Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[angelofdeath]

"standing up for the environment, being for banning drilling in alaska, being for holding big oil co mpanies accountable for the crimes they commited... how are you gonna claim that's in any way "red"?

 

because i care about the earth, and i support people that do, that makes me and them communist?"

 

pretty much. nearly all greens are outright socialists, hate private property and hate human beings. they say things about how things 'start to look up' when all the humans disappear. big oil could be held accountable if we actually enforced property rights. and banning drilling in alaska? lets see 2% less area for caribou, and vastly decreased reliance on foreign oil and lower gas prices. seems like a no brainer. what possible harm would come from drilling in the alaskan tundra? one thing i have noticed about most so called 'environmentalists.' they all live in the city, dont really like the outdoors other than going to the state parks, have never really been to the country, and they think all people who live out of the city to be inbred hicks.

 

most people in the country take far better care of thier acres than do most environmentalists in the city. let me give you a for instance about what the federal government did to my family. during the depression. they took nearly 500 acres. paid them 19$ an acre to create a national forest in appalachia. what did they do after that? they created a 'rattle snake' santuary about 1/2 mile from thier remaining 300 acres and their property was swarming with rattle snakes, biting horses, cows, kids, etc. then a couple years later, they created the coyote santuary. now their farm animals were being destroyed by coyotes and it was illegal to protect your property.

 

so lets see, taking land with hardly just compensation and turning it into public government owned land, then not allowing property owners to protect their own property. sounds pretty communistic to me.

 

i care about the earth much more than most so called environmentalists. the only way to protect the earth is through property rights and courts and laws that allow property rights to be enforced.

[lord_casek]

libertarian

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html

 

 

become a delegate

http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/becomedelegate.html

[Juan Fuentes]

i just now heard this...

the title says it all.

here's the link

 

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul

 

lets push for this option, because alone we will not get anything. lets take the example of our enemies that because of their unity are strong.

[lord_casek]

i just now heard this...

the title says it all.

here's the link

 

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul

 

lets push for this option, because alone we will not get anything. lets take the example of our enemies that because of their unity are strong.

 

i don't know about kucinich. their views are almost polar opposite. he even says it in that interview, right?

[ohefdubs]

so a question about ol' Ron, since i'm far too lazy right now to actually research it myself. i know dude is big time pro-life, where does eh stand on roe v. wade? would he let it stay as it is, or would he try to overturn it?

 

also, he's very anti-environment, which honestly, everyone should be concerned about. and supporting a constitutional amendment on school prayer? what about separation of church and state? banning gay adoptions in DC? there's jsut a few things that seem kinda suspect to me.

 

Kucinich is the way to go, unfortunately neither he or Ron Paul really stand enough of a chance.

 

kucinich is a friggggen clown

 

i think he think roe v wade is a states issue ???

whats seperate of church and state ?????

how does that effect you???

[xrebelheartsx]

"standing up for the environment, being for banning drilling in alaska, being for holding big oil co mpanies accountable for the crimes they commited... how are you gonna claim that's in any way "red"?

 

because i care about the earth, and i support people that do, that makes me and them communist?"

 

pretty much. nearly all greens are outright socialists, hate private property and hate human beings. they say things about how things 'start to look up' when all the humans disappear. big oil could be held accountable if we actually enforced property rights. and banning drilling in alaska? lets see 2% less area for caribou, and vastly decreased reliance on foreign oil and lower gas prices. seems like a no brainer. what possible harm would come from drilling in the alaskan tundra? one thing i have noticed about most so called 'environmentalists.' they all live in the city, dont really like the outdoors other than going to the state parks, have never really been to the country, and they think all people who live out of the city to be inbred hicks.

 

most people in the country take far better care of thier acres than do most environmentalists in the city. let me give you a for instance about what the federal government did to my family. during the depression. they took nearly 500 acres. paid them 19$ an acre to create a national forest in appalachia. what did they do after that? they created a 'rattle snake' santuary about 1/2 mile from thier remaining 300 acres and their property was swarming with rattle snakes, biting horses, cows, kids, etc. then a couple years later, they created the coyote santuary. now their farm animals were being destroyed by coyotes and it was illegal to protect your property.

 

so lets see, taking land with hardly just compensation and turning it into public government owned land, then not allowing property owners to protect their own property. sounds pretty communistic to me.

 

i care about the earth much more than most so called environmentalists. the only way to protect the earth is through property rights and courts and laws that allow property rights to be enforced.

 

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

 

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

 

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

 

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.

[Seffiks]

come on people ron paul is not going anywhere quit supporting his ass. good day

[lord_casek]

come on people ron paul is not going anywhere quit supporting his ass. good day

 

 

 

 

won almost every straw poll, raised a ton of money, supporters all over.....he is going somewhere.

[lord_casek]

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

 

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

 

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

 

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.

 

 

those sanctuaries are just a way to steal land. you need to do some more research.

[xrebelheartsx]

kucinich is a friggggen clown

 

i think he think roe v wade is a states issue ???

whats seperate of church and state ?????

how does that effect you???

 

he believes that abortions should always be legal, and that supreme court nominees must agree to uphold roe v wade. my one issue with kucinich is that he was pro-life up until right before the 2004 election, then changed his stance on it entirely.

 

separation of church and state is just what it sounds like: keep religion and government (and government run/funded programs like public school) away from each other. it effects me because it's written in the first amendment of the constitution. basically, ron paul is in support of teaching values in public schools, which in itself is not bad at all, but he's amongst the group of people that think the more children are exposed to prayer, the ten commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are. now, i'm not saying this is wrong, but keep it out of the schools. that's why we have the 1st amendment.

 

again, it doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on me, other than the fact that it goes against the constitution.

 

 

and for the record casek, i don't think anyone in the current field is particularly qualified to run the country. not a single fucking one of them.

[xrebelheartsx]

those sanctuaries are just a way to steal land. you need to do some more research.

 

 

maybe i didn't make myself entirely clear, or maybe you misread what i wrote. in either case, i agree on that part. what i'm saying is the land that we currently have set aside as reserves, refuges, sanctuaries, etc. needs to be protected. i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private.

[lord_casek]

ron paul is the most pro constitution candidate out there. he doesn't want church to interfere with school, you are wrong, but he does hold strong moral values.

 

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?

 

* HUCKABEE: Yes.

* TANCREDO: Yes.

* COX: Yes.

* BROWNBACK: Yes.

* PAUL: Yes.

* HUNTER: Yes.

* KEYES: Yes.

 

 

 

Q: I'm 17, and I'm the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs?

 

* HUCKABEE: Yes.

* TANCREDO: Yes.

* COX: Yes.

* BROWNBACK: Yes.

* PAUL: Yes.

* HUNTER: Yes.

* KEYES: Yes.

[lord_casek]

The first amendment is about complete and total federal non-intervention in any religious topic whatsoever. That means if a school wants to pray, Congress can say nothing. If they want to ban it, Congress can say nothing.

[xrebelheartsx]

casek, seems to me based on the info listed on the ontheissues page, that he's in favor of prayer in public schools. if i'm wrong about that, i'm wrong.

[lord_casek]

The War On religion

by Dr. Ron Paul

 

 

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

 

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

 

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

 

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

 

 

 

 

 

btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?

revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,

no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc

[xrebelheartsx]

^ yeah, i'm fully aware of how intertwined religion and government were at the beginning of the US, and they still are to a degree.

[lord_casek]

^ yeah, i'm fully aware of how intertwined religion and government were at the beginning of the US, and they still are to a degree.

 

and do you not think it's a bad thing that religion is being stripped from our schools?

students not allowed to pray before football games, no more christmas plays, etc?

i'm not even a christian and i think it's a bad thing.

 

look at the pledge of allegiance...God is gone from it if the liberal assfaces have their way.

that is our pledge of allegiance to our country. "god" is not defined as "christian god",

 

 

 

 

"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)

 

Thomas Jefferson

[xrebelheartsx]

i don't necessarily think that religion being entirely removed from schools is a bad thing. there's a time and place for everything, and i just don't think that the time for religion is when kids are in school, i also don't think the place for it is said school.

 

it's a touchy subject. i don't think praying before football games should be banned, but by the same token, i don't agree with teacher-led prayer.

 

as far as the pledge, it's also a pledge of allegiance to the US government, which is something i know you're not exactly in favor of(don't misread that as me calling you anarchistic in any way, i simply know you're not in favor of the way the government is being run right now).

 

religion and school is a very slippery slope. it's hard to say "ok, you can do this but not this", so it's almost like you have to be completely for it, or completely against it. does that make any sense? i'm a little out of it today, so sorry if it's not coming out clearly.

[lord_casek]

sure, it makes sense. to rebut, i ask if it also makes sense to teach both sides instead of just evolution? i don't see it as hurting anything. i do agree with you that teacher led prayer might not be a good thing. in fact, i think it's a bad thing. but if a group of students wants to pray together at some free time during school, fine. freedom of speech is great. it should extend into the school in that manner.

 

i don't agree with taking away christmas plays. this is a christian country. i'm ok with that, even though it's not my religion. it's the way it's supposed to be. but it was founded and still is a christian country predominately.

 

edit:

i notice firefox wants me to capitalize "chrisitan"

[angelofdeath]

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

 

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

 

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

 

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.

 

 

i hold extreme pro environmental views. and i know that there is no better way to protect the land than through private ownership. i cannot force anyone to do something they don't want to with their own property. and neither should anyone else. i know that there is no better stewards of land than the rural people of this nation. that is where environmentalists get it wrong. they want to run the country from DC. DC wants to own more and more land and not allow human beings to use it. i mean a simple analysis of market economics shows that there isn't going to be a smoke belching factory built in the wind river range or on plains that are 90 miles from the nearest grocery store. but what is wrong with allowing western farmers to use BLM lands for cattle grazing? the feds stamp all that out.

 

look, i dont understand why all the environmentalists just dont stop running other peoples lives, and just all get together and literally buy land and prohibit anyone from building on it or setting foot on it. or allow green backpackers to go on it, i dont care what they do. but it is not moral to tell other people what to do with their land.

 

it is not the job of the government sector to determine what is proper in reguards to energy. the market will easily fix this problem. restrictions need to be lifted to allow the market to work. right now it is my understanding that it takes 10 barrels of oil to produce 9 barrels of ethanol. it is simply not the job of DC to run the energy market and make decisions based on political mood swings and not for market reasons.

 

that is what makes most greens, really red. they want to run peoples lives. they want to control other peoples property. public ownership of the means of production is the main tenet of socialism. the greens work for nothing more than socialism.

 

allow individuals and local communities to decide who to use their own land.

 

that is what ron paul supports. responsibility. freedom.

[angelofdeath]

he believes that abortions should always be legal, and that supreme court nominees must agree to uphold roe v wade. my one issue with kucinich is that he was pro-life up until right before the 2004 election, then changed his stance on it entirely.

 

separation of church and state is just what it sounds like: keep religion and government (and government run/funded programs like public school) away from each other. it effects me because it's written in the first amendment of the constitution. basically, ron paul is in support of teaching values in public schools, which in itself is not bad at all, but he's amongst the group of people that think the more children are exposed to prayer, the ten commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are. now, i'm not saying this is wrong, but keep it out of the schools. that's why we have the 1st amendment.

 

again, it doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on me, other than the fact that it goes against the constitution.

 

 

and for the record casek, i don't think anyone in the current field is particularly qualified to run the country. not a single fucking one of them.

 

voluntary prayer in school without coercing another soul IS TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL! in fact it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE THIER RELIGION. i'm not a fan of the youth propaganda camps, but since they exist, local communities and parents should run their schools the way the damn well please. moscow on the potomac as absolutely no right to intervene in the affairs of what used to be totally locally funded community oriented schools.

 

a simple statement like 'congress shall write no laws reguarding an establishment of religion' means in no way denial of religious freedom. it means that congress shall write no law abridging freedom of religion.

 

if you want to get constitutional about separation of church and state, it isnt even mentioned in the constitution. the only mentions of religion is about not having any religious tests to hold office and about congress not writing laws abridging free exercise of religion. this was written so that a national church could not be created, not to tell american citizens they cannot practice religion.

 

ron paul is not 'in support of enforcing morals in school.' he is in support of allowing people their constitutional right to voluntarily practice religion. he is for allowing communities to decide if they want to allow kids to voluntarily say a prayer before they eat.

 

all your arguments would hold perfect weight IF schools were REQUIRING kids to practice a certain religion. in that case, their freedom of religion would be violated and it should be dealt with accordingly.

 

ron paul is 100% qualified to run the country. because he would really not be doing much except dismantling the federal bureaucracy to the best of his ability. anyone that moves toward freedom, is my friend.

[angelofdeath]

"i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private."

 

that is literally supporting theft of land. zoning and regulation of someone else's land is theft of their land.

[angelofdeath]

"btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?

revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,

no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc"

 

right you are casek. the people were much more religious and it showed in everything they did. in fact the radical patrick henry who was an OPPONENT of the constitution because he feared it consolidated power to much supported a state church for virginia.

[angelofdeath]

"as far as the pledge, it's also a pledge of allegiance to the US government,"

 

yup. i quit saying it years ago when i learned it was written by a socialist and was said by kids with hands in the military salute that later adolf hitler adopted. even when i go to my SCV meetings now, i stand for the pledge and along with about 10% of the camp, i refuse to pledge allegiance to the central government of the united STATE.

[El Mamerro]

The amount of faith AOD has in individuals never ceases to astonish me. I wish I were so optimistic to believe that individuals would take care of their private land in the best interest of the environment, or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market.

 

What a wonderful world that would be.

[lord_casek]

"btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?

revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,

no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc"

 

right you are casek. the people were much more religious and it showed in everything they did. in fact the radical patrick henry who was an OPPONENT of the constitution because he feared it consolidated power to much supported a state church for virginia.

 

well, i never meant that religion and state should be whole, i was just pointing out that

it was once acceptable for christians to be christians and people weren't trying to be so pc and everything was fine. no neo-cons, no neo-liberals.

[angelofdeath]

^^^^

amen.

[lord_casek]

The amount of faith AOD has in individuals never ceases to astonish me. I wish I were so optimistic to believe that individuals would take care of their private land in the best interest of the environment, or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market.

 

What a wonderful world that would be.

 

 

solar is getting way cheaper. when i am able to afford it, i want to go off-grid.

[angelofdeath]

"or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market."

 

i never said that. i said that the market will handle things. i know of a few places that sell bio-diesel in various cities in the southeast. i hardly ever see anyone buying it. in fact it is so expensive one of my good friends was in the market for a car and she was asking me about bio diesel. i told her the expense involved and she completely forgot about that idea. the enviro's have it in thier capacity to run their cars on bio diesel, walk, ride bikes, and very few actually walk the talk.

 

most people dont really want to do anything. they just want to cry about the environment, live in a shit hole city, and tell other people what to do with their land, tell farmers they cant own their property they have had for generations because it is a federally protected 'wetland.' they still drive cars. they still use spray paint which kills the Ozone. and dammit, earth crisis still prints cd's on paper, and uses mass produced cd's made by evil corporations.

[lord_casek]

watch ron field some b/s from fox and friends this morning

 

the man is untouchable.