MUI + 92 KK February 19, 2019 Sounds like red just admitted to us that he only regurgitates other people's ideas with no thought from his own noggin. Red replies to anyone who counters his posts with reason and logic by either discounting them altogether or trying to pass off some links to some crap he has bought into as actual reality. Why is it that liberals tout themselves as accepting of other's opinions and ideas when they prove time and again by their actions that the opposite is true? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 1 minute ago, MUI said: Sounds like red just admitted to us that he only regurgitates other people's ideas with no thought from his own noggin. Red replies to anyone who counters his posts with reason and logic by either discounting them altogether or trying to pass off some links to some crap he has bought into as actual reality. Why is it that liberals tout themselves as accepting of other's opinions and ideas when they prove time and again by their actions that the opposite is true? Very funny. The difference is that I know how to present information which is meaningful BECAUSE I understand what it means. That seems not the case with many here. The other relevant point is that I can construct an argument, so your claim about "anyone who counters his posts with reason and logic" is demonstrably false. Just read your last sentence (above) for an exercise in nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MUI + 92 KK February 19, 2019 I'm not going to argue with you. You are not worth my effort and I am not going to change your way of thinking. You may grow up one of these years and start thinking for yourself or you may continue to belch the bilge of the church of the liberal left. That will be your choice. Adios red. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, MUI said: I'm not going to argue with you. You are not worth my effort and I am not going to change your way of thinking. You may grow up one of these years and start thinking for yourself or you may continue to belch the bilge of the church of the liberal left. That will be your choice. Adios red. You would need to know what constituted an "argument" and, going by how and what you write, that seems a very tall order. You clearly are another clueless soul who reels off rubbish here, and I will deal with the one after you in the same manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML February 19, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 4:06 PM, Red said: Your link decisively proved my point. Climate science is really easy at the global level. The earth receives energy. The earth loses energy. It's a basic energy balance equation. Red - again I think you've lost sight of the initial point that I made but never mind, I'll leave it with you.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 This is what you said: On 2/18/2019 at 9:21 AM, markslawson said: Actually no, there is overwhelming proof of a link in pre-industrial times. What is true is that pro-climate change scientists claim the link has broken down in recent decades. See this paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy. The planet responds to energy - this has always been the case. What your link shows is that whereas in the past there has always been a strong positive correlation, it is no longer the case. The paper concludes, "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." In simple terms, insolation (or irradiance) cannot account for present warming trends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML February 20, 2019 On 2/19/2019 at 5:13 PM, Red said: The planet responds to energy - this has always been the case. What your link shows is that whereas in the past there has always been a strong positive correlation, it is no longer the case. The paper concludes, "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." In simple terms, insolation (or irradiance) cannot account for present warming trends. Red - my point in showing you that paper was so that you couldn't deny the link between solar activity and climatic change. If you recall you originally claimed that there was no evidence at all. Those two scientists are global warmers who had to admit that the evidence is overwhelming. However, as you point out and as I said in the original post, the two scientists also say that the link has broken down in recent years. That point is disputed and, as the paper is now 10 years old, I'd be quite interested to know what the scientists would now conclude in light of recent trends. Also note the assumption that is insolation (or irradiance - that is, the sun's power) behind the changes - that is now considered unlikely. What is the mechanism? There have been a few suggestions but nothing proven. Anyway, I hope that helps. Leave it with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG March 4, 2019 On 2/13/2019 at 9:31 PM, Meredith Poor said: The CNN link provided at the top is vague. One assertion I've been making for at least the last ten years is that solar power will overrun other energy sources pretty much like the PC simply wiped out the proprietary minicomputer industry, the 'HPs', 'DECs', 'Data Generals', etc. Even the 2030 date trotted out in the so-called Green New Deal is pessimistic - I would put the 100% renewable date closer to 2025. This is simply because people just don't understand how quickly (and thoroughly) a technology can be obsoleted, even on global terms. One of my comments some time ago was that 'by the time politicians are out promising to 'save' the middle class, the middle class has been dead and gone for a generation'. If the US intended to 'save' the middle class, it would have had to do something in 1973, when the mid-70's recession started. This only had traction on the campaign trail starting with Gov. Dukakis in 1988. It was only the mid-1990's where white collar workers started fearing for the long term survival of their jobs. The 2016 election was the point at which the 'mainstream' political parties were so lazy and so inbred that someone like Trump could mop up vast amounts of support. I personally hope Trump leaves office as soon as possible. However, I equally hope that both 'main stream' parties have learned their lessons. I assume when you talk about 100% renewables you mean an electric society with no fossile fuels. So my mower will be electric in 5 years along with my chainsaw Every gas stove which most cooks prefer will be electric. Electric trucks and ships in less than 6 years? Replacing all these fleets in less than 6 years seems rather daunting. Farm equipment and mining equipment will take one hell of a battery. Cant wait to read the stats and see the pics. So count me in as an extream skeptic on the world even getting to 30% renewables by 2025. 100%........wait for it.........never. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 895 MP March 5, 2019 6 hours ago, Boat said: I assume when you talk about 100% renewables you mean an electric society with no fossile fuels. So my mower will be electric in 5 years along with my chainsaw Every gas stove which most cooks prefer will be electric. Electric trucks and ships in less than 6 years? Replacing all these fleets in less than 6 years seems rather daunting. Farm equipment and mining equipment will take one hell of a battery. Cant wait to read the stats and see the pics. So count me in as an extream skeptic on the world even getting to 30% renewables by 2025. 100%........wait for it.........never. Natural gas is easy to make from hydrogen and CO2. That would work great in construction and mining equipment. Jet fuel is a little more involved, but it can be done if solar is cheap enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said: Natural gas is easy to make from hydrogen and CO2. That would work great in construction and mining equipment. Jet fuel is a little more involved, but it can be done if solar is cheap enough. Not going to happen...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 895 MP March 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Illurion said: Not going to happen...... Not 'going to' because it already has. Keyword search 'air to fuels'. Also 'Sabatier reaction' - something discovered in 1897. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 5, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, Meredith Poor said: Not 'going to' because it already has. Keyword search 'air to fuels'. Also 'Sabatier reaction' - something discovered in 1897. You misunderstand...... What isn't going to happen is the economic changeover from oil to solar that you discuss...... The problem with solar isn't that isn't cheap enough, the problem is that it WILL NOT WORK in parts of the world due to incomparability with weather conditions there.......... As an example, i attach a link to an article describing the FAILURE OF SOLAR TO "FUNCTION", MUCH LESS BE "CHEAPER", IN MINNESOTA.......... THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE FAILURE OF THE HUGE SOLAR ARRAYS THAT WERE BUILT THERE.... PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THEN PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE "COMMENTS" OF THE LOCAL MINNESOTANS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE........... https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/the-folly-of-solar-energy.php You love to quote "keyword searches" and such, but fail to search the actual effectiveness of those projects already constructed......... I live in North Florida, where we have many large solar arrays that work fine for us........ BUT THIS IS FLORIDA........ THE SUNSHINE STATE....... Putting solar in areas other than ARID DESERT, or TROPICAL or SUBTROPICAL is pretty dumb........ SOLAR power is incompatible with SNOW....... Edited March 5, 2019 by Illurion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guillaume Albasini + 851 March 5, 2019 (edited) Not really ! A common myth is that solar panels do not work during winter, but in contrary, the cold temperature will typically improve solar panel output. The white snow can also reflect light and help improve PV performance. Winter will only hurt solar production if the panels are covered with snow. But most panels are tilted at an angle, so snow will slide off on its own accord, even if that can take time. You can take control of the situation by getting a solar panel snow rake or similar tool made for solar panel snow removal that won’t damage the panels. Cold, sunny weather is actually good for panels. Winter months are actually good for solar energy production, as long as your panels aren’t covered by snow. Like most electronics, solar panels function more efficiently in cold conditions than in hot. This means that your panels will produce more power for each precious hour of sunshine during the short days of winter. https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/ Some technical solutions exist to remove the snow. Blizzard Solar, an international company that specializes in innovative solar technologies, has developed a system to combat snow accumulation. The Autonomous Winter Solar Panel, or AWSP, lets modules operate efficiently in all conditions. The system, which can be integrated into manufacturers’ panel design, senses the presence of winter precipitation on the panel. It then uses a minimal amount of stored panel energy to clear the panel of the snow, frost, sleet and ice. The technology can be used with framed or frameless panels, and is a significant cost-saver in terms of panel cleaning and energy maximization. The AWSP technology, which is for sale outright, could open new markets for PV distribution. https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2014/02/snow/ Edited March 5, 2019 by Guillaume Albasini info added Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 5, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 6:13 PM, Red said: Very funny. The difference is that I know how to present information which is meaningful BECAUSE I understand what it means. You have never once presented a single piece of information in this forum which demonstrates you lack of ignorance. All you do is regurgitate headlines, claiming authority and to "believe" .... well... because.... which in and of themselves are demonstrably falsified by their own article when read in most cases. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Guillaume Albasini said: Not really ! A common myth is that solar panels do not work during winter, but in contrary, the cold temperature will typically improve solar panel output. Do you enjoy making people laugh? Yes, solar panels produce voltage with low angle/dim radiation and even increase in voltage the colder you get them. That is not power. Power is Voltage times current. Low radiation = low current and a slightly lower voltage as well. Germany on paper, has enough solar panels in their country for 85% of their daily usage in 2016 and it has only increased since then. 85%... They get less than 6% of their power from solar and a giant portion of that they cannot use but must offload to neighboring countries. Germany, has about the same solar potential as Fairbanks Alaska..... Epic Joke. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts EDIT: Numbers: Germany: 600TWh yearly... = 1.64TWh daily = 68GW hourly Installed Solar capacity 46.3GW 46/68=0.7 % = 70%, not my stated 85% Producing less than a tenth of their power needs and they are offloading a giant chunk to neighboring countries during summer yet claiming that offloading as part of their own..... yea. Two thumbs up! Edited March 5, 2019 by Wastral 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 895 MP March 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Illurion said: You misunderstand...... What isn't going to happen is the economic changeover from oil to solar that you discuss...... The problem with solar isn't that isn't cheap enough, the problem is that it WILL NOT WORK in parts of the world due to incomparability with weather conditions there.......... As an example, i attach a link to an article describing the FAILURE OF SOLAR TO "FUNCTION", MUCH LESS BE "CHEAPER", IN MINNESOTA.......... THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE FAILURE OF THE HUGE SOLAR ARRAYS THAT WERE BUILT THERE.... PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THEN PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE "COMMENTS" OF THE LOCAL MINNESOTANS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE........... https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/the-folly-of-solar-energy.php You love to quote "keyword searches" and such, but fail to search the actual effectiveness of those projects already constructed......... I live in North Florida, where we have many large solar arrays that work fine for us........ BUT THIS IS FLORIDA........ THE SUNSHINE STATE....... Putting solar in areas other than ARID DESERT, or TROPICAL or SUBTROPICAL is pretty dumb........ SOLAR power is incompatible with SNOW....... The 'comments' didn't tell me anything surprising. The ads for right-leaning political books spoke volumes. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 March 5, 2019 27 minutes ago, Wastral said: You have never once presented a single piece of information in this forum which demonstrates you lack of ignorance. All you do is regurgitate headlines, claiming authority and to "believe" .... well... because.... which in and of themselves are demonstrably falsified by their own article when read in most cases. Wastral and others, here is some ancient advice from the very beginnings of the intertubes... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said: The 'comments' didn't tell me anything surprising. The ads for right-leaning political books spoke volumes. The fact you can't argue with facts, but look at ads, is telling... I suggest a solar irradiation chart for winter... That is if there are zero clouds in the sky.... which almost never happens in winter 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Okie + 83 FR March 6, 2019 On 3/4/2019 at 12:12 PM, Boat said: I assume when you talk about 100% renewables you mean an electric society with no fossile fuels. So my mower will be electric in 5 years along with my chainsaw Every gas stove which most cooks prefer will be electric. Electric trucks and ships in less than 6 years? Replacing all these fleets in less than 6 years seems rather daunting. Farm equipment and mining equipment will take one hell of a battery. Cant wait to read the stats and see the pics. So count me in as an extream skeptic on the world even getting to 30% renewables by 2025. 100%........wait for it.........never. Actually, many of these already exist, but mostly in Scandinavia. Most of the battery electric ships are ferries. The battery electric cranes, bulldozers and such are used in construction and are plugged in at night. Peruvian, a new company, is already building battery electric trucks and SUVs in central Illinois, to be sold starting next year. As for mowers, my riding and push mower both are already battery electric. Actually, all my tools are. See Ryobi tools. Like it or not, batteries are the future. The technology is advancing rapidly. Not quite Moore's Law fast, but fast enough. There are many types of batteries for many types of applications. See the "battery university" website for more details. Other websites, such as electrek.co frequently showcase new battery electric vehicles and tools, including some of the kind you say cannot exist. The site's comment section is frequented by both Tesla fanboys and detractors. But I have picked up good information there, because many of them are very knowledgeable about battery chemistry. I have worked in the oil (mainly natural gas) industry in the past. Oil will still be dominant for a few years, maybe even a decade. But battery and "green" energy costs are dropping rapidly. Combined with natural gas being so cheap (there is reportedly a 2000-year supply, if you count the methane ice at the bottom of lakes in Canada and the ocean floor), the time for crude oil and coal is about to be over. It is just math. You can either get board or get run over. As batteries combine with all forms of green energy: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and river dams, the cost of oil and coal, counting their pollution costs, it will simply be cheaper to use "green energy." There are some who argue it already is, if you count their lifetime cost. Once you burn the oil, coal or other fossil fuels, they are effectively gone and pollution remains (coal ash, air smog, etc.). Green energy materials can mostly be recycled (in particular, all metals can be recycled). This is my first post. I have been lurking here for a while. I hope you guys (and gals) can be respectful. A lot of you seem to make this stuff too political -- and personal. Yes, personal fortunes will be made and lost betting on the "wrong horse." And I could be wrong about where things are heading. And political policies do affect market opportunities. But I am pretty sure the market is clearly heading toward a change in energy policy long-term. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Okie + 83 FR March 6, 2019 Stupid autocorrect. PERUVIAN should be Rivian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 895 MP March 6, 2019 4 hours ago, Illurion said: You misunderstand...... What isn't going to happen is the economic changeover from oil to solar that you discuss...... The problem with solar isn't that isn't cheap enough, the problem is that it WILL NOT WORK in parts of the world due to incomparability with weather conditions there.......... As an example, i attach a link to an article describing the FAILURE OF SOLAR TO "FUNCTION", MUCH LESS BE "CHEAPER", IN MINNESOTA.......... THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE FAILURE OF THE HUGE SOLAR ARRAYS THAT WERE BUILT THERE.... PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THEN PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE "COMMENTS" OF THE LOCAL MINNESOTANS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE........... https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/the-folly-of-solar-energy.php You love to quote "keyword searches" and such, but fail to search the actual effectiveness of those projects already constructed......... I live in North Florida, where we have many large solar arrays that work fine for us........ BUT THIS IS FLORIDA........ THE SUNSHINE STATE....... Putting solar in areas other than ARID DESERT, or TROPICAL or SUBTROPICAL is pretty dumb........ SOLAR power is incompatible with SNOW....... In the existing circumstances of snow on solar panels, I'm not surprised at the behavior of the utilities. They're used to keeping coal plants running during extreme events, but it hasn't occurred to them to put bodies out in solar farms to brush off the panels. Categorically deciding that 'this will never work' ignores the eventuality of storage - storage over periods of weeks or months. Consider the size of 'power storage' on the scale of oil tanks in places like Henry, OK, or the various tank farms in Houston or Louisiana. People are designing batteries that work on the same scale. Solar panels (or at least the silicon ones) are, incidentally, infrared LEDs. Running current through them means that they could illuminate the snow, perhaps with enough heat to melt it. This is also something that probably didn't occur to the people that designed the farm. It's a technical problem, not a fundamental barrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 6, 2019 12 minutes ago, Okie said: Actually, many of these already exist, but mostly in Scandinavia. Most of the battery electric ships are ferries. The battery electric cranes, bulldozers and such are used in construction and are plugged in at night. Peruvian, a new company, is already building battery electric trucks and SUVs in central Illinois, to be sold starting next year. As for mowers, my riding and push mower both are already battery electric. Actually, all my tools are. See Ryobi tools. Like it or not, batteries are the future. The technology is advancing rapidly. Not quite Moore's Law fast, but fast enough. There are many types of batteries for many types of applications. See the "battery university" website for more details. Other websites, such as electrek.co frequently showcase new battery electric vehicles and tools, including some of the kind you say cannot exist. The site's comment section is frequented by both Tesla fanboys and detractors. But I have picked up good information there, because many of them are very knowledgeable about battery chemistry. I have worked in the oil (mainly natural gas) industry in the past. Oil will still be dominant for a few years, maybe even a decade. But battery and "green" energy costs are dropping rapidly. Combined with natural gas being so cheap (there is reportedly a 2000-year supply, if you count the methane ice at the bottom of lakes in Canada and the ocean floor), the time for crude oil and coal is about to be over. It is just math. You can either get board or get run over. As batteries combine with all forms of green energy: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and river dams, the cost of oil and coal, counting their pollution costs, it will simply be cheaper to use "green energy." There are some who argue it already is, if you count their lifetime cost. Once you burn the oil, coal or other fossil fuels, they are effectively gone and pollution remains (coal ash, air smog, etc.). Green energy materials can mostly be recycled (in particular, all metals can be recycled). This is my first post. I have been lurking here for a while. I hope you guys (and gals) can be respectful. A lot of you seem to make this stuff too political -- and personal. Yes, personal fortunes will be made and lost betting on the "wrong horse." And I could be wrong about where things are heading. And political policies do affect market opportunities. But I am pretty sure the market is clearly heading toward a change in energy policy long-term. No, your mower is not electric. Your joke of a yard is tiny. Yes, I have an electric Ryobi mower. My yard is also miniscule. It also mows extremely SLOWLY requiring a battery change half way through on my tiny yard and requires that I take twice as long mowing the yard. No, chainsaws are not electric, jokes they claim are chainsaws are used for pruning are electric and only a home owner who never or barely ever uses it will ever buy one. I have an electric Ryobi pruning saw, yea team.... never use it. Battery powered hand tools for light construction work? Great. Anything requiring duration or heavy duty? Hell no. Not even close. And no, there is not a battery powered Bulldozer who require 150HP or 500HP running all day long. Same reason there is not a truck with these requirements. Cranes, electric? They don't move and are fixed in place at ports and have been electric for the last century. All other cranes, not one of them is battery powered and won't be as cranes already push the road weight limit. You going to buy a castrated crane or for same weight class buy a larger crane getting you more jobs.... As for your Rivian joke of a truck... no it is not a truck. It is a glorified passenger vehicle in the shape of a vehicle whom actually does work. You buy a truck to HAUL a LOT of heavy things, not people. If electric were viable in trucking, UPS, FED EX would be all over them. Actually, they are trying. Of course most they have "bought" is because of government bribes .... in reverse and they are NOT trucks, they are small delivery vans. Fact is they can't haul a load. But since UPS is constrained by VOLUME not load, electric may eventually actually work for them for local delivery for the same reason most people can use an electric bike, scooter, and car; short driving distances. Super short distances like trucking in a port? Yea, will work well until the port has a giant bump in traffic and oops. sorry we can't unload your ship, our trucks are charging... ICE, if you have a surge, you can got 24/7. At least in a port they are effectively a forklift, just bigger and possible. Now, if battery density increases 2X? Or can develop a battery which also becomes part of the structure? Yea, then we are talking. Until then, dreams are nice. PS: As for farming: Don't make us laugh. Farming requires the machines to work 24/7 for 2-4 weeks straight during planting/harvest, so unless the cost of the machine can drop 50% allowing everyone to own twice as many tractors... SOL. Of course if someone can create a catalyst which can help turn electricity into diesel....... 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said: In the existing circumstances of snow on solar panels, I'm not surprised at the behavior of the utilities. They're used to keeping coal plants running during extreme events, but it hasn't occurred to them to put bodies out in solar farms to brush off the panels. Categorically deciding that 'this will never work' ignores the eventuality of storage - storage over periods of weeks or months. Consider the size of 'power storage' on the scale of oil tanks in places like Henry, OK, or the various tank farms in Houston or Louisiana. People are designing batteries that work on the same scale. Solar panels (or at least the silicon ones) are, incidentally, infrared LEDs. Running current through them means that they could illuminate the snow, perhaps with enough heat to melt it. This is also something that probably didn't occur to the people that designed the farm. It's a technical problem, not a fundamental barrier. http://www.nlcpr.com/SolarInsolation.php 4X difference. You are not going to do anything to a panel that is going to pull in 2KWh/m^2 on a perfectly clear day. That is 20c retail... Wholesale that is 6c per square meter, best case. Suggest you look up the enthalpy of water and how much snow is on a m^2 of panel and how much energy required to melt it and then compare to how much is pulled in.... Assuming of course it is not being frozen as quickly by outside air.... Not that Minnesota is cold or anything... Only thing that is possible economics wise is for the panels to be mounted on a rod swivel allowing them to "dump" their snow load. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guillaume Albasini + 851 March 6, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Wastral said: And no, there is not a battery powered Bulldozer who require 150HP or 500HP running all day long. Same reason there is not a truck with these requirements Check this one : https://electrek.co/2017/09/17/electric-dumper-truck-worlds-largest-ev-battery-pack/ https://www.electrive.com/2018/04/23/empas-edumper-is-the-worlds-largest-electric-truck/ Edited March 6, 2019 by Guillaume Albasini Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said: The 'comments' didn't tell me anything surprising. The ads for right-leaning political books spoke volumes. Thanks for making my point........ You admit you do not read conservative media..... TRUE stories like these ARE IGNORED BY THE LIBERAL FAKE NEWS MEDIA........ Conservative Media is more informative.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
