Like, say, the United States of America. A Harris poll shows that around 47% of Americans believe in evolution (compared to a whopping 32% that don’t), which would be fine except that greater numbers believe in God (80%), Miracles (75%), Heaven (73%), Jesus is God or the Son of God (71%), Angels (71%), The resurrection of Jesus Christ (70%), Hell (62%), The Virgin birth (61%) and The devil (59%) while they only have slightly less credence in Ghosts (44%) and Creationism (40%). Be afraid, be very afraid. People are willing to place higher credence in things they can’t see, hear, touch and that contradict all experience rather than in straightforwardly well attested science. And they can all vote.

Makes Muffti feel kind of like singing…

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Latest posts by grandmuffti (see all)

About the author

grandmuffti

63 Comments

  • Muffti,

    Why do atheists like pitting evolution against the religion, when Darwin himself never thought to do so?

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one … from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

    -Charles Darwin, the last line of “Origin of the Species”

  • Muffti errs in thinking (or seeming too) that most, if not all, Christians are Biblical literalists. Here’s one who wasn’t.

    From the Chicago Tribune, 10/25/96:

    “In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is ‘more than just a hypothesis’ and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin … “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge’, the pope said in his message Wednesday. ‘The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory…”

    “If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin’s scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution’s process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists …”

    “The Pope’s message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. ‘If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God’, the Pope said.”

  • Another Muffti other error is in thinking that, just because evolution is, for him, a major stumbling-block to belief and a test religion flunks, that believers assign the same importance to it and must be immune to doubt if they reject it. All believers have moments, or months or years, of doubt. Many live with doubt every day of their lives. But it’s quite unlikely that adults, especially, lose sleep over whether the Red Sea was really parted or Jesus truly fed several thousand folks with a few fish. As we get older, faith becomes increasingly personal and has more to do with illness or loss or misfortune or crises of meaning in our lives. We’ve got enough worries without having to plod through Origin of the Species….

    One Crucifixion is recorded — only —
    How many be
    Is not affirmed of Mathematics —
    Or History —

    One Calvary — exhibited to Stranger —
    As many be
    As persons — or Peninsulas —
    Gethsemane —

    Is but a Province — in the Being’s Centre —
    Judea —
    For Journey — or Crusade’s Achieving —
    Too near —

    Our Lord — indeed — made Compound Witness —
    And yet —
    There’s newer — nearer Crucifixion
    Than That —

  • Lori and Tom, Muffti didn’t claim that darwinian evolution and religious faith were in tension, and he didn’t pit Darwin against religion. Read a little more carefully, please. What he said was that it is ridiculous to have greater credence in the existence of hell and Satan (for which we have no evidence) than evolution (for which we have MASSIVE amounts of evidence). So the error, Muffti is afraid, belongs to Tom.

    Muffti doesn’t think there is any conflict between faith and evolution, so long as one isn’t a literalist about the bible (as Tom points out). Though he’s not really sure what you believe if you aren’t a literalist since non-literality is open ended.

    In fact, if anyone has made a big deal about the apparent conflict of religion and evolution, it’s the religious who seek to teach faux-science (‘intelligent design’) be taught in their children’s classrooms and worked hard to keep evolution FROM being taught earlier in those same classrooms. It ain’t us atheists. We don’t lose much sleep over how y’all manage to reconcile scientific progress with your cute little myths.

  • Well, again, religion– God, meaning, spirituality, all that stuff– is of greater concern to the average person than the specifics of Darwinism or whether he was right, scientifically speaking. You really want it to matter more to people (the better to swell the ranks of the worldwide atheist conspiracy), but it’s not as relevant to their lives as, you know, sister’s cancer diagnosis or forgiving their alcoholic dad.

  • ….Let’s go at it this way. Suppose you asked the dude who empties the trash in your office building, or la guapa who serves your breakfast burrito, whether they “believe” (your word) in the Big Bang theory– and they pounded the table and said dammit, yes, there was no doubt in their minds about it. wtf would that prove?

  • it’s not an issue of mattering more, it’s an issue of belief and credence. Surely it’s more important to most whether or not there is a God, or forgiving alcoholic relatives than whether or not Mars is further or close to the earth than Jupiter, but Muffti would expect on the whole ‘Mars is closer to the earth than Jupiter’ should score as high or higher than ‘the devil exists’ on the list of what people believe.

  • It wouldn’t prove anything…but if they told muffti that they were 50-50 on the big bang but 100% on God, Muffti would politely say ‘thank you’ for the burrito and be glad they don’t run the country…

  • Who knows what the Darwinian ‘non-believers’ really think. Most folks, I suspect, have figured out where they stand on God, but may not feel competent to endorse evolution or the Big Bang or whathaveyou.

    Hell, 68% either buy Darwin or have no opinion, right? That’s not good enough for you heathens?

  • Whatever, Morrissey. You can dance around all you like but Muffti knows that privately you are as appalled as he is. And while less than half the country believes in evolution, we waste court time trying to ensure that we keep people just as ignorant by teaching intelligent design to bamboozle them into thinking there is a real alternative.

    Disgraceful.

  • We should institute leadership via philosopher Kings! Philosophers are lazy and will want to shirk their duty of course, but that will only make them more qualified to be leaders!

    What else do nuke equipped Americans believe? That McDonalds serves good food. That driving cars is the embodiment of true freedom, that trickle down economics benefits the poor, that anyone can become president, that if you work hard – you too can be rich, that reading Cosmo can make you a better woman, that reading Maxim can make you a better man, that greed is good, etc. etc.

    My God! Who allowed these morons to have nukes?? Someone call the UN!

  • Actually, people are a lot less stupid than we think and a lot more self-contradictory. There’s a great book on the changing nature of religion in America called “After the Baby Boomers” which is great. But in summary, it surveys all the studies done about religion in America over the past 100 years. In fact, most religious people also believe in evolution, and most evangelicals do not believe that Christianity is the only way to heaven, etc. People are fundamentally a lot more reasonable than we give them credit for.

    It’s a great book. I highly recommend it.

  • Nice irony, which seems unintentional.

    To sum up your fear of conservative/christian mindless fantasism, you cite one of the source texts of left/liberal mindless fantasism.

    “Imagine there’s no countries” leading to “all the people living life in peace” is about as cogent as believing in ghosts.

    At least most of the believers in the Christian doctrines you’ve listed adhere to a well articulated, Judaic morality – one which stands up better than the sophomoric come-as-you-are implied by Lennon’s lyric.

  • I am a Jew4FSM – wich stands for Flying Spaghetti Monster, you insensitive clod. And I feel discriminated against because me and my growing community is not that list. Will write congress man.

  • Lennon’s lyrics were a brilliant articulation of a world where people don’t kill each other over land or dogma.

    Do you think his idealistic vision is better expressed by Uncle Moishy and the the Mitzvah Men in the lyrics “someday when Moshiach will come, the world will be joyous and peaceful, the nations will bow to Hashem, and Torah will then be the law of all men?” because the bottom line is that both songs are about world peace and unity.

    I can’t even begin to conceive of the type of ego it takes to call one of the greatest song writers in history “sophmoric”…have you written any inspiring classics lately Ben-David?

  • Sheesh, B-D, you are asking an awful lot of a song – to fully articulate a political dogma rather than provide a verse with a nice rhyming metaphor. You must be tons of fun to go to concerts with….

  • “Unrecoited love”? WTF is that, Muffti? It can’t be a typo for “unrequited love”, since the C, the Q and the O are on nowhere near each other on the keyboard.

    Lennon’s song made the extremely simplistic point that if we could just do away with nationalities and religions, everybody would be nice to each other since these things are the root cause of all conflict. This is an absurd idea, as nice as it may sound as a fantasy. While it is true that wars over land and dogma have occurred throughout history (although I submit that wars over dogma are really about land and political power, such as the Ablagensian Crusade and the German expansion into Prussia supposedly to Christianize the heathen Slavs), there is no particularly good reason to think that if these things disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t find something else to fight about.

  • Muffti is hereby warned that I may use ‘unrecoited’ for my own narrow purposes, without attribution.

  • ach. it comes out. Muffti’s mispellings aren’t just typos. He just can’t spell big words. He’s not even really sure how to use them. Most of the time he just flings letters around in the hopes that someone will (mistakenly) recognize them for real ones.

    Thanks Ephraim. thanks a lot. Does muffti come to your workplace and try to give you tips on how to telemarket commemorative plates?

  • Lennon’s song became an iconic representation of the don’t-bother-me-with-the-details version of kumbaya hip leftism that enabled socialism and idolized left-wing revolutionary movements – letting thugs wreak destruction.

    The Hugo Chavezes and Robert Mugabes of the world cover their crimes with the hazy fog of revolutionary chic that 60s radicals first embraced – and that “Imagine” so clearly crystalizes.

    This song is the musical parallel to the Che Guevara T-shirt. Guevara was a ruthless terrrorist, but nobody wearing the shirt – or singing the song – wants to be bothered with the actual, uncool facts: that socialist revolution is many times more brutal and oppressive than the alternative.

    They just want to strike the “correct” rebel stance.

    It doesn’t matter if anything actually improves.

  • B-D, one thing Muffti likes about you, is that everything pushes one of your political buttons. Even simplicistic songs!

    Look, (1) It’s a song! And Muffti finds it kind of catchy. And he finds it mildly irritating that you infer from song to Muffti’s simplicity of mind and desire for concrete change without concommitant plan for restructure! In that vein, let’s remind ourselves of a more well articulated Lennon/Beatles political manifesto:

    You say you got a real solution
    Well you know
    we’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well you know
    We’re all doing what we can
    But when you want money for
    people with minds that hate
    All I can tell you is
    brother you have to wait
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright

    (2) This charge against leftism is probably justified as a charge against nearly everybody. People generally support dogmas they like without a great deal of thought about how things will go afterwards or consequences because they don’t like to be bothered with details. Details are like, hard, man. And truthfully, right wing revolutions are no less bloody, brutal and horrible than left wing ones.

    (3) If we are doing art criticism, there is a big diff between the che t-shirts and ‘imagine’. Che was a real guy with a real history and a real record of brutality. He became an icon of violent overthrow and warfare as a means to change the status of oppressed people.

    ‘imagine’ is a song that invites you to dream about an idealized world in which people come to recognize that divisive forces are overcome – country, dogma and action for intangible reward post-death rather than a focus on current and actual consquence. And an expression of hope that acheiving such a state is possible. There’s no commitment to violent chnge (in fact a strongly implied opposition to such) or overthrow so much as a the expresed hope that mankind is capable of overcoming the fundamental divisions that have been the cause of so much miserty.

    Muffti does kind of think he’s a dreamer, and he’s not the only one. But it is a rather nice dream.

  • You know, Muffti, if you had written “unrecoital love” it would have been even more awesome.

    But aren’t you a philosopher? I thought you guys ate big words for breakfast.

    Yes, a nice dream. Just not gonna happen, that’s all. And such dreams can sometimes be very dangerous if people actually try to live their lives according to them without checking to see if the other side is meeting them halfway.

  • Philosophers do eat big words for breakfast. Muffti just isn’t very good at what he does ๐Ÿ™‚

    Muffti thinks that what you describe, regrettably, forms something of a prisoner’s dilemma as Hobbes astutely pointed out. And since prisoner’s dilemma’s are hard to get out of, it probably is not much more than a nice dream…

    and Morrissey, errr, the big lebowski called and they want their joke back!

  • Tom, you can drunk-dial me to sing ten rounds of “Danny Boy” anytime.

    Unrecoited is an awesome word and should be added to the thesaurus as a synonym for unconsumated immediately.

    The only war that I can think of which wasn’t waged for land or ideology was the Trojan War which was fought for Helen.

    And whether you like the left or not, you must admit their music is just way better.

  • No, strictly speaking, “unrecoited” would mean that the relationship was consummated once but the act was never repeated.

    However, it is, indeed, an awesome word, whatever we decide it means.

  • Muffti:
    This particular song has taken on a life – and political significance – beyond your appreciation of it as a song. It is often quoted or referred to as shorthand for the kumbaya socialist chic that I described – not least by the lefties themselves, who interpret the lyric (correctly from what we know of Lennon) as endorsing their specific vision of transcending Western capitalism-n-democracy.

    I don’t know how many “right wing revolutions” have been violent – I currently see the right/left split in terms of capitalism and limited government vs. socialism and fascist meddling.

    So: just how violent were Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan? How many of their political opponents – and simple constituents – did they summarily execute, like Castro, Chavez, Mao and other folks idolized by lefties wearing Che shirts and humming…… what is that tune?

    – why, it’s “Imagine”!

    Whad’ya know!

    Sorry: I’m not stretching or distorting anything. The sub/con-text of the song is already well established.

  • Gotta hand it to you Ephraim, that definition of unrecoited excellent!

    Actually Ben-David, “Imagine” is more a theme song for pacifists rather than violent socialist revolutionaries.

    I doubt if Castro or Mao ever sang anything even remotely similiary to “Kumbaya”, which is a song about praying for God’s kindness. So yeah, you are stretching things. The only people that used “Kumbaya” to describe “socialist chic” are people who think the world “liberal” is an insulting derogatory slur.

  • Reagan and Thatcher didn’t start revolutions – if that counts as a revolution than there are MANY non-violent left wing revolutions. By that standard of ‘revolution’, FDR and Johnson and Obama’s years in power are ‘revolutions’ and neither have resulted in much executing…and by that standard of left vs. right, Bush is left wing (limited government??? Free market capitalism???) and so is the Argentine military government. Certainly neither are much associated with holding hands and singing kumbaya or imagine. We can use words anyway we like but Muffti doesn’t think they are lining up as you see them.

    Chutzpah’s dead on. Imagine is a song about peace. It’s appropriation by people who were misguided enough to think that violent revolution was/is a good way to establish peaceful happy citizenry living for today. Most of the socialists muffti knows are described exactly by what we used to call ‘liberals’: people who thought that government should keep its nose out of social issues in all respects except to guarantee safety nets for those who were unable to benefit from the fruits of capitalism (those who couldn’t find employment in harsh markets, those who were too sick to participate). And they all like songs like ‘imagine’!

    Funnily enough, Muffti finds the song mildly annoying truth be told.

  • Muffti –
    Socialists may promise safety nets, but socialism is defined by its call for government control of all a country’s resources, industry, and sources of wealth.

    Which has proven to be not very compatible with “keeping its nose out of social issues”. Socialism leads inexorably to the loss of individual choice and independence in most spheres of life.

    Remember our exchanges regarding euthanasia?

    The term “liberal” never used to refer to specific economic policy positions. It originally meant support for an open, catholic intellectual environment.

    It was borrowed/distorted by Fabians and other proto-socialists looking for a touchy-feely way to describe their desire for more government control of people’s lives, and more dependence-inducing government spending (as opposed to “fiscal conservatives” who wanted to limit government expenditure and authority).

    I don’t blame anyone for being confused about the meaning of the word “liberal” – but you are certainly misapplying the very clearly defined “socialist” label to describe your friends. Socialist governments don’t keep their noses out of anything – not the churches, not family structures, not bedrooms. We have seen that.

  • Chutzpah:
    I doubt if Castro or Mao ever sang anything even remotely similiary to รขโ‚ฌล“Kumbayaรขโ‚ฌย
    – – – – – – – – –
    Then you have revealed your ignorance as well as your panties.

    Try googling the phrase “thousand flowers bloom”.

    Then go here and educate yourself about Maoist propaganda:

    http://www.geocities.com/chumpfish1/propaganda/art-propaganda-MaoistChina-1.html

    Yes, the propaganda machines of Mao, the USSR, and Cuba all included pseudo-religious musical tributes to the “great leader” and the new People’s Eden that was just around the corner.

    Numbers very similar in content and tone to “Imagine”.

    Follow the links to the posters, and see how the visual techniques of religious icons were simply adopted to idolize the new political gods.

  • B-D, Muffti thinks you are right terminology-wise. The modern uses of these terms are rather confused. Though everything muffti reads about socialism suggests that the government intervention is an economic matter, not a matter of social intervention (makeing euthanasia not really a socialist issue). Similarly, when the right in the US try to ban things this is straightforward interference by government in social issues, rather than economic ones. But that is a fight for another time.

    Right wing revolution? Muffti is feeling kind of unsure footed at this point terminology wise so let him provide a couple of examples and you can tell him if it’s not waht you had in mind. The islamic revolution in Iran. Mussolini’s march on Rome. Francoism in Spain.

    But this may not cut the pie in teh way you are thinking of – these were clearly not cases in which people were trying to get LESS governmental control. But they also certainly weren’t socialist in spirit, intention or even in marketing PR.

  • Well, Muffti, Nazi is, after all, the acronym for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workersรขโ‚ฌโ„ข Party.

    Most people think Nazis must be right-wingers becuz they were, like, you know, bad. But they were definitely socialists in that they wanted everything run by the state. Fascism can, essentially, be see as corporate statism, where the economy is run by, and serves, the state. If Mussolini was a right-winger, I doubt if he would have allied himself with anavowedly socialist party like the Nazis.

    If you define “right wing” as people who hate Jews and Communists, OK. But I think it’s a little more complicated than that. Hitler’s socialism, after al, was designed to benefit only Aryans. Not too universal in its appeal. But socialism it most definitely was.

  • Balderdash. “Liberal” in an economic sense once meant everything that y’all associate with free market, laissez faire capitalism, at least to the extent that it meant anything economic at all. It was and should be more in reference to one’s political and intellectual philosophy, but it only came to be associated with social/progressive economic sentiments after the industrial revolution came to a more mature phase, obviating the relegation of most individuals to lives of long hours and back-breaking labor.

    Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, was considered, along with most influential philosophers and thinkers of the day, a “liberal”. This rather broad base of sentiments began in a political sense with John Locke and was congruous with the broader intellectual revolutions of the day, including the scientific revolution and the enlightenment itself. Its emphasis was rooted in individual liberty, whether economic or political, and regarding the latter, remains at the forefront of that field. Check it out.

  • Muffti –
    1) Take a very good look at what Ephraim said:
    Most people think Nazis must be right-wingers becuz they were, like, you know, bad. But they were definitely socialists in that they wanted everything run by the state. Fascism can, essentially, be see as corporate statism, where the economy is run by, and serves, the state. If Mussolini was a right-winger, I doubt if he would have allied himself with anavowedly socialist party like the Nazis.
    – – – – – – – – –
    Bingo.
    The left has worked strenuously to link the word “fascist” with the political Right in people’s minds – and to disavow their connection with folks like the Nazis – but it simply is not true.

    You can read a bestselling book that discusses this connection – and traces its history in “progressive” American politics from the 1880s on.

    It’s called Liberal Fascism by journalist Jonah Goldberg.

    2) Once the state controls industry – including the media, health care, educational and agricultural industries – there’s not much room left open to “personal conscience” in most socialist regimes.

    Again, the example I gave you is health care. In a socialized scheme, individuals no longer can choose their treatment options since they are not paying for it. Euthanasia, anyone?

    This is what’s happening in Europe right now – an accelerating slide from soft to hard socialism, with constricting personal choice and freedoms.

  • It’s hard to characterize the Nazis entirely as right- or left-wing.

    The kaisers practiced a kind of social democracy, and were quite progressive in enacting social welfare legislation, out of a kind of state paternalism, in the late 19th C.

    During the early 1920s, the revanchist right in Weimar Germany sought to make common cause with the Soviet Union; ‘national Bolshevism’ was the term for the movement. Later, the mainstream conservative chancellor Stresemann concluded the Treaty of Rapallo with the USSR.

    Germany and the Soviet Union had in common opposition to the Versailles Treaty system. For Stresemann and others, an alliance with Moscow was a way to end German isolation and reassert leverage in foreign affairs.

    Hitler manipulated nationalist and socialist themes quite cleverly. As historians like WS Allen found in analyzing Nazi politics in the early 30s, the party stressed the ‘socialist’ adjective in NSDAP in liberal districts, the ‘national’ part in others.

    Fascism, at the very least, is massive state intervention in the economy– in Italy’s case, nationalizing industry on a wide scale. Hitler’s economic policies did not go this far. Still, Hitler and Mussolini both outspokenly rejected the West’s economic liberalism, against the background of worldwide economic crisis.

    Hitler’s combination of one-man rule, quasi-socialism and extreme nationalism was very much a creature of its time. Maybe the closest contemporary analogy is the sort of ‘socialism’ practiced in the Third World after decolonization, ‘authenticite’ in Sekou Toure’s Guinea, for example.

  • Tom, I find myself oddly aroused by your intelligence, and then I think “nah, I just need a man who can disco and make silky smooth”. Happy Holidays!

  • CK – You can shop around for an HMO – and the HMO bean counters know that ultimately they have to compete for customers – which means they must somehow respond to customer demands.

    You can also pay extra for things you want – for example, hospice care in the event of terminal illness G-d forbid.

    Neither of these options are available in single-payer, state-run socialized medicine.

    Happy Chanukah!

  • chutzpah, ‘keep doing what you’re doing but make it funky’ (JB).

    I dropped by Dunkin Donuts in honor of y’all today, but I figure it’s just not the same…

  • Muffti PURPOSELY avoided using the Nazis as an example and then y’all proceded as though he did. Look, yhou guys are appealing toth e vaguest notion of ‘socialism’ Muffti can think of, and Muffti is appealing to the vaguest notion of right wing, so it’s a bit of a waste. One point that all self acclaimed socialists have been for is that state run insttiutions are supposed to provide for equality amongst members of the society. REligious revolutions (which Muffti takes to be as right wing as you get typically on account of their respect for traditiona nd authority), fascism (which muffti takes to be the total direction of society by a small leadership, where individual rights are scacrificed entirely for the (typically expansionsit) power of hte state) and the like do not have quality or consistency of quality of life as their aim. At least that’s what wikipedia seems to say ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Should I break it off with a guy who says he’s an “athesist nationalist” and that he’d be willing to live as a second class citizen in Israel under a Jewish Theocracy if that’s what it takes to “have mounds of dead Muslims”. He thinks he’s a follower of Meir Kahane, but he’s never been to Israel, I find that odd. He also listens to non-stop Rush Limbaugh, I also find that odd. He also says that pacifists are lower than martyrs and that the song “Imagine” represents everything that is wrong with people on this planet. He calls everyone and their mother “5 alarm liberals” and that the President-Elect is a Marxist. Yet he’s an attorney living in one of the most affluent suburbs of New Jersey. His politics are so “right wing” on everything that I can’t even begin to make sense of them. I have to Google an Wiki everything he says because it seems so extreme. He says he’s a “Spenglarian” .He thinks driving a compact car is more dangerous than smoking 5 cigarettes a day.

    He has a nice body and he doesn’t mind picking up the check at decent restaurants, and they are certainly not knocking down my door.

    What would middle do? Froylein? Everyone please way in on this issue.

  • You and I don’t exactly see eye to eye on most things, Chutzpah, but the guy sounds certifiable. Run quickly in the opposite direction.

    And, Muffti, I wasn’t accusing you of using the Nazis. I just pointed out that they called themselves Socialists. It could very well have just been a cover and they didn’t really mean it, as Tom says, but if someone calls himself a socialist, I will assume that what he does is socialism, at least as he understands it.

  • He’s probably going to try to coerce you into agreeing with him on politics– and who knows what else. If he can’t deal with it when you differ with him, or if he lacks a sense of humor, kick him to the curb. He’s probably after a doormat, not a feisty chick like chutzpah.

  • I agree but only because he has the sex drive of a Panda. I really have no need to have a conversation with a partner when I have you guys to talk to.

Leave a Comment