+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 First ... 23456 Last
  1. #101
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Unfortunately, you don't listen to the scientist either.

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"
    Allegre is but one voice. France played host to the IPCC, which is over 600 scientists issuing a consolidated report on Global Warming, while working at the Paris Hilton (no jokes, please). His is simply a dissenting voice, not a particularly loud or persuasive one.

    Keep in mind also, the French Socialists have an agenda with regards to global warming, if only tangentally: They want to systematically shut down the reactors in France, which isn't possible so long as fossil fuels are linked to global warming. But if the CO2 levels were either coincidental or simply benign, then there would be fewer reasons to keep the reactors in favor of fossil-based energy generators.

    I have to admit. You got spunk kid.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #102
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre
    Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta
    : “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion”
    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
    Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.”
    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans
    “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “
    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty
    “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner
    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.
    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson
    Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm
    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson
    Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark
    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer

    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

    I, just like our 15 year old friend, have done some research. Bot hof us have sited sources for our information. I make claims and back them up. For instance I provide links to an entire list of scientist who have converted from Global Warming believers to skeptics. Above I provide a few quotes as well.

    Your argument is the Politically and finacially motivated movie by Al gore which is filled with half truths and lies. He provides no papers or sources. He points to 2000 phantom scientist, and we are supposed to believe this clown. Some may fall into his trap, others of us are far smarter than that.

    I'm glad we a re having this debate. As I really start to dig into the science and research I realize more than ever this is a big political hoax be levergaged by some (Al) for financial gain. And to think I used to somewhat believe in Global Warming.
    Last edited by HotTrotter; 06-26-2007 at 08:43 AM.

  3. #103
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Another source for you

    High price for load of hot air

    The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

    Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

    Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

  4. #104
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre
    Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty

    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner
    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.
    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson
    Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm
    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson
    Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark
    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer

    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

    I, just like our 15 year old friend, have done some research. Bot hof us have sited sources for our information. I make claims and back them up. For instance I provide links to an entire list of scientist who have converted from Global Warming believers to skeptics. Above I provide a few quotes as well.

    Your argument is the Politically and finacially motivated movie by Al gore which is filled with half truths and lies. He provides no papers or sources. He points to 2000 phantom scientist, and we are supposed to believe this clown. Some may fall into his trap, others of us are far smarter than that.

    I'm glad we a re having this debate. As I really start to dig into the science and research I realize more than ever this is a big political hoax be levergaged by some (Al) for financial gain. And to think I used to somewhat believe in Global Warming.
    You list about a dozen folks. Versus the hundreds who believe it is a problem. I bet you're a member of the Flat Earth Society.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #105
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You list about a dozen folks. Versus the hundreds who believe it is a problem. I bet you're a member of the Flat Earth Society.
    I notice you can't list the hundreds. Heck you haven't provided one. And don't use the head of NASA, he doesn't believe it either. And Al Gore doesn't count either, he is motivated by political and financial interest, the man doesn't knwo diddly about science.

    And by the way, these are leading scientist who at one time were on top of the list when it came to action against global warming. They actually saw the research, saw the facts, saw the raw data, and concluded they were wrong t opush this agenda. Takes a big man to admit they were wrong. These are not your lab scientist following the orders of Doctor Ima Nut Case, These are world class top notch guys.
    Last edited by HotTrotter; 06-26-2007 at 12:39 PM.

  6. #106
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    An observation:

    In not up on all the facts but one thing I do know for a fact is my home property value has increased in precisely the type of place where Gore and his cronies are predicting utter destruction. Al Gore said last year that we've got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Where is the mass exodus from all the believers? Water front property or homes in close proximity to the ocean are still in high demand. They still command big bucks.

    I wonder if the Laurie David types are selling their soon to be under water ocean front properties in Malibu?
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  7. #107
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Do an internet search of the one of the most respected climatologists in the world his name is Reid Bryson, also known as the father of scientific climatology.

  8. #108
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireLt1951 View Post
    Do an internet search of the one of the most respected climatologists in the world his name is Reid Bryson, also known as the father of scientific climatology.
    Yup another one Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey

    What is funny is they say there are 2000 scientists who support the theory. What they don't tell you is that there are Millions of scientists.

    The other problem they are having right now is that since 1998 (9years ago) the Earth has been cooling off, and at the same time CO2 levels are rising.

    Al Gore stands to lose a fortune because science will win over alarmism.

    Thanks for the pointer LT, I owe you one.

  9. #109
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Wow. I guess I must be wrong. Like I said earlier, the worst thing that happens if the enviro crowd is wrong is we have cleaner air.

    I'll take it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #110
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Wow. I guess I must be wrong. Like I said earlier, the worst thing that happens if the enviro crowd is wrong is we have cleaner air.

    I'll take it.
    What makes you so sure the air will be cleaner? What about the wasted trillions of dollars? Are you independently wealthy? How about taking that money and controlling our rivers to eliminate floods. That is a more attainable goal.

    Of course your pal Al likes that attitude. He will get rich off of people that think that way.

  11. #111
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    How come when I was a kid in the 70's everyone was saying that the polution was going to lead to another ice age, and they had charts and "scientific evidence" of this fact? New discoveries and knowledge are going to show that what we are looking at today is not the total truth either.

    In my opinion, and that is all that any of us have, the worlds climate is effected by man burning and building stuff. Does that make the world hotter or colder? I have no clue, but I don't think that we are going to have the ability to distroy the planet just by driving and building either.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  12. #112
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    How come when I was a kid in the 70's everyone was saying that the polution was going to lead to another ice age, and they had charts and "scientific evidence" of this fact? New discoveries and knowledge are going to show that what we are looking at today is not the total truth either.

    In my opinion, and that is all that any of us have, the worlds climate is effected by man burning and building stuff. Does that make the world hotter or colder? I have no clue, but I don't think that we are going to have the ability to distroy the planet just by driving and building either.

    The alarmist tend to revise their predicitons to suite their politicial and financial interest. But to suggest we have any kind of control over the weather and climate is absurd. Both are tightly related. We can't control the weather, what makes anyone think we can control the climate.

  13. #113
    Forum Member
    KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Wow. I guess I must be wrong. Like I said earlier, the worst thing that happens if the enviro crowd is wrong is we have cleaner air.

    I'll take it.
    Not to start a fight or takes sides on way or another, but here is the question I have: so we do our best to reduce greenhouse gasses, reduce global warming, etc. etc....does our best efforts make up for the dozens of Second and Third World countries who could give a hooey about the enviroment and what we have to say on the matter and what we want them to do to help out?

  14. #114
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Canada signed on to the Kyoto treaty and it has done nothing for us but make things more expensive and create much paperwork. The standards are unattainable and raise the cost of every product, service and tax. Calling a normal temperature fluctuation of less than one degree, global warming due to industrial activity; is quite wrong at the least. This is my .02

  15. #115
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    You guys have hit it on the head. Our attempts at trying to control the climate would be like truing to put out a forest fire by peeing on it. Brilliant observations.

    Thanks for the input on Kyoto. I guess we can say that is one good thing George W Bush did for us.

  16. #116
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    236

    Default

    I figure that the religious conservatives would want to take care of the Earth as God has commanded them.

  17. #117
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamuelFire View Post
    I figure that the religious conservatives would want to take care of the Earth as God has commanded them.
    Don't know what religion has to do with it, but I do know that the Earth will take care of itself. Darn thing has been here some 4.5 billion years and has done OK so far. I can't stop the oceans from eroding the shores, I can't stop earthquakes, I can't stop tornadoes, I can't stop floods, I can't control nature. So why try?

  18. #118
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    236

    Default

    We should be good stewarts of that which we have. To me this means less waste, less pollution, and a more efficient use of our resources.

    I don't believe all the stuff that Gore is saying and don't discount it either just because Gore is saying it. As a whole, we have lost the ability to see through the bu****it.

    I believe the Earth has a timetable to extinction and man will neither hasten or retard it. But if I am a good steward of things, things may be there for my children when I am dead and gone.

    HotTrotter stated " How about taking that money and controlling our rivers to eliminate floods. That is a more attainable goal."

    HotTrotter other personality stated " I can't stop floods, I can't control nature. So why try?"

  19. #119
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    [QUOTE=SamuelFire;829273]We should be good stewarts of that which we have. To me this means less waste, less pollution, and a more efficient use of our resources.

    I don't believe all the stuff that Gore is saying and don't discount it either just because Gore is saying it. As a whole, we have lost the ability to see through the bu****it.

    I believe the Earth has a timetable to extinction and man will neither hasten or retard it. But if I am a good steward of things, things may be there for my children when I am dead and gone.

    HotTrotter stated " How about taking that money and controlling our rivers to eliminate floods. That is a more attainable goal."

    HotTrotter other personality stated " I can't stop floods, I can't control nature. So why try?"[/
    QUOTE]

    What I am saying here is that to try to control these things is futile. The money wasted on this stuff could be spent in better ways. Both statments say the same thing, only statment 1 is inteded to be sarcastic.

  20. #120
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    What I am saying here is that to try to control these things is futile.
    There is a huge difference between "control" and "impact". You keep saying control as if Global Warming is BS because we can't controlthe weather. I don't think anybody is claiming that we can do that.

    What the Global Warming crowd is saying is that the human race is having a visible, profound, and detrimental impact on the climate on this planet. We tearing down ecosystems, we're spewing tons of crap into the air and water, and we are seeing the results of that impact.

    The Earth is a closed system.. a very large and very complicated, but still closed system. As our population and level of technology has risen, so has our ability to have a visible impact on that system. The Earth is not that big, Jim Lovell covered it with his thumb.

    Now.. that's not to say that the various experts, on both sides, aren't using that fact to push their own agenda and financial gain. I do agree that the whole issues has been so politicized and sensationalized that its hard to believe who is correct. I do believe the basic tennet however, this is our home and we sleep in the bed we make. It is our responsibility to limit our impact.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  21. #121
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    There is a huge difference between "control" and "impact". You keep saying control as if Global Warming is BS because we can't controlthe weather. I don't think anybody is claiming that we can do that.

    What the Global Warming crowd is saying is that the human race is having a visible, profound, and detrimental impact on the climate on this planet. We tearing down ecosystems, we're spewing tons of crap into the air and water, and we are seeing the results of that impact.

    The Earth is a closed system.. a very large and very complicated, but still closed system. As our population and level of technology has risen, so has our ability to have a visible impact on that system. The Earth is not that big, Jim Lovell covered it with his thumb.

    Now.. that's not to say that the various experts, on both sides, aren't using that fact to push their own agenda and financial gain. I do agree that the whole issues has been so politicized and sensationalized that its hard to believe who is correct. I do believe the basic tennet however, this is our home and we sleep in the bed we make. It is our responsibility to limit our impact.

    To impact, to influence, to control, they are all the same. The truth of the matter is that man has little to no influence over the Earth. The earth and the sun and the moon, that is what controls our climate, we don't do squat.

    There are those of us who look at the science, look at the data, and listen to the scientist and experts, we know this man made global warming is hogwash. Then there are those who listen to the alarmist, they listen to Al Gore and others who have a financial interest in promoting Global Warming, anf they are lead to believe there is a real problem and that we can actually do soemthing about it. Listen to scientist or listen to those with financial interest, who do you think will tell the truth?
    Last edited by HotTrotter; 06-29-2007 at 01:00 PM.

  22. #122
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Cool










    This movement is like a new Cult! lol


    Just having a little friday fun. Have a nice weekend all.
    Last edited by RoughRider; 06-29-2007 at 01:24 PM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  23. #123
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    To impact, to influence, to control, they are all the same. The truth of the matter is that man has little to no influence over the Earth. The earth and the sun and the moon, that is what controls our climate, we don't do squat.
    If you want to nit-pick, then sure. we don't impact the Earth.. just the environment that exists on its outer shell. Without a doubt the Earth will go on.. Kinematics proves that. But it may not be a very nice place for anyone to live.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Listen to scientist or listen to those with financial interest, who do you think will tell the truth?
    Nice straw-man. There are scientists, fanatics, and opportunists on both sides of this issue. Frankly I take everything both sides say with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean everything one side says is automatically false, however.

    6.7 Billion people consuming resources at the level we do does impact the environment. To say otherwise just because a few of the more vocal proponents is sticking your head in the sand.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  24. #124
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    OK Voyager9. First thing is the Earth is not a closed system. The Earth is part of a bigger system known as the solar system. The sun, planets, and moon all affect our climate and weather.

    To understand this first lets look at the sun. This is the source of our heat. The amount of heat that hits Earth is governed by the intensity of the heat source, the distance from the heat source, and the amount of items blocking the heat. Obviously the sun doesn't burn at the same temperature all of the time, so the intensity varies.

    Our distance from the sun also varies. This is governed by the location of the other planets, the moon, and the orbital speed of the Earth. All objects create a gravitational pull on each other. This web page explains the gravitational pull. So as you see, the planets all are pulling on the Earth as is the sun and moon. These forces will move the Earth in its orbit causing the distance between the sun and the Earth to vary.

    The third thing that effects how much of the suns heat reaches the Earth is the amount of stuff in the Earths atmosphere. The more particulate matter in the air the less heat will reach the Earth. This was the exact phenomena that created the ice age after the meteor hit Earth. The same thing happened after Mt. St. Helens erupted.

    "6.7 Billion people consuming resources at the level we do does impact the environment. To say otherwise just because a few of the more vocal proponents is sticking your head in the sand."

    Given all of the other forces at work the effects of 6.7 billion people is negligible. Put another way, it is but a drop in a 55 gallon drum.

  25. #125
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    I received this in an email, just thought I would pass it along

    About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

    "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

    "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

    "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

    "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

    "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
    from bondage to spiritual faith; from Faith to courage from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage"

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

    Number of States won by: Gore: 21 Bush: 29

    Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000

    Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million

    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1

    Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

    Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

    If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million invaders called Illegal Aliens and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 First ... 23456 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Has Gore lost it?
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-17-2007, 01:21 PM
  2. Mr. Clarke and the 9-11-01 hearings...
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 08:05 PM
  3. Gore brand vapor barrier
    By Firefighter430 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2002, 06:07 AM
  4. IAFF Endorses Al Gore
    By huntere6 in forum Fire Politics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-02-2001, 08:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register