search results matching tag: 30 years

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.017 seconds

    Videos (227)     Sift Talk (13)     Blogs (24)     Comments (1000)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Conservatives are people of lawful respect. Which after last 30 years our patients are wearing thin.

Liberals are bitch moan and fight to get their way.
Liberals are the party of ilk.

The fight is coming if your ilk keeps pushing.

surfingyt said:

to actually fight would mean to actually lose, hence the confederate and nazi flags, their addiction to losers losing.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

What's up your ass? Nazi facebook got shunned and grandpa hitler wannabe got kicked off social media?

Hey, look,




I'm sorry you got duped.
But that doesn't give anyone the right to do what they did.
LETS BE CLEAR
People forced their way into the capitol building through violence. They hung up a noose https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noose-hung-outside-capitol/ and when inside the building they were chanting 'FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP' until the president tweeted about Mike Pence's disloyalty, then they started with "WHERE IS PENCE, WHERE IS PENCE?

If you know anyone who was at the rally and stormed the capitol, please contact the FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-seeking-information-related-to-violent-activity-at-the-us-capitol-bu
ilding
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yyq8xcba (link is too long)

They are wanted as person's of interest, suspected of terrorism.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-rioters-prison-trump-executive-order-federal (link is too long) copy+paste

$50k for anyone associated with the pipe bombs https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/08/954845870/u-s-capitol-flag-will-fly-at-half-staff-fbi-issues-rew
ard-over-pipe-bombs


------------##########------------
------------##########------------
Look, I believe that you believe what you're saying, okay?

Let me make one last red rover talk with you, maybe you'll come on back to reality.
------------##########------------
------------##########------------


Here's the argument for Georgia, laid out in point by point sections


1.--------------------------------
Do you know any Trump supporters who don't trust the election?

From 2018 so before the current bullshit; though it's worth pointing out that Trump also claims that the 2016 election that he fucking won was a fraud.

"Results from a new Grinnell College National Poll give insights into which citizens lack confidence in the November 2018 election. As it turns out, white conservatives, despite accusations of election fraud from President Trump and several outspoken conservative leaders, are neither the only groups concerned about the accuracy of the 2018 vote count nor the groups most concerned. The poll’s results also uncover how a lack of confidence in the vote count is linked with voter turnout "
https://bit.ly/2VooAMS

I would argue that's contributed to a suppression of turnout. See also # 10 on my list here.


2.--------------------------------

https://apps.npr.org/elections20-interactive/#/house

The democrats lost a chunk of seats in the house of reps.
Flip flip flip flip flip flip
All that, all the Democrat plot to steal the election? That's some 7d chess right there. Secret dem plot = elect republicans. (it's the same ticket as the presidential vote) Can't trust people who voted Republican? Is that it? Throw those votes out?


3.-------------------------------
Arguing a that a technicality should disqualify votes doesn't mean that Americans' vote count is inaccurate. And if those votes' certification is invalid, why did Republican senators and Congress people from those states take their offices on Jan 2nd?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are voted in on the same ballot that the vote for president is cast on. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If they genuinely think and believe it was a scam, why did they show up to Washington and take office on the basis of so-called fraudulent ballots? If those ballots are frauds, what are those Republicans doing seated in those congressional seats?

Also, if that rule change is so bad, and absentee ballots are so fraudulent and can't be trusted, why did the Republican party in that state send a absentee ballot to every Republican who voted in the last election? You'd have to throw out ~700,000 republican votes as well. Don't their votes count?


4.-------------------------------

Mitt Romney is an absolute asshole and he supports policy i strongly disagree with, but at least he's honest and seems to speak with an appeal to integrity. I think I saw his outrage at his own party spilling out of his head during the objection hearing.

But he's been an R his whole life? Cant be trusted?

Mitch McConnel is like a RPG character that someone dumped all the skill points into "fuck these rules, I'm getting my way" He will do anything, cast off nearly any rule to advance republican politics. He is against this. No one, only one man can be trusted ???

Mike pence is the most republican motherfucker around, and he does not endorse this, which party are you with?



5.------------------------------

The senators objecting were right the cases didn't progress to a hearing, and were all "without standing" or were unable to even make a claim, with Rudy going into court and when the judge flatly asks him if he's suing for fraud,
'is this a fraud case ? '

>>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO"
"No we do not"
( O_O) ?

The judge explains that maybe he did allege fraud at some point, but not in the paper work he filed currently in front of the judge. (EVEN JUDGE JUDY DON'T ALLOW THAT SHIT)

WOULD YOU LIKE THE AUDIO OF THAT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4925496/user-clip-alleging-fraud

Finally, after some linguistic dancing, the judge revisits the topic, bookending that clip. ”Does the Amended complaint include fraud with particularity ?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO YOUR HONOR"



6.-------------------------------------------

So all of my
X Y Z cant be trusted?
Add McConnel and Pence



7.------------------------------------------

Maybe you are taking trump literally, not seriously? You're supposed to do "seriously, not literally" i've heard. Maybe he seriously won the election...
...but not literally, actually, or in-fact.



8.------------------------------------------

So only one man can be trusted? Only one man with the power? He used to hint at not conceding, now he's hinting at no more elections.

is that the way of a democracy or a republic? NO MORE ELECTIONS, THEY CANT BE TRUSTED UNLESS I WIN
???What good are elections? Why would we need those? They're all stolen anyway right ?



9.------------------------------------------

The states that made a difference and flipped from red to blue. Red, they were already red. Red as in Republicans won previous elections there and we're in charge of the local government and election boards in each case.
REPUBLICANS CERTIFIED EACH OF THOSE STATES.
HENCE THE FLIPPING,
THEY CERTIFIED IN DECEMBER,
BEFORE THEIR REPLACEMENTS ARRIVED.


10.-----------------------------------------

Democrats have been doing the work of flipping Georgia for 30 years, for democrats, that's how they flipped the state.

[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 1: ‘We Are Black Diamonds.’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117319937 via @PodcastAddict

They interview Stacy Abraham's here^ and she speaks at length about the decades long process to flip Georgia, and all the fundraising they did during that time

There is also a sister episode where republican campaign officials are interviewed and they discuss how they are not prepared in Georgia because they thought that state was a lock, still they could have pulled it off, but voter turnout was being suppressed because people were being told it was a fraud. There is a telling moment where the two R senators up for election in Georgia are on stage but the crowd just keeps chanting TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to the point that they are unable to speak to the crowd
[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 2: ‘I Have Zero Confidence in My Vote’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117362059 via @PodcastAddict

>>>>>>>>>>>Notable,
the interviewer tries and tries but can't find a republican who will say they have confidence in their vote at the Georgia rally.


>>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<<
"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Come on.

Stop.

It's over.

You're defending people who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building of the United States of America.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, that!

THAT!

Is NOT right.








Edit: And we're actually a mixture of both a republic and a democracy. There are regular instances on the people voting on laws directly.

Whatever happens, I hope Republicans keep doing what they're doing, because they are losing every election since trump and then some ...shithead.

bobknight33 said:

Hey shit head

We live in a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY

Voter cheated very little
Election fraud was great and led to febel man put in White house.

Poll workers were not allowed to do their job.

Trump Holds Indoor Rally as Wildfires and Pandemic Rage

bobknight33 says...

Trump been in office 3+ years
This failure has been long in the making 30+ years.


Sound like he need to fire land management team and put in place some people who know what to do. More swamp draining?

wtfcaniuse said:

Funny how Trump still blames lack of raking and management on the fires when he's had plenty of time to do something about it. Given the majority of the fires are happening in FEDERALLY MANAGED FORESTS!

Moron doesn't even realise he's blaming himself after he tried the same shit last time.

Fucking idiot thinks a 50yard firebreak will stop an uncontrolled fire front. Ember strike starting spotfires miles ahead of the front but yeah that 50 yard clear strip will do a lot.

The Walk.

newtboy says...

Legislative aide - Coordinate and attend meetings. Assist with the drafting of speeches, press releases and legislation. Conduct and summarize legal research, research studies and constituent surveys.
Her position - mail clerk and supervising interns.
Nowhere near the same thing. Like the receptionist putting "VP of communications and publications" as their title.


91-94 is up to 4 years, she worked for him for 9 months. That's a 3.25 year exaggeration, not one, which would itself be more than doubling the truth.

Um...you think?! Yes, it's bad when your college says you didn't graduate, and a lie when you say you did. I don't think her cases would all be under review over a database problem.

Her current accusations ARE brand new, never coming to light in 30 years of Biden running for offices, including VP. They absolutely did totally pop up out of nowhere at a suspiciously convenient time in politics....and are bat shit crazy, forcefully fingered in a public alcove in the public halls of congress. Get real.

Edit: the long and short is she's not credible, at best she's shown a willingness to hyper exaggerate if it benefits her, more likely she's a bold faced liar who may have been paid to make accusations.

scheherazade said:

Some of the link's criticisms are nitpicking.

Calling herself a 'legislative aide' to describe 'working for senator Biden' - that's like when a 'receptionist' puts down 'customer communications liaison' on their resume.

She gets her years of employment wrong by 1 year, decades later. I can't tell you the year I started my current job. I would have to look it up. Same for every job I've had.

Having one of her supposed degrees denied by a university is certainly suspect. Which at this point could still turn out to be a database problem, or some other cock up. *Possibly*. *Possibly not*. It could also be her exaggerating her own qualifications, coming back to bite her in the ass.

In any case, at least her accusations are old and she didn't pop up out of nowhere at a suspiciously convenient time in politics.

-scheherazade

The Walk.

newtboy says...

Daughter Raping Donny, aka the syphilitic mushroom tip, never again.

Remember, when asked what he had in common with his teenaged daughter his answer was "sex".

Lol...so sad Bobby. So stupid and sad. Trump openly brags about forcibly finger banging any stranger he finds attractive, and has >25 sexual abuse cases pending including multiple rapes, groping, fingering, kissing, untold numbers of payoffs and NDAs, etc. You are not doing him any favors comparing his record of rampant sexual abuse and philandering for 4+ decades to Joe who has one untrustworthy accuser with one totally unbelievable and constantly changing story of being sexually abused in the public halls of congress that never came up before in nearly 30 years of his campaigns, not behind closed doors in the last decade with corroboration and physical evidence like many Trump accusers. So unbelievably dumb. If you had the capacity, you would be ashamed of yourself.

bobknight33 said:

Finger Banging JOE 2020.

ant (Member Profile)

Trump Turns Our Military Into Mercenaries

newtboy says...

No. Do you think Obama was the one starting payment agreements 30+ years ago? I think that would be Bush or Regan. Obama didn't end the practice of negotiating payments for military support, but he certainly didn't start it.

What we've done in Korea and Japan (and elsewhere) after fighting wars on their shores has no resemblance to how Trump is renting our military to Saudi Arabia.

What I'm saying is Trump has bastardized our process of asking allies to help fund our military actions in their countries that also benefit them into a process of asking non-allies (including the country who spawned and funded the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. and viciously murdered an American citizen recently, edit: and committed a terrorist attack in Florida this month, with 21 more Saudis being deported from the same military training program he was in for not only posting jihadist anti American material but also child porn not caught by the current vetting process) if they want to rent our military for their military actions, actions that don't align with our foreign policy and make us new enemies. FAUX won't touch that story.

visionep said:

So you are saying that Obama is the one who turned our military into mercenaries?

I bet you could get FOX news to run with that story.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife Trailer

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

Spacedog79 said:

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

"Magic" by The Cars from 1984

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

bcglorf said:

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

The last speech Ronald Reagan president immigration.

newtboy says...

Shows you the insanity of the right today. What 30 years ago was the epitome of the incredibly far right is now seen as a far left liberal.
Trumpsters don't believe in what he said. Trumpsters hate America and what it stands for. Trumpsters don't believe in the great melting pot. They should all leave....but no other country will take them.

The Making Of Disneyland's Main Street Electrical Parade

b4rringt0n (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon