| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 10:52 pm: | 
|
Lets pretend there isnt any Human Global Warming. Its a natural cycle.
The question still remains, what to do. Something, right? How do you plan for this? Do you do what the Bush Regime has done? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
alot of the recent research says its too late to do anything significant. a recent study concluded that the greenland ice sheets accelerated melt cannot be stopped at this point and that by the end of the century many coastal cities will be under water. the loss of the permafrost in alaska is terrifying. glacier park is down from over 150 glaicers to a little more than 20. the polar bear , by all accounts, will be extinct in the wild in about 20 years.
i truly believe its a cycle that cannot be stopped at this point and am glad that i have no children and will be dead before it gets really bad. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:30 pm: |
|
and anyone who turns this into a "bush is bad" thread is just grinding an axe without any real knowledge of the situation. he did ignore the kyoto treaty but this has been going on long before him. the only politician in this country who made any noise about this was al gore and even then i think we were past the tipping point. he could have never stopped emissions fast enough to make a difference. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13278
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
It's just as valid to believe that there's nothing we can do as it is to believe we should do something. Until you consider that giving up is worse than trying in vain. Therefore, hoping we can do something is better than giving up.
Bush isn't responsible for the mess we're in, but not supporting research and response is a mistake. Furthermore, the politician in office has more responsibility than past politicians. It's not just about judgement, it's about action, if any is possible. I'm not convinced there is nothing left to do, though I recently read that whatever we do has an effect 50 years later. That alone is not reason not to act.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:13 am: |
|
while i appreciate your pollyannish point of view, (and i mean that in the best possible way), i disagree. even if there was a way to curtail the process, i dont think that you could get the massive amount and sudden change that needs to happen to happen. too many different groups with different viewpoints, the bureaucratic red tape, and the special interests. i have a very low opinion of humanity. i find people to be willfully ignorant and self interested. my misanthropic beliefs preclude me from believing humanity can pull it together fast enough to do anything. i especially enjoy it when people talk about how we are killing the planet. the planet will do just fine, its us that will be gone. the planet will quickly recover and move merrily along without us.
not only do i believe that people will be unable to see beyond themselves to change anything but i am also sorry that i wont live long enough to see them reap what they have sown. i would take a bitter satisfaction in that moment. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13279
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:23 am: |
|
I appreciate your misanthropy, and I mean that in the best possible way, SERIOUSLY. And I disagree. Your misanthropy is based on accurate observation. There are special interests, people are willfully ignorant and self-interested, and so on. Pulling together fast enough is a huge challenge. The likelihood of it happening is slim.
However, pollyannish views are essential in times like these. We can't make improvements if we can't envision a better world. And while I understand the viewpoint of someone who doesn't have kids, I choose not to have that view. In fact, I feel I must ask you, all people who have bitter satisfaction in seeing people do the wrong thing, to get out of our way so that we can do what's right for future generations.
Talk about self-interested! Why criticize others for being self-intersted while bragging about your own self-centered orientation?
Yeah, the planet won't explode after humans and other species die, but why do you call that fine? I don't usually see the planet as an organism, so I care more about the inhabitants than the rock.
I submit that life is more enjoyable when you do your part in making the world a better place for others. Perhaps you have already discovered that in your own way. It's a duty which is duly rewarded.
|
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 195
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 7:23 am: |
|
Strange thing is, scientists who have studied very long term trends conclude that we should be on the verge of the next ice age (which would be a civilization killer, too). I don't know if human GW (if true) has somehow delayed or blunted that. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
Libby, I think we should be treating the ecology with more respect. Does Bush play a role in all this? Hell yah! That garbage piece of rat turd energy bill he passed the first time was so bad that he had to go back and revise it. The idiot reccomended more nuclear power plants. There are ways to reverse C02 emmissions and yes it takes a VERY LONG TIME to fix. Does that mean we shouldn't start today? Step one, stop cutting down our forests. Step two, switch to cleaner energy sources...AKA stop burning fossil fuels there are alternatives that exist. Step three, give a damn about our ecology stiffen the laws and penalties for polluting -- fine companies that brazenly disregard the laws. This isn't rocket science. What are we waiting for? |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 479
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
Kyoto? No Go.
How to combat "global warming" without destroying the economy.
BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Did the 1970s mark the beginning of an ice age? Scientists and the press thought so. In 1971 Global Ecology forecast the "continued rapid cooling of the earth." The New York Times reported in 1975 that "many signs" suggest that the "earth may be headed for another ice age," and Science magazine that this cooling could be the beginning of "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age." It seemed sensible because, as NASA data show, there was indeed a 30-year, 0.2-degree Celsius cooling trend from 1940 to 1970.
So are we now at the beginning of a global warming catastrophe? Again, scientists and the press think so: the same NASA data indicates a 0.7-degree warming trend from 1970 to 2000. The Washington Post's David Ignatius reflects the media view in saying that "human activity is accelerating dangerous changes in the world's climate."
But it is not clear that human activity is wholly responsible. The Washington Policy Center reports that Mount Rainier in Washington state grew cooler each year from 1960 to 2003, warming only in 2004. And Mars is warming significantly. NASA reported last September that the red planet's south polar ice cap has been shrinking for six years. As far as we know few Martians drive SUVs or heat their homes with coal, so its ice caps are being melted by the sun--just as our Earth's are. Duke University scientists have concluded that "at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output."
So what is causing these cooling and warming increases? Normal temperature trends? Solar radiation changes? Or human-caused global warming? There is little we can do about historical temperature or solar heat cycles, but if human actions are in fact causing global warming, what could be done to reduce it?
One remedy is improved technology, and here America is making significant progress. Philip Deutch's article in the December edition of Foreign Policy lays it out: "Today's cars use only 60 percent of the gasoline they did in 1972; new refrigerators about one third the electricity; and it now takes 55 percent less oil and gas than in 1973 to generate the same amount of gross domestic product." The cost of wind power production is down 80% over 20 years, and "the cost of solar power has fallen from almost $1 per kilowatt to less than 18 cents."
On the other hand, there are some remedies that are not being pursued. "More than 50 percent of U.S. consumers," Deutch notes, "have the option of buying electricity generated from renewable energy sources. . . . Only 1 or 2 percent actually do." And while two dozen low-pollution nuclear power plants are under construction in nine nations (and another 40 are planned), in America government regulation has virtually stopped nuclear plant construction. Our last nuclear plant was ordered in 1973 and completed in 1996, and no others are under construction.
We also know that the Kyoto Treaty will do little to solve the carbon-dioxide problem. Masquerading as a global environmental policy, Kyoto exempts half of the world's population and nine of the top 20 emitters of carbon dioxide--including China and India--from its emissions reduction requirements. It is in fact an effort to replace the world's markets with an internationally regulated (think U.N.) global economy, perhaps better described as a predatory trade strategy to level the world's economic playing field by penalizing the economic growth of energy efficient nations and rewarding those emitting much greater quantities of noxious gasses. Which explains why in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to oppose the signing of any international protocol that would commit Western nations to reduce emissions unless developing countries had to do so as well.
As The Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, almost none of the nations that signed on are meeting Kyoto's requirements. Thirteen of the original 15 European signatories will likely miss the 2010 emission reduction targets. Spain will miss its target by 33 percentage points and Denmark by 25 points. Targets aside, Greece and Canada have seen their emissions rise by 23% and 24%, respectively, since 1990. As for America, our emissions have increased 16%, so we are doing better than many of the Kyoto nations.
In the December 2004 issue of Environment, Princeton professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala calculated what actions would be necessary to keep global emissions at their current levels for the next 50 years. Rejecting the Kyoto approach, they conclude that new energy strategies would be monumental efforts that "must be implemented on a massive scale across all sectors of the economy and in countries at all stages of economic development":
For starters, replace every burned-out incandescent light bulb in the world with a compact fluorescent bulb, which is four times as energy-efficient.
Then construct two million new wind turbines--a 50-fold expansion of wind power machines. To function properly they must be far enough apart to allow wind pressure to flow between them, so about five turbines per square mile can be installed. But windmill construction is controversial. The environmentally dedicated Kennedy family has already forbidden wind power off their summer island of Nantucket. Why? Because, says Robert Kennedy Jr., a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the wind farm would "damage the views from 16 historic sites." One of them, of course, is the Kennedy family summer compound.
Using natural gas instead of burning coal would help a great deal too. Messrs. Socolow and Pacala say that "50 large liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers docking and unloading every day" would do it, or "building the equivalent of the Alaska natural gas pipeline . . . every year." In America today LNG terminals and pipelines can't get anywhere near the support they need from members of Congress or state legislators, for both are believed to be too dangerous and too environmentally risky.
One million square miles--about the size of India--of cropland to grow sugar cane to turn into ethanol is another option the Princeton scholars offer up.
Finally there is the nuclear energy option, not one that the U.S. has been willing to participate in for the past 30 years. Globally some 700 new nuclear plants would be needed to meet the carbon-dioxide reduction goal, assuming of course that we can deal with the nuclear weapons risk posed by each of these plants, as we are now trying to do with Iran.
None of these startling recommendations--except perhaps the light bulbs--are economically or politically inexpensive, and none are going to come to pass in the foreseeable future. So the Princeton professors suggest a 10-year, 20% solution as a first step: just 400,000 new wind turbines, 140 nuclear plants, 10 natural gas pipelines and so forth.
As these politically explosive ideas are endlessly debated, the best things we can do are, first, to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in ways that do not reduce economic growth; and second, to keep improving technology--in cars, electric generating plants and manufacturing machinery. Third, we must keep researching the real cause of climate change to understand better the sun's solar output and the historical rise and fall of global temperatures.
Finally, we must permanently reject the Kyoto concept, for international regulation of the world's economic process would be the beginning of the end of the world's opportunities.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13281
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
I believe we can be ecological and economical at the same time. As an analogy, car makers fought laws that required safety equipment in their cars, because it would drive costs up. They claimed it would put cars in the hands of fewer people and reduce sales, which is bad for customers and car makers. Time has proven this wrong, and now car makers boast about their safety equipment and try to outdo each other with the safety equipment and records of their cars.
We can boost our economies and protect our ecologies at the same time. And eventually, we will figure out how to restore our ecology and make money doing so, so much that doing the ecologically correct thing is more profitable than harming the ecology. This will require some breakthroughs we haven't reached yet, but it's beginning. We need imagination.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 123
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
This is the logical solution for true enviros:
http://www.vhemt.org/
Just think, no more pollution, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals,
progressives, feminists, corporations, capitalists, socialists, wars, religious right, rap musicians, etc., etc. Just like "Imagine" by John Lennon, sans all the people living for today.
Cheers |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2731
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
"...too many different groups with different viewpoints, the bureaucratic red tape, and the special interests."
Why do libertarians think Bureaucrats are responsible for everything including global warming? How about super aggressive capitalists who believe that there are no "externalities" that need be considered, and have a blind allegiance to free market fundamentalism? Aren't they a little more responsible than bureaucrats?
I mean come on. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
i dont think bureaucrats are responsible for global warming. i never said that. i do think putting together any solution to the problem , in the necessary time, will certainly be hindered by byzantine bureaucracy we live under.
i actually assigned blame to no one political party, entity, or group.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2734
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:38 pm: |
|
"i actually assigned blame to no one political party, entity, or group. "
libertarians are passionately lukewarm. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
so, you make a misrepresentation of my comments, i call you out on it, and your response is to make this childish taunt?
so your contribution to this thread is:
1. a lie
2. an insult
you must be so very proud. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2738
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
even if there was a way to curtail the process, i dont think that you could get the massive amount and sudden change that needs to happen to happen. too many different groups with different viewpoints, the bureaucratic red tape, and the special interests. i have a very low opinion of humanity.
How is anyone supposed to make any sense out of that? They aren't even sentences. Whatever your point is, I'm sure it is very even handed. Everyone except libertarians is to blame.
John Stossel is a self-described "hardcore libertarian". He has argued for years that there is no such thing as global warming and that the scientist are corrupt and wrong. And now he has libertarian Michael Crichton to back him up. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
i have not said libertarians are not to blame. what the hell are you babbling about. as to what stossel or others think, i dont care. i do think libertarians are to blame. i think democrats, republicans, socialists, communists, muslims, jews, christians, red people, white people, blue people, EVERYONE is to blame!
you want to attack libertarians, go ahead. who cares.
it was never a part of this discussion. you just decided to bring a personal agenda that really had nothing to do with what was going on in this thread.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2741
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Well, you brand yourself with the same logo that the folks most likely to advocate letting the market take its course use. Is it any wonder I am perplexed? I assume you are a libertarian party supporter. I mean, read this:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_493.shtml
I guess what you are saying is "the world is running down, so make the best (via civil liberties) of what's still around". In other words, the free market will in fact pile up externalities and destroy human life, but that is inevitable so we shouldn't impinge on each others' freedoms.
OK. I guess as a "liberal" I find that a littl premature.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
it obviously doesnt matter what i say here. you are going to just fabricate my end of the conversation any way.
i am not a parrot for a political party. while i might have an affinity for a political party, it doesnt mean i am a mindless drone , reciting their platform and holding fast to every one of its principles.
i never even brought libertarianism into this conversation. you obviously have an axe to grind and are going to do it regardless of the thread or the conversation it contains.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
I am not to blame. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2742
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:13 pm: |
|
I'm glad you've decided to renounce libertarianism. You are growing. Now take the patch off your bookbag and throw in in the trash with you Marilyn Manson patch. It never shocked anyone anyway, and now you don't need it. Be yourself. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
i have renounced nothing. you have some real anger and reading comprehension issues that you need to deal with.
now go away, the big people are talking. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2743
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
I am free, brother. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Libby wrote:
Quote:it was never a part of this discussion. you just decided to bring a personal agenda that really had nothing to do with what was going on in this thread.
Not to be too big of prick but c'mon. This is TOTALLY your modus operandi. You enter other people's threads on a regular basis and start spouting off the Libertarian doctrine. We'll be talking about how something happened to some kid in a school and you'll change the subject to how you shouldn't have to pay for their kid's education. This is your favorite tactic. So pardon me if I giggle that you suddenly feel affronted by someone using the same technique on you. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
This is TOTALLY your modus operandi. You enter other people's threads on a regular basis and start spouting off the Libertarian doctrine. We'll be talking about how something happened to some kid in a school and you'll change the subject to how you shouldn't have to pay for their kid's education. This is your favorite tactic. So pardon me if I giggle that you suddenly feel affronted by someone using the same technique on you.
1. i only talk about the libertarian position on things when it can be applied to the conversation at hand. because you dont like that position doesnt make it any less valid to the conversation
2. i dont lie about what people have written. Theemp completely fabricated something he attributed to me
3. what he had to say was wildly tangential to the topic being discussed in the thread.
you want to make a thread about me and my politics, feel free. but dont make up lies and stereotypes and attribute them to me just because you want to discredit my views in other threads.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
themp: you crack me up, dude. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Libby: I didn't mention 2 or 3 that is your bag baby.
1 on the other hand... You points might be valid but they are very often unappreciated due to their tendency to be almost completely off topic. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
not true. they are on topic. its just a portion of the topic that you may not be talking about. i dont just walk into a thread about wet basements and start spouting libertarian rhetoric.
what this guy did was start attacking me for my libertarian views in a thread in which the word libertarian had not been mentioned. he claimed that i was blaming everyone but libertarians, which was wholly untrue and completely out of left field, then he went off on some rant about some sort of political stereotype that he had invented, and ended it all with a personal attack that didnt make any sense.
|
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Really, I wasn't going to even look at this thread when I saw who was mostly posting in it but now that I went and done it all I can do is  |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:15 pm: |
|
you can always count on wendy to show up and drop an unprovoked dollop of bile. |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:20 pm: |
|
It was no way unprovoked. I am staying totally on topic. You just don't want to hear it. This is my new political affiliation - stop Libertarian from encroaching on our right to have meaningful threads. And let us say....amen. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5460
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Libertarian surrounded again?  |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
its unbelievable! as soon as i join a topic, nobody wants to talk about the topic anymore. they just want to insult me endlessly. Theemp has taken it to a new level by just ouright lying about things i have said.
i know people dont like my politics but i never expected there to be anger at such a visceral level about an opposing viewpoint from people who purport to be open minded and liberal thinking. some people stalk me on the board and drop unprovoked attacks on me in threads they werent even a part of just to do it. so ref and wendy are perfect examples of that.
i am amazed, flattered and disappointed all at once |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5461
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
It's everyone elses fault, eh Libertarian? There's a way to communicate to get around most of it, and that's mostly by being clear. Personal attacks -- they happen, but can be responded to and then put things back to the subject at hand. Those of us not planted firmly on the left get a lot of them and they can be dispensed with. And conversationally sometimes things don't line up between people for some reason. But blaming ''reading comprehension' or, in my case, saying I can't appreciate the 'obvious' and then skipping out on your reasoning or 'showing your work' as teachers used to say doesn't advance your argument, your standing, or help your cause. And it invites what you're getting here.
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
I think there is a certain amount of ill will towards you because you have a tendency to post about things that aren't relevant to the thread at hand (and if so, as you mentioned only tangentially) to make your political point which as we all know is not favored by most. This is no different than the reaction that Straw gets from most people, so don't take it personaly. 
After you state unpopular comments a few times about your resentment about paying extra taxes for other people's kids (if I remember correctly this was the fight that started the animosity with SO Refugee so long ago) and the thread isn't even about taxes but rather something about kids, schools or suburbs well people get tired of hearing your unwanted, poorly timed, rhetoric.
If you come to Soapbox (Politics or the other one) and CREATE a topic about how you have every right to live in the suburbs and not have to pay extra taxes to send other people's kids to schools, I don't think anyone will be angry with you. Your opinion I'm sure will still be unpopular, no doubt, but at least no one will be upset at you for co-opting their thread. No one will be able to complain that you acted inappropriately. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:28 am: |
|
SO what do we do?
Build CO2 scrubbers?
Get ready to grow corn in Canada?
Get ready to pull out of coastal areas? Ports, rail infrastructure?
Mandate Solar cells on Roofs.
Cafe standards put back to where they were before they were watered down in the 1980's. Or maybe increased to 50 mpg?
---------
Good point Alley. About starting a new thread. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
It was no way unprovoked. I am staying totally on topic. You just don't want to hear it. This is my new political affiliation - stop Libertarian from encroaching on our right to have meaningful threads. And let us say....amen.
you want me so bad it hurts. why else would stalk me like this? just ask, baby. you dont have to dip my pig tails in the inkwell. just ask. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page