've heard about where pregancies were either aborted or the parents kinda played it off like it wasn't an accident. Tons of people have told me "Yeah, I/my girlfriend/my wife was on the Pill/Patch when I/she got pregnant." A couple of those people were using condoms, too. Pregnancies happen when you're trying to avoid them a lot more than people realize.

Same thing with STDs...it's one of those things that most people don't talk about, so it seems like they're more unusual than they really are (that, and lots of people don't realize they have something, because they don't get tested). Hell, I caught a minor infection from either the 2nd or 3rd girl I slept with...antibiotics knocked it right out, but that's another thing that really can happen to YOU.


Still, people are going to have sex...we just need to teach them how to be smart about it and give them a better idea of the chances they are taking, then recognize that it's a battle that you'll never really win.


and for the record, my parents are Southern Baptists. I got all the abstinence education that is possible. Hell, I still get it from my dad, even after I told him about Baby Hannah.

Quote :

"So you're saying that everytime somebody has sex that they aren't taking a potentially deadly health risk? "

Of course they are. Risks aren't to be avoided at all costs, though. they're to be recognized and mitigated.

7/3/2006 10:39:16 AM

So the duke was told abstience was the only surefire way, told it a million times, AND HE KNEW IT, and he still had pre-marital sex. If I didnt know better, I would surmise that sexual behavior has an instinctual component. Its almost like people just plain seek to do it, not matter if you tell them to do it, or not to do it.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 9:16 PM. Reason : rt]

7/3/2006 9:16:19 PM

while i think you are likely correct, this whole duke deal isnt the best way to convince anyone.

7/3/2006 11:09:23 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: In my world, kindergardeners would learn how to color within the lines, not how to masturbate. "

for one thing, no one is teaching kindergarteners how to masturbate.

what age-appropriate sex education IS teaching children, is that no one is allowed to touch their genitals other than themselves.

In other words, when a catholic priest tries to fondle a boy's penis, the boy should run away and report the priest to his parents and the authorities.

now are you saying that you are against teaching kids this sort of basic safety?

instead, you would teach them "how to color within the lines" ... that is, to shut up and conform, rather than think for themselves?

are you a member of NAMBLA or something?





[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 2:31 AM. Reason : ]

7/4/2006 2:27:22 AM

Quote :

"that whole post sounds like one of those stupid chain letter emails falsely attributed to George Carlin or Robin Williams that I can't delete quickly enough."

Well, consider that it was a best case scenario response to a personal attack on my values.

Quote :

"What makes you so sure that every child born to married parents is wanted? (not to mention properly raised)"

Again, this is something that I think most people would like the world to be like, where every child is wanted and loved. I know that isn't the case today, but I think it's something that should be considered worth while.

Quote :

"Well, first of all, I don't think I've ever in my entire life, even once, been accused of lacking self respect (although it's been suggested a few times that I might have a surplus of it). That didn't keep me from getting a girl pregnant."

I was referring to children who are under 18, because many of the reasons given for having sexual relationships vary from peer pressure to having a low self esteem, etc. Children do not have the understanding or foresight to handle such a responsibility.

Your personal life is none of my business and I will leave it as such, although I will say that you're doing the best you can with a bad situation and that's very admirable, not that it matters.

Quote :

"What should be done is to give people a better idea of how many pregnancies are unplanned, and often happen even when proper precautions are taken. Since I've been personally affected by this sort of thing, I can't tell you how many instances I've heard about where pregancies were either aborted or the parents kinda played it off like it wasn't an accident. Tons of people have told me "Yeah, I/my girlfriend/my wife was on the Pill/Patch when I/she got pregnant." A couple of those people were using condoms, too. Pregnancies happen when you're trying to avoid them a lot more than people realize. Same thing with STDs...it's one of those things that most people don't talk about, so it seems like they're more unusual than they really are (that, and lots of people don't realize they have something, because they don't get tested). Hell, I caught a minor infection from either the 2nd or 3rd girl I slept with...antibiotics knocked it right out, but that's another thing that really can happen to YOU. Still, people are going to have sex...we just need to teach them how to be smart about it and give them a better idea of the chances they are taking, then recognize that it's a battle that you'll never really win."

That's the crux of it all with regards to a solution...imagine who much tougher these circumstances would be for teenagers. At the very least, an abstinence 1st approach should be the cornerstone for the very reasons you mentioned above.

I cannot support any program that gives these children an out because I believe that's exactly what most of these programs do. You cannot change every mind but you can at least try to influence them by showing them what might happen if they decide to become sexually active at such a young age with regards to the risks vs. benefits. I cannot foresee any good that comes from the slightest encouragement of sexual promiscuousness.

7/4/2006 10:18:25 AM

Quote :

"Again, this is something that I think most people would like the world to be like, where every child is wanted and loved. I know that isn't the case today, but I think it's something that should be considered worth while."

thats a brave stance.

Quote :

"I was referring to children who are under 18, because many of the reasons given for having sexual relationships vary from peer pressure to having a low self esteem, etc."

you have any evidence to back this claim? no....you dont. too bad.


[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 10:26 AM. Reason : 432]

7/4/2006 10:19:44 AM

Quote :

"what age-appropriate sex education IS teaching children, is that no one is allowed to touch their genitals other than themselves. In other words, when a catholic priest tries to fondle a boy's penis, the boy should run away and report the priest to his parents and the authorities. now are you saying that you are against teaching kids this sort of basic safety?"

LOL I can't believe I'm even responding to this tripe.

I agree, teaching children that it's not okay for others to touch their privates is an acceptable and standard practice. But equating child safety with masturbation and then drawing the conclusion that I must support NAMBLA is completely stupid if not ludicrous.

There are advocates who do want to teach kindergardeners about masturbation, including Clinton's Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.

7/4/2006 10:23:19 AM

Quote :

"There are advocates who do want to teach kindergardeners about masturbation, including Clinton's Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders."

And you are so brave to challenge her views.

7/4/2006 10:38:36 AM

Somebody has to.

7/4/2006 10:39:18 AM

Exactly, if you dont point it out, they will be teaching 5-year olds how to have sex safely soon enough.

7/4/2006 10:41:12 AM

Teens and their reasons for having sex...

Quote :

"you have any evidence to back this claim? no....you dont. too bad."

Of course I do.

Quote :

"Reasons teens give for having sex Peer/social pressure It feels good Pressure from partner No longer a virgin, so what's it matter? Lack of understanding about real love Rebellion Curiosity An expression of love & a response to the need to be loved Source: Lewis Harris Poll 1986, commissioned by Planned Parenthood"

http://www.wprc.org/9.28.0.0.1.0.phtml

7/4/2006 1:29:49 PM

thats not a scientific poll. its meaningless.

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 1:32 PM. Reason : 423 ]

7/4/2006 1:32:06 PM

noone has sex because its a natural urge

they do it because its cool

i thank my lucky starts i dont live in a theocracy where the pope influences politics and contraception is demonized at all levels, including with teens, who will have sex anyway.

might as well make the good gesture and teach abstinence to make the pope happy, ignoring a real solution to stds and birth rates...contraception.

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

7/4/2006 10:50:14 PM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/

HAHAHAHAHAHA

gg Adam Corolla

7/10/2006 8:54:43 AM

AHAHAHAHAH

7/10/2006 4:26:50 PM

Is anyone else watching her on CNBC defending her claim that Bill Clinton has homosexual tendencies because he is promiscuous?

7/28/2006 5:55:45 PM

Im still trying to figure out how liberalism can have a church is its 'godless'

[Edited on July 28, 2006 at 6:33 PM. Reason : 234]

7/28/2006 6:33:29 PM

i'm still trying to figure out why that bitch has so much pull

7/29/2006 3:29:26 AM

Anybody watch the Rob Lowe roast? Wow.

9/9/2016 1:50:08 PM