Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FYI - Oil Change International - new group in the fight?

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 18, 2013, 3:16 p.m. EST by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Last November, we witnessed the most expensive election in history and a concerted attack on the right to vote. But the tide is turning – Big Oil bet big, and to a large extent, they lost.1 And there’s more momentum for change in campaign finance rules than ever before.

But that doesn’t mean the fight has been won…far from it. You can rest assured that Big Oil and their other rich friends will not sit back and fret over the 2012 election – they’re already coming back hard, spending millions on ad campaigns and funneling money ahead of the next election.

That’s why we’re so excited to see the great events that are planned for this weekend all across the country, and wanted to let you know about them so you can join in.

An impressive coalition of groups ranging from environment, to labor, to human rights, social justice and beyond have come together to organize a massive day of action this weekend to get “money out and voters in.”

All over the country, citizens will gather to take our democracy back from big donors and those working to disenfranchise voters. They’ll stand up to big money – whether it’s Big Oil or the big wigs on Wall Street – and say that our democracy is not for sale and our votes can’t be taken from us.

There are events all around the country – click here to find an event near you.

In the spirit of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, standing up for democracy could not be more fitting. Struggling to build a more just democracy is a uniting principle that has guided everyone from our founding fathers to our freedom fighters.

Tomorrow, I’ll be headed over to Chevron’s refinery in Richmond, California to join in the action there…going straight to Big Oil and telling them enough is enough. Will you join me? Take a stand by attending an event near you.

Hope to see you out there, David Campaigns Director Oil Change International

1 http://priceofoil.org/2012/11/07/big-oil-bet-big-and-lost/

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Vote for us at CREDO

Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming barriers to that transition.

We are a 501c3 organization and all donations are fully tax deductible.

Check out our blog at PriceOfOil.org and find out how much oil and coal money your Representatives take at DirtyEnergyMoney.com.

35 Comments

35 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If the only two candidates that have a chance of winning dont represent the public, is it really a representative democracy?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

Winning candidates always represent the majority of the voting public. It can be debated as to how much they represent them and denied that they actually represent the majority of the people but the fact remains that they represent something that the people who voted for them found significant enough to vote for rather than not voting for them at all. The representative democracy represents those people no matter how few they may be in comparison to everyone else who were not in agreement in either voting or in voting for an alternative.

If people have no desire to agree upon what's important across party lines to enforce a common standard for all candidates to adhere to, democratic representation will always be a winner take all for the interests of the few.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Good points Leo! But when voters are basically "tricked" or "propagandized" into supporting an entire party platform strictly on the basis of a few "wedge issues", are they really getting what they voted for? -When they are not even aware of (or do not fully understand) what most of that party platform actually includes?

“(Political parties) seem to function as part of an effective Divide and Conquer strategy more than anything else, keeping most of us arguing back and forth against each other over lesser concerns and distracted from the more fundamental issues. Party affiliation and party loyalty is also an effective way to use "wedge issues" to gain popular support for A Host of Other Unspoken Atrocities. Have you ever seen that Vonage commercial? Don't Get Bundled? We ALLLLLLL Bundle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T8_4s3Y4jk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcQpOGpxcI

They know exactly what pushes people's buttons and they use that to their utmost advantage to keep us divided against each other and to Manufacture Consent. How else could The Obama Administration have gotten away with continuing The Draconian, Pro-War, Pro-1% Polices Of The Bush Administration For FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS and yet still managed to maintain enough party-loyal support to get re-elected on basically gay marriage and abortion rights? and a watered-down-health-care-bill-that-will-force-everyone-to-purchase-overpriced-insurace (A Wet Dream for The Profit-Oriented Pharmaceutical Industry And Insurance Companies)?

"...Puppy?" lol

Okay, so he is finally trying to make the rich pay more in taxes, but why didn't he do that when he had a chance to Four Years Ago? And what will this new tax-money be spent on? More Predator Drones? Another Unjustifiable War in The Middle East? A Trillion Dollar Propaganda Campaign To Elect Hillary Clinton As The First Woman President In 2016? lol”

(…) party affiliation and party-loyalty, it seriously is akin to gang mentality, like the Crips and the Bloods, the Dems and the Reps. All they really want to do is “win” (like it’s a game) and by “winning“, We ALL Lose. Comedian Chris Rock said it best in one of his stand up performances years ago:

“The entire country has a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are fucking idiots. Conservatives are idiots. Liberals are idiots. Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool, OK!?! Everyone is so busy trying to be down with their gang...it's fucking bullshit! Be. A. Person.”

And as much as some of us may be tired of hearing about it and tired of talking about it, this party-loyal gang mentality (as well as blind-loyal-propagandized-nationalism and exceptionalism on a more macro level) that keeps us divided and conquered and oppressed is a serious issue that needs to somehow be resolved and overcome. I also do not think parties are the ultimate answer and would also like to see them all eventually vanish and for us to focus on the individual issues through Direct Democracy. The question is: How do we achieve that from where we are? -and with what we have to work with now?” -KP

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

Voters aren't "tricked" or "propagandized" into supporting an entire party platform strictly on the basis of a few "wedge issues". The last three paragraphs of your reply says it all. It's mere group identification and the desire to win. That's an issue of human nature that isn't going to be changing anytime soon. However, it doesn't have to be overcome before beginning the process of moving beyond it. Voters CAN come together in agreement on common important issues that they can make the standard for any candidate to receive their votes http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ . They CAN unite in applying affidavits as the determining factor or bottom line for any candidate's eligibility for getting elected. And even if dedicated partisan voters vote for their party candidates no matter what allowing all of their candidates to decline in signing the affidavits, non-partisan voters and current non-voters outnumber partisan voters and can produce candidates from among themselves to be supported in the subsequent elections. Unity in exercising democratic power through affidavits would be the first step towards direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"Unity in exercising democratic power through affidavits would be the first step towards direct democracy." Very good point and agreed.

But if you really think "Voters aren't "tricked" or "propagandized" into supporting an entire party platform strictly on the basis of a few "wedge issues"." -you're full-of-shit-about-that. You actually think every American who votes does their research? If I had done my research and understood the game better I would never had been Tricked and Duped into voting for Obama in 2008. It's like signing a contract without reading or understanding the fine-print. Are you familar with Chomsky's work concerning Manufactured Consent?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

How is an American's choice not to do research on an issue of supposed importance to them the result of someone else's trickery? It's one thing to be misled by information you can't peer behind. It's quite another to simply choose not to pursue knowledge of an issue you've already decided you're going to act upon. Voters decide what they're for as well as what they're against that they're nevertheless willing to live with. That's why they're willing to vote for the same candidates again regardless of what transpires during the candidates' time in office.

Every so often, I'm presented with an online contract to read before accepting a program. Although I agree to accepting the program, I do so without taking the time to read the contract. Why? Because it's time consuming and I'm most likely going to agree to it anyway. However, if something should ever come up that I was unaware of in the contract, I don't blame the company that had presented the contract to me for my decision not to read it. That's totally on me. If I'm in an office or in person with someone presenting a contract to me, I'm definitely going to review it thoroghly but in either case the responsibility is on me to do the research I know I should be doing.

Americans are not being duped for their own decisions not to research the issues. Americans are making decisions on what's important to them and what they're willing to live with. For many of the voting Americans, what's important to them is their party affiliation and what they're willing to live with is anything that doesn't immediately affect them.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

OMG, do you work for an advertising agency? lol That's like saying fast-food commercials have nothing to do with America's consumption of unhealthy fast-food. Why else would they spend Trillions of dollars on advertising? Like, Ronald McDonald ain't got nothing to do with selling cheeseburgers and Happy-Meals lol Of course it's Our responsibility to do the research, of Course it's Our responsibility to read the fine-print, but just because people should read the fine-print doesn't mean they do and it doesn't mean they can't be Tricked into agreeing to a bunch-of-shit they would have never agreed to had they read it and understood it and knew exactly what they were getting into. Hello! This is America we're talking about here! lol We ain't exactly a barrel full of Einsteins in case you haven't noticed lol That's why they put the shit in fine-print in the first place, cuz they know we got much more important shit to do, like cheering for the Smack-Down on Monday Night Raw and watching Jerry Springer re-runs and texting on our I-Phone while playing Call of Duty 2 on PS3 while listening to DMX bumping on the speakers full blast ARRFF! ARRRF! ARRRRF! (that’s Me barking like DMX). And until recently, much of the information that people need to research has been buried like a needle in a haystack on purpose and most of us don’t even know what it is we need to be researching in the first place.

You never did answer my question though, are you familiar with Noam Chomsky and the Atrocity of Manufactured Consent?

“…the general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know. (…)”

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU

Network - We're In a Lot of Trouble http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Xd5vuJcHU Beware: The delusional media attacks the population through illusions.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-need-a-movement-to-get-money-out-of-the-mainstr/

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

No, it's NOT like saying fast-food commercials have nothing to do with America's consumption of unhealthy fast-food. It's saying that Americans always have a choice in what they choose to patronize with no delusions as to what they're patronizing even if they don't read the fine print. Without any research whatsoever, nobody ever sees an ad for Mc Donald's and then goes there thinking they're going to be eating for their health. Without any research whatsoever, nobody ever sees duopoly political campaigns without being aware of drone attacks, support for Wall St., lack of support for victims, etc. Be it food or politicians, Monday Night Smack-Down or DMX, people decide what's important to them and what they're willing to live with even without deciding to read the fine print.

I think I've already come across your reference to Noam Chomsky and the Atrocity of Manufactured Consent. I've definitely come across

Messing With Our Minds: The Ever Finer Line Between News and Advertising

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-744580

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-744593

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Noam Chomsky: The responsibility of privilege

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l64zFyTuy_8

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I think you're missing the point, but maybe that's partly my fault because I was being cynical and trying to be funny. When I voted for Obama in 2008, I thought I was voting for Peace and for someone who would stand up to the right-wing-republicans, someone who would focus on improving the lives and working conditions of poor people. I did not get what I voted for. I got Nothing I voted for. I might as well have voted for a right-wing republican because that's basically what we got. And I don't feel it was my fault because I was lied to and manipulated by this "Messing With Our Minds". If someone lies to you and you believe it, who is more responsible for your belief in the lie? I blame the liar more than I blame the believer.

People (for the most part) are "unfairly" easily manipulated and tend to follow a herd-like (monkey see monkey do) mentality more than most of us are willing to admit. It's just part of human nature, a reality that many are not comfortable with accepting. Even more so in this modern age of television, where most people spend most of their free time glued to a brainwashing devise that has the power to manipulate and shape our minds on a massive, unprecedented scale. I actually blame the Corrupt Mainstream Media and those in positions of influencial power (teachers and politicians, etc.) who should have a civic duty and a responsibility to the well-being and best interests of the people, more than the actual people who suffer from such intentional manipulation, abuse and misguidance.

To sum up my point with perhaps a more appropriate example: If the parent of a child is abusive, let's say that he abuses his wife, he abuses the child, he abuses almost everyone he comes into contact with and he solves everything with violence and he intentionally teaches the child that violence and cruelty is the answer to everything and that strong people deserve the right to abuse and dominate the lives of others and he actually lectures the child on this everyday to reinforce this mentality of cruelty and sadism. And the child grows up to be violent, dominating and sadistic. I understand this an extreme example but it still applies to my point. Who is more to blame? Is it really the child's fault that he was so misguided and manipulated into such a cruel mentality?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

Like I said before,

"It's one thing to be misled by information you can't peer behind."

No one could have peered behind the image presented by Obama to see what was truly there. No one can be at fault for believing he stood for change. However, everyone could see that the big banks were contributing to his campaign. Everyone could see that he was of the same party that since 2006 wasn't going to go after Bush for his crimes but had instead continued support of his wars. And after four years of seeing what he did in office, did you vote for him again? Others certainly did. Knowing everything you know about him now after his first term in office, others decided what was important to them and what they were willing to live with and voted for him again.

As for the grown up child, that person can't help their upbringing and can't be blamed for it but if that person intentionally kills or harms anyone as an adult, they will be responsible for their own decisions unless declared insane. Michael Jackson and his brothers were raised by an abusive father and Michael certainly had problems because of it but neither he (or as far as I know) his brothers ever perpetuated the abusiveness of their father. People suffer extreme conditions and people make choices whether to perpetuate those extreme conditions or to rebel against them.

The Corrupt Mainstream Media and those in positions of influencial power (teachers and politicians, etc.) who should have a civic duty and a responsibility to the well-being and best interests of the people, are people too. For the most part, they're just the people of the general population that have made it into positions of influential power where they follow the herd mentality of those around them. If the masses on the bottom can't be expected to overcome their herd mentality, how much more can be expected of the few whose personal choices and backgrounds have brought them into positions of influence? There are abusive fathers who are factory workers and there are abusive fathers who are politicians. How can we hold one to a higher standard simply for being in a better position when mentally they're both the same? One can be far more dangerous than the other because of his position but that's really the only difference; one mentality having the opportunity to do what the other cannot.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

And after four years of seeing what he did in office, did you vote for him again? Others certainly did. Knowing everything you know about him now after his first term in office, others decided what was important to them and what they were willing to live with and voted for him again.

Hell No lol I might have been gullible the first time, but after four straight years of watching him continue the atrocities of the Bush administration, not a chance in Hell would I have voted for him again. But I know many who did and they all justified it with their lesser-of two-evils gang mentality. Every election it’s the same mantra “We can’t let the republicans win! This election is too important! Too much is at stake! Third party votes are wasted votes!” This is a very popular mentality with democrats especially and it keeps us trapped in a Corrupt-Two-Party-Duopoly. Voters are seriously brainwashed into believing they have no other effective choice but to choose between two evils, because that is what everyone else who votes always does. They fail to comprehend that as long as they keep doing that they will always be stuck with those same two evil choices. Those who helped to re-elect Obama did it reluctantly, they watched him sell out the American people just like I did, but they believed that Romney would have been even worse and so that was the main reason why they were willing to vote for Obama again. Most didn’t really vote for Obama, they voted against Romney. And it wasn’t really so much that they agreed with Obama’s policies and were willing to live with that choice as much as it was that they felt they had no other choice. They were all still stuck in that two-party-game mentality.

I voted for Jill Stein in hopes of her gaining at least 5% of the vote so The Green Party could qualify for gov. funding, become an official party and be allowed into the debates. She received less than 1% and my vote didn’t even count because she didn’t even qualify for write in status in my state. So you can imagine my frustration. Its bad enough that we don’t have real (Direct) Democracy. But we don’t even have a legitimate “representative” democracy. I was left totally disenfranchised last election with no option. They even purged my name from the registration list and gave me the run around at the polls to discourage me from voting. Then once I was finally able to vote, I then later learned that it didn’t even count.

If the masses on the bottom can't be expected to overcome their herd mentality, how much more can be expected of the few whose personal choices and background have brought them into positions of influence?

I have not given up hope that its possible, that’s why I’ve been trying to do as much as I can to help wake people up with my writing and posting. But even with the growing Movement, the situation is looking grim. I think getting money out of the mainstream media is a huge first step. We need a media that is not ruled by money that will expose the corruption and bring to light the fundamental issues, instead of defending and perpetuating this failed status-quo.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

The media, as with most things, will always be controlled by money. It takes money to have a media so those with the money to have one are naturally going to control it. That can never change. However, what can change is "those with the money". People can come together to either start their own television network or perhaps gain a majority share in a major television network like NBC. It would take billions of dollars and therefore millions of people. If it would take $100 billion, it would take 100 million people with $1000 each. Not likely to happen but then I don't really know how much it would actually cost. In any case, the people to pull it off would already have to be organized in a massive credit union capable of pooling such financial resources together. I also wonder if college campus newspapers can be empowered with grassroots support to collectively become a mainstream alternative to the status quo. The power of private money over journalism would be removed if this were feasible.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"The media, as with most things, will always be controlled by money. It takes money to have a media so those with the money to have one are naturally going to control it. That can never change."

Bullshit. Would you also say that about Capitalism? And Money in Politics? I'm talking about it being Ruled BY Money. I'm talking about it being controled by The Profit Motive, Advertising and Corrupt/Corporate Agendas. That can never change? Says who? you? lol

What about The Monetary System Itself? Would you also claim that can never change? Money must always rule the world? http://www.zeitgeistminneapolis.com/money

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

Like I had said,

"It takes money to have a media so those with the money to have one are naturally going to control it."

What I've said is a simple truth so I don't know why you've objected to it. Explaining that what you were talking about is "The Profit Motive" clearly shows that you understand I hadn't comprehended that to have been what you were talking about.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

When I hear someone say something like "That can never change" it makes my Bullshit detector sound off it's alarm. I tend to look deeper into issues and look at the fundamental root-cause and solution to issues. You seem to be extremely limited and fatalistic in your thinking and perspective. I Think and Dream Big and I think that's where we've been butting heads :-)

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"People can come together to either start their own television network or perhaps gain a majority share in a major television network like NBC. It would take billions of dollars and therefore millions of people."

"...if college campus newspapers can be empowered with grassroots support to collectively become a mainstream alternative to the status quo. The power of private money over journalism would be removed if this were feasible."

Alternative media is already on the rise, but what I'm really talking about when I say "We need a movement to Get Money Out of The Mainstream Media", I'm talking about totally revolutionizing the traditional way it has been done from the ground up. It needs to be completely separated from advertising, entertainment and profit. I’m talking about creating new laws and regulating it in the same way that everything else needs to be regulated and geared to work as a People-Oriented, ethically responsible service, in the same way that a legitimate Non-Profit charity organization functions for the sole purpose of feeding and sheltering the homeless. I’m talking about a revolution of values and a radical change in the way we do things and what motives and agendas we allow to prevail over how and why everything functions in our world.

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin—we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay a hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.” -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5878) 1 year ago

Spain's Rebellion Moves to Print

Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:00 By Michael Levitin, Truthout | Report

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14102-spains-rebellion-moves-to-print

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Damn tough question . . . um . . no? . . . wait wait . . . is this a trick question?. . . I mean they represent something . . . right?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think it represents something, thats for sure, but I dont think the general public is ready to face the hard truth yet.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Gotta sooner or later - best if soonest.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

On Monday during the inauguration, President Obama opened his term with a clarion call for action on climate change. Our response?

Time to organize.

President Obama said, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

These are great words, in a big speech. But pardon us if we’re not sitting on our hands basking in the glow of a job well done. We’ve seen good talk before, and the President’s talk – while very good in this case – is not the same as action.

So it’s time to hold his feet to the fire. Luckily, we’ve got a great opportunity to do just that.

Oil Change International is proud to partner with 350.org, the Sierra Club and many other organizations on the upcoming Forward on Climate rally in Washington, DC, a rally that, with your help, will be the largest climate-focused event in U.S. history.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline – that zombie project that keeps coming back from the dead – will be on the President’s desk sometime in the next few months. And we need to show him, without a doubt, that if he’s serious about tackling climate change he must reject this pipeline.1

Will you join us in DC on February 17th to ensure we move Forward on Climate? (Don’t live in DC? Not to worry – organizers are in the midst of arranging buses and other transportation options to bring folks in. The best way to keep up to date on these options is to sign up!)

This is an event you won’t want to miss. You’ll be hearing from us again soon with more details…but for now, be sure to sign up to join us in DC.

Peace, Steve

1Last week Oil Change International made headlines when we released our latest report: "Petroleum Coke, the Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands" exposing the fact that the greenhouse gas estimates of the pipeline have been significantly underestimated.

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Read our blog

Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming barriers to that transition.

We are a 501c3 organization and all donations are fully tax deductible.

Check out our blog at PriceOfOil.org and find out how much oil and coal money your Representatives take at DirtyEnergyMoney.com.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep, to the top it goes.

[+] -11 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey GF - thx. x's x's x's O

This one is also great - because if you have a social media account with FB or Twitter it is ready to be forwarded. Or up-voted at credo.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

this is really getting ridiculous (twinkle count)

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I don't have a twitter account. But, I got one out of three.

[+] -9 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Cool every little bit helps - example - someone please see if I can be given 1 penny for every financial transaction that happens on a normal business day - I do believe that I could make ends meet off of that - maybe get the best hybrid car available and build the best green technology house possible at this point in time.

[+] -11 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wow - that is harsh - someone down voted you for not having a twitter account ( I guess ). I gave you a solid twinkle ( just so ya know - HUG )

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Who knew that was all it took? Screw 'em. Thanks for the twinkle.

[+] -11 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

My pleasure - perhaps someday you will tweet or perhaps not - but you fly just fine anyway.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Thanks.

[+] -11 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I just calls em as I sees em.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

More sillyness up-votes? Well not exactly sillyness - but to go on the best comment board? Really?

[-] 5 points by DKAtoday (24635) from Coon Rapids, MN 22 minutes ago

I just calls em as I sees em.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26017) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wonder how the people of Salt Lake City feel about switching over to green power technology now. Just reported they are sitting in an inversion and the air is rated 4 times more toxic then a normal unsafe rating.