Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Anti Nuke is pro 99%

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 3, 2012, 3:23 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

No Nukes!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Anti nuke is pro 99%


Support this Occupy goal

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 8 years ago

Now if we can get the Nukes out of the Middle-East.....

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Middle east (Isreal) far east (China, India, Pajistan) West (US, England, France,Russia)

Everywhere, Every bomb, Every nuclear plant! Everyone!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Stand up for nuke reduction!


Please pressure congress to cut nuclear expenditures.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Why should taxpayers pat fr nuclear accidents while nuclear energy corps make profits?


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

We can try, but I doubt if our government will listen. It will take more than signing a petition, and standing in the street protesting (though I see that can be a start.)

But drones are probably a bigger problem right now. Read the threads below.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

no nukes. Take a stand for humanity!!



[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

This is the right path for nuclear weapons. CUT, reduce, Eliminate.


[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Wow! Now if Obama can commit to quit using drones.....

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Drones are gonna create more blowback than we know.

It's time for the people to ratchet up the protests because we forced Obama to release the legal memo (to congress) on drone justification. And we have succeeded at forcing a cut in half of drone strikes since 2010.

Time to build on these small successes.

UFPJ, Code Pink, JustForiegnPolicy, are all great groups at the forefront of this protest.

[-] -1 points by highlander3 (-62) 7 years ago

Anti Nuke is,I think, anti nuke. I do not hear Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan singing that tune. But I am sure they would support our cause of getting rid on nukes in the US

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 8 years ago

Anti nuke is pro oil.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Anti nuke is pro greentech

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 8 years ago

Good one. The reason I believe nuclear energy is neede is we are at the cusp of it being to late to stopclimate change. We need to take everynon greenhouse polluting techs NOW. After we have gotten past the possibility of us dying off as a species then we can have the debate about nuclear energy. With advancements made recently there is a good chance nuclear will be safe and cheap.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I think beyond eliminating nuclear weapons for safety's sake we must do it to save money, and other defense budget cuts as well.


[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 8 years ago

Unless we come up with a way to clean existing greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere I don't think wehave the time to implement 100% solar wind energy grid. It's like the saying "Don't sacrifice the good for the perfect." Energy without yproducts would be perfect and will happen in my liftime but if we don't use every tool available now then we are screwed.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 8 years ago

The great thing about using thorium in nuclear plants is it is unable to be weaponized. And the halflife of the waste is a fraction of uranium. You have to consider that once we get off of fossil fuels we still have to get other countries off also. Last I heard is China just passed us in being the largest greenhouse polluter.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

No doubt. And China Is building coal burning plants at an alaring rate. (they buy a lot from us!

So yeah it ain't just us that must stop burning fossil fuel & using nuclear power. Everyone must. And that is our mission to eliinate ALL of that!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 8 years ago

I think you missed my point. Nuclear will help get us off of fossil fuels sooner. It has drawbacks but when every second gets us closer to the extinction of man then drawbacks we have been relatively successful containing is not enough reason to give up the energy we require that nuclear supplies. If we had this discussion 20 years ago then we could afford to overlook nuclear. Now though... Tick Tock time is running out.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

In one year we could build enough windmills to replace all nuclear power generation and more.

It's too dangerous.


[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Well I suppose if the waste is not a problem to transport through small town America, and certainly if there is no need for 10 sq mile evacuation zones, I might consider it.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

How about stop using so much energy?

We do not really need nukes or oil......

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Not everyone can. For example I live in the desert and when it is 115° outside AC is a requirement and apartments don't come with solar.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

You might want to find a better place to live.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I would love too but my sister, friends, and job are out here. Plus I don't have the money too move without a job waiting for me.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

I feel for ya. But I'm sure sooner or later you'll get enough bucks or whatever together to get out of that apartment, and buy a nice home in your area. At that time be wise my friend; make sure your home is going to be eco-efficient.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Definately. It upsets me that Las Vegas isn't powered by solar. We don't even get power from Hoover Dam if you can believe it. If your not familiar with Vegas I can drive to the dam in 45 minutes.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Interesting. Where does all that power go?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

California and other surrounding states. Weget our energyfrom northern nevada.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

I suppose instead of calling it an energy grid, we ought be calling it the energy spaghetti.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

lol. It can get a bit confusing sometimes.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Join Occupy against Nuke energy/bombs and these brave protesters.


It's too dangerous, and too expensive. Greentech now!!



[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

This is the right strategy to pursue.


Climb aboard the green economy.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Neocons hate Hagel because he is "war skeptical" and anti nuke.


He's made they right enemies.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Why are people willing to vote for a crook because they are the lesser of two evils but won't stop attacking a technology that could cut carbon emmisions and help against climate change.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I guess the anti nuke thing is about not wanting to kill thousands with meltdown, and anti Hagel is about wanting to perpetual war.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

That is only because dumbasses don't research where they put the plants.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I think the complexity of a plant lends itself to possible failure, i think human error creates unacceptable risk, and certainly the nature of nuclear/radioactivity represent an unacceptable risk. Too dangerous man. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I understand the dangers but I believe without all alternate energy sources being we can't get rid of the carbon polluting plants in time to advert a major climate catastrophe. Even with including nuclear I'm afraid it might be too late already. This is a great example of the saying "perfect is the enemy of good". While we ignore nuclear and focus on other techs tons of co2 are poured into the atmosphere which could have been allieviated by using nuclear as a power source.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

It is already too late to avoid the climate catastrophe you mention. But I hear you. You are not alone. i just can't a technology that can create a catastrophe in itself.

I would suggest a massive 'Manhattan project' to manufacture millions of wind turbines/towers and the accompanying grid upgrades in a 2 year period is the best answer.

That's just me.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I can respect your view. I tend to focus on the most critical issues first and then deal with the fallout. Plus I'm a firm believer that technology can fix most issues if it advances enough. Just give us time and we will learn how to clean the co2 out of the atmosphere. And considering we've already cut the nuclear half life to hundreds of years instead of 10,000+ using thorium I believe we mustkeep improving nuclear. Hell, if we figure a efficiant way to transfer power wirelessly, using microwaves maybe, orbital solar collectors could supply all the energy we need. Sorry if I got carried away, I've been thinking about things like this since high school.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Anti nuke IS pro 99%


Support occupies efforts against nuclear power/weapons.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I too have followed these techs for decades, and have supported Nuclear as well. Obviously the recent disasters (& realization the extreme weather is increasing) have affected my opinion.

I agree with the faith in tech as well. I submit we can cover ALL our energy needs if we implement a massive renewable energy construction project in 2 -3 years faster than the 2 nuke plants recently approved.

That is solving with tech. Doesn't replace any other future tech progress. But we have the ability NOW. The will and effort is what is left.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

If it can be done without nuclear I'm game. As long as we can stillresearch and improve nuclear. I'm still of the opinion that we will not survive if we don't seriously develop space and nuclear is still the best for that. I also believe we would be much further along technologically if we would have been developing space.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

I love tech. I support further R&D. I believe in fact some new as yet discovered tech will surpass nuclear in power while remaining safe.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I wish most people who disagree with using nuclear thouhght like you. All the anti nuke people Ialk to want us to ignore the tech.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

We MUST support protesters of Nuke energy/bombs.

They know better.

In the US


And around the world.


Protests won't end, until we end the insanity of using nuclear tech

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

There is so much danger with nuclear, it is easy to be against it without any thought.


[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Whoops here it is.


We must end the suicidal use of nuclear energy/bombs! NOW!!

Time to build a few million wind turbines and upgrade the electric grid.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 7 years ago

Old treaty which we are planning on adding to.


Let's pressure the 40% reduction to ourwarhead inventoryand set us on a path to zero!!

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 8 years ago

The US will spend between 352 and 392 billion dollars on our nuclear offensive capability in the next decade. According to the 2013 US Budget summary, the US will spend around 15 trillion dollars on medicare and medicaid. I certainly see the wisdom in cutting Nuclear Weapons for the 99% and our fiscal security. Thanks, VQkag2! I am sure the Putin & Co are just falling over themselves to help us along.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I suppose we should eliminate all nuclear weapons for Putin & co as well.

I certainly don't support cutting healthcare for human beings.

Is that what you are suggesting?

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 8 years ago

North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan probably do not have that many people who share your idea of humanity. Truly, I am sorry. Defense needs to be streamlined, but so does every other department as well.

[-] 6 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

ALL nuclear weapons MUST be eliminated, if for no other reason than keeping them out of the hands of wackos willing to blow up a city in the name of God.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 8 years ago

Now we have to also aim our sights on drone bombings. End the military industrial complex!

[-] 7 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Now, before, in the future. Without a doubt. We must agitate all pols against the continued misuse of our military. NOT in our name.!

Agitate for cutting the defense budget in half!, denounce all war mongering 'war on terror' propaganda spewing pols.!

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

That would be something that a soldier mindful of constitutional defense would support. I found this here last spring.


In fact, we may be at the point where citizens and soldiers must work together to defend the constitution to preserve it. Yes, nukes are unconstitutional. The cold war is a fear/money scam.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I suppose the 'cold war' was a fear/money scam, & I would submit that the current 'war on terror' is the same thing for the fear mongering right wing MIC tools.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

Yes, both are tools of the nwo.

We are Americans. We have a constitution. All that dysfunction really doesn't matter. What matters are our rights and freedoms. We need to discuss them as in constitutional intent or, how it protects our rights and freedoms when we use it at an Article V convention.

We are the only entities that can rightfully do it. Here we go.

Free speech is abridged. Our lives are threatened, the constitution is threatened. Do not be distracted by confusing, diffusing political subterfuge. Focus on your constitution and preserving it with Article V.

Educating this forum and creating voluntary focus by sincere Americans here is prime. BTW, in the last year, no soldier has ever had the social courage to discuss the soldiers inquiry with me. For those that see how the above bolded needs to be a current action uniformly expressed, they may also see it is time to start reaching out, gently, to soldiers in their families.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I thought article V was a right wing effort to concentrate more control with the 1% plutocrats. Isn't that why it was ridiculed last year on this forum?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

If engaged without proper preparation, it easily could be.

To prepare for Article V citizens need to agree to only support delegates that agree to propose and work to ratify 3 amendments. They do this to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent per Article V.

call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,

The ridicule was part of the cognitive infiltratiion. Those doing so never addressed the effect of Preparatory Amendment on their fear mongering.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Cool. I don't understand.

[-] 3 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

Preparatory amendment to Article V makes the nation constitutional enough to be able to know constitutional intent manifesting Lincoln's words, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

How is that done some kind of petition?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

It starts with simple agreements upon the intents of the rights provided in the constitution. Try this. If we can agree then we have begun our part as citizens. Knowing and discussing constitutional intent between us is where it starts. BTW, if you understand, you should make a thread about what you think we've done here and what it means and how Americans who support the constitution should begin participating in this, even if they do nothing else. It is fundamental to being human.

Q Is it of constitutional intent that freedom of speech have it's ultimate meaning in its potential to create an understanding between people which can create; foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A Until a mother or father steps forwards to say they will pass and ignore a real opportunity through alignment with other citizens and Article V, to assure their child grows in a nation that holds high and honors its capacity to share and understand information needed for survival, protecting their life, retaining their social liberties and pursuing happiness, **it is logical to say it is, and Americans need to assure that free speech has that quality.

It is a peoples petition, from me to you and all viewers of this forum post. It is strategy anchored in the constitution that is COMPLETELY separate from anything corporate, political, or otherwise. It is human nature, natural law, constitutional intent. We are the only ones that can do this. It is done with the first of 3 amendments in Preparation for Article V. Three amendments that assure the nation knows constitutional intent.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

We keep doing it and when we start getting good at it relating to other rights and freedoms, THEN we, a large number at this point approach all the "amendment" groups and present the simple but universal agreement that enables Article V to run properly.

Eventually citizens simply will not vote for a delegate or approve of them in any way UNLESS they agree to propose and work to ratify amendment that effect, 1), 2), & 3).

"the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" Lincoln 1859.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Does the constitution allow for this "peoples petition" in article V?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

The constitution properly generalizes where it should and leaves a great deal open to interpretation across the rights it guarantees. What it allows or guarantees is that the people can democratically amend through their states.

Accordingly, this is a human petition which crosses all state boundaries properly whereupon unity is created. The unity then descends upon the various states with voting power, elections and the creation of a new breed of political delegate. One who has a mandate to return a reasonable degree of constitutionality to the government via preparatory amendment.

Believe it or not, this strategy, when it hits states legislations, will undermine all of the corruption in a realm of the ideals of states constitutions as well as the federal constitution. Legislators will very quickly learn a fear of opposing that which obviously constitutional. It does not matter that it is philosophical position because law is basically birthed in philosophy.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

2/3 right. Well this is not an easy task by any means.

But good luck in all you good efforts.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

Correct, knowing our needs and assuring that knowledge is uniform is the beginning. And it is not easy because corporations and others have assured we do not benefit from free speech. Accordingly our uses of free speech need to be succinct to constitutional intent. This eventually assures that the government acts consistently. currently people have a sense something is very wrong, but cannot agree upon what is right.

Determining constitutional intent is no more than getting down to human basics, which is natural law. That is how we become the masters.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

It appears we would need 3/4 of state legislatures to call a const conv.

I'll work on NYS, and let you know how likely it is.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 8 years ago

2/3 of the states apply to get an Article V. Congress should have called in in 1911. When they were made aware of this, they were also told they were not even counting the state applications LET ALONE counting them properly. See Mr. Bill Walker describe the research his lawsuit led to.


More recently, some of that information was used to make a criminal complaint to holder the AG.


There has been a secret social psyops against it for decades, so going alone into any state with Article V is pretty much fraught with numerous quasi authority that are never accountable while fearfully putting Article V down.

The activity of my last post needs to be pervasive FIRST.


When that is understood, the nay-sayers to Article V will be exposed, because they will never be reasonably accountable to anyone. People will know.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 7 years ago

Can allowance and/or tolerance be defined as threat? Let us consult Webster; allow: 1-3 begin with "let" which fairly sums up the definitions listed, tolerate: allow,permit,put-up with which again is basic sum, threat: intention to hurt/destroy with menacing, intimidation, intent to injure, danger, harm and evil. Now to my patriotic thinking the third definition indicates an outside entity needs to exist which it does. America can not be defined as intent to harm. By our very make up that is not a possibility and in fact is our only law. We can do as we please and allow others the right to define Freedom as they see fit as long as we harm none. Once again as I have said before this all leads to same and right now is being called capitol of these United States but by intention this is not possible to be so besides it is not even this country Thank God! We can cleanse our selves of this whole mess by ending "threat" and in fact must in order to keep flying the Red, White and Blue that represents everything this country is meant for and remains in my heart for as long as I breathe this country is alive and well I am WE, in solidarity Worldwide FREEDOM!

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Green party supports this!!! (of course!) Occupy IS anti nuke!! (Natch!)


Are you?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 8 years ago

Protest Obama against illegal drone bombings.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 8 years ago


[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

cut the defense budget in half!

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 7 years ago

cut the defense budget back to actual defense! we aren't the universal police for the entirety of existence.

Currently we face an Roman 'fall' on a global scale.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

We definitely need to cut the defense budget but "actual defense" is hard to determine until we start prioritizing according to our objectives. We may not be the universal police but there is NO doubt that the U.S. must continue to play a significant stabilizing role as a last resort because it is the highest GDP country in the world with advanced weaponry (traditionally the "arsenal of democracy").

Our overbuilt nuclear arsenal can be trimmed further because nuclear weapons do not have finesse and are likeliest to kill lots of civilians without necessarily ending a conflict quickly.

Our best bet is to shift smoothly to a regional stabilization model in which our allies form regional forces to stabilize their spheres of influence while the U.S. reduces its commitments to have so many foreign bases worldwide. Some of our allies seem quite ready to prevent a power vacuum from developing to reduce civilian sufferings.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

I think we have screwed so much of the world we have a responsibility to use this bigest military to correct our mistakes. but we haven't responsible enough to be trusted. how do we assure our military is not misused.?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

I agree that we have a responsibility to correct the mistakes of ours and our forebears but using the biggest military to do so seems counterproductive. There are reasons for people around the world to look askance at the biggest stick on our planet being swung around again to "correct our mistakes." Swinging it around more may create more resentment or accusations of hegemony and arrogance.

To begin with, our military should be used as a last resort to ensure innocent civilians' interests are best safeguarded. It should also be used for backing up our missions of peace and fraternity to trouble spots. The prime thrust to correct the mistakes of ours and our forebears should be through these missions.

The U.S. must retain some overseas bases to deal with fast developing situations but being the "arsenal of democracy" is very different from being the nosy "universal policeman." We have squabbling siblings overseas but we should keep out of their quarrels until they call for us to help them settle disputes or reach for that "cookie jar" high on top of the tall shelf.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Protest nuke power/bombs


Join with occupy and many other groups fighting to end this self destructive obscenity

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

I can agree with your premise. Somethin must be put in place to assure our military is used properly. Congress has no real power to do so. I definetely agree with the idea of protecting the innocent victims of brutal dictators.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 7 years ago

Congress has forfeited its war powers duty and responsibility under the Constitution.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

gutless, and afraid that the war mongering, fearful population will vote them out of office. We can thank the war mongering politicians who have successfully used "weak on defense" "peacnik" campaign rhetoric to pull this country towards a neocon war mongering existence.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

We should tell the U.S. citizenry that the U.S. has ample muscles to do very heavy lifting and beating worldwide even if we trim our military down from the present level.

The U.S. has already been preparing for rapid global projection of forces for quite a while so the legacy of hundreds of overseas U.S. bases is very likely anachronistic. Besides, the U.S. allies are numerous and worldwide so they should be able to pull together to form regional blocs to stabilize their specific spheres of influence and interests.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

That is exactly the approach we should be pursuing. I might also suggest that the UN should form a better "peacekeeping standing force" to alleviate our military activity. That is a tough one.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

U.N. should require its member states to provide a contingent peacekeeping standing force for rapid deployment. A major problem that the U.N. has in reaching its promises is the slow response time to crises. By the time the diplomats come to agree what needs to be done, nothing more needs to be done because it may already be all over and done with, for better or more often for worse.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

You're right. I think too many cooks in the UN. and too much power concentrated with the wealthy countries. (where have I heard that before)

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago


This is the movement we should look at and I believe support.

No nukes

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 7 years ago

I like the idea, but the ones leading this cause are in the pockets of the military leaders something I'm against.

If we had a decentralized movement, like say OccupyNukes, I could stand behind it.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

Globalzero is in the pockets of the military? How do you know? Any links/evidence. I'd love to see it.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

could pay a lot of the deficit down with 50% def budget cut.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Occupy is anti nuke power/weapons


Support all groups protesting on the fromt lines to save out planet

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Ah, the twinkle/stinkle caped crusader arrives.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Engineer a comment regarding occupies support for anti nuke protests

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Any shred of decency you had is long gone, kag2.

Engineer some credibility, if you can.

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Here, have a twinkle * & calm the fk down will ya pls, lolol ? Please come back from your Kimberley expedition all refreshed, renewed and less curmudgeonly and cantankerous ! You know, there is the 'ignore him' option, lol !! Here's some good reading and listening M8 :

pax, amor et lux ?!

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago
[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

This post is about Occupies support for the anti nuke movement.

Engineer some support for us in our fight against this self destructive tech.

We need your support not your childish personal attacks.