America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by frankj1. 152 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
How dare you!
RobertHively Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 01-14-2015
Posts: 1,761

Glad to see that you all are feeling good today...

#9 I agree. The fact that the UN/Global Government is pushing it so hard makes me think that it's the newest scheme to extract money from the "taxpayer". Secondly, I do remember "global warming" and how all those so called "scientists" and university professors got busted manipulating the data back in 09, in order to keeping receiving govt funding. The higher temps the better... It was called "climate gate" and the last time I looked most of the articles that correspond with the scandal have been scrubbed from the internet.I pretty much lost my only liberal friend when I gloated about how, for years, I told him I thought global warming was a scam (As most Govt programs seem to be...these days.) But I got Frank as my liberal friend now so it's all good. Anyway, a year later "they" changed the title to "climate change" but it's the same ol BS. I do, however, know that weather modification is a real thing. I'd like to know how much of this unusual weather is government made? Remember these people "never let a good crisis go to waste" whether it's real or fabricated.

Lets say climate change is a real thing though, good. My property in the mountains will be worth more bc it will be much closer to the ocean when the sea levels rise. Perhaps I'll build a bungalow and rent it out to old folks and soccer moms. Plus with the warmer weather I'll be able to Smallmouth fish year round. Only the strong survive!

#1 Yeah there are numerous people more deserving of that award than a 16 yr old shill. Lol! But who cares about Time Magazine?? Maybe Trump, but he's a meglomaniac. What Federal politician isnt? Why not give it to Trump? They gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and he continued 2 wars (Afghanistan & Iraq) and started another 2 over there,(Libya and Yemen) and didnt he bomb the fu*king moon? But did he do all of that, or is the president of the U.S. just middle management these days??

I think it's hard for all of us to fathom how evil our "leaders" really are... Look at 9/11. Building 7? Yeah. They couldn't lead me across the street.

#10 Maybe. But I dont mind reading what everybody has to say. I love this forum bc it is one of the last bastions of free speech on the internet, or in the real world for that matter.

I think it's important that we TRY to see things from every angle. It's hard to do... I'm sure a lot of guys on here think what I just posted is ridiculous. That's ok. I'm basing it on what Ive seen and read. And I've read a lot of left wing and right wing stuff. Sun Tzu taught me to know my enemy. I know I wont vote for a communist, or a fascist, so there's nobody left for me to vote for. That's assuming that you guys still think your vote counts. The way I see it is, the only vote we truly have is with our dollar.

Ok, I'm done for the day. Greta 2020?? CROS?



frankj1 Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
yes, I am your friend!

do I qualify for a reduced rate to rent the mountain H.U.T.?
delta1 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
we won't be around when Greta and her generation (my grandkids) have to confront the realities that we leave them...

most of the denier arguments are propaganda promulgated by the oil and gas industry...

the biggest oil companies all have internal documents acknowledging their culpability in global warming/climate change: an example is having to adjust their plans for future facilities for rising sea level...they are bolstering their risk management programs in anticipation of legal liability.....it'll be interesting to see how the courts will decide...

it's interesting how a lot of folks trust big business more than government, despite ample proof that big business has earned a reputation for screwing the average consumer, screwing the environment and causing world shaking economic upheavals since the beginning of the 20th Century...

growth of govt and govt regulation can be directly related to catastrophes caused by private business excess...latest example of government having to bail out big business was the Great Recession of 2008...
CelticBomber Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
I always trust science claims coming from political ideology! Sure, gigantic glaciers are melting and the migration patterns of entire species have changed but since they don't vote Republican we get a million Officers Barbrady's "Move along people! Nothing to see here!" or it's "Der try'n ta take our jerbs!"
CelticBomber Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
I always trust science claims coming from political ideology! Sure, gigantic glaciers are melting and the migration patterns of entire species have changed but since they don't vote Republican we get a million Officers Barbrady's "Move along people! Nothing to see here!" or it's "Der try'n ta take our jerbs!"
deadeyedick Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 16,961
delta1 wrote:
we won't be around when Greta and her generation (my grandkids) have to confront the realities that we leave them...

most of the denier arguments are propaganda promulgated by the oil and gas industry...

the biggest oil companies all have internal documents acknowledging their culpability in global warming/climate change: an example is having to adjust their plans for future facilities for rising sea level...they are bolstering their risk management programs in anticipation of legal liability.....it'll be interesting to see how the courts will decide...

it's interesting how a lot of folks trust big business more than government, despite ample proof that big business has earned a reputation for screwing the average consumer, screwing the environment and causing world shaking economic upheavals since the beginning of the 20th Century...

growth of govt and govt regulation can be directly related to catastrophes caused by private business excess...latest example of government having to bail out big business was the Great Recession of 2008...


Looks like delta but sounds just like Lizzy. It's all the big corporation's fault. I guess the rest of us have no culpability since we were forced to buy and use their product.
ZRX1200 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Oh gosh Al, I don’t know......maybe it’s because companies have had to pay for damages and government officials are never held accountable.

https://youtu.be/DeCq5EFTcaU
DrMaddVibe Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,309
delta1 wrote:
we won't be around when Greta and her generation (my grandkids) have to confront the realities that we leave them..



Keep yer powder dry and stop drinking the DNC kook-aid.

Manbearpig was proven to be a gigantic frantic scaredy cat with his bag of lies.

https://www.usapoliticstoday.org/scientists-al-gore-liar-climate-change/

At this stage one with common sense would have to look at what he's said that has come to pass.

Seriously, do you ever question what the DNC tells you?
delta1 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
my choice of literature occasionally strays from DNC orthodoxy...


by the way, you may want to check the bona fides of that list of 31K "scientists"
DrMaddVibe Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,309
Not a bonafide. More like a hot knife through table warm butter. Remember the "science" is irrefutable. Can't argue it. They cannot duplicate it either. This should've shown you it was a lie. They were busted for manipulating data, putting collection devices in shallow waters, back zones of major airports just to scare people.
delta1 Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/
MACS Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAN9OwmMiW8
delta1 Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
most cons are anti-government and pro-business...that's understandable, given that our American economy is built on private enterprise...

but private enterprise has a history of being destructive, conniving, and in worst case scenarios, even cons demand that govt. intervene to fix the problems: for example, the Great Depression and Great Recession...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,309
delta1 wrote:

but private enterprise has a history of being destructive, conniving, and in worst case scenarios, even cons demand that govt. intervene to fix the problems: for example, the Great Depression and Great Recession...


Both of those were government at the wheel debacles.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,309
MACS wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAN9OwmMiW8


When they're done shoving this attention whore in our face and she serves no purpose I might feel bad for her.
CelticBomber Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
MACS wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAN9OwmMiW8



I don't think I've heard of this news network. Are they balanced or is it a Republican outlet? Serious question. I agreed with that woman's take on the issue, just wondering if it's something I should add to my subscriptions or are they a conservative version of The Young Turks (I love watching their election night meltdown) type of Youtube news network?


Side note: My initial reaction to that lady was "Wow she's HOT!" then I noticed the WAY overdone makeup. Anyone else turned off by that? There are some really pretty woman who ruin their natural beauty with an inch thick layer of makeup.... it's an immediate turn off for me no matter how pretty the woman is....
MACS Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
It's more conservative than FOX. Also more fair and balanced because she will frequently have people with opposing viewpoints and she lets them speak, and often gives them the last word.

She occasionally sensationalizes, but nothing like FOX or CNN, IMO.
victor809 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
CelticBomber wrote:
I don't think I've heard of this news network. Are they balanced or is it a Republican outlet? Serious question.

No
When trump dumped fox this is the network he chose to bring into the public light because they sucked his butt more.

They have been found lying directly to their viewers a number of times and do not in any way even attempt to rectify their information, in fact they double down when they are shown to be wrong

Macs likes to watch them and use them as a source here. Probably because they give him the news he wants, not the actual information he needs.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
OK, avoiding all the off topic bickering and getting back to dear Greta. She apologized today for saying that we need to put politicians up against a wall. She claims she didn't know what she was saying at the time. I personally feel she's being fed scripts from her handlers and has no idea what she is saying most of the time.

David
Tittums Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
OK, avoiding all the off topic bickering and getting back to dear Greta. She apologized today for saying that we need to put politicians up against a wall. She claims she didn't know what she was saying at the time. I personally feel she's being fed scripts from her handlers and has no idea what she is saying most of the time.

David


Of course she is being fed scripts. Children are good at doing as told when an adult makes them feel like they are on equal ground. This will go away like the Florida kids.

Geta says what, we're all dead in 10 years? AOC says we're dead in 12. Bernie says 11. I say those are all far too long. The nightmare these people envision as their perfect world is one that should die before it's born.

52 trillion for universal healthcare in America. Do you really want to live to see that? I don't.

Meanwhile, when you are bankrupting nations for this green nightmare China is polluting far more than the rest. You are not doing anything for "climate change" "global warming" whatever new phrase poll tests better like "bribery". You want to do something about all this evil pollution? You're going to have to go to war with China, and not some silly trade war but actual war.
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
OK, avoiding all the off topic bickering and getting back to dear Greta. She apologized today for saying that we need to put politicians up against a wall. She claims she didn't know what she was saying at the time. I personally feel she's being fed scripts from her handlers and has no idea what she is saying most of the time.

David


I don't know, her explanation was that it's a literal translation from a swedish idiom. There's apparently a swedish idiom which translated literally means "put them up against a wall" with the connotation of meaning "hold them accountable". The same way we have sayings like "hold their feet to the fire" or "rub your nutsack against their face until they finally are willing to stick their tongue out"...

Now, unfortunately, I cannot get past the noise in the searches right now to see whether this is a common phrase, but it passes an initial sniff test. Seems likely this literally was just a direct translation error, and she is speaking from her own words.
fishinguitarman Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Please tell us more! Everyone respects your opinion because it’s the only right one
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I don't know, her explanation was that it's a literal translation from a swedish idiom. There's apparently a swedish idiom which translated literally means "put them up against a wall" with the connotation of meaning "hold them accountable". The same way we have sayings like "hold their feet to the fire" or "rub your nutsack against their face until they finally are willing to stick their tongue out"...

Now, unfortunately, I cannot get past the noise in the searches right now to see whether this is a common phrase, but it passes an initial sniff test. Seems likely this literally was just a direct translation error, and she is speaking from her own words.



Don't listen to the lynch mob...


victor809 Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Don't listen to the lynch mob...




That's it tail. Cling to ignorance.
tailgater Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
That's it tail. Cling to ignorance.


Victor wants a hug.

opelmanta1900 Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I went to Sweden before and currently live in America's "Swedish Village" so by rule of proximity I'm pretty sure I get final say here...

I'm no fan of Angry Little Debbie, but my Svedish sources have confirmed that "to put someone's back on a wall" is the Swedish equivalent of our "nailing someone down" on something...

Just as the latter is not a reference to crucifixion, the former is not an allusion to assassination... So y'all gotta find another reason to dogpile on this poor little aspbergers child....

She recently slandered a German railway line, I'd start there...
victor809 Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I went to Sweden before and currently live in America's "Swedish Village" so by rule of proximity I'm pretty sure I get final say here...

I'm no fan of Angry Little Debbie, but my Svedish sources have confirmed that "to put someone's back on a wall" is the Swedish equivalent of our "nailing someone down" on something...

Just as the latter is not a reference to crucifixion, the former is not an allusion to assassination... So y'all gotta find another reason to dogpile on this poor little aspbergers child....

She recently slandered a German railway line, I'd start there...


Sorry opel. You need to follow cbid proximity rules. CA is way too far from sweden for you to possibly be correct. I'm guessing a bostonian/ny'er or someone else like that will get the nod.

If you want to fly to sweden and re-post the statement from sweden (or hell, from england) you will probably beat them.
tailgater Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I disagree with her message, but I admire the hell out of her.
delta1 Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
she's only 16, tail...must be those pig-tails, huh?
tailgater Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Not sure why you'd go there.
Did you misunderstand my words? Or are you trying for humor?
Don't bother explaining.





Tittums Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
tailgater wrote:
Not sure why you'd go there.
Did you misunderstand my words? Or are you trying for humor?
Don't bother explaining.


The US is 14% of the world's CO2 emissions. China is 24%. Brave and admirable would be her going to China with her "how dare you" but it would also be suicide. While she is how daring the EU and US China is business as usual.
victor809 Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tittums wrote:
The US is 14% of the world's CO2 emissions. China is 24%. Brave and admirable would be her going to China with her "how dare you" but it would also be suicide. While she is how daring the EU and US China is business as usual.


I mean... if those stats are true (and I have not double checked them), then you answered your own question. Per capita CO2 emissions in the US are significantly higher than China. That would suggest there is more opportunities for improving CO2 emissions.
Tittums Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
victor809 wrote:
I mean... if those stats are true (and I have not double checked them), then you answered your own question. Per capita CO2 emissions in the US are significantly higher than China. That would suggest there is more opportunities for improving CO2 emissions.


I pulled them from Wikipedia so who knows. And yes, per capita we are worse but China is still the largest producer. What happens when the US is magically down to 1% and the EU is down from (I believe it is 8%?) to 1%. China is still going to be a problem.
delta1 Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
there's always the nuclear option...


seriously, when climate change poses existential threats to some nations, armed conflict is certainly a possibility...
Tittums Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
delta1 wrote:
there's always the nuclear option...


seriously, when climate change poses existential threats to some nations, armed conflict is certainly a possibility...


Indeed, there is a nuclear option. But for some reason a lot of progressives are against it. But I am speaking of nuclear power rather than arms.
victor809 Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tittums wrote:
I pulled them from Wikipedia so who knows. And yes, per capita we are worse but China is still the largest producer. What happens when the US is magically down to 1% and the EU is down from (I believe it is 8%?) to 1%. China is still going to be a problem.


If we ever get down that far, then we have that discussion. Until then, "but China" isn't a very effective argument.

Put simply, when our per-capita is higher than theirs, then the solution is either reduce our per capita emissions, or kill off their people (like 50 percent or so... I guess that's about 500 million?)

China's problems are bad, but so far much of it is tied to the enormous population. Our emissions problems are more behavior based, and therefore have some room for improvement.
Tittums Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
victor809 wrote:
If we ever get down that far, then we have that discussion. Until then, "but China" isn't a very effective argument.

Put simply, when our per-capita is higher than theirs, then the solution is either reduce our per capita emissions, or kill off their people (like 50 percent or so... I guess that's about 500 million?)

China's problems are bad, but so far much of it is tied to the enormous population. Our emissions problems are more behavior based, and therefore have some room for improvement.


But as I said above, I want to see nuclear be included with the usual "wind/solar" solution. You rarely hear nuclear as an option. We need options that do not rely on the time of day or if the wind is going to blow.

Hell, here in Florida duke energy is king and they have no interests in nuclear. My power bill would be so much lower I would think?
Sunoverbeach Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,588
You'll rarely see a new nuke plant built because a) cost to build and b) all the permitting required for newly constructed generation. Last one or two I'd heard of were only undertaken because the government subsidized a chunk of it
victor809 Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tittums wrote:
But as I said above, I want to see nuclear be included with the usual "wind/solar" solution. You rarely hear nuclear as an option. We need options that do not rely on the time of day or if the wind is going to blow.

Hell, here in Florida duke energy is king and they have no interests in nuclear. My power bill would be so much lower I would think?


I've been saying for about a decade that we should be building more nuclear power plants. (You are mischaracterizing solar and wind by the way, they aren't as unreliable as you want to imply). I have zero problem with nuclear plants.
Tittums Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
victor809 wrote:
I've been saying for about a decade that we should be building more nuclear power plants. (You are mischaracterizing solar and wind by the way, they aren't as unreliable as you want to imply). I have zero problem with nuclear plants.


And that's why the divide is not as bad as the media wants us to believe. From speaking with you we have a lot to disagree on but nuclear is one we do agree on yet the politicians never talk about it.

I've watched every Dem debate despite being a conservative purely because I want to know what horrors they want to unleash on us. They never mention nuclear when climate change comes up and they don't even talk much about climate change these days. (Maybe that's why Greta stepped up?) Dem's don't want to talk about anything but Trump and now that impeachment is coming to a close they are using silly causes to skip whole debates in protest.
frankj1 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Tittums wrote:
And that's why the divide is not as bad as the media wants us to believe. From speaking with you we have a lot to disagree on but nuclear is one we do agree on yet the politicians never talk about it.

I've watched every Dem debate despite being a conservative purely because I want to know what horrors they want to unleash on us. They never mention nuclear when climate change comes up and they don't even talk much about climate change these days. (Maybe that's why Greta stepped up?) Dem's don't want to talk about anything but Trump and now that impeachment is coming to a close they are using silly causes to skip whole debates in protest.

honestly, I haven't kept up to date on nuke power for awhile, but I don't recall the waste problem ever being reasonably and safely addressed
Tittums Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
I love talking about solutions candidates won't. Just recently I found one of my dads old USB keys and it had instructions for how to fuel propane-powered vehicles. He was an inspector for the state so I am not surprised he had to deal with this. A quick google shows it's lower carbon. I didn't look up mileage but I am guessing it would be better than electric? Converting existing vehicles is also cheaper than buying a new electric car.
frankj1 Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I disagree with her message, but I admire the hell out of her.

I believe you.
Regardless of message, she deserves admiration.
At her age it was a pain in the butt to turn off the light when I left a room.

Opel only touched on it, but it has been reported that she has Asperger's which would or could certainly account for her lacking social comfort or any indication of a sense of warmth or humor.
Add in her speaking in a second (or third) language...
delta1 Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Tittums wrote:
Indeed, there is a nuclear option. But for some reason a lot of progressives are against it. But I am speaking of nuclear power rather than arms.


I can't speak for anybody else, but I've changed my mind regarding the viability of nuclear power as an alternative...

it's been around for about 50 years, and have already accounted for many irremediable environmental disasters, rendering large areas unlivable...

waste product from nuclear plants can not be safely disposed, given our current technology, and will be a danger to, and outlive, the human race by millions of years...
delta1 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
frankj1 wrote:
I believe you.
Regardless of message, she deserves admiration.
At her age it was a pain in the butt to turn off the light when I left a room.

Opel only touched on it, but it has been reported that she has Asperger's which would or could certainly account for her lacking social comfort or any indication of a sense of warmth or humor.
Add in her speaking in a second (or third) language...


now, compared to this thoughtful dialogue, I feel even worse about my joking and crass response to tail's post......

geez ... thanks, Frank
victor809 Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
delta1 wrote:
I can't speak for anybody else, but I've changed my mind regarding the viability of nuclear power as an alternative...

it's been around for about 50 years, and have already accounted for many irremediable environmental disasters, rendering large areas unlivable...
to be fair, so have a lot of other energy sources... oil/coal are clear problems in that regard. And I remember some group did calculations on solar/wind and based on those calculations (older, so probably efficiency has improved) we simply don't have the land available to supplant fossil fuels with just wind/solar.

Quote:

waste product from nuclear plants can not be safely disposed, given our current technology, and will be a danger to, and outlive, the human race by millions of years...
That's just a negative way of saying "leaving a legacy behind". Formerly fissile material will just be the new collectors item of the year 3000.
frankj1 Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
what about hydropower where practical?
victor809 Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
There are negative consequences to hydropower. I think it's great, but we are changing the flow of a river in an enormous way. We can't pretend that doesn't have an ecological impact.
Now, to be fair, the way the US runs nuclear plants, I think we use rivers for cooling the towers as well, so we have a huge impact on the local waterways when we do that (raised temperature, reduced flow etc)

Nothing is perfect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to use a combination of the best energy sources we are technologically able to use. If we were a truly logical society we would honestly tabulate the risks and damages of each technology and use a mixed basket of all of them, weighted to risk of disaster, long term impacts of use etc. But we've never been logical, or smart.
frankj1 Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
victor809 wrote:
There are negative consequences to hydropower. I think it's great, but we are changing the flow of a river in an enormous way. We can't pretend that doesn't have an ecological impact.
Now, to be fair, the way the US runs nuclear plants, I think we use rivers for cooling the towers as well, so we have a huge impact on the local waterways when we do that (raised temperature, reduced flow etc)

Nothing is perfect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to use a combination of the best energy sources we are technologically able to use. If we were a truly logical society we would honestly tabulate the risks and damages of each technology and use a mixed basket of all of them, weighted to risk of disaster, long term impacts of use etc. But we've never been logical, or smart.

if truly logical, instead of being owned by the corporations vying for the biz?

also, this is like the 3rd post in as many days in which you say "to be fair". What's up with that? HA!

also part deux, don't you hate it that tittums turned out to be a bright, knowledgeable, and nice conservative noob?
victor809 Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
frankj1 wrote:
if truly logical, instead of being owned by the corporations vying for the biz?

also, this is like the 3rd post in as many days in which you say "to be fair". What's up with that? HA!

also part deux, don't you hate it that tittums turned out to be a bright, knowledgeable, and nice conservative noob?


You're right. I've been using "to be fair" too often recently. I think it's becoming something of a "tick".
Jury's still out on Tittums (why has NOBODY given him a new name welcome??!?!?) but he's had some good posts and some questionable posts.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>