REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Environmental Activism

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Thursday, November 19, 2009 16:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1487
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Here's another bit of news from my neck of the woods. I think I may have mentioned this before to Sig, so some of you may already heard of this, but here's the complete story.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13801439?source=rss

Basically, what happened here was that right before the Bush administration left office, there was a push to have an auction for oil leases on designated BLM land, that the Obama administration has since pulled on the basis of legality.

But an average citizen showed up at the secret auction, misrepresented his monetary worth and outbid oil companies on the lands until his removal from the proceedings. The intention was to disrupt the meeting and prevent the lands from being sold.

The guy has been trying to establish a civil disobedience defense, citing the "immediate" threat of global warming for his taking action.

Stupid defense, which has for obvious reasons been denied.

But this brings up a few interesting issues, such as the depletion of fossil fuel resources,industry damage to the environment, and the need to create new, more efficient technology, as well as to find new fuel sources.

As these lands, due to their proximity to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, could be argued to potentially have environmental value, I do find myself at least somewhat sympathetic to the interloper, even if I disagree slightly with his reasons. These lands, if they had been auctioned, likely couldn't have been reclaimed by the Federal Government as they now have been, so this was an effective stall tactic. I also think this is an impressive act of civil disobedience, in a country where the average citizen seems less and less willing to put everything on the line and stand up for something, ANYTHING, on principle, and be prepared to suffer the consequences for it.

On the other hand... http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/05/1755238/ELF-Knocks-Down-AM-Tow
ers-To-Save-Earth-Intercoms?from=rss





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:14 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


hehehe

OF COURSE, I had to post this.

Btw, Im all FOR conservation. Just not in the way its being done, or by whom.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:17 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:36 AM

JONGSSTRAW


That is truly hi-larious! It's even better than the video of that kid on You Tube crying over Britney Spears!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:40 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Hehehe...

Ok, before I get slammed... I will repeat..

I DO agree with Conservation. I do agree with setting aside areas to remain "natural".

Its just that when THESE folks are on your side...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:41 AM

DREAMTROVE


I propose a reform: Tree-hugger should live in the forest, and the tree-haters can live in the desert, the ecosystem their type created. Then we can go from there. We'll offer you guys water at discounted rated, cheaper than oil! Maybe we can work out a trade. We'll get back to you on whether or not we need oil. Of course, there will be some tricky negotiations down the road, you guys might need food, etc.

I propose backing this up with an aggressive implementation of the second amendment. In addition to shooting illegal immigrants into Sylvania, from Aridia, we will find a new and interesting use for chainsaws.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:49 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I propose a reform: Tree-hugger should live in the forest, and the tree-haters can live in the desert, the ecosystem their type created. Then we can go from there. We'll offer you guys water at discounted rated, cheaper than oil! Maybe we can work out a trade. We'll get back to you on whether or not we need oil. Of course, there will be some tricky negotiations down the road, you guys might need food, etc.

I propose backing this up with an aggressive implementation of the second amendment. In addition to shooting illegal immigrants into Sylvania, from Aridia, we will find a new and interesting use for chainsaws."

Awww... struck a nerve.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I heard about that one, Byte, and was tickled. I had heard about all the stuff Dumbya pushed through right at the end, and was relieved later to hear Obama had rescinded most of it. Whew! That was close.

We never "win" the war. Whatever we conserve, the next administration can reverse and destroy. Once destroyed, it can never be reclaimed. All we can do is go on fighting for what's left.

What Wulf puts up doesn't represent conservationists; "tree huggers" are to conserationists as PETA is to animal-rights advocates: Embarrassing!

(but I love your scenario, Dream; notice Wulf had no comeback...)




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:27 PM

BYTEMITE


I can't see the videos in question. However, I'd like to assert my vegan anarchist tree-hugger inclinations. I have, in fact, hugged several Ponderosa Pines. And sniffed them. They smell like cinnamon vanilla. Mmm.

In regards to PETA and other groups that sometimes take things too far, some people are douchebags and try to force their cause on everyone, which is ineffective and annoying, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't worth pursuing on a personal level.

And in defense of the tree-huggers who earn the title by setting up and living in trees to stop logging companies, maybe we need to start looking at other sources for wood and planty material instead of old-growth forests. Isn't there a such thing as a tree farm, and aren't they more efficient?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:48 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


OMG. A light of intelligence shines through.

"In regards to PETA and other groups that sometimes take things too far, some people are douchebags and try to force their cause on everyone, which is ineffective and annoying, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't worth pursuing on a personal level.
"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:01 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That's no "shocking light of intelligence" shining through", Wulf, dammit, it just speaks once more to the fact that you lump people together, and we're NOT all the same. I don't think you'll find many who don't agree that some "true believers" of EVERY cause take it too far. PETA is a bone of contention among many animal-rights activists; they end up doing the cause far more harm than good.

Far beyond ineffective and annoying, people like that DO harm the cause...just as the birthers and other idiots are harming the Republican cause. If you're laughed at, people find it harder to take you seriously and easy to dismiss your cause.

Byte, I agree about Ponderosas...my oldest friend lives in the Sierras, and it's always a joy when I visit her...I also adore the sounds they make in the wind! Out here it's redwoods (we have our own tiny "grove" in our back yard even), and I have a love affair going with them--haven't hugged any, but I admit to having patted a few and wished them well. As far as old-growth forests, the demand for redwood is huge and they take a long time to reach a usable size, so it's a constant battle.

I always marveled at the irony when the loggers would give out with the "dad was a logger, grandpa was a logger, you can't take my living away from me!", given that if they kept logging at the pace they were going, they'd run out of forest soon ANYWAY! Mankind and his short-sightedness, or is that "I got mine, screw you"?

I won't tell you the tale of the redwoods being harvested up North to be sold to Japan at cut-rate prices, would make you too ill as it did me...

One of the few good things I can say about LBJ is he and Lady Bird in particular did a lot to save our redwoods.

I miss my motorcycle (stuck unable to ride with a huge boot b'cuz of achilles tendonitis); the smells, especially of trees (we also have tons of eucalyptus imported decades ago as windbreaks), are a joy to ride through...sigh...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:22 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"you lump people together, and we're NOT all the same."

Yeah. Like you lump me in with the Klan, or the skinheads.

Never bothering to read what I write.

Cause its so much easier AND

SAFER

to do that.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:08 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"you lump people together, and we're NOT all the same."

Yeah. Like you lump me in with the Klan, or the skinheads.

Never bothering to read what I write.

Cause its so much easier AND

SAFER

to do that.




But why SHOULDN'T we do that, Wulfie? After all, you equate everyone who enjoys the woods to hippie-lib crying tree-huggers.

By the way, you're one of those douchebags who take shit WAAAAYYYY too far in pursuit of your beliefs. You do realize that, right? How is someone living in a tree to stop the logging so much worse than someone strapping on their AR15 penis extension to go to a town hall meeting to stop the debating? I notice you applaud the one, yet decry the other. Why is that, do you suppose?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:21 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I can't see the videos in question. However, I'd like to assert my vegan anarchist tree-hugger inclinations. I have, in fact, hugged several Ponderosa Pines. And sniffed them. They smell like cinnamon vanilla. Mmm.

In regards to PETA and other groups that sometimes take things too far, some people are douchebags and try to force their cause on everyone, which is ineffective and annoying, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't worth pursuing on a personal level.

And in defense of the tree-huggers who earn the title by setting up and living in trees to stop logging companies, maybe we need to start looking at other sources for wood and planty material instead of old-growth forests. Isn't there a such thing as a tree farm, and aren't they more efficient?



There is a process to make paper from straw, the pulp paper industry does'nt like it and markets quite effectively against it...


But straw is cheap, and it would allow farmers additional crops.

In addition, in Europe there is several electrical generating plants that are run from steam turbines fired from a mix of cow manure, straw, and food industry waste products.

Maybe our garbage is the future

two birds, one rock



edit

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d762a40b-b736
-4964-b301-16d28a74efa6




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:49 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello,

I dunno. When you burn garbage, it seems to me you're just moving it.

From the landfill to the air.

If you're gonna use a polluting generator, I vote nuclear simply due to the volume of pollutant being very small compared to the quantity of energy generated. (Although it does last for bloody ever.)

I'm excited by Solar, Wind, Water, and Geothermal power. And if they ever get this fusion thing off the ground it might be nice, too.

Wulf, in regards to your comments...

I think it is what you actually say that has gotten you into trouble. I think it is what you actually say that has gotten you lumped into unwanted categories.

This is easy to change by actually saying things that convey your core message more efficiently and with less chaff. I do think you mean well, and you're certainly thirty degrees better that Pirate, but that doesn't mean your message can't be refined and distilled further to eliminate the unnecessary racist or extremist elements.

--Anhony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:25 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I dunno. When you burn garbage, it seems to me you're just moving it.

From the landfill to the air.

If you're gonna use a polluting generator, I vote nuclear simply due to the volume of pollutant being very small compared to the quantity of energy generated. (Although it does last for bloody ever.)

I'm excited by Solar, Wind, Water, and Geothermal power. And if they ever get this fusion thing off the ground it might be nice, too.

Wulf, in regards to your comments...

I think it is what you actually say that has gotten you into trouble. I think it is what you actually say that has gotten you lumped into unwanted categories.

This is easy to change by actually saying things that convey your core message more efficiently and with less chaff. I do think you mean well, and you're certainly thirty degrees better that Pirate, but that doesn't mean your message can't be refined and distilled further to eliminate the unnecessary racist or extremist elements.

--Anhony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner




The trick is what you burn, in what mix and what temp you burn it at. These power gen efforts have far less air pollution than the most efficient coal gen plants, and landfills are a problem too...


Some of the other garbage conversion efforts involve mining methane from landfills, using waste products from the fishing/canning industry for bio oil and bio fuels.

If you can get anything out of the landfill and get a productive use out of it, so much the better, Europe is further ahead in these regard as they have less space for landfills, where as some areas in North America are one big landfill... and that has had many negative problems as well




Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
OMG. A light of intelligence shines through.

"In regards to PETA and other groups that sometimes take things too far, some people are douchebags and try to force their cause on everyone, which is ineffective and annoying, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't worth pursuing on a personal level.
"


Now put that quote in a mirror and look in it, hard.

Although you mean well, there ARE times when you being on my side of an argument offends me because of how you go about it, and the way you let your own "issues" run away with your mouth.

Besides, if you REALLY wanna bash some environmentalists for something - look up MBTE, which they shoved without thinking through, and now we wind up with worse ecological damage and years trying to get it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
I notice how the affect or influence of environmentalists is all but unmentioned by wiki save for a brief hint to the Clean Air Act, of course this is no surprise since they'd wanna distance themselves from such a fiasco.

Given a choice, I'll gladly take the tree-huggers over folks who make environmentalism a political crowbar without regard to actual sustainability or longterm impact, cause the latter are pretty vicious and much more forceful about it - and the tree hugger types are usually peaceable enough folk, even if they are a little wacky from most peoples perspective.

Think about it this way - (yes, I know this is a false choice dichotomy, but I am making a point, here)...

If you HAD to choose between an oil company executive, and a tree hugger - which one would you rather be in the company of ?

I'll take someone who means well, but is boneheaded, any day of the week.

Think about that, and both meanings thereof, for a while.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


So new agers are flakey, that's not news. Do you want me to dig up videos of Christians doing the hokey pokey and "speaking in tongues" shrieking, so that a fictional character created by some ancient hebrews that these douchebags believe to have infinite power will save their sorry asses from a hole that they most decidedly dug for themselves?


Actually, the way I see this is simple:

There's life

And then there is death

It's a choice. You can choose a fascinating variety of a complex world which provides almost infinite base for continued existence of all things, including yourself. Afterall, biodiversity of rainforests is the basis of 90% of all modern medicine, to say nothing of alternative medicine.

Then, there's the option of oblivion. It exists briefly in a desert after having destroyed everything. It does not matter whether this desert looks like this

Or like this

The end result is the same: a failure to connect with the power of nature, which will in short order send us ending up like these schmucks.



I believe Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head when he said: (sorry if I don't get this quote exactly)

Quote:


What is it with these moron that they can't get that part of the picture of "we're all going to die" is that *they* are part of the *we* who is all going to die.



Sorry, I've studied way to much of human history, on every time frame, to have any sympathy for you at all.

The damage that you do stains the globe, for millions of years. No one will know who you were, or what you did, all they will do is look down at your crumbled bones as say "I wonder who this dumb fuck was, that did this damage." And for 3 million years, the human race has supplied them.

Well, no, "stuck a nerve" isn't the correct term. I think that you've hit the issue that I go to war for. When this comes to an apocalyptic final battle, I side with the forest, and whoever is with me.

The Tao *prefers* non violent solution, but it dictates the least active path to solution. It does not mandate peace regardless. When some idiot is trying to destroy the planet, action will have to be taken.

Oh, and as I've mentioned before: I'm a pretty good shot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Gino

Doesn't really matter what you're farming for paper, or any other product. You want the maximum yield in tonnage per acre. For food, humans operate at about 0.1% to 0.5% efficiency in digestable foodstuffs. We do better than that in materials.

If you are using an area as farmland, you've already zeroed out the biodiversity. Yeah, some of it may come back, so I would like to see a plan of alternation: One acre farmed, the next wild, or something like that. But still, first growth forests hold 90% of all land species of life remaining on the earth. One forest has over 50% of all remaining land species, and we all know which one.

If you check maps, the most rapidly declining area are India and West Africa, followed by South-East Asia, then Central Africa, China, and SE Brazil. By total mass, the Taiga forest now reigns supreme, covering 17% of the earth's land mass, but the Amazon holds the most biodiversity. There are relatively few species that can withstand the Taiga's deadly hostile environment. Sarah Palin is one of them

But paper is on the way out, recycling paper would hold us forever. I have no objection to forest farming for lumber, or any other purpose, once the ecosystem is destroyed, everything is just a crop, and some trees can amass yield at a fairly alarming rate. As long as your acre is balanced as to the nutrient replenishment, particularly nitrogren, or HNO3, then you're probably good to go, climate permitting.

The most utter waste in the world outside of destructive overfarming, is to use arable land to produce meat, which is so inefficient that it hits under the <0.1%, and is the source of most desertification. I'm not an advocate for the rights of farm animals either. The farms create these animals. If the animals want to not be uncreated, they should figure out a way out ;)

But the truth is that the morons doing the damage not only know nothing about the way nature works, they really have generally never encountered nature, or spent much time with their planet that feeds them, gives them air to breathe, etc. IOW, these people are parasites, pretty much in a nutshell. If someone takes them out, it's just pest control ;)

It's true, we live in a very complex system, and we need to learn to manage better. Right now humans are making an enormous footprint on the Earth for the insignificant population of us that there is. We could do a lot better.

I was thinking earlier today, before I saw this thread actually, that while I oppose ZPG and anything like it, that I wouldn't oppose a population per yield limit. Essentially, set a rule: If you can produce enough food with the extant farmland you have tilled, then go for it. If you can't, then stop fucking around borrowing money from the IMF to fight wars against some minority ethnic group you want to exterminate or whatever, and get some help from someone in upping your food production.

Taking China's one child policy, how about this instead: Okay, Mr. Zhang, you and your wife want to have more children? here's an acre of extant farmland. Produce a yield greater than you can consume, and have as many children as you can feed.


Sorry, I digress.

Yes, using existing crops in new ways works. So will GMO. One form of GMO being experimented with now is instead of trying to alter the root plant, ie, corn, trying to engineer organisms that take the unusable portions of the crop and turn them into useable foodstuffs. I think both have merit

just some random thoughts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Gino

Doesn't really matter what you're farming for paper, or any other product. You want the maximum yield in tonnage per acre. For food, humans operate at about 0.1% to 0.5% efficiency in digestable foodstuffs. We do better than that in materials.

If you are using an area as farmland, you've already zeroed out the biodiversity. Yeah, some of it may come back, so I would like to see a plan of alternation: One acre farmed, the next wild, or something like that. But still, first growth forests hold 90% of all land species of life remaining on the earth. One forest has over 50% of all remaining land species, and we all know which one.

If you check maps, the most rapidly declining area are India and West Africa, followed by South-East Asia, then Central Africa, China, and SE Brazil. By total mass, the Taiga forest now reigns supreme, covering 17% of the earth's land mass, but the Amazon holds the most biodiversity. There are relatively few species that can withstand the Taiga's deadly hostile environment. Sarah Palin is one of them

But paper is on the way out, recycling paper would hold us forever. I have no objection to forest farming for lumber, or any other purpose, once the ecosystem is destroyed, everything is just a crop, and some trees can amass yield at a fairly alarming rate. As long as your acre is balanced as to the nutrient replenishment, particularly nitrogren, or HNO3, then you're probably good to go, climate permitting.

The most utter waste in the world outside of destructive overfarming, is to use arable land to produce meat, which is so inefficient that it hits under the <0.1%, and is the source of most desertification. I'm not an advocate for the rights of farm animals either. The farms create these animals. If the animals want to not be uncreated, they should figure out a way out ;)

But the truth is that the morons doing the damage not only know nothing about the way nature works, they really have generally never encountered nature, or spent much time with their planet that feeds them, gives them air to breathe, etc. IOW, these people are parasites, pretty much in a nutshell. If someone takes them out, it's just pest control ;)

It's true, we live in a very complex system, and we need to learn to manage better. Right now humans are making an enormous footprint on the Earth for the insignificant population of us that there is. We could do a lot better.

I was thinking earlier today, before I saw this thread actually, that while I oppose ZPG and anything like it, that I wouldn't oppose a population per yield limit. Essentially, set a rule: If you can produce enough food with the extant farmland you have tilled, then go for it. If you can't, then stop fucking around borrowing money from the IMF to fight wars against some minority ethnic group you want to exterminate or whatever, and get some help from someone in upping your food production.

Taking China's one child policy, how about this instead: Okay, Mr. Zhang, you and your wife want to have more children? here's an acre of extant farmland. Produce a yield greater than you can consume, and have as many children as you can feed.


Sorry, I digress.

Yes, using existing crops in new ways works. So will GMO. One form of GMO being experimented with now is instead of trying to alter the root plant, ie, corn, trying to engineer organisms that take the unusable portions of the crop and turn them into useable foodstuffs. I think both have merit

just some random thoughts



Sorry Dream,

the point you missed is the true beauty of it

if you farm Hay or Cereal Grains, then harvest....

depending on where you are and the rainfall you get, you can cut straw out of the SAME land usage.

So instead of handing in a single crop, some farmers could sell a grain crop. then two or three straw crops in a single season off the same land, with no additional fertilizing, tilling, planting or herbicides, or possibly with no additional irrigation ( where I live anyway ).

No GMO, No bad land usage.

And from an economic point of view, this could be a boon to the ag industry.



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

I call this "natural is always healthy" crowd of environmentalists the "peaceable kingdom" loons. Yes, they are definitely more dangerous than the new agers.

Just a few logical points:

Smoke weed, it's natural, and plugs into a receptor into your brain.

Yeah, I love this logic. Here's one: Eat deadly nightshade, it bonds perfectly with muscular receptors in your body. Okay, so it can reduce acetylcholine activity to the point of paralysis an eventually death in short order. But it does so naturally!

Here's another: Ethanol. Yes, we don't need to use raw hydrocarbons that are freely available and can be mined with minimal ecological impact. We can synthesize them by clearing lots of land we used to use to make food, and using it to make fuel for inefficient vehicles that tow deadweight and have unnecessary engine drag, and became obsolete before 1920.

Or how about hyrdoelectric: Yes, we can totally destroy the watertable of a vast ecosystem instead of burning small amounts of radioactive material, found all over the earth, in a giant steam engine. Sure, the former will extinct countless species, destroy incredible amounts of farmland and wilderness, but the source of power is natural!

I've seen environmentalists led into traps endlessly by industry. If you believe without thinking, this becomes easy.

Latest moron move: The opposition to extending America's offshore drilling limit. It failed. So instead, the oil that we already knew was there, was found by BP instead, since it was outside our legal limit. So now the exact same thing is happening, but the brits get to own the oil off our coast.

Oil guys may be slick and sleazy, but the impact of the industry ecologically is close to nill, the only major thing cleaner is nuclear. Wind and solar will be, as long as people use their brains and tile their roofs with solar cells rather than make huge solar plantations. (see moronic project 2.0, the chinese solar plant in western tibet. I mean seriously, thousands of miles from anywhere, uh, guys, I don't care how much it costs and how much power you generate, the % you lose transporting it back to China is going to make the entire operation moot. But okay, I'll grant that it's not the total disaster of Three Gorges.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:24 PM

DREAMTROVE


Gino

Sorry, I get your point. I thought you were saying farm an acre for grasses for paper, instead of wood, and I thought that's probably a lower tonnage. But using the leftover hay works.

I support GMO. Increase that usable yield. After all, virtually everything that we grow is GMO, it was modified by humans that came before us. That's why the corn we have here doesn't look like those tiny cobbs you get in chinese food. It's the same thing, only the indians brought it with them from asia, selectively crossbred, until they got a giant corn cobb. It's true of a lot of our animals also.

I suppose this has probably been going on long before us. When squirrels plant nuts, they plant the largest most food providing nuts, and I suspect after years of watching, that they intentionally overplant. They want to go back and have a back up food supply, in case the warren gets raided, or if there's a long winter, but they know they've overdone it, and trees will come up. But those are the trees of the big nut. Nuts probably have gotten a lot larger over the years... [pictures squirrel saying to his family, "kids, some day all of this will be yours, and these little trees will be yours, to climb, hide, live in, and nuts larger than I will see in my time] <-- After years of watching, like listening to parrots, or talking to dogs, I've come to suspect that 'yes, they do know'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:48 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Eat deadly nightshade, it bonds perfectly with muscular receptors in your body. Okay, so it can reduce acetylcholine activity to the point of paralysis an eventually death in short order. But it does so naturally!


Tomatoes are related to nightshade, and as I understand it the plant itself and unripe tomatoes have the same potentially fatal chemical. But your point is well taken.

The best possible solution is everyone responsible for their own energy supply and use. Likely by solar panel roofs, passive heating construction friendly homes and energy storage... Assuming energy storage and constant proximity to an electric field does not in fact cause cancer. I haven't seen enough evidence to say that it might, but... it might.

Everyone producing their own food supply would be good, though I think there definitely has to be a balance that allows a person to also practice a trade of their choice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:17 PM

DREAMTROVE


1. I grow tomatoes, remember? Tomatoes are much higher in lycopene, which is also toxic, but less atropine. Still, it'll kill most things. The plant doesn't really, lots of things eat the plant, it's the fruit. Lycopene is very red, hence the redness of tomatoes. A potato is also a nightshade, but there's nothing really toxic in the root.

2. yes, and power consumption should be reduced, but industry still consumes the majority of electricity, and would need power plants.

3. Yes, better that each *community* be responsible for its own food. OTOH, I do many other things other than farm, anyone could. Still, people tend to farm one thing, and they want to eat more than one thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:25 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Now put that quote in a mirror and look in it, hard.

Although you mean well, there ARE times when you being on my side of an argument offends me because of how you go about it, and the way you let your own "issues" run away with your mouth.

Besides, if you REALLY wanna bash some environmentalists for something - look up MBTE, which they shoved without thinking through, and now we wind up with worse ecological damage and years trying to get it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
I notice how the affect or influence of environmentalists is all but unmentioned by wiki save for a brief hint to the Clean Air Act, of course this is no surprise since they'd wanna distance themselves from such a fiasco.

Given a choice, I'll gladly take the tree-huggers over folks who make environmentalism a political crowbar without regard to actual sustainability or longterm impact, cause the latter are pretty vicious and much more forceful about it - and the tree hugger types are usually peaceable enough folk, even if they are a little wacky from most peoples perspective.

Think about it this way - (yes, I know this is a false choice dichotomy, but I am making a point, here)...

If you HAD to choose between an oil company executive, and a tree hugger - which one would you rather be in the company of ?

I'll take someone who means well, but is boneheaded, any day of the week.

Think about that, and both meanings thereof, for a while.

-F"

My point was that while I agree with Conservation and proper development of land...

When you have these folks promoting it... well it sets everything back, doesn't it?

I mean, someone here said it... want to promote anarchism? Cut your hair, take a bath, take the black nail polish off, wear a suit (or at least clothes that fit)... and then intelligently DISCUSS your beliefs.

Doesn't mean you have to back off, or be any less militant. Just that you need to make yourselves look less... juvenile?

These ELF types, they just ruin it for people. They look like what they are. Spoiled, rich, white kids... who are doing it just for the poon they might get from the girls who think like them.

For example:



You really should watch the South Park episode about "Whale Wars".

Whale Wars... huh. The only show that made me WANT whales to die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:31 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Yeah. Like you lump me in with the Klan, or the skinheads.

Never bothering to read what I write.

Cause its so much easier AND

SAFER

to do that.

I hope that's directed at Mike or someone else, because I've never lumped you with anyone, much less the Klan or skinheads! I try to respond to posts as I read them--and I DO read everyone's individually, except PN's and those which are too long and would take too much time. It's just that some people are so obviously locked into their beliefs that it's hard not to refer to previous remarks by them. You are definitely one of those; I get the feeling you have no real desire to discuss or debate, only to spew anger and post vitriolic stuff that you attribute to groups of people.

It engenders the type of responses you get, but I'm guessing you don't have any desire to change, so that's just how it is. I think Frem with all his efforts to educate you is just wasting typing time; for a while I believed it, but after being here long enough, I am convinced you LIKE to throw generalities around and judge people by categorizing them so it's easier to hate them.

The South Park video was childish and silly, which I guess is what you intended; the other one was "disabled by request".

As to the environmental debate, I see some good points, and others have covered what I would say, so I won't bother being redundant.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Ok, Niki.

The video was "disable by request", so you click the link and it takes you to the video..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"but I'm guessing you don't have any desire to change"

Change. Thats a word that gets tossed around a lot these days..

I could say the same thing about YOU.

YOU have no desire to change.

But I guess Im wasting "typing time" saying that, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So new agers are flakey, that's not news. Do you want me to dig up videos of Christians doing the hokey pokey and "speaking in tongues" shrieking, so that a fictional character created by some ancient hebrews that these douchebags believe to have infinite power will save their sorry asses from a hole that they most decidedly dug for themselves?


Actually, the way I see this is simple:

There's life

And then there is death

It's a choice. You can choose a fascinating variety of a complex world which provides almost infinite base for continued existence of all things, including yourself. Afterall, biodiversity of rainforests is the basis of 90% of all modern medicine, to say nothing of alternative medicine.

Then, there's the option of oblivion. It exists briefly in a desert after having destroyed everything. It does not matter whether this desert looks like this

Or like this

The end result is the same: a failure to connect with the power of nature, which will in short order send us ending up like these schmucks.



I believe Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head when he said: (sorry if I don't get this quote exactly)

Quote:


What is it with these moron that they can't get that part of the picture of "we're all going to die" is that *they* are part of the *we* who is all going to die.



Sorry, I've studied way to much of human history, on every time frame, to have any sympathy for you at all.

The damage that you do stains the globe, for millions of years. No one will know who you were, or what you did, all they will do is look down at your crumbled bones as say "I wonder who this dumb fuck was, that did this damage." And for 3 million years, the human race has supplied them.

Well, no, "stuck a nerve" isn't the correct term. I think that you've hit the issue that I go to war for. When this comes to an apocalyptic final battle, I side with the forest, and whoever is with me.

The Tao *prefers* non violent solution, but it dictates the least active path to solution. It does not mandate peace regardless. When some idiot is trying to destroy the planet, action will have to be taken.

Oh, and as I've mentioned before: I'm a pretty good shot.




I'm with you.

Thing is, though, we can't kill the planet. That's arrogance of the highest degree. The planet will keep going on, spinning on its axis, revolving around the sun. The most WE can hope to do is kill the planet's ability to let us live on it. And I don't think the planet will care one whit if that happens. Like George Carlin said, the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. You can't "kill the Earth"; the Earth will be fine. It's the people that'll be FUCKED! And y'know, that comforts me a bit to think of it like that. If we would treat our only home in such a way, then we SHOULD all die and make way for the next evolutionary step, which will hopefully be smarter than us.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:49 PM

BYTEMITE


Dolphins appear to be the next candidate, assuming the poisoned oceans don't kill them off first.

Here's a thought: if a dolphin becomes self-aware, it'd probably be kind of squicky eating fish, because of the passing resemblance.

Maybe there's already been a few and they starved to death.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


My point was that while I agree with Conservation and proper development of land...

When you have these folks promoting it... well it sets everything back, doesn't it?

I mean, someone here said it... want to promote anarchism? Cut your hair, take a bath, take the black nail polish off, wear a suit (or at least clothes that fit)... and then intelligently DISCUSS your beliefs.

Doesn't mean you have to back off, or be any less militant. Just that you need to make yourselves look less... juvenile?

These ELF types, they just ruin it for people. They look like what they are. Spoiled, rich, white kids... who are doing it just for the poon they might get from the girls who think like them.



But again, what is it that YOU are doing that's any different from what you say you hate about these people?

You want to promote your love of guns and violence? Try doing something other than posting up stupid clips of nonsense, idiotic movies. I mean, could you really BE any more "juvenile" about it?

I could just as easily say that YOU and the people like you are what ruin guns. You and those like you look like what you are: angry white guys who are just doing it hoping to impress some idiot girl who's impressed by your "big gun".

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:33 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Dolphins appear to be the next candidate, assuming the poisoned oceans don't kill them off first.

Here's a thought: if a dolphin becomes self-aware, it'd probably be kind of squicky eating fish, because of the passing resemblance.

Maybe there's already been a few and they starved to death.





Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

We can kill the Earth, just not the entire thing. We have destroyed the majority of species of life on the earth and laid waste to the majority of temperate to tropical regions. We kill the Earth by parts, and by species, we are the greatest ecological disaster since the late cretaceous.

Just take a look at the Sahara, or any similar long-term human homeland to see exact what we're capable of.

Sure, the "Earth" as a planet with things living on it will kill us first, but not before we kill virtually everything else living on it, which is what I would collectively refer to as the Earth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Sure, the "Earth" as a planet with things living on it will kill us first, but not before we kill virtually everything else living on it, which is what I would collectively refer to as the Earth.



There you're getting into an area of philosophical discussion, such as "Is a thing of beauty still a thing of beauty if we're not there to acknowledge its beauty?" Is Mars still a beautiful planet if there's no life on it anymore?

The fact that we won't be here to appreciate it is a shame, but it's not the end of the world. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:37 PM

BYTEMITE


Just the end of a significant amount of life...

No, not the end of the world, but serious all the same.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you...I adored Hitchhiker's--the book, I didn't think it translated to the screen all that well. Tho' I thought Rickman was hysterical.

But they say insects...we WILL poison the earth's oceans (we're doing a pretty good job of it already) and about everything else, and insects can survive most anything. Brains have nothing to do with it, as we've proven.

There are theories that marine mammals may be smarter than us--especially porpoises--but we can never measure it because in their environment they think so DIFFERENTLY from us.
Quote:

we are the greatest ecological disaster since the late cretaceous
I have long held the belief that if my death would cause the death of EVERY other human on earth, I'd gladly die. Because yes, a thing of beauty is still beautiful even if WE're not here to see it...and we make the earth less beautiful every day...hour...minute. Other species should have a chance to survive before we kill everything including ourselves.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:57 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I have long held the belief that if my death would cause the death of EVERY other human on earth, I'd gladly die. Because yes, a thing of beauty is still beautiful even if WE're not here to see it...and we make the earth less beautiful every day...hour...minute. Other species should have a chance to survive before we kill everything including ourselves.


Nature is beautiful and amazing. I've taken long treks through teeming pine wilderness, looked up from the base of 200 foot high waterfalls, watched deer, mountain goats, and buffalo migrate without their being aware of me, seen a cow moose and her calf watering in lakes green with vegetation, stood at the tops of mountains and seen wind rushing across vast plains as a storm built in the distance.

All were joyful moments, but an equally joyful moment, for me, was sitting on a park bench, watching the sun set over the city I call home, and watch everything, all the human suffering and trivialities and buildings fade into the dusky purple of the mountains around me, watch them become one with nature, and realize that humans BELONG here like everything else.

We just need to become smarter, and most importantly, WISER.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


No Mike, I mean we're capable of destroying the Amazon and places like it, and ending evolutionary paths potentially as old as the earth itself. Humans destroyed the Sahara, and whatever lived there, and many other places. Those particular forms of life are gone forever and will never return. we're a perpetual apocalypse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:23 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"No Mike, I mean we're capable of destroying the Amazon and places like it, and ending evolutionary paths potentially as old as the earth itself. Humans destroyed the Sahara, and whatever lived there, and many other places. Those particular forms of life are gone forever and will never return. we're a perpetual apocalypse."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:48 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You just made our point. Carlin clearly says WE're what will be extinct: "The planet will shake us off like so many fleas". Sure, the planet will survive, but in what shape, and capable of sustaining human life? Or any other form?

By the way, don't kid yourself; Carlin is doing a comedy routine--those are usually about satire, y'know? For having been here such a short time, we have done more damage to earth than anything that lived before.

It's probably too late to save us. And yes, the planet will survive...but quite possibly lifeless; that's such a great thing??






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:52 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


ahem:

"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:01 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Goddamn, I believe in Conservation... but Carlin nailed it best.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Notice, Wulf, that quote doesn't say anything about whether it needs to be done. If you squint, it may also suggest that the speaker doesn't think we're responsible for the damage we do either.

You said you're a conservative who supports some conservation? This quote is not consistent with that perspective.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:19 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"You said you're a conservative who supports some conservation? This quote is not consistent with that perspective."

Christ. Stop trying to box me.

Never said I was a conservative (politically)..

Just that I believe that conservation is right

and important.

P.S. Feel like this.. and that Janet is hot ...



lol

Its so funny some days trying to wake you guys up. Seriously.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:30 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

"You said you're a conservative who supports some conservation? This quote is not consistent with that perspective."

Christ. Stop trying to box me.

Never said I was a conservative (politically)..

Just that I believe that conservation is right



Conservative was a mistaken word choice, the point was recognizing you said that you support conservation.

But that quote is still not consistent with that opinion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:34 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


No.

Ive known conservatives who believed in conservation.

So, yeah it does.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:53 PM

BYTEMITE


I'm aware there are conservatives who support conservation. DT is quite clearly one.

I'm saying your quote doesn't agree with a position approving of conservation. The quote doesn't just slam "saving the world," it slams conservation measures, such as efforts to preserve endangered species.

Besides, you said you're not a conservative, so what does that matter?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:46 PM

DREAMTROVE


Wulf, you're an idiot.

Carlin is dead. Didn't worry enough.

But seriously, the reason that most species of our era are gone is human. Every once in a while there's a disaster. I'm beginning to think more and more, that disaster is usually a species, like a virus, or us.

Moreover, there's a big difference between species which are displaced by their spinoff evolutionary improvement, and those that are a dead end because someone leveled their entire ecosystem.

Since biodiversity is the only truly non-renewable resource and is responsible or 90% of all medicines, and the natural balance controls all things such as global warming, epidemics, etc. the only people who don't care about their environment, even die hard ayn randers, are morons. Because guess what. You're still missing the part where you are part of the we who are all going to die if we keep killing everything.

Variety is the spice of life and I like a planet with variety. I also like not dying. I think most people do. Maybe when you're twenty-whatever-thirteen you think you're immortal. Well, news flash: This issue effect everyone, including you.


As for waking us up, yes, you're still failing, but keep trying. Try being less negative. Telling us not to care about something isn't waking us up, it's putting us to sleep. It would be waking us up to try to get us to care about something.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:11 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Its so funny some days trying to wake you guys up. Seriously.



Especially when you're so dead asleep yourself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:27 - 6262 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:07 - 2270 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 18, 2024 16:51 - 3530 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 09:41 - 547 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts
Sentencing Thread
Wed, April 17, 2024 22:02 - 364 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Wed, April 17, 2024 20:05 - 50 posts
Share of Democratic Registrations Is Declining, but What Does It Mean?
Wed, April 17, 2024 17:51 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL