Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54608 Aug 24, 2014
Chicknbutt wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a statement I've made.
What you've said is a blatant lie. I guess if you want to continue with your position, lying is the only tool you have left.
That says it all about you.


That is the statement you made.......or one to the same effect..........laying it off as coming from the IPPC report........
I called you on it..........asked you to prove it by showing where it was in the report..........you failed to do so.......I nagged you as you have nagged silver..........
and you still to this day fail to show where it is in the report..........

you were a liar then.....and your a liar now.......

you big dummy..........



rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54609 Aug 24, 2014
Chicknbutt wrote:
Oklahoma Earthquake Tied To Fracking Wastewater Draws First Lawsuit, Joins Growing Legal Effort In Arkansas, Texas
The number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. Nearly 450 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and larger occurred in the four years from 2010-2013, over 100 per year on average, compared with an average rate of 20 earthquakes per year observed from 1970-2000.
This increase in earthquakes prompts two important questions: Are they natural, or man-made? And what should be done in the future as we address the causes and consequences of these events to reduce associated risks? USGS scientists have been analyzing the changes in the rate of earthquakes as well as the likely causes, and they have some answers.
USGS scientists have found that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed for this purpose.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_s...


I expect it's only a matter of time before the idiots tie it to climate change..........

what a dummy..........fricking and fracking everywhere.......

rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54610 Aug 24, 2014
Chicknbutt wrote:
Rick Wiles:'Ebola Could Solve America's Problems With Atheism And Homosexuality
Right before chatting with a Republican congressman on his on “Trunews” program yesterday, End Times radio host Rick Wiles said that an outbreak of Ebola in the U.S. might actually be a good thing if it ends up giving an “attitude adjustment” to all the gays and atheists, along with people who use pornography or have had an abortion, who will die if they aren’t “protected by God.”
“Now this Ebola epidemic can become a global pandemic and that’s another name for plague. It may be the great attitude adjustment that I believe is coming,” he said.“Ebola could solve America’s problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion.”
“If Ebola becomes a global plague, you better make sure the blood of Jesus is upon you, you better make sure you have been marked by the angels so that you are protected by God. If not, you may be a candidate to meet the Grim Reaper.”
----------
Of course we can now see how Republicans become so insane.


And of course this is a typical WashBushStupid post..........


I'm not surprised by such emulation from the same dummy.......

Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54611 Aug 24, 2014
rename wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the statement you made.......or one to the same effect..........laying it off as coming from the IPPC report........
No, it's not. In FACT - I've already quoted the statement I made, posted it alongside the statement you CLAIMED I made, and explained to you the differences. We've already done this.

Freaking Tea-Baggers. You keep having to explain the same damn things to them over and over. It's so inefficient.

Quit being so damn ignorant. And PLEASE stop lying and attributing statements to me that I did not make.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54612 Aug 24, 2014
Excellent reading about the Koch "Carbon Bomb" to be detonated with the approval of the XL pipeline.

http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

Estimates indicate the Kochs could benefit up to $100,000,000,000 from this. Yes. A Hundred Billion Dollars. Of course right-wing press has dumped a ton of propaganda behind trying to gloss-over this fact.
rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54613 Aug 24, 2014
rename wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the statement you made.......or one to the same effect..........laying it off as coming from the IPPC report........
I called you on it..........asked you to prove it by showing where it was in the report..........you failed to do so.......I nagged you as you have nagged silver..........
and you still to this day fail to show where it is in the report..........
you were a liar then.....and your a liar now.......
you big dummy..........


And here is the statement to the same effect..........

post #54015
Tuesday Aug 19
on page 2600

Dummy chicken says "IPCC: solar variations don’t matter"..........and later claims it's in the IPPC report..........when challenged that it was not in the report,,, he disappeared for a couple of days in order to re-charge his sorry lying machine......

I wonder if there are some libroids able to get different meanings out of the 2 statements.........

"IPCC: solar variations don’t matter"
and
"IPPC: the Sun has no affect on Earths climate."


of course both represent what the Chicken said, "dont matter" and "no affect"..........


And the IPPC report said nothing near what he posted........

Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54614 Aug 24, 2014
Exxon Mobile: Truly Evil and Un-American, uses climate-change data to find oil.

Evil Exhibit A: The company balks at charitable giving.“Ultimately, this is our shareholders’ money we’re spending,” CEO Rex Tillerson said, according to the essay Steve Coll wrote for the Points section last month.“It’s not my money to tithe. It’s not the corporation’s. It’s our shareholders’.” It sounds like a heartless quote from a company with so much to spend; indeed, Coll seems to question whether ExxonMobil is eschewing its social responsibility and cites other companies that regularly give much more.

Evil Exhibit B: The company is more loyal to profits than to country.“I’m not a U.S. company,” said former CEO Lee “Iron Ass” Raymond,“and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.” For example, when Raymond flew to Beijing to deliver as speech to a petroleum congress, he urged industrializing countries such as China to defy the U.S. by blocking “any agreement in Kyoto that would result in ‘slower economic growth.’” To quote Coll,“it was extraordinary for the chief executive of a U.S.-headquartered multinational to lobby against a treaty he disliked by appealing to a Chinese Communist government … to adopt a negotiating position opposed to a sitting American president.”

Evil Exhibit C: The company was willing to throw big money behind efforts to discredit the idea of man-made global warming. Any resultant desire to curb emissions would be bad for business – and global consequences be damned if they were wrong. But the company hedged it’s own bets, using scientific predictions on changing ocean levels to predict where they might new oil.“So don’t believe for a minute that ExxonMobil doesn’t think climate change is real,” a former Exxon manager said.“They were using climate changes as a source of insight into exploration.”
rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54615 Aug 24, 2014
Chicknbutt wrote:
<quoted text>

Quit being so damn ignorant. And PLEASE stop lying and attributing statements to me that I did not make.


I've seen the same exact post or similar statement come from silver..........what a small world we have here on topix..........

The dummy says bad when it comes from silver..........
good when it comes from him.......



what a dummy..........




rename

Nicholasville, KY

#54616 Aug 24, 2014
Chicknbutt wrote:
Excellent reading about the Koch "Carbon Bomb" to be detonated with the approval of the XL pipeline.
http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
Estimates indicate the Kochs could benefit up to $100,000,000,000 from this. Yes. A Hundred Billion Dollars. Of course right-wing press has dumped a ton of propaganda behind trying to gloss-over this fact.


Can you sing us the "Kochamania Blues" this morning dummy..........


Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54617 Aug 24, 2014
Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer

One of the world's largest and most knowledgeable scientific bodies wants to make one point very clear: Just as smoking causes cancer, so too are humanity's greenhouse gas emissions causing the planet to change, with potentially unknown and unalterable impacts.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, made a rare foray into the climate debate Tuesday, releasing a report reiterating what many scientific bodies have already said:

The evidence is overwhelming. Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Seas are rising. Rainfall and drought patterns are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.

"The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer," the AAAS wrote in its report, "What We Know."

"And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains climate change is happening, and human activity is the cause."

Published in Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cli...
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54618 Aug 24, 2014
The AAAS says there is scarcely any precedent for the speed at which this is happening: "The rate of climate change now may be as fast as any extended warming period over the past 65 million years, and it is projected to accelerate in the coming decades."

Historically rare extreme weather like once-in-a-century floods, droughts and heat waves could become almost annual occurrences, it says. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could see large-scale collapse, the Gulf Stream could alter its course, the Amazon rain forest and coral reefs could die off, and mass extinctions could threaten ecosystems.

The authors acknowledge that what the AAAS is doing is unusual: "As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change," the authors said.

"But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening."
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54620 Aug 24, 2014
It's Time to Label Sacks of Coal Like We Do Cigarettes: SMOKING KILLS

We know smoking cigarettes, according to their labels, KILLS or “Seriously harms you and others around you.”

Smoking coal has similar effects, and deserves similar treatment or regulatory control, as smoking cigarettes. Smoking coal not only harms those who smoke it but also those around them — in the same household and neighborhood and town — and everybody everywhere as it is killing our planet by emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The struggle to control cigarettes has not been easy, and we can expect no less opposition from coal interests. Some of the same arguments, public relations consultants, and lawyers supporting the tobacco industries have been joined together again by fossil fuel interests to oppose any climate change legislation.

In the 1940s through the present, there has been a concerted effort to reduce or eliminate the risks from people smoking cigarettes, and it has worked. The risks are clear enough, and there is no dispute about those risks. Medical research has demonstrated that people who smoke a lot are in serious danger of getting lung cancer or other diseases. The solution is equally clear: do what we can to stop people from smoking, short of a total ban on the product. The preventive actions have included significantly raising the taxes on cigarettes; banning advertisements for cigarettes in some media and for some targeted audiences (like young people); information campaigns to educate people, especially young people about the risks.

How does coal compare to cigarettes?

Benefit

One fundamental distinction is that smoking cigarettes produces profits for tobacco companies, and some satisfaction for smokers, but few other benefits. Burning coal provides substantial profits for fossil fuel companies, some of which is spent to oppose climate change legislation. But coal also provides cheap energy, especially for poor people, who are then harmed by inhaling air laden with coal emissions.
One of the impacts from smoking that drove a nail in tobacco’s coffin was second-hand smoke. Not only was smoking by individuals harmful to the smokers, but smoking affected others, especially non-smokers, who were being harmed by the smoke. So smoking in most public places and offices, and elsewhere, was banned to protect against the second-hand health risks. Banning worked and removed the risk.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54622 Aug 24, 2014
rename wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you sing us the "Kochamania Blues" this morning dummy..........
The entire planet will be singing that song soon, thanks to soulless irresponsible idiots like you.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54623 Aug 24, 2014
A Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant

A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.

It also puts out, each year:

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.

3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.

500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.

220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.

720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.

125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.

225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.

Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.

The 2.2 billion gallons of water it uses for cooling is raised 16 degrees F on average before being discharged into a lake or river. By warming the water year-round it changes the habitat of that body of water.

Coal mining creates tons of hazardous and acidic waste which can contaminate ground water. Strip mining also destroys habitat and can affect water tables. Underground mining is a hazard to water quality and to coal miners. In the mid-1970s, the fatality rate for underground miners was 0.4 per million tons of coal -- one miner would be killed every two years to supply our 500 MW plant. The disabling injury rate was 38 people per million tons -- 106 miners would be disabled every two years to supply this plant. Since coal mining is much more automated now, there are many fewer coal miners, and thus many fewer deaths and injuries.

Transportation of coal is typically by rail and barge; much coal now comes from the coal basins of Wyoming and the West. Injuries from coal transportation (such as at train crossing accidents) are estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year. Transporting enough coal to supply just this one 500 MW plant requires 14,300 train cars. That's 40 cars of coal per day.

Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind...
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54624 Aug 24, 2014
Want to learn more about fracking?

The Weather Channel: Big Oil and Bad Air on the Texas Prairie

http://stories.weather.com/fracking

An excellent in-depth look at the results of this that are affecting real people. Well worth the time to glance at, regardless of what you believe.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54626 Aug 24, 2014
5 Ways Climate Change Is Ruining Your Breakfast

Welcome to the worst breakfast-related crisis since Lord of the Rings: There might be an impending Nutella shortage. And there's a good chance the culprit is climate change.

The price of hazelnuts, a main ingredient in the delicious chocolate spread, is up 60 percent after unseasonable ice storms devastated hazel tree farms in Turkey's Black Sea coastal region this year. And colder winters and heavier precipitation are exactly what the EU's Centre for Climate Adaptation says the Black Sea coast should expect as climate change advances. Though Nutella's manufacturer hasn't raised its prices yet, it's facing increasing strain as palm oil and cocoa get more expensive, too.

It would be bad enough if Nutella were the only food that melting ice caps and changing weather patterns are threatening to rob from the breakfast table. But no—the list of climate change's culinary casualties goes on. Here are some other ways it's making the most important meal of the day a little less satisfying:

Rising cereal prices. Kix might be kid-tested and mother-approved, but have fun buying them in 2030, when their cost could be as much as 24 percent higher due to drought-stricken grain crops, according to an Oxfam International report.(And that doesn't even account for inflation.) Lovers of Frosted Flakes and Kellogg's Corn Flakes should also start stockpiling now—Oxfam predicts their respective prices will rise by 20 and 30 percent by 2030.

A global bacon shortage. The aporkalypse is nigh. Even if you're on a no-carb diet, shrinking grain supplies are bad news. Pricier corn and soybeans equals pricier pig feed, and pricier pig feed equals smaller pig herds. In 2012, Britain's National Pig Association announced that a pork and bacon shortage "is now unavoidable."

Bland-but-costly coffee. There's an epic drought in Brazil, the world's largest coffee exporter. As a result, one commodities trading firm says caffeine addicts will consume 5 million more bags of beans than coffee growers can produce in the 2014-2015 season, and the price of coffee futures has already doubled to $2 a pound. To make matters worse, beans grown at higher temperatures don't develop the blend of aromatic compounds that give coffee its distinctive flavor.

Waffle woes. The nation had to collectively leggo its Eggos in November 2009, when record flooding in Atlanta stopped waffle production at the local Kellogg plant. Sure, this has happened once so far, but according to the Environmental Protection Agency, "projected sea level rise, increased hurricane intensity, and associated storm surge may lead to further erosion, flooding, and property damage in the Southeast."
----------

Yes - climate change is is causing a bacon shortage. Not good.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54627 Aug 24, 2014
The MYTH of "clean coal"

As it turns out, coal is exceedingly dirty. Just consider the facts: Coal-fired power plants spit out 59 percent of the United States' total sulfur dioxide pollution, 50 percent of its particle pollution and 40 percent of its total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [source: Sierra Club]. Factor in smog, ozone and health concerns and you have quite an environmental villain on your hands -- and that's not counting all the toil, danger and upheaval involved in mining it.

Yet coal, for all its ills, continues to play a vital role in global energy production, and you simply can't reasonably ask everyone to stop burning it -- not when renewable alternatives aren't ready to pick up all the slack. That's where clean coal enters the picture, theoretically to mitigate the impact of coal pollution until such time as it can be abandoned altogether. For more information on the various refining processes involved, read "What is clean coal technology?"

Problem solved, right? Wrong. A great deal of clean coal technology centers around capturing and storing pollutants that would otherwise be released in the burning process. With CO2, this involves either pumping the gas down wells to depleted oil fields or into deep-sea depths. Not only can the later option potentially endanger marine ecosystems, but also they both require care and monitoring to prevent polluting the environment anyway. Critics charge that all this amounts to a redirecting of pollution, not a true reduction of it.

Plus, environmentalists also point out that coal mining still entails a great deal of geologic upheaval, riddling the Earth with tunnels and sometimes requiring mountaintop-removal mining. They've also leveled greenwashing accusations at the very oxymoronic name "clean coal." For their campaign, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity used the same marketing company that came up with the ever-popular slogan "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."

Therefore, the myths surrounding clean coal tend to paint it as more of a solution than it is, as well as a cleaner energy source than it could ever possibly be.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54628 Aug 24, 2014
MYTH: Solar Energy Doesn't Provide Enough Juice

When was the last time you saw a sun-powered race car? How about a jet fighter decked out with solar panels? Chances are, the fastest and most powerful examples of technology in the world around you are powered by something other than the brilliant rays of the sun. None of this exactly helps solar power's reputation as a wimpy, low-voltage way for tree huggers to power their decorative, iridescent yard squirrels.

First, even if solar electricity -- also known as photovoltaics (PV)-- was only capable of energizing our low-power vanity gadgets and amazing, fuzzy green undergarments, many commentators identify the statement "little steps can't make a difference" as a major myth surrounding the green movement. Just consider Triumph's Photovoltaic-Powered Bra (seen in the nearby photo). While such gadgetry hardly makes a dent in global energy consumption, it's a small change that forces others to think about the ecological matters at hand and possibly make both small and substantial changes in their own lives.

Second, PV power may not be in a position to solve all our energy problems right now, but its potential for the future is great. Remember, we're talking about leaching energy from a titanic, star -- one that steers an entire system of planets, our atmosphere and life as we know it.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the solar energy resource in a 100-square-mile (259-square-kilometer) area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity. We're talking 800 gigawatts of power, and that's using modestly efficient commercial PV modules. Break all that down and each state would only need to devote 17 x 17 miles (27 x 27 kilometers) of solar cells (not all states are quite as sunny as Nevada). Where would all that land come from in each state? The DOE points to the country's estimated 5 million acres (2.02 million hectares) of abandoned industrial sites as a potential candidate that could contribute a whopping 90 percent of U.S. electrical consumption.

In the meantime, PV technology continues to develop and the U.S. industry alone is expected to reach the $10-$15 billion level by 2025. At this rate, solar electricity in the United States will offset 11.02 million tons (10 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide per year by 2027.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54629 Aug 24, 2014
MYTH: Wind Turbines are noisy costly bird-killers

Solar electricity isn't the only renewable energy whipping boy out there. Wind power has also taken more than its share of lumps, frequently saddled with a reputation for excessive noise and energy inefficiency. Plus, if some of the rumors are true, wind harvesters of the world have steadily been turning the planet's bird population into an airborne puree of blood and feathers.

To be fair, wind turbines do kill birds -- but so do vehicles, skyscrapers, pollution and the introduction of invasive species into their habitats. Humans have had bird blood on their hands for ages, and as daunting as a field of wind turbines may look, they're responsible for statistically few bird deaths -- less than 1 in every 30,000 [source: U.S. Department of Energy].

But even without the death cries of a thousand birds, aren't wind turbines a noise nuisance? Actually, modern turbine technology renders them relatively silent -- essentially no more than the soft, steady whine of wind through the blades. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, if you stand 750 feet (229 meters) away from a wind farm of multiple turbines, the noise would be no more than that of a working kitchen refrigerator. These aren't helicopter blades, after all. The Ontario Ministry of Environment breaks it down like this: If 0 decibels is the threshold of hearing and 140 is the threshold of pain, then a typical wind farm scores between 35 and 45, sandwiched between a quiet bedroom (35) and a 40-mile-per-hour (64-kilometer-per-hour) car (55).

Finally, there's the issue of cost. Like any energy production facility, there are plenty of upfront costs to harvesting wind energy, but research indicates that the average wind farm pays back the energy used in its manufacture within three to five months of operation [source: BWEA]. Since wind farms depend on variable weather patterns, day-to-day operating costs tend to run higher. Simply put, the wind isn't going to blow at top speed year-round. If it did, a wind turbine would produce its maximum theoretical power. In reality, a turbine only produces 30 percent of this amount, though it produces different levels of electricity 70 to 85 percent of the time [source: BWEA]. This means that wind power requires back-up power from an alternative source, but this is common in energy production.

Wind power demonstrates tremendous promise for the future -- and not just for the environment, but for the pocketbook as well. In 2005, the state of New York determined that a 10 percent addition of wind generation would reduce customer payments by $305 million in one year.
Chicknbutt

Douglasville, GA

#54630 Aug 24, 2014
MYTH: Renewable Energy is worthless without government subsidies

Think back to the ridiculous solar-paneled bra on page three of this article. How likely are you to fill your lingerie drawer with these renewable energy undergarments? But wait, before you refuse to drop top dollar on a space-age brassiere, think about what you'd do if you could get one at a discount -- or even free. Then would you consider augmenting your under attire with some renewable energy?

To some critics, investing in solar and wind energy is no less silly. Of course it makes sense to invest in renewable technology if a government program is going to pay for most of it through incentives and tax breaks. But this, they argue, artificially backs an unsustainable energy model.

While it's true that renewable energy benefits heavily from government incentive programs, it's important to realize that this is true of most energy sources. This includes everything from gasoline and nuclear power to ethanol production and solar power. The United States government, for instance, provides significant subsidies to every major fuel source in one way or another, keeping the costs for consumers down to predetermined levels.

For instance, in 2007, the United States provided $724 million in subsidies for wind power,$174 million for solar and $14 million for geothermal. Yet, in that same year, they also provided $854 million in subsidies to coal production and $1.267 billion to nuclear power [source: Energy Information Administration].

Simply put, a government-subsidized technology is not one that necessarily exists in a bubble or is unsustainable in the long run.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Thu Sherlock 55
where in Darien can i use draw net to catch shr... Sep 2 Dvht 3
Jekyll Public Oyster Beds Aug 28 Brief 1
Jennifer aka Snow (Jun '14) Aug '17 Ja nuttz 4
Job Corps info. (Aug '11) Aug '17 Jenforbus 6
Looking Aug '17 Truth 10
are great white sharks in altamahal river ? Aug '17 FLNDN 6

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages