Jump to content

Temperature records smashed for the 7th month in a row


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On May 26, 2016 at 7:09 AM, lostone said:

So moral of all this is

the GOP wants me to bow to the mighty corporations 

the dems want me to bow to the mighty government

Trust me, The establishment GOP  AND Dems bow to the mighty corporations. Obama and Hillary are so tied into the big corporate money its disgusting. Crony capitalism is a function of government getting too big.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gazoo said:

Trust me, The establishment GOP  AND Dems bow to the mighty corporations. Obama and Hillary are so tied into the big corporate money its disgusting. Crony capitalism is a function of government getting too big.

Oh, so now big corporate capitalism is bad, yet anytime someone complains about corporations, they're a bunch of dirty hippies.

Your brain is shrinking like your hair line from all that cognitive dissonance Jeffrey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Free Radical said:

Oh, so now big corporate capitalism is bad, yet anytime someone complains about corporations, they're a bunch of dirty hippies.

Your brain is shrinking like your hair line from all that cognitive dissonance Jeffrey.

There's nothing wrong with corporations or capitalism. Politicians, on the other hand, are willing to do what is in their best interest in spite of the people. That is a problem. The public puts trillions into the government in the form of taxes. We pay those taxes so that the government will do what is in the public's best interest. Instead, the millions donated get the preferential treatment. It's not supposed to work that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations that are sacrificing all else in terms of short term stockholder interest is a problem. Capitalism and corporations without government to ensure the interest of the people are assured is the proper balance. Again, this model has been demonstrated successfully around the world several times in several countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Free Radical said:

Corporations that are sacrificing all else in terms of short term stockholder interest is a problem. Capitalism and corporations without government to ensure the interest of the people are assured is the proper balance. Again, this model has been demonstrated successfully around the world several times in several countries.

Corporations don't do that. People do. It's the same argument about Dems wanting to blame guns. Corporations and Capitalism are not the problem. People are the problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2016 at 11:02 PM, Free Radical said:

Oh, so now big corporate capitalism is bad, yet anytime someone complains about corporations, they're a bunch of dirty hippies.

Your brain is shrinking like your hair line from all that cognitive dissonance Jeffrey.

Dirty hippies at one time or another ran/run these corporations.  They sold out after the utopian concept of communes (socialism) failed.  You need to read more or talk to people who have lived it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Free Radical said:

Semantic argument with no relevance to the solution. 

Actually, there is a lot of relevance to the solution. People and their actions should be governed to keep them from impeding on other people's rights. Guns and corporations are innocuous. People operating them are what makes them dangerous. 

For whatever reason, Dems seem to think this is "semantics" because they refuse to acknowledge the ENORMOUS difference. That is why we can never get to a solution, because Dems refuse to even acknowledge the problem. The problem is the actions of people.

If I use a gun to protect my family or my livestock, I've used my gun for a good purpose with justifiable actions. If I use my gun to take your family or livestock, I've used my gun for bad. The gun is not the good or bad thing, as it is innocuous. The same for corporations. The people at Enron that were committing fraud were using it for bad things that hurt a lot of people. The people at Google that make enormous profits while investing a lot in innovation are using their corporation for good things. The government should focus their efforts on the good and bad things people do, not on making it more difficult for these innocuous things to exist. 

These are not semantics. The difference is very clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question and Answer Session for the confused and gullible:

What to do if you don’t believe that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing a global warming catastrophe? Here are some ready-made responses, the next time someone questions you.

You don’t believe in global warming?

Yes, I do. The earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

You don’t believe in climate change?

Yes, I do. The earth’s climate has changed several times, just in the past 1,000 years.

CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.

Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from roughly 0.028% of the earth’s atmosphere in the late 1800s to the current 0.040%. However, solar output has also increasedsignificantly in that time. If the correlation between solar variability and the climate swings of the past few thousand years is any indication, this rise in solar activity offers a valid explanation for the overall increase in temperatures seen over the past century.

Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.

Solar activity actually peaked somewhere around the middle of the 20th Century, and at elevated levels not seen since the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) or the Roman Warm Period (1,800 years ago.) Solar activity remained at this high level through the start of the 21st Century, with temperatures rising at the same time. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that changes in solar “irradiance” have little impact on climate, other research argues that accompanying variations in the solar wind and solar magnetic field contribute significantly to changes in global climate. In fact, Russian scientists studying solar variability now worry that declining solar activity could lead to globally cooler temperatures by 2030.

But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas, and one that casts doubt on its ability to function as the sole agent of climate change. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in minuscule quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum band of infrared radiation. Essentially, CO2 rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can. Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially reaching a saturation point throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

But higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures. I saw that graph in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Al Gore left out a key point when citing the parallel relationship between historical levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, with cold water able to hold more CO2 than warm water. When the climate cools, the oceans cool—and draw in more CO2 from the atmosphere. When the climate warms, as seen at the start of the most recent interglacial period (roughly 18,000 years ago), the oceans gradually warm, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. (A good visualization for this is a bottle of soda kept in hot sunlight. If the temperature rises high enough, the bottle will leak or burst— because the warmer soda water is no longer able to hold all of the dissolved CO2.) The point is, when global temperatures change, atmospheric CO2 inevitably follows along.

Scientists say that CO2 is warming the earth.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it helps to maintain warmth in the atmosphere. But as noted above, CO2’s heat-trapping function is essentially saturated by the current level of 0.04%. Furthermore, climate models actually project that most of the presumed “man-made” warming will come from an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The principal idea of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) is that the small amount of additional warming contributed by CO2 (before it becomes saturated) will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere (and is responsible for roughly 80% of the “greenhouse effect”), this water vapor will create “positive feedback” for further warming. Unfortunately, the AGW theory essentially disregards the cooling feedback caused by clouds (since atmospheric water vapor inevitably transitions to cloud cover.) Clouds provide net cooling by reflecting solar radiation back into space, shading ground surfaces, and producing rain (which not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs atmospheric CO2.)

But 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

What’s most amusing is that, truthfully, no one really knows how many scientists there are in the world. Or what they all think about global warming. Or how many of them work in relevant scientific disciplines. However, the “97% consensus” is a flawed statement. Only 32.6% of the papers examined in the infamous John Cook study actually stated a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming. However, 97% of those said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.” And so what we have is a misleading statement that has become misrepresented and cited as fact. (Interestingly, there is a website called The Petition Project that lists more than 30,000 scientists who have publicly declared their disagreement with the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.)

2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter.

The warm temperatures experienced in 2015-2016 are the direct result of a strong El Nino.

El Nino is caused by global warming.

El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It happens when prevailing winds start to fade after several years of progressively “piling up” water in the western Pacific Ocean. This surplus, warm water washes back over the eastern Pacific, releasing tremendous amounts of heat. 2015’s spike in temperatures was due to El Nino. It would be dishonest and inaccurate to claim that 2015’s increase in surface temperatures was simply due to man-made warming. And even climate “alarmists” admit that El Nino is not a manifestation of man-made warming.

The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the earth is getting hotter and hotter.

Satellite measurements from both UAH-Huntsville and RSS clearly show a “pause” in global temperatures (I.e. a net flatlining of temperatures) over the past 15-20 years. As the current El Nino fades, it’s reasonable to expect a resumption of recent global temperatures. More significantly, the “pause” has been the subject of numerous debates and research papers. Climate alarmists don’t deny that it has happened, and instead offer varying explanations. Even Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, says that the pause occurred and was not foreseeable.

NOAA says there’s no “pause” in global warming.

There is legitimate concern as to the accuracy and reliability of recent temperature measurements being reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA.) Last year, NOAA reported adjustments to global temperature records that suddenly “erased” the pause. I.e. Earlier decades were revised to be “cooler,” while recent years were suddenly marked as “warmer” by factoring in measurements that included seawater temperature readings from the engine manifolds of ocean-going vessels. Various academic papers have debunked NOAA’s “new” temperature findings, but NOAA’s revised measurements continue to be used to make claims such as “warmest year ever.” The questionable methods utilized by NOAA to assemble its “pause buster” study are now the subject of a Congressional investigation.

But the oceans are becoming acidic.

The oceans remain comfortably alkaline, as they have for millions of years. As noted above, atmospheric CO2 levels have typically ranged far higher throughout the earth’s history, yet the oceans never became acidic. In fact, if they had, submarine fossil layers would have readily dissolved. Claims of the ocean “becoming acidic” are actually a misrepresentation of variations in the ocean’s pH scale. Seawater has typically measured roughly 8.18 on the pH scale. Recent, pH levels of 8.10 have been noted, which would mean slightly less alkaline oceans. But it’s misleading to say that the oceans are “becoming acidic,” particularly when ocean pH often varies greatly, based on season and location.

But the glaciers are melting.

Even NASA has stated that Antarctica’s ice cover is growing, not shrinking.

But there are more hurricanes and more tornadoes.

The U.S. has reached a record 127 months without a major hurricane. The U.S. is also at its lowest 3-year tornado total since 1950.

But we need to cut dangerous carbon pollution.

The “carbon pollution” you hear so much about is carbon dioxide, also known as CO2. It’s what all animals (including humans) breathe out, and what plants absorb. In fact, rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have led to a progressive “greening” of global plant life in recent decades. Because atmospheric CO2 is at such historically low levels, the world’s plants and oceanic phytoplankton are currently rejoicing in this slightly more abundant supply of nourishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pzummo said:

Actually, there is a lot of relevance to the solution. People and their actions should be governed to keep them from impeding on other people's rights. Guns and corporations are innocuous. People operating them are what makes them dangerous. 

For whatever reason, Dems seem to think this is "semantics" because they refuse to acknowledge the ENORMOUS difference. That is why we can never get to a solution, because Dems refuse to even acknowledge the problem. The problem is the actions of people.

If I use a gun to protect my family or my livestock, I've used my gun for a good purpose with justifiable actions. If I use my gun to take your family or livestock, I've used my gun for bad. The gun is not the good or bad thing, as it is innocuous. The same for corporations. The people at Enron that were committing fraud were using it for bad things that hurt a lot of people. The people at Google that make enormous profits while investing a lot in innovation are using their corporation for good things. The government should focus their efforts on the good and bad things people do, not on making it more difficult for these innocuous things to exist. 

These are not semantics. The difference is very clear.

Awesome speech bro. Anything relevant about anything specific you can apply this to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2016 at 11:12 AM, pzummo said:

The billions going towards the oil and gas industry is the only reason the poor can afford to drive a car in this country. It's the only reason the poor can afford to have stable electricity and air conditioning in their homes. Without the subsidies, a gallon of gas would have been $5-7 like it has been in the UK. Why do you think air travel has been so cheap?

Dems act like they want to help the poor but they crap on any policy that helps the poor take care of themself and live a more comfortable life. Dems only want to invest in programs that keep the poor dependent on the government, and want to remove the policies that enable the poor to work their way out of poverty. 

I'm not referring to Republicans when I say this. I am referring to true Conservatives. Conservative is about keeping the government small so that it is not a burden or holding back the people. Real Conservatives are the only one's wanting to stop the government from impeding on our individual right to pursue happiness. Dems don't give a crap about that. They pretend like they want to help the needy, but in reality they want to help themselves to everyone else's hard work. 

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. This is a Conservative value. Dems want to focus on giving a man a fish, so that man will have to come back tomorrow for another one. Conservatives want to teach men to fish, make sure they have places to go fishing, and they can afford to get to the places with the most fish available. That is why the economy and new business growth is important. That is why transportation shouldn't be so expensive that only the rich can afford it. That is why we had great upward mobility with a smaller government and why we have diminishing upward mobility as policies have gone toward social support instead of social enablement.

More ********. When states are pushing for laws that has severely limited companies like Tesla from selling cars to the consumer, how is that not directly trying to shut down competition against gas and oil driven industry? When there are oil and gas lobbying groups directly fighting against installing electric car charging stations around the country, how is that helping? When Reagan pulled down the solar panels on the White House, what cause did that support? When there have been government and corporate initiatives against non-fossil fuel driven cars or power, how can you sit here and justify subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Corporate interests are using every tool they can to keep us hooked on fossil fuels, and it comes at the cost of jobs, modernization, pollution, etc. I mean, even going back to the 30s, the auto industry systematically bought out electric rail companies in urban areas and destroyed them in order to further the automobile. It's wrong and you know it.

I'm not referring to Republicans when I say this. I am referring to true Liberals. Liberalism is about is about making sure individual rights are respected, and the majority cannot infringe upon the minority, nor can the individual trample of the rights of the many. Real liberals are the only one's wanting to stop big entities, government or corporate, from impeding on the greater collective from the right to pursue happiness. Repubs don't give a crap about that. They pretend like they want to help the individual, but in reality they want to help protect the most powerful from having to be responsible and answer for trampling on the common man.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? This is a liberal value. Repubs want to never give a man a fish, because they look down on anyone in a moment of need. Liberals want to give a man a fish, make sure the places for fishing are protected for him, and help that man get to the places where there are more fish available. This is why a fair economy and ensuring fair competition is important. This is why corporations shouldn't be able to trample on up-and-coming companies and technology, so that there are more alternatives and better solutions, including cheaper ones can become available. This is why we had great upward mobility when government was more concerned with promoting the welfare of the people and advancing technology than simply working hand-in-hand with corporate interests that are seeking maximum profit in the short-term at the expense of all else.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Free Radical said:

More ********. When states are pushing for laws that has severely limited companies like Tesla from selling cars to the consumer, how is that not directly trying to shut down competition against gas and oil driven industry? When there are oil and gas lobbying groups directly fighting against installing electric car charging stations around the country, how is that helping? When Reagan pulled down the solar panels on the White House, what cause did that support? When there have been government and corporate initiatives against non-fossil fuel driven cars or power, how can you sit here and justify subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Corporate interests are using every tool they can to keep us hooked on fossil fuels, and it comes at the cost of jobs, modernization, pollution, etc. I mean, even going back to the 30s, the auto industry systematically bought out electric rail companies in urban areas and destroyed them in order to further the automobile. It's wrong and you know it.

I'm not referring to Republicans when I say this. I am referring to true Liberals. Liberalism is about is about making sure individual rights are respected, and the majority cannot infringe upon the minority, nor can the individual trample of the rights of the many. Real liberals are the only one's wanting to stop big entities, government or corporate, from impeding on the greater collective from the right to pursue happiness. Repubs don't give a crap about that. They pretend like they want to help the individual, but in reality they want to help protect the most powerful from having to be responsible and answer for trampling on the common man.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? This is a liberal value. Repubs want to never give a man a fish, because they look down on anyone in a moment of need. Liberals want to give a man a fish, make sure the places for fishing are protected for him, and help that man get to the places where there are more fish available. This is why a fair economy and ensuring fair competition is important. This is why corporations shouldn't be able to trample on up-and-coming companies and technology, so that there are more alternatives and better solutions, including cheaper ones can become available. This is why we had great upward mobility when government was more concerned with promoting the welfare of the people and advancing technology than simply working hand-in-hand with corporate interests that are seeking maximum profit in the short-term at the expense of all else.
 

Your thinking is flawed if you believe one side is evil and one side is good.  You do understand in the 1930s FDR expanded oil exploration (he must have been in their pockets) and Obama's failed $60 billion plunge (loss) into alternative energy were under democrat policies..  But the good news is that, because of the painful jump in gasoline prices caused by the latter, domestic production is going through a transformative change.  New techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to make formerly "non-commercial" oil and gas reserves now attractive to go for.   As a result the imported oil Americans has fallen off dramatically over the last decade.

The people you claim you are constantly fighting for, the poor and illegal immigrants, do not benefit under democrat policies that make energy and food more expensive by using alternative energy that is not ready for the masses and is only beneficial to the top percenters that can afford it.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EMBARRASSING PREDICTIONS ROTFLMAO

thenewamerican [Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry]

ROTFLMAO dailycaller [25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’] 05/04/2015

[Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.]

Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years - youtube 2009/12/14

ROTFLMAO

[NASA: Arctic Ocean Could be Mostly Ice Free in 2013 - youtube]

ROTFLMAO

theguardian [US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016] 9 December 2013

[An ongoing US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.]

ROTFLMAO

politifact [Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013] September 2nd, 2009

[John Kerry: "It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now," he wrote. "Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security."]

WARNING ARCTIC ICE-FREE BY:

bbc "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' " 12 December 2007

bbc "New warning on Arctic sea ice melt" 7 April 2011

[ cientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.]

WHY IS THERE STILL ARCTIC ICE? ROTFLMAO

APOCALYPTIC 2015 ROTFLMAO

dailycaller [Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change [VIDEO] ]

Earth 2100 with English subtitles - YouTube

Global Warming Failed Predictions - Another Slow News Day

climatechangepredictions – dud predictions about ...

HYSTERICAL MUST READ: c3headlines [predictions forecasts]

ROTFLMAO dailycaller [25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’] 05/04/2015

[Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gazoo said:

 

EMBARRASSING PREDICTIONS ROTFLMAO

thenewamerican [Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry]

ROTFLMAO dailycaller [25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’] 05/04/2015

[Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.]

Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years - youtube 2009/12/14

ROTFLMAO

[NASA: Arctic Ocean Could be Mostly Ice Free in 2013 - youtube]

ROTFLMAO

theguardian [US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016] 9 December 2013

[An ongoing US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.]

ROTFLMAO

politifact [Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013] September 2nd, 2009

[John Kerry: "It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now," he wrote. "Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security."]

WARNING ARCTIC ICE-FREE BY:

bbc "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' " 12 December 2007

bbc "New warning on Arctic sea ice melt" 7 April 2011

[ cientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.]

WHY IS THERE STILL ARCTIC ICE? ROTFLMAO

APOCALYPTIC 2015 ROTFLMAO

dailycaller [Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change [VIDEO] ]

Earth 2100 with English subtitles - YouTube

Global Warming Failed Predictions - Another Slow News Day

climatechangepredictions – dud predictions about ...

HYSTERICAL MUST READ: c3headlines [predictions forecasts]

ROTFLMAO dailycaller [25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’] 05/04/2015

[Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.]

I wish they would call it what it really is, a global money redistribution scheme.  Get America's wealth into other countries hands.  Heck, we would have plenty of anti-American exceptionalists fall for that instead of using the weather to scare people in to giving money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I wish they would call it what it really is, a global money redistribution scheme.  Get America's wealth into other countries hands.  Heck, we would have plenty of anti-American exceptionalists fall for that instead of using the weather to scare people in to giving money.  

You'll notice a trend with the warmists, they won't admit that many of the predictions of apocalyptic doom that was already supposed to have bphappend have been monumentally wrong, they just keep insisting it's going to be right in the future and ignore their terribly flawed track record of accuracy to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2016 at 10:16 PM, gazoo said:

Trust me, The establishment GOP  AND Dems bow to the mighty corporations. Obama and Hillary are so tied into the big corporate money its disgusting. Crony capitalism is a function of government getting too big.

Oh, Gazoo, you've earned my complete trust since your "The Falcons have the league's best defense against the run once you take out cut back runs" post during the Jim Mora era . . . YOU are the MAN!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, holymoses said:

Oh, Gazoo, you've earned my complete trust since your "The Falcons have the league's best defense against the run once you take out cut back runs" post during the Jim Mora era . . . YOU are the MAN!!

Since this is anything but football, are you suggesting Hillary and Obama don't bow to corporate America? Have you seen Hillary's speaking fees paid by corporate interests? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...