Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 05:23:23 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html?hp
Funny, I thought his scary powerpoint tour required the use of tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A per month...
Stuffed shirt telling everyone to be a hippie. Whatever.
Quote
Gore did criticize President Bush's proposal to resume offshore oil drilling as a way to address the current energy crisis.
"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for oil 10 years from now in areas that should be protected," he said.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama issued a statement after the speech, saying he strongly agrees with Gore that the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy independence, but must boost investments in renewable sources of energy. Obama said it is a strategy that will create millions of new jobs and leave American children with a cleaner and safer world.
"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for oil 10 years from now in areas that should be protected," he said.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama issued a statement after the speech, saying he strongly agrees with Gore that the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy independence, but must boost investments in renewable sources of energy. Obama said it is a strategy that will create millions of new jobs and leave American children with a cleaner and safer world.
You know what, Al? Shut the hell up. Your fifteen minutes are over, your CG falling ice has been exposed, your powerpoint is stupid and boring. Go away. Go move to some island and talk to the coconuts.
You too, Obama. You two can babble about credits and change to each other.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 17, 2008, 07:09:39 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 17, 2008, 07:50:40 PM
Post by: Marvin Dao on July 17, 2008, 07:54:01 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 17, 2008, 08:07:20 PM
Very appropriate that Al Gore is demanding Solar and Wind power, considering he is a strong source for both "hot" and "air". He must expect to make a killing.
I believe he either owns or sells investments in wind and solar technology. I do think he's making a killing.
Post by: m1911owner on July 17, 2008, 09:20:01 PM
And I also note that we still don't have any practical way to store solar electricity for when the sun's not shining.
Post by: Waitone on July 18, 2008, 02:24:05 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 18, 2008, 02:31:24 AM
Post by: Waitone on July 18, 2008, 02:39:18 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2008, 06:12:22 AM
Quote
HOUSE # 1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
Quote
HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.
Guess which house belongs to ALGORE, and guess which house belongs to George W. Bush?
That's right. #2 is his house in Crawford.
Post by: MrRezister on July 18, 2008, 06:39:09 AM
O yah, dirt and leaves.... dur.
Thanks much for doing your part Mr. Gore! If I tell some schmoe that he should walk to work instead of driving his broken down Nissan, will you add a floor to my home? Kthxbai.
Post by: El Tejon on July 18, 2008, 07:32:20 AM
Post by: Angel Eyes on July 18, 2008, 10:55:31 AM
This is a very interesting fact I'd known, but is never reported in the MSM. Ever.
<Tale of two houses, snipped>
Got a source for this? Not doubting your honesty, but certain Gore-worshippers I know will demand it. Thanks.
-Jack
Post by: Marvin Dao on July 18, 2008, 11:05:17 AM
This is a very interesting fact I'd known, but is never reported in the MSM. Ever.
<Tale of two houses, snipped>
Got a source for this? Not doubting your honesty, but certain Gore-worshippers I know will demand it. Thanks.
-Jack
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
Updated after his new "green" home renovations. Power use after renovations? Even higher.
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 18, 2008, 11:58:27 AM
Post by: stevelyn on July 18, 2008, 03:03:30 PM
He is an owner of a carbon trading firm. I guess bidness fell off so now he needs a new investment to pay the power bill a Casa de Gore. It will really be interesting to see if his name shows up in a wind and solar venture. T. Boone Pickens has just sworn off oil for wind. Oddly enough he owns a tech company into wind generation. Why am I so skeptical of environmentalism?
As you should be. None of these people are involved in eco-nazism out of the goodness of their hearts. It's all financially motivated and T. Boone Pickens is just trying to cash in and hitch a ride on the Owl Gore money train.
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 18, 2008, 03:08:23 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on July 18, 2008, 03:48:36 PM
And I need to conserve.
Post by: taurusowner on July 18, 2008, 03:58:42 PM
He uses a hell of a lot more than 10 times the total resources than any of us.
Post by: thebaldguy on July 18, 2008, 04:03:41 PM
baldguy, no that's just 10x the home electricity use. This does not account for how much garbage him or him entourage generate, how much fuel his escort of SUVs or private jets use, how much $$ is blown on food that gets thrown away, or any other resources.
He uses a hell of a lot more than 10 times the total resources than any of us.
He uses a hell of a lot more than 10 times the total resources than any of us.
Good point, taurusowner. I'm guessing he doesn't carpool to work in a Corolla driving less than six miles a day. He doesn't live in a small duplex with a 92% efficient gas furnace. Or fly coach, or plan trips to conserve fuel, or take a bike instead of a car, or walk, or ...
Post by: drewtam on July 18, 2008, 06:05:19 PM
It is a fact that if the US double its atomic energy resources (from 20% to 40% electrical production) we would already be in compliance with the Kyoto proposals without doing anything else.
And more importantly to me, the switch to nuclear would save hundreds of lives per year from reduced pollution and radiation from coal. The air and rivers would be significantly cleaner with nukes. So if a self proclaimed environmentalist doesn't support nuclear energy, I can't possibly take them seriously.
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 18, 2008, 06:09:23 PM
Post by: m1911owner on July 18, 2008, 06:12:02 PM
Post by: m1911owner on July 18, 2008, 06:19:35 PM
What is really dumb is that we don't recycle our nuclear waste.
Or build IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) type reactors that burn up nearly all the actinide waste products, ultimately resulting in "nuclear waste" that is less radioactive than the original ore you stated with!
The IFR can also use 238U ("depleted uranium") as fuel; we have sufficient depleted uranium stored in barrels in the U.S. to supply all of our electrical needs for the next 500 years without mining any additional uranium.
See http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html for more details.
Post by: wacki on July 19, 2008, 05:09:30 AM
I suspect Al Gore, a man with immense expendable income, sets higher standards for the public than himself.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 19, 2008, 06:08:14 AM
I suspect Al Gore, a man with immense expendable income, sets higher standards for the public than himself.
As I keep saying, Obama and Gore and Edwards are Plato's philosopher-kings. The liberal masses adore them and want them to lead them, since they cannot lead themselves. And they are allowed their different standards and their palaces.
Post by: longeyes on July 19, 2008, 08:57:58 AM
The sooner we come to grips with that the sooner we'll understand what we have to do.
Post by: m1911owner on July 19, 2008, 09:20:25 AM
This was never about rational solutions to real problems.
The sooner we come to grips with that the sooner we'll understand what we have to do.
The sooner we come to grips with that the sooner we'll understand what we have to do.
I suspect you're right about that.
What then is "what we have to do"?
Post by: Ben on July 19, 2008, 09:58:05 AM
I never thought I'd see the day when I would say that places like China had the technological jump on us, but thanks to people like Gore and their constraining, backward thinking regulations, there you have it.
Post by: longeyes on July 19, 2008, 10:36:30 AM
Perhaps we will need a grass-roots movement to legally remove these people from office. I leave the details to our legal eagles on this forum.
Post by: m1911owner on July 19, 2008, 12:30:13 PM
Perhaps we will need a grass-roots movement to legally remove these people from office. I leave the details to our legal eagles on this forum.
I believe the usual mechanism for that is this thing we call an "election"...
It would appear that the task before us it to somehow educate the morons that keep voting for the Pelosis and Gores of this country so that they stop voting for them.
I would love to hear suggestions about how to do that.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are on the radio six hours a day, and still these people aren't learning. You can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make it water. Or something like that.
Post by: Waitone on July 19, 2008, 01:44:09 PM
Post by: Tallpine on July 19, 2008, 03:15:53 PM
That way when the Feds surround me, at least they can't cut off my power
Post by: El Tejon on July 20, 2008, 07:55:34 AM
Quote
Perhaps we will need a grass-roots movement to legally remove these people from office. I leave the details to our legal eagles on this forum.
What luck! We just happen to have such a grass-roots movement coming up this November.
Post by: Werewolf on July 20, 2008, 12:10:49 PM
I would love to have an independent solar power system for my compound.
That way when the Feds surround me, at least they can't cut off my power
That way when the Feds surround me, at least they can't cut off my power
Drill deep enough and you'll get to ground temps that will boil water (I'm not sure the depth but it isn't all that deep I think). I'm sure some engineer somewhere has thought of this - should be easy to do but maybe expensive for the equipment. Pump coldwater down one hole - get low pressure steam up another. Steam drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. Voila - geothermal electric.
If this hasn't been done or at least investigated I just have to ask - WHY NOT?
Post by: Tallpine on July 20, 2008, 12:14:47 PM
Quote
Drill deep enough and you'll get to ground temps that will boil water
I'm going to need a bunch of extension shafts for my black & decker
Post by: Manedwolf on July 20, 2008, 12:21:00 PM
I would love to have an independent solar power system for my compound.
That way when the Feds surround me, at least they can't cut off my power
That way when the Feds surround me, at least they can't cut off my power
Drill deep enough and you'll get to ground temps that will boil water (I'm not sure the depth but it isn't all that deep I think). I'm sure some engineer somewhere has thought of this - should be easy to do but maybe expensive for the equipment. Pump coldwater down one hole - get low pressure steam up another. Steam drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. Voila - geothermal electric.
If this hasn't been done or at least investigated I just have to ask - WHY NOT?
Only if you're over a hotspot. The world's deepest mine, in the UK, is 6300 feet down (potash mine) and it's still only about 100 degrees down there.
Post by: lupinus on July 20, 2008, 02:55:02 PM
I don't have a source but I recall some mines being well over 100, even the comstock mine being so hot people could only work for 30 minutes before resting in ice cooled cold rooms.
Like so many things it may not me practical in all areas but theres plenty of people who could do such a thing.
Post by: K Frame on July 20, 2008, 03:58:52 PM
If that's true, that's a FAR lower temperature than what would be expected.
There's a steady increase in temperature the farther down you go.
It's the earth's coefficient of heat, or something like that. It's a steady state rise.
What I'm coming up with is that at 5 kilometers the base temperature of the earth should be in the 150 to 170 deg. F range.
The Swiss are investigating the possibily of doing what Werewolf is talking about.
"The world's deepest mine, in the UK, is 6300 feet down (potash mine)"
That's not even close to the world's deepest mine.
Those you find in South Africa. I believe that Tau Tona is still classified as the deepest mine, at something like 3,500 METERS.
The East Rand diamond mine is also at about the same depth.
OOPS!
Just came across something from May that says the Mponeng mine in South Africa is now past 3,770 meters, and they've applied for recognition as the world's deepest mine.
Post by: m1911owner on July 20, 2008, 04:47:53 PM
Drill deep enough and you'll get to ground temps that will boil water (I'm not sure the depth but it isn't all that deep I think). I'm sure some engineer somewhere has thought of this - should be easy to do but maybe expensive for the equipment. Pump coldwater down one hole - get low pressure steam up another. Steam drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. Voila - geothermal electric.
If this hasn't been done or at least investigated I just have to ask - WHY NOT?
If this hasn't been done or at least investigated I just have to ask - WHY NOT?
That's where I was getting my power from when I lived in Santa Rosa, CA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers
Post by: Tallpine on July 20, 2008, 05:11:51 PM
Post by: wideym on July 21, 2008, 03:56:06 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 21, 2008, 04:05:04 AM
I'm growing tired of hearing "More drilling now won't show results for 10 years". In ten years they will say "Why didn't you drill when you had the chance?", forgeting they didn't want drilling ten years before, just immediate results. Let's drill now and hope that in 10 years we won't need the oil, but will have it just in case.
Two factors, there. One, the dems bleated the same line ten years AGO.
Two, a speculative market trades in futures. If there is a future near certainty of increased supply, guess what futures prices do?
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 21, 2008, 04:22:31 AM
The governor on Brokaw's spine kicked in so he let that line of questioning drop.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 21, 2008, 04:33:03 AM
ALGORE was on MTP yesterday and Brokaw actually gently went after him about his house and private jet travel. His response was that since he is getting all of his power from renewable resources, his house is 'carbon neutral', and most of the time he is now taking public transportation. He said he was taking a Southwest Jet later that day. Of course, with his security detail, his carbon footprint is still multiple X of any other passenger on the plane. There are occasions where he still does have to jump into a Gulfstream to get someplace in a hurry. He was unspecific as to the ratio of time he spent on the Greyhound of the skies vs. private jet.
The governor on Brokaw's spine kicked in so he let that line of questioning drop.
The governor on Brokaw's spine kicked in so he let that line of questioning drop.
I would like to see proof that all of his power is from renewable resources. Unless he thinks hundreds of thousands of years is renewable.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 21, 2008, 04:35:24 AM
ALGORE was on MTP yesterday and Brokaw actually gently went after him about his house and private jet travel. His response was that since he is getting all of his power from renewable resources, his house is 'carbon neutral', and most of the time he is now taking public transportation. He said he was taking a Southwest Jet later that day. Of course, with his security detail, his carbon footprint is still multiple X of any other passenger on the plane. There are occasions where he still does have to jump into a Gulfstream to get someplace in a hurry. He was unspecific as to the ratio of time he spent on the Greyhound of the skies vs. private jet.
The governor on Brokaw's spine kicked in so he let that line of questioning drop.
The governor on Brokaw's spine kicked in so he let that line of questioning drop.
I would like to see proof that all of his power is from renewable resources. Unless he thinks hundreds of thousands of years is renewable.
Perhaps there's just a large funnel over his home recording studio to capture the hot air and use it for power.
Post by: Ben on July 21, 2008, 05:14:29 AM
Quote
I would like to see proof that all of his power is from renewable resources.
A big 10-4 to that. I don't believe it for a second. They used his bills from the local utility company to calculate his usage. So he's the only one on that grid who they provide power to via renewable energy?
Plus, it's interesting that whenever I've done one of those "carbon footprint" surveys, my footprint goes up exponentially with just one commercial airline flight added. But he's bragging about how he's doing good by flying commercial.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 21, 2008, 05:24:19 AM
Chris
Post by: Ben on July 21, 2008, 05:29:50 AM
Quote
He could be getting his power from one of the many dams in TN via the TVA.
Gotchya -- forgot there's parts of the country that actually have enough water to do that.
PS -- but what about the poor fish?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 21, 2008, 05:35:47 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail_darter_controversy
Chris
Post by: Tallpine on July 21, 2008, 07:27:50 AM
Post by: Firethorn on July 22, 2008, 05:59:12 AM
Post by: Tallpine on July 22, 2008, 09:51:00 AM
Well, I'd consider hydro renewable, but from everything I've heard it's also mostly maxed out. So if you include it in the renewable percentage, all you'd do is increase the renewable percentage goal by the current percentage of hydro power. It ends up a wash anyways.
Well, that's the whole point. The Northwest mostly uses "renewable" (well, non-consumptive and mostly non-polluting - if you don't get into things like stream silt) hydroelectric, but that won't count in the new regulations. We have to somehow make up the % with wind and solar which will be a lot more expensive.
Oh yeah - and now the envirmentalists are talking about all the bats and birds supposedly killed by the Judith Gap wind farm
Post by: mtnbkr on July 22, 2008, 09:54:54 AM
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on July 22, 2008, 09:56:45 AM
When you get down to brass tacks, nothing will be acceptable. Hydro kills fish, wind kills flying critters, I'm sure they'll find a problem with solar when it becomes widespread. They'll keep moving from one unusable tech to another in the hope you'll just give up and live like it's 1900 all over again.
Chris
Chris
Well, that plays into the most disturbing facet of extreme greens I see, now.
They hate humans. Literally.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 22, 2008, 09:59:19 AM
Quote
They'll keep moving from one unusable tech to another in the hope you'll just give up and live like it's 1900 1800 all over again.
Fixed it for ya.
Quote
The Ford Quadricycle was the first Ford vehicle ever developed, which led Henry Ford to build his empire.
On June 4, 1896 in a tiny workshop behind his home on 58 Bagley Avenue,[1] Henry Ford put the finishing touches on his gasoline-powered motor car. After more than two years of experimentation, Henry Ford at the age of thirty-two, had completed his first experimental automobile.
On June 4, 1896 in a tiny workshop behind his home on 58 Bagley Avenue,[1] Henry Ford put the finishing touches on his gasoline-powered motor car. After more than two years of experimentation, Henry Ford at the age of thirty-two, had completed his first experimental automobile.
Post by: longeyes on July 22, 2008, 10:39:16 AM
Quote
When you get down to brass tacks, nothing will be acceptable. Hydro kills fish, wind kills flying critters, I'm sure they'll find a problem with solar when it becomes widespread. They'll keep moving from one unusable tech to another in the hope you'll just give up and live like it's 1900 all over again.
Exactly.
The goal isn't clean energy, it's atonement for the sin of being human.
Post by: K Frame on July 22, 2008, 10:52:05 AM
Oh No NO NO NO NO!
They DON'T want you living like it's 1900 all over again!
What was the most common fuel in 1900?
COAL.
God forbid that anyone burn any coal.
It releases sulphur dioxide, carbon dioixide and monoxide, and mercury into the environment.
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF MOTHER EARTH? WHY ARE YOU RAPING MOTHER EARTH?
Post by: El Tejon on July 22, 2008, 11:13:26 AM
Quote
WHY ARE YOU RAPING MOTHER EARTH?
Because Father Time isn't that hot.
Post by: Tallpine on July 22, 2008, 11:23:28 AM
Quote
They'll keep moving from one unusable tech to another in the hope you'll just give up and live like it's 1800 all over again.
That would be cool
Can I go out west and be a mountain man ?
Hunt griz and have a squaw ?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 22, 2008, 05:38:36 PM
Chris
Post by: taurusowner on July 22, 2008, 08:34:29 PM
Quote
You can, however, be a ward of the state.
YAY, pass the Victory Gin comrades, good times are commin.
Post by: longeyes on July 22, 2008, 08:40:01 PM
Post by: taurusowner on July 22, 2008, 08:47:48 PM
Well, one thing's likely: if we really do revert to "1800" there aren't going to be a whole lot of liberals left when the dust settles...
Especially anti gun types.
Fending for yourself when the nearest lawman is a day's horseback ride away has a way of giving one an appreciation of firearms.
Post by: Tallpine on July 23, 2008, 07:10:43 AM
Which is best, fifty caliber or fifty-four caliber ?
Do you trust those newfangled percussion caps ?
Post by: K Frame on July 23, 2008, 07:42:20 AM
WHALE OIL! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR WHALES!
Heartless bastards.
Oh, wait.
Silly me.
It's the fault of the whales if they get hunted.
Post by: longeyes on July 23, 2008, 08:07:08 AM
ncpa.org ^ | July 23, 2008
Posted on 07/23/2008 8:58:33 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team:
Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources. This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet. Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute.
"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."
Source: Krystle Russin, "Environmentalists Oppose New CO2 Scrubber Idea," Heartland Institute, August 1, 2008.
For text:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23547
For more on Global Warming Impacts and Responses:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=impacts-and-responses
For more on Global Warming:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=32
Post by: K Frame on July 23, 2008, 08:13:41 AM
And there you have it.
Their argument at its very heart.
That's the kind of crap we're dealing with.
Post by: m1911owner on July 23, 2008, 08:27:46 AM
"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."
Yep, pretty much.
I was particularly amused a few years back when a Fleischmann and Pons thought they had discovered a simple way to do cold fusion. After years of screaming their mantra of "solar power, wind power, wave power, nuclear fusion", the environmentalists immediately after the Fleischmann and Pons' announcement, with no actual information about how their process worked and/or what byproducts it might produce, the very next day started proclaiming, "Fusion power BAD!"
Post by: Iain on July 23, 2008, 08:44:03 AM
Post by: stevelyn on July 24, 2008, 04:42:45 PM
Quote
"Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."
Not to mention that if the perceived problem is solved they either have to:
A) Get a real job and become productive members of society....or
B) Dream up a new hoax they can sell to the sheeple that'll keep the money coming in.
These bastages are professional parasites and control freaks.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 24, 2008, 06:09:33 PM
I heard environmentalists killed a conservative baby just to watch it die.
Really!? Got a link to that one? Must of been those ELF guys.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 24, 2008, 06:12:47 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 24, 2008, 08:16:10 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 09:44:43 AM
I heard environmentalists killed a conservative baby just to watch it die.
Really!? Got a link to that one? Must of been those ELF guys. Post by: taurusowner on July 25, 2008, 02:52:20 PM
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 27, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
I heard environmentalists killed a conservative baby just to watch it die.
Really!? Got a link to that one? Must of been those ELF guys.