Jump to content

Great article on Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth"


H20cooled

Recommended Posts

Doesn't Al Gore still think he won the election? I have seen other programs on the discovery channel that take up both sides of the global warming debate. I would have to agree that I don't think that we have a big enough impact by the production of exhaust to impact the world. If we produce more CO2 then plants and algaes will grow better thus balancing the planet again. Everyone use to talk about the hole in the ozone layer at the poles being caused by greenhouse gasses. Does anyone know why you don't hear much about that anymore? Because it is not scientifically accepted as the truth anymore. Scientists have discovered that we are on the verge of a magnetic pole swap and the weakening of the magnetic fields at the poles are what is causing the hole. It is just like the theory that we are running out of oil. This is bs also. We may be starting to deplete our easiest to process oil but Canada has what they call oil sand that is said to have enough oil in just the one place to support the worlds oil needs for well over 100 years. Studies don't get paid for by people that don't have agendas. Why would someone offer funding for a study if they didn't have something to gain from it. The great thing about this country is the ability to disagree with other people at least in a peaceful manner.

 

On the smoking issue I believe that each individual business owner should be able to make the decision on whether to allow people to smoke in their business. The government sticks it's nose in to many places where it doesn't belong. I am betting a quarter of our tax money could be saved if we didn't have to enforce stupid laws that should be each individuals decision.

 

I am quite glad that we have not had a Democrat as president in the last couple of elections. Clinton had done in the economy and it was on a severe downturn that would have only gotten worse if Gore was in office. Not to mention that the terrorists would have laughed at us as we took the Clinton approach to things and just launched some cruise missiles at them.

 

Don't even get me started on the last loser that the Democratic party nominated. John Kerry completely lacks a backbone. This man saw all of the same intellegence and voted to give the president authority to commit troops and was proud of it until a point in time that it became unpopular and now he is against the war.

 

I don't agree with everything that George Bush does but I know that he is doing what he truly believes is the right thing for the country whether it is popular or not. There has to be something said for the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. We have to take a much more proactive role in the world today. People will come to kill us if we do not kill them first and that takes a leader that is willing to do what is right to keep us safe even if it is not popular.

 

I will get off of my soap box now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going into the political debate now. But I do agree with Sean on the Global warming, Ozone, and smoking debate.

 

I had totally forgot about all of the Ozone stuff, you never hear anything about it. I guess the Ozone must be all healed now, or maybe it was never really a problem... hmm makes you think maybe global warming will go the same way as the ozone and magicly disapear...

 

I watched a show on the Discovery channel last night about the magnetic poles and how they are changing something like 5 miles every year. They said this can have a huge effect of climate and a lot of other things.

 

As for the smoking, its exactly as I was trying to say. This should be up to the business and not something else for the government to control. We have enough government control as it is, do we really need them in this too. People have a right to choose where they work and where they go, no one is making you go into a bar with smoking. If you don't like it go to another bar or ask the owner to change to non-smoking. If there is enough demand I'm sure they would do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point about the ozone layer, I will have to look into it.

 

As far as smoking, it seems to me that illness/death related to

tobacco causes a huge loss in cashola for health care, insurance costs,

taxes collected and productivity. The Tobacco issue is another

can of worms. Nicotine is AS, if not more addicting, than many illegal

drugs and yet the government allows tobacco to be legal and say,

opium, to be illegal.

 

The amount of money lost on tobacco users must be huge. Therefore,

why not get rid of it in bars or public places? Im surprise some employee

of a establishment that allows smoking has not been sued over this.

 

Would anyone be less happy if they have to go to a bar/lounge/restaraunt

and not have to inhale smoke? How inconvienient is it to go outside and smoke or

have a smoking room? It just seems like a good idea, not to mention that I

do not think governments would crack down super hard anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone be less happy if they have to go to a bar/lounge/restaraunt

and not have to inhale smoke? How inconvienient is it to go outside and smoke or

have a smoking room? It just seems like a good idea, not to mention that I

do not think governments would crack down super hard anyway.

 

I think smokers would be unhappy. How would you like it if someone said that you cannot drink Coke in a resturant or bar because they think its bad? Until there is solid proof that the 2nd hand smoke is bad, its really the same thing as you drinking a glass of Coke. Just cause you or I don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Why do you think the smoker should have to go outside to smoke, maybe the non-smoker should be the one going outside for fresh air.

 

Like I've said before I hate smoking, I hate the way it smells on my clothes and therefore I choose to stay away from it. But I don't think the government needs to tell people where they can and cannot smoke, atleast where public business are concerned. As Sean said let the business decide on there own, they will do what the majority wants because of the $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Everyone use to talk about the hole in the ozone layer at the poles being caused by greenhouse gasses

 

Chloro flourocarbons(CFC's) were the cause. The Montreal Protocal was passed in 1987 inwhich 27 countries vowed to reduce their CFC emissions becuase of the dramatic effect it had on the ozone molecule, O3. The U.S went from dumping 300K tons of CFC's into the air, down to nearly 0 by 1996. The other nations involved with the Montreal Protocol showed a similar pattern. Hence, no more CFC's, no more increasing of the hole in the ozone layer. In fact it is slowly repairing itself and I suspect that is why you dont hear about it anymore. Its not exciting news.

 

SeanF

algaes will grow better

Have you heard of a red tide? Massive algea blooms are not good.

 

 

 

 

And as far as secondhand smoke goes:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 

 

Im going to stand on my soapbox for a moment....

 

he is doing what he truly believes is the right thing for the country whether it is popular or not.

 

Isnt the president supposed to work for the people? If he is doing something unpopular, seems that the people dont want him to be doing it. Stubborness is rarely a good quality, and especially not in a president. The presidents father was smart enough to not go all the way to Baghdad for a reason and that reason is the quagmire that we are currently an active member of.

 

Clinton had done in the economy and it was on a severe downturn that would have only gotten worse if Gore was in office.

 

It always comes back to Clinton....I wonder what people will say when a Democrat gets elected in 08 and the economy does well again? You will say it was becuase of the foundation that Bush laid. :)

 

saw all of the same intellegence and voted to give the president authority to commit troops and was proud of it

 

Nearly everyone in Congress voted for the war....why? Becuase the president painted a picture that was scary as hell. Turns out it was all BS.... I do not think you can really play that card anymore. (nutty)

 

 

People will come to kill us if we do not kill them first

 

So why havnt we invaded/bombed Iran or North Korea. They seem to pose an ACTUAL threat to our nation, more so that Iraq ever did/will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried REALLy hard to resist replying back to you on these but I could so here goes my opinion...

 

Isnt the president supposed to work for the people? If he is doing something unpopular' date=' seems that the people dont want him to be doing it. Stubborness is rarely a good quality, and especially not in a president. The presidents father was smart enough to not go all the way to Baghdad for a reason and that reason is the quagmire that we are currently an active member of.[/quote']

Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people believe we should have gone to war? I think there is a small and very noisy group that feels that way (a lot seem to be in the northwest for some reason), but I think the general public feels differently.

 

Personly I see nothing wrong with choosing to go to war with Iraq, but I disagree with the way the war is being fought. They are treating it like a Police action instead of a war, and I think that's why we are having the troop deaths that we are. We have an Airforce for a reason use them...

 

Nearly everyone in Congress voted for the war....why? Becuase the president painted a picture that was scary as hell. Turns out it was all BS.... I do not think you can really play that card anymore. (nutty)

What was BS? The WMD's? Well we now know they were true, so I'm not sure what you are reffering to. The reason that the war was voted for was because they realized that Iraq was a threat and had to be stopped.

 

So why havnt we invaded/bombed Iran or North Korea. They seem to pose an ACTUAL threat to our nation, more so that Iraq ever did/will.

 

There is a HUGE difference between a war with Iraq and one with North Korea, I think they are smart enough to realize that a political solution with them is better then a war. Because it would be very nasty with a LOT of deaths on both side. Iran is also another one that a political solution is better then a war. Just cause someone is a threat doesn't mean we always attack them, I think they try to solve it politicly first and then resort to an attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WMD's? Well we now know they were true, so I'm not sure what you are reffering to
Are you saying that they found WMD's?

 

Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people believe we should have gone to war? I think there is a small and very noisy group that feels that way (a lot seem to be in the northwest for some reason), but I think the general public feels differently.

 

Please elaborate, I dont think I am understanding you.

 

 

Personly I see nothing wrong with choosing to go to war with Iraq, but I disagree with the way the war is being fought

 

I agree with the last half of your statement. Why dont you see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq. They had zero capability to attack us and no connection to 9/11.

 

they realized that Iraq was a threat and had to be stopped

 

Who is "they" and what was the actual threat?

 

HUGE difference between a war with Iraq and one with North Korea, I think they are smart enough to realize that a political solution with them is better then a war. Because it would be very nasty with a LOT of deaths on both side

 

You didnt answer how they are diffrent situations, all you said was that there is a "huge" difference. N. Korea actually HAS nukes and another nut job for a leader. How is fundamentally different than the Iraq case? How many deaths is "a lot?" How many US soldier or Iraqi civiliationi deaths is enough for you to consider it not worth it to fight this war?

 

 

Looking forward to hearing back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that they found WMD's?

 

Yep! Check out these areticles:

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp

 

Please elaborate, I dont think I am understanding you.

I think you are under the impression that all of the country feels that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't have gone. I think its actually the opposite of that. I think that there is a very vocal minority that feel that way, but the silent mass do not.

 

 

I agree with the last half of your statement. Why dont you see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq. They had zero capability to attack us and no connection to 9/11.

I don't see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq, but I think there were better uses for our military then Iraq at this time. But that's not saying that the Iraq people aren't better off without Saddam.

 

Who is "they" and what was the actual threat?

The "they" was the governerment people that voted for the war and continue to vote NOT to pull out of Iraq. As to the threat, I'm not sure if they (Iraq) were a threat to us or not, but then again I don't have the inside info that the government officalls have.

 

You didnt answer how they are diffrent situations, all you said was that there is a "huge" difference. N. Korea actually HAS nukes and another nut job for a leader. How is fundamentally different than the Iraq case? How many deaths is "a lot?" How many US soldier or Iraqi civiliationi deaths is enough for you to consider it not worth it to fight this war?

Its a different situation because you have to choose who you attack and access the threat situation. If we were to go to war with N. Korea it would be HUGE with tons of causilties and possiblely nuclear. No one wants that. Don't you think that if it could be solved with talks that's better then war?

 

From what I understand the people of Iran love the US, if we were to go to war against them it would cause all of those supporters to turn on us. So, its a situation were talks are better then war.

 

As for Iraq, I think they had exhausted the talk situation, NATO and the US had told Saddam many times to stop with the WMD's and he refused. So, there comes a point were an attack is the only situation.

 

How many deaths are a LOT, if we went to war with N Korea it would be in the 100, 000's. Is that enough for you. I hate to see our soldiers dieing, that is why I said that I do not like the way the war is being fought, I think they are being to soft over there this is a war not a police action treat it that way. As for the civilains I think our military is doing an amazing job of not attacking them. Now there own people are another story, they (Iraq terrorists) continue to kill tons of there own people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hook, line and sinker...I feel a littel bit bad for you just now that you posted those articles from the nut job Santorum.

The weapons they found were fifteen years old/pre gulf war weapons that were virtually harmless and leftover from their war with Iran. Your stories are rediculous.

 

Please watch this with an open mind: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown_Santorum-WMD.wmv

 

Remember these:

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought

significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

 

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

 

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.

- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

 

 

I think you are under the impression that all of the country feels that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't have gone. I think its actually the opposite of that. I think that there is a very vocal minority that feel that way, but the silent mass do not

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/455590.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/16/iraq.poll/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/iraq.poll/

Check out the poll pdf in the above article

 

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/29/20060629-A3-00.html

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=23494 This would lead me to believe most americans are not happy with the way G.W is handling things, both foreign and domestic.

 

http://english.people.com.cn/200606/28/eng20060628_277931.html

 

I don't see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq, but I think there were better uses for our military then Iraq at this time. But that's not saying that the Iraq people aren't better off without Saddam.

 

Please elaborate on better uses.... maybe fininshing the job in Afganistan or finding Osama Bin Laden? I honestly dont know if the Iraqi people are better off without Sadaam at this point. Granted the guy was a lunatic and evil, but the people were relatively free and had relatively decent lives compared to what they have now. I still think Sadaam had to go but I think we could have done it at much cleaner/better.

 

 

The "they" was the governerment people that voted for the war and continue to vote NOT to pull out of Iraq. As to the threat, I'm not sure if they (Iraq) were a threat to us or not, but then again I don't have the inside info that the government officalls have.

 

The reason "they" voted for the war is becuase Congresspeople were given false intelligence and lead to believe Iraq was an iminent nuclear threat to the American people. It turns out they "cooked" the inteligence to make it look much worse than it actually was. Remember Collin Powell's speech to the UN? People voted not to pull out becuase they had faith in the Commander in Cheif and responsibility to hold that faith as long as they could. When it became aparent that the Pres. was/is not doing anywhwere near a good job in Iraq, some people began to speak out. How is this bad? Our governement runs on people speaking up and talking about what they believe is right, not by blindly following a leader who is on the wrong track.

 

HUGE with tons of causilties and possiblely nuclear

 

I heard this once before just before we invaded Iraq. Regardless, thousands of people are being starved in North Korea each year becuase their crazy leader wants to build a huge arsenal. Its insane.

 

From what I understand the people of Iran love the US, if we were to go to war against them it would cause all of those supporters to turn on us. So, its a situation were talks are better then war.

 

I disagree, I think it would be easy to topple their government BECAUSE the people love the U.S. The citizens of Iran want a different government. I would not be suprised if there were some clandestine type operations going on there, trying to stir up a revolt or something.

 

As for Iraq, I think they had exhausted the talk situation, NATO and the US had told Saddam many times to stop with the WMD's and he refused. So, there comes a point were an attack is the only situation.

 

"they" told you that they had exhausted talks. In fact the pres could have gone back to the UN a couple more times. The U.S told Sadaam to stop doing something that he wasnt doing....WMD's. Weapons inspectors befor and after found nothing that would be considered and iminent threat to the U.S. I dont think there ever reached a point where attacking Iraq was the ONLY solution. Nothing I can do about that though.

 

if we went to war with N Korea it would be in the 100, 000's

 

Where did you get this number?????

 

Now there own people are another story, they (Iraq terrorists) continue to kill tons of there own people

 

This is a very complex issue....The fighting and killing between Sunni and Shite is one thing. Iraqi terroists are another. Where did Abu Musab Al Zarquari come from? Not Iraq....I think the majority of "terrorists" in Iraq are not Iraqi civilians at all. They are fighters that came to Iraq for the Jihad. Like I said, this is a complex issue and I am not going to claim that I know enough about it so I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with some of these statements. I don't think that the Iraqi people are "better off" without Saddam. That's a big statement, I realize, but my logic is this: We've done worse things for these people by making their country more unstable and contributed to more death and destruction by removing Saddam. Ever notice that we don't report on the numbers of civilian death in Iraq since our occupation? I have heard numbers that approach 100k, and I am not going to research this, but there are other ramifications of this war that are not being reported on. Humanitarian issues are a byproduct that comes to mind. How many people die simply because the instability of this country, due in part to our occupation, contributes to the supply of necessary medicine and potable drinking water, for instance (my sociology classes are talking here).

Further, we have concentrated our efforts on terrorism in Iraq, where other obvious state supporters of terrorism (Syria, who harbors Hamas leaders for starters) are left alone. The idea that we would destabilize the Taliban in Afganistan to root out Osama is a similar arguement to the one I am making. So was Iraq a good target? I say no.

I am going to further critisize the Fox news and the Rupert Murdoch reports on WMD's. I read them and don't feel that the credibility of these reports are sufficient to support claims of WMD's. This was such a small blip on the radar of rationality, that there must be a reason that these are not being cited a credibile threat. The Iraq rationality for WMD's was yellowcake (nuclear materials) coming from Niger, not degrated nerve gasses from the pre gulf war. This has been determined to be an exaggeration of poor intelligence due in part to spin from Cheney, not based in fact whatsoever.

 

Back to global warming...

 

I saw the film, and I am a born sceptic. But here's the facts: The last 10 years have had the highest concentration of the hottest years on record. This cannot be disputed. There is a coorelation between co2 levels and warming global temps. This cannot be disputed. We have higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere than at any time on this planet. This cannot be disputed.

 

What's the problem in recognizing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to global warming...

 

I saw the film, and I am a born sceptic. But here's the facts: The last 10 years have had the highest concentration of the hottest years on record. This cannot be disputed. There is a coorelation between co2 levels and warming global temps. This cannot be disputed. We have higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere than at any time on this planet. This cannot be disputed.

 

What's the problem in recognizing this?

 

I'm done with the war talk, I agree to disagree at this point; I just don't have the time to put into that arguement...

 

As for Global warming:

Then I will still go back to my question. What caused all of the previous global warming events that brought the Earth out of the Ice ages? We (humans) we not there to create it so what did? I'm not discounting that it (global warming) isn't happening; I'm just questioning the cause of it. I think much of the so called "facts" are based on theories and speculation and not on actual data. Also a LOT of the scientist that are making the statements are not even climatologists then so they are basing this on there limited group of study. Before I go believing the my car is destroying the planet I won’t to know why the same thing (global warming) has happened over 7 times in the past...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done with the war talk, I agree to disagree at this point; I just don't have the time to put into that arguement...

 

Or the research aparently. Did you even watch the video clip?

 

Also a LOT of the scientist that are making the statements are not even climatologists then so they are basing this on there limited group of study. Before I go believing the my car is destroying the planet I won’t to know why the same thing (global warming) has happened over 7 times in the past...

 

You are saying that only climatologists can contribute to the study of global warming. NO chemists, geologists or biologist allowed!!!!

 

I think much of the so called "facts" are based on theories and speculation and not on actual data.

 

This sounds an awful lot like that talking head....whats his name.....oh ya.... Bill O'Reily. Please tell me why the vast MAJORITY of scientists believe this is happening but you wont? Why is there so much consensus on this issue UNLIKE nearly every other isse that has ever been discussed. Why do you refute the FACT that CO2 cuases warming? Why wont you understand that we are dumping more CO2 into the air then EVER on the order of 700 billion tons!!! How do ice cores drilled in the antarctic that show that we now have the highest concentrations, by FAR, of CO2 in the air in the last 650,000 years and that we have had the warmest 10 years ever, not even begin to sway your thoughts on the issue. Simply baffling to me.

 

Go see the movie and dont simply toss the facts out like trash because you dont believe something this bad could be happening. The fact is, global warming is occuring and we are significantly contributing, if not, cuasing it.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2126704&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

Rude944, well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the research aparently. Did you even watch the video clip?

 

 

Can you tell me WHY you have to be rude about this? I'm trying very hard to keep this to a civil discussion and then you have to go and insult me and make this a personal attack. I refuse to discuss this with you anymore and I will not LOWER myself down to your insulting and rude level. I have a lot better things to do then waste my time with you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what actual data suggests. You'll just have to trust me, Rich.

 

So imagine it's not your cars tailpipe, but the collective emissions of all our tailpipes and the billions of metric tons of CO2 from industrial pollution that has grown exponentially since the dawn of the industrial ago over the last 150 years. It's a function of the population and economic growth. Then take into account all the destruction of the forests (don't discount the burning of them to clear land either) that would have removed the CO2 from our atmosphere and we start to arrive at a place that in Reefworld would would call "accumulated detritus". The solution here is that as reef keepers, we perform water changes.

 

There just ain't no RO/DI for our atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seth,

That was good, :-)

 

The question still is what caused the global warming in the past though when Humans were not here to cause it?

 

Also if it really is the collective emissions of industrial pollution. How do we solve this? In the US we have made HUGE strives to clean up industrial pollution and we are one of the best countries around. China is now the major contributor to industrial pollution, but we don't see them trying at all to fix this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo H20, excuse my rudeness, it was uncalled for.

 

The question still is what caused the global warming in the past though when Humans were not here to cause it?

 

I dont think anyone is saying that global warming doesnt happen as a natural cycle. I am saying that global warming is happening at a much faster rate and more intensely than the natural cycles due to human input.

 

In the US we have made HUGE strives to clean up industrial pollution and we are one of the best countries around.

 

Could you point me toward some evidence. I am very interested. It seems that we are better than a lot of developing countries, but that isnt really saying much. please elaborate.

 

China is now the major contributor to industrial pollution, but we don't see them trying at all to fix this

herein is the problem. None of the major pollution players are willing to take the first steps to minimize or reduce this problem. Why should China try and fix the problem when we are not? Why should anyone else. The U.S is supposed to be a leader in the world and it is this belief that makes me think we should be the ones to take first actions toward combating this problem. Thoughts?

 

A big proportion of pollution comes from cars. WHy cant we be the leader in fuel economy? We are at the bottom of the barell. Japan has set super high levels of fuel efficiency...something along the lines of 45mpg. I just dont understand why our country couldnt do the same.

 

How do we solve this?

 

Million dollar question, but I feel it starts with the old saying of, think globally and act locally. Meaning do simple things to reduce pollution.....recycle, compact flourescent lightbulb, energy efficient homes, energy efficient appliances, buy cars with better fuel economy, etc. These are simple things that everyone can do. Whats crazy is that they will save you money in the long run, but so few people do them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article...it states my view on the subject clearly.

 

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

 

there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.

 

Ive seen this on some other issues in the last six years.....hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this sums it up pretty well:

 

"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade."

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...