OMG - Just in from Pensacola - TRAGIC!

[susano]

You can't abolish something a majority of people believe in. You can only challenge it and that takes courage.

I'm doing my individual best

 

[ClayTrainor]

This has nothing to do with private property and everything to do with tragedy of the commons.

This has everything to do with lack of respect for private property rights. Common ownership ensures that no one is motivated to care for the property/land correctly.

Industries and individuals with a vested economic interest in the Gulf resources (fishing industries, Coastal Dwellers, Beach owners, etc) should own and regulate the gulf, not the government. They could calculate the risks of oil drilling, based on everyone who has a stake in that property, instead of expecting some massive unaccountable bureacracy (the state) to micromanage all of it, on everyones behalf. More private property rights in the Gulf would have encouraged supervision, caution, proper bargaining, and full assessment of risks before moving forward.

We all share the oceans, and only governments can collaborate and regulate the 'commons' to stop the destruction of those oceans and its marine life that inhabits it.

We all share the land, and only governments can collaborate and regulate the 'commons' to stop the destruction of that land and the wild life that inhabits it. How is your logic any different, or do you share the same views on land and water ownership?

Also, Do you recognize the role that the government played in causing this BP oil spill? They forced BP to drill in a high risk area, when there were plenty of lower risk places to drill...

It's interesting to me that you think this organization that has proven its incompetence on multiple occasions, is the "only" solution. Why is this?

 

[Captain Shays]

If somebody could figure out a way to make it into usable fuel huge markets would open up for people to come down and get enough cheap fuel to heat their homes next winter. There would be a mad rush down to the beach to clean it up solving two problems at once. Either that entity could make money by selling their invention or they could do the conversion and sell the usable end product. Either way, there is so much "energy" washing up on those beaches its a shame to let it go to waste. "Waste" meaning some landfill or a huge pile where it just sits til BP heats hell a little hotter when their sorry asses die. Why not burn it to heat homes or produce electricity? That way it will be a huge motivator for people to clean it up faster and more effectively.

In the meantime we should all do a reverse boycott of BP and everyone buy their gas. We need to keep them in business so they don't go belly up and so they'll have enough money to continue to clean up their mess.

 

[klamath]

If somebody could figure out a way to make it into usable fuel huge markets would open up for people to come down and get enough cheap fuel to heat their homes next winter. There would be a mad rush down to the beach to clean it up solving two problems at once. Either that entity could make money by selling their invention or they could do the conversion and sell the usable end product. Either way, there is so much "energy" washing up on those beaches its a shame to let it go to waste. "Waste" meaning some landfill or a huge pile where it just sits til BP heats hell a little hotter when their sorry asses die. Why not burn it to heat homes or produce electricity? That way it will be a huge motivator for people to clean it up faster and more effectively.

In the meantime we should all do a reverse boycott of BP and everyone buy their gas. We need to keep them in business so they don't go belly up and so they'll have enough money to continue to clean up their mess.

If I lived on the gulf I would be gathering that stuff up in all the 55 gallon drums I could find. I bet I could crack at least a certain percentage of diesel and gas from it with a crude refinery. If the stuff is free and floating on the bayou it would pay to do it small scale.
I bet if someone started making and selling small cheap refineries to people down there the government would shut them down because the refineries didn't meet EPA regulations.

 

[Number19]

As someone living in the Houston area ( BP's Texas City's Refinary explosion ), I'm well aware of BP's history. But their practices are not all that much out of the norm for the industry. The government regulates, controls and has oversight responsibility. Corporations, just like people, do no more than is necessary to comply with the law. To do otherwise is not profitable, or practical.

Deep water drilling is pushing the limits of technology. An accident happened - BP is not "evil". In today's business climate, American industry does have a short sightedness toward immediate profitability and this is what often drives decision making. But this is not "evil". It's simply the way American culture has shaped corporate policy. As pointed out, it's an industrial/governmental complex.

I get it. It's an environmental disaster. But starting at day +1, everyone in the business has been doing everything possible to bring this under control. So what's the point of continually attacking BP?

Most. if not all, of the regulars at RPF are working to change government. But we desire smaller, less intrusive government. BP should not be the target, what's the point, but rather the government should be.

 

[Number19]

...As far as comparing oil to feces, one of the main concerns of pollution for rivers, lakes and streams is agricultural runoff. In other words feces. Both feces and oil are biodegradable. Both feces and oil are pollution when they are in the wrong place. I'm not sure what the effect of millions of gallons of feces would be on the Gulf but I assume it wouldn't be pretty. And as far as "rights" are concerned, you don't have a right to empty your septic tank in someone else's stream either.

An interesting side note - the worst pollution affecting health in 1900 New York City was "horse shit". The new fangled technology of the "horseless carriage" was a major advance in the improvement of living in metropolitan cities.

 

[jmdrake]

When BP starting using the dispersant, Corexit, the EPA told them to stop. BP said no and the EPA backed off. Are you one of the people who wants the government to back off from business? If so, that's what they did. BP alos wanted safety exemptions on the Deepwater Horizon project, and they got them. Government backed off and left it to BP who assured that a blowout was a near impossiblity and that they had it all covered should any emergency occur. because I know that government and corporations are one beast, you won't see me arguing for more power for either faction. They are both colossal fuck ups and totally corrupt. I will post a couple of articles, at the end of this post, about how the administration had deferred to BP.

Ummmm...that's got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not BP wants to use Kenaf. While the dispersant BP is using might not be on the top of the EPA's list, it is an approved dispersant. Kenaf hasn't been approved AT ALL. And you have given zero evidence that BP was against Kenaf's approval. Besides BP isn't the only group out there trying to clean up the spill. Local governments and state governments could be using Kenaf right now if not for the federal government being in the way.

On the non toxic fixes, there have been many news reports and interviews, with entrpreneurs who have contated both BP and the feds, to no avail. It's not the EPA took a position one way or the other. These remedies and the people offering them are simply ignored. I read an article that contained an interview with one of the operators at a BP call center where people are supposed to contact the company about such products. Turns out the call centers are all for show. The phone calls are not recorded or passed on and the faxes go straight to the trash. In the video posted a couple of pages back, with the lady from Louisiana, she said BP calls this "ponies and balloons". That's what the BP call center is.

Are these people contacting Bobby Jindal? Obama set up a website. Last I heard they'd received over 38,000 "suggestions". Good luck wading through all of that and separating the wheat from the chaff. And anything that gets proposed has to go through an "environmental impact study". When Bobby Jindal wanted to build sand berms to keep the oil out of the marshes he was hampered by the EPA that insisted on doing an "environmental impact study".

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/state_officials_say_they_wont.html

So let's say BP got as many suggestions as Obama (38,000). Let's assume 10% were actually good ideas. That's still potentially 3,800 environmental impact studies that have to be done before anybody can do anything.

Now maybe it would be nice if BP actually read the faxes before sending of to the EPA who would then sit on them for two years to do their stupid study. But again this simply shows how the federal government doing nothing but getting in the way and it's getting in the way in the name of "protecting the environment". A governor simply should not way for some stupid bean counter to give him approval for what he should do to protect his state from oil. Jindal should have said "Screw you EPA! If you don't like it arrest me." and gone ahead and built the berms. Same for using Kenaf.

I don't claim the right to pollute a stream. That would be some other posters. The topic of what is pollution (a bear shitting in the woods is not, the waste from a factory farm is) is an interesting one, but needs it's own thread.

Fair enough.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, I forgot the articles about who has the control.

At yesterday's State Department briefing, spokesman P.J. Crowley updated reporters on the offers of international assistance the Department has received to help with the oil spill in the Gulf.

He said the U.S. has received offers to assist from 17 countries and four international organizations. The countries are : Canada, Mexico, Korea, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and Vietnam. The organizations are : the European Union, including the European Maritime Safety Agency, the environmental unit of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the United Nations Environment Program and the International Maritime Organization.

Though the State Department receives the offers, it is BP and the Unified Area Command, led by the Coast Guard, that are the entities that decide which offers to accept. So far, the UAC has accepted skimmers and booms offered by Mexico and Norway. He deferred questions as to why only those offers had been accepted so far to the UAC in Louisiana.

Ummmmm....the State Department and the Coast Guard both fall under the same commander in chief. And if you don't know who that is ask General McKrystal.

It's in the administration's best interest not to let other countries in to help because that makes us look like a third world banana republic that can't handle their business. Not sure how that helps BP.

PolitiFact Confirms NewsBusters Claim Donna Brazile Misrepresented Oil Pollution Act

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound in 1989. The law was designed to better coordinate the government response to a major oil event, and to set penalties for companies responsible. It was approved by Congress and signed into law on Aug. 18, 1990.

In general, it gives the president more authority in an oil event, not less.

"When responding to a spill, many considered the lines of responsibility under the pre-OPA regime to be unclear, with too much reliance on spillers to perform proper cleanup," according to a Congressional Research Service report. "OPA strengthened and clarified the federal government's role in oil spill response and cleanup."

Yeah. Well I wish he'd use that presidential authority to fastrack approval of Kenaf. I wish he'd use it to tell the tree huggers at the EPA to go jump in a oil filled lake when they drug their feet on approving Bobby Jindal's request to build sand berms to keep out the oil. And last, I don't think a "bigger more powerful federal government" is in the long term best interest of this country. I didn't think that was the case for fighting terrorism. I think the federal government got in the way in the Katrina aftermath. I think they're getting in the way now.

The Oil Pollution Act included amendments to the Clean Water Act to provide the president three options in the wake of an oil event, the Congressional Research Service concluded. The president could:

Perform cleanup immediately ("federalize" the spill);
Monitor the response efforts of the spiller;
Or, direct the spiller's cleanup activities.
The Environmental Protection Agency describes the OPA this way:

"The OPA improved the nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government's ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills."

Yeah. This is the same EPA that's dragging it's feet on Kenaf and drug its feet on oil berms. The EPA should be drug by its feet through the streets.

Here we have BP and the Coast Guard threatening to arrest a CBS news crew. The Coast Guard says that BP in charge, not them:

YouTube - Oil Spill - CBS Threatened With Arrest For Filming The Oil Spill

And the answer to this problem is to give the federal government more power?

And this is an article on the back and forth between the EPA and BP over the use of Corexit. I see this as merely a squabble between players inside the same beast. The EPA "requested" and BP said no, and they're still using Corexit:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1




Anyway, it takes a long to go digging up these articles and videos. Anyone can search Google and Youtube for the facts of what has and is going on. The US gov't has hardly tied BP's hands. In fact, they have enabled them by letting them do whatever they want to, including threaten Americans on American soil and waters. The reason for that is because THEY ARE ONE BEAST.

Correction. They are CONTROLLED by one beast! And that beast wants more power. And that beast is successfully manipulating well meaning people into giving them more power by conning them into believe that BP is in control when it really isn't. Neither is Obama for that matter. The federal government represents a single point of failure. Or rather a single point of control. If the beast had to pay off Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc it would have a hard time maintaining control. Now it just has to pay off key people inside the fed.

 

[jmdrake]

I made the point that regulation is what rendered human excrement a controlled substance and effectively caused more destruction than it solved. We crap in our drinking water and then gripe about water shortages. Go figure...

Try to compost your poop in most areas and you will be run out of town with people hysterical about the pollution it causes .

Ironically people want to take a 'tude with me each with their own assumption of my stance on matters. Folks here need to relax and lighten up a bit.

Ok. I see your point. As for 'tude, this thread is full of it. I thought I was being nice in my response to you. Guess not.

 

[susano]

And the answer to this problem is to give the federal government more power?


Not sure why you're asking me that, jmdrake, as I have made it clear that both the federal gov't and corporations should be abolished.

I posted the information about the adminstration giving authority to BP just to show this is a government-corporate collusion, not just government. I know full who the Commander in Chief is and he is the one who had to give the orders for the Coast Guard to act as BP's goons.

There is a tendency, on this board, to lean toward government - bad, business - good. I don't see it that way. I say gov't and corporations are one animal and both are the enemy.

If you want to get into who controls the puppets in gov't and corporations, we'd have to have a good conspiracy thread. While I think that, ultimately, it is a non human entity or entities at the top of the pyramid, I try to stick to the more wordly when I post here. On that level, it's banksters, corporations and NGOs who control the politicians, because it is they who have the money and nearly all politicians are whores to the highest bidder.

You will not find anyone who hates government more than I do. I just also happen to hate the corporations who own government, as well. That's where I part company with some of the members here, who practically get a hard on at the idea of corporations running free. To think that corporations are somehow separate from gov't is as absurd as buying into the two party illusion.

 

[charrob]

This has everything to do with lack of respect for private property rights. Common ownership ensures that no one is motivated to care for the property/land correctly.

ahhh, but you deceive yourself. All it takes is to look at what the "owner" allowed to happen to mile after mile of ancient redwood forest in northern Ca., or to the "owner" who allowed the last tree on Easter Island to be cut down. If $ is involved, an owner can be just as environmentally uncaring (and in many cases more uncaring) than a government...because quick $ is a strong motivation that many people cannot turn their backs on despite whether the consequences to the environment are harmful. in fact, i'd venture to say an owner can be more uncaring because unless the government is in bed with the corporation for $ or votes, the government would at the very least be impartial, and at the very most environmentally responsible. The problem was not that we had government regulation, the problem was that government regulation was ignored by an agency that was corrupted by Bush (and now Obama) corporate cronies.

re: all those that have a "stake" in the property include everyone who goes to the beach every summer....all those who love to swim....all those who love to see and learn about marine life... in other words, "all" of us minus the $ whores who only see the environment as something to make money out of.

More private property rights in the Gulf would have encouraged supervision, caution, proper bargaining, and full assessment of risks before moving forward.

that depends on the owners, and owners can, and have been, bought and bribed with quick $ despite the longterm consequences and detriment for the rest of us who love and value the oceans for esoteric reasons unrelated to money. The answer is not to get rid of government but to make government better and destroy cronyism.

Also, Do you recognize the role that the government played in causing this BP oil spill? They forced BP to drill in a high risk area, when there were plenty of lower risk places to drill...

Shallow Water Drilling Is Dangerous Too

Last Thursday, the President announced that he was imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling activities for 6 months, until his Presidential Commission has issued its final report examining the root causes that led to the Gulf oil spill disaster, and recommendations to address those problems.

This is an important first step, and NRDC applauds this decision. However, the President has limited the moratorium to deepwater drilling activities, meaning that new shallow-water drilling activities are allowed to proceed (with the exception of the suspended leases in the Arctic). Carol Browner appeared on Meet the Press Sunday morning, and defended this approach by inferring that it would somehow be easier to address a spill if it occurred in shallow waters: “I think on the shallow waters, the distinction is you can get to the wellhead if something goes wrong in shallow water, and you can--there's mechanisms to shut that down.”

But this is flawed logic. The President has acknowledged that the system regulating offshore drilling operations is broken. A broken system could lead to additional failures, regardless of the depth of water in which drilling occurs. Second, shallow-water drilling is not low-risk, and Australia’s offshore oil disaster last summer is proof of that. Finally, the oil industry has proven it cannot contain a spill, which could prove even more problematic to our coasts in shallow water.

The Administration just today approved a new oil well in shallow-water in the Gulf of Mexico, even as BP continues to fumble their attempts to control the gusher that is poisoning Gulf waters, destroying marine life and livelihoods. This move only adds insult to injury. The President must expand his moratorium on all new offshore drilling activities for these reasons:

#1) We do not know what it takes to drill safely

First, the industry and the government do not know what led to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The President has appointed a Commission to investigate and make recommendations that address the technical, regulatory and ethical failures that led to this tragic accident. The President and members of his Administration continually point to the Commission as the key to providing the answers of what it takes to drill safely. While failure of the blow-out preventer and “cozy relationships” between the industry and its federal regulators are undoubtedly a part of the problem, the Commission is likely to unearth further deficiencies. Until we know what all of these deficiencies are, it is dangerous to assume they only apply to deepwater drilling.

#2) Shallow-water drilling is not low-risk

Shallow-water drilling is characterized as drilling in 500 feet of water or less. While it is true that it is much easier to operate at 500 feet as compared to, say, 5,000 feet, this difference doesn’t necessarily make responding to a blow-out event any easier. Just last summer, a blow-out occurred on the ********Montara rig, which was situated in 240 feet of water, off Australia’s coast. The well gushed oil for over 10 weeks, depositing millions of gallons of oil that eventually covered nearly 25,000 square miles of seas. The Thai-based company tried four different attempts to cap the well. In the end, the only thing that stopped the leak was drilling a relief well.

#3) The industry clearly does not have adequate containment and clean-up capabilities

As anyone watching the news recently can tell you, the oil industry does not have the ability to contain a major spill. Despite having two weeks of lead time to prepare for oil from the Deepwater Horizon well to hit shore, the industry failed to protect the country’s most fragile marshlands and valuable beaches. Boom is ineffective. It needs constant maintenance to ensure it doesn’t wash ashore, lose air or break apart. And that’s in ideal weather conditions. Add some wind and waves, and the booms lose all ability to stop or contain oil. Furthermore, how are booms sitting on top of the water supposed to stop oil that has been dispersed into the water column? They can’t.

Burning and skimming are equally problematic in that these techniques only clean-up a tiny fraction of the oil, and that’s just the oil on the surface of the water. They do nothing for the giant oil plumes found underwater. And we’ve all watched in dismay as top-kill, junk-shot, top-hat and other shoot-from-the-hip techniques fail to plug the oil gusher. The worst part of it is these shoddy efforts are considered “proven techniques” that multiple oil companies have cited when they gained approval to drill. As Greenwire reports today:

“BP Exploration and Production told federal regulators it had "proven equipment and technology" to deal with deepwater spills like the one billowing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It didn't. Still, the Minerals Management Service took the company's word for it. But BP isn't the only company to offer such blithe, and some say false, assurances. Most of the three dozen or so companies that kept drilling in deep water in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon rig sank got their regulatory approvals based on documents stating they could easily mop up spills, even gushers many times the stated size of the BP spill. But there's no indication they have any better method than BP.”

Additionally, shallow-water drilling usually occurs much closer to shore than deepwater wells. Imagine if the Deepwater Horizon rig was 5 miles off shore, rather than 50 miles. The impact to Gulf states would be even worse than it is now, and the failures of the industry’s containment and clean-up efforts would be even more obvious.

The President should not make the mistake that shallow-water drilling is somehow less of a risk to our oceans and coasts. Until we have a better handle on what it takes to drill safely, the President’s moratorium should cover all new drilling activities, no matter the water depth.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rnelson/shallow-water_drilling_is_dang.html

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

ahhh, but you deceive yourself. All it takes is to look at what the "owner" allowed to happen to mile after mile of ancient redwood forest in northern Ca., or to the "owner" who allowed the last tree on Easter Island to be cut down. If $ is involved, an owner can be just as environmentally uncaring (and in many cases more uncaring) than a government...because quick $ is a strong motivation that many people cannot turn their backs on despite whether the consequences to the environment are harmful. in fact, i'd venture to say an owner can be more uncaring because unless the government is in bed with the corporation for $ or votes, the government would at the very least be impartial, and at the very most environmentally responsible. The problem was not that we had government regulation, the problem was that government regulation was ignored by an agency that was corrupted by Bush (and now Obama) corporate cronies.

re: all those that have a "stake" in the property include everyone who goes to the beach every summer....all those who love to swim....all those who love to see and learn about marine life... in other words, "all" of us minus the $ whores who only see the environment as something to make money out of.



that depends on the owners, and owners can, and have been, bought and bribed with quick $ despite the longterm consequences and detriment for the rest of us who love and value the oceans for esoteric reasons unrelated to money. The answer is not to get rid of government but to make government better and destroy cronyism.

Put your money and energy where your mouth is.

Become the owner by partnering up with people who want to preserve the environment. Start a boycott with other people who share your values. Be an entrepreneur of consumer reporting on companies who do not uphold your values.

However I do not need to subsidize your values nor am I going to tolerate a threat of force to subsidize your values.

Religious analogy: Standing before God

I noticed you spent most of your money and time on yourself.

How do you plea?

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Jobs!, jobs!, jobs!

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

June 23, 2010
Eco-Theatre

Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 23, 2010 11:55 AM

A wildlife biologist visiting my town is “saving birds” in the oil spill, as he did after the Exxon Valdez leak. When the media is around, he and his colleagues are seen carefully cleaning birds, though this is virtually always futile. When the media are absent, they simply twist the poor animals necks, since they are dying. The whole business costs about $5,000 per bird.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60128.html

Total BULLSHIT!

-t

 

[jmdrake]

And the answer to this problem is to give the federal government more power?


Not sure why you're asking me that, jmdrake, as I have made it clear that both the federal gov't and corporations should be abolished.

I posted the information about the adminstration giving authority to BP just to show this is a government-corporate collusion, not just government. I know full who the Commander in Chief is and he is the one who had to give the orders for the Coast Guard to act as BP's goons.

There is a tendency, on this board, to lean toward government - bad, business - good. I don't see it that way. I say gov't and corporations are one animal and both are the enemy.

If you want to get into who controls the puppets in gov't and corporations, we'd have to have a good conspiracy thread. While I think that, ultimately, it is a non human entity or entities at the top of the pyramid, I try to stick to the more wordly when I post here. On that level, it's banksters, corporations and NGOs who control the politicians, because it is they who have the money and nearly all politicians are whores to the highest bidder.

You will not find anyone who hates government more than I do. I just also happen to hate the corporations who own government, as well. That's where I part company with some of the members here, who practically get a hard on at the idea of corporations running free. To think that corporations are somehow separate from gov't is as absurd as buying into the two party illusion.

Fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just misunderstood. That said, do you think it's possible that you misunderstood others you attacked as "assholes" or "defenders of corporations"?

As for who's really pulling the strings, I agree that both the government and BP are puppets in the grand scheme of things. But ask yourself this. 1) Who do you think is controlling the media? 2) Do you think the media has been "defending" BP or attacking? I think the answers to both of those questions are quite obvious.

 

[moostraks]

Ok. I see your point. As for 'tude, this thread is full of it. I thought I was being nice in my response to you. Guess not.

The previous response came off like I was some pointless schmuck. I think people are paranoid, and with good right since this is going to be used against us all the while being exploited to cause as much harm to people and the environment until we agree with the environmental proposals of the administration.

 

[moostraks]

Fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just misunderstood. That said, do you think it's possible that you misunderstood others you attacked as "assholes" or "defenders of corporations"?

As for who's really pulling the strings, I agree that both the government and BP are puppets in the grand scheme of things. But ask yourself this. 1) Who do you think is controlling the media? 2) Do you think the media has been "defending" BP or attacking? I think the answers to both of those questions are quite obvious.

What's your take on the media coverage? From what I hear it seems to be handwringing over what BP has been forced to do due to America's ferocious appetite for oil. If they mention the cut corners at all it seems that it coincides with terms of necessity.

Now granted I hear it from NPR (I listen to classical music and this is the station left on in the kitchen so I hear it in passing as I am doing chores in/through there). I get the rest of my news from online sources which I pick and choose so I am not seeing the msm full spectrum assault. I am aghast that NPR has yet, to my knowledge, to cover the administration turning away help. So I do see them painting the administration in a favorable light.

So in short, my take is the media is protecting the corporate and the political interests.( Which appears par for the course...)

 

[DjLoTi]

I'm doing my individual best

Susano, thank you so much for going out there and taking pictures. I posted them on my profile so that other people could see. It's important that we have raw footage. Thank you again, what you're doing is very important. I don't live in Pensacola anymore but I'm very interested in the health of our beaches! I'm a beach kind of guy lol! =P

I'm well aware of BP's history. But their practices are not all that much out of the norm for the industry.

BP should not be the target, what's the point, but rather the government should be.

I agree that BP should not be the 'target', but I think instead of the government being blamed, I think we should blame corporatism (the industry). See what I'm sayin? =)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Total BULLSHIT!

-t

Is it?

I could say just the opposite.

 

[puppetmaster]

I vow never to read another thread where the title begins with, or contains the letters....OMG