Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 59458 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37475 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another illustration of the growing mountain of evidence that solar power does not work.
Spain is not alone. Arizona Power is asking the public service commission for permission to charge people who install solar panels on their roofs a fee of $100 per month to cover the cost that this burdensome and expensive nuisance imposes upon the electric power distribution system.
I would personally prefer that power companies be allowed to ban solar outright, but as long as they must humor the tree huggers then make the tree huggers pay for it. Don't socialize the cost by spreading it among sensible power customers who don't install the ugly junk.
The prime minister told Parliament yesterday he’d impose a levy to spread the expense of closing a gap between costs and revenue in the country’s electricity business, which has racked up debts of 25 billion euros ($31 billion). Details may be announced as early as tomorrow after the weekly Cabinet meeting.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/spai...

So, it seems that Spain is simply looking for revenue, unlike the carbon tax proposals, that does nothing positive except raise reve3nues for Spain.

One answer: APS is facing its own mortality. If rooftop solar is adopted widely enough, it means a death spiral for the electric utilities. The price per kilowatt-hour for solar is plummeting. The utilities all know it, and they’re fighting back by making net-metering more expensive.
Another answer: The Arizona Corporation Commission (the state’s name for its Public Utilities Commission) is closely allied with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group generally pushing model right wing laws within states.
“There’s no reason other than ideology,” Nancy LaPlaca, an Arizona energy consultant, tells TakePart.“They just don’t like solar.” Four of the commission members are associated with ALEC. One of them is a former Chevron consultant.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/so...
It looks like the utilities in Arizona are running scared and want to impose a tax on solar to protect their investments. Is this an example of a "free market" approach?
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37476 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If rooftop solar is adopted widely enough, it means a death spiral for the electric utilities.
If the electric utilities are destroyed and it all becomes solar, what are you going to do after dark and on cloudy days?

Oh! I know. Freeze in the dark.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37477 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
If the electric utilities are destroyed and it all becomes solar, what are you going to do after dark and on cloudy days?
Oh! I know. Freeze in the dark.
If there is a need there will be an electric grid. The grid can be used to transport solar and wind as well as nuclear and fossil fueled plants to supplement consumer based collectors. If the corporations cannot support the grid, the government will. Whatever is necessary.
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37478 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is a need there will be an electric grid. The grid can be used to transport solar and wind as well as nuclear and fossil fueled plants to supplement consumer based collectors. If the corporations cannot support the grid, the government will. Whatever is necessary.
Ah! Now, at last, we are getting to the bottom of the great CO2 Man Made Global Warming Hoax: it is just a way to advance the socialist goal of nationalizing private industry.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#37479 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember it was the conservative attitude of freeing capitalism by relaxing banking regulations and influence of the mighty corporations that allowed them to go wild. The teabaggers seem to hate government yet support the very things that brought us to the brink.
Wasn't it Bill Clinton who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall.....and the sitting POTUS who signed its demise? Of course it was! Learn the facts, Bozo.

It's bad enough that you people are always promoting bad ideas, but when things go wrong.....you blame others for your decisions.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37480 Jul 28, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Wasn't it Bill Clinton who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall.....and the sitting POTUS who signed its demise? Of course it was! Learn the facts, Bozo.
It's bad enough that you people are always promoting bad ideas, but when things go wrong.....you blame others for your decisions.
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was passed by a partisan vote.The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Blil...

As you see, the bill was veto proof. This was after the conservative mantra reenforced by the right wing media that if the market was turned loose, everything would be utopian.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37481 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah! Now, at last, we are getting to the bottom of the great CO2 Man Made Global Warming Hoax: it is just a way to advance the socialist goal of nationalizing private industry.
If you believe that government programs for the common good are socialism, you have been victimized by the RW fanatics and their biased media. No one wishes to nationalize any industry if it is doing the job that is necessary to maintain a society. It is only when they are not willing because of low profits, do not have a quick enough return for large investments, or monopolize a necessary product that the government must step in. That is why we need government.

An possible example where government must step in is in vaccinations of infectious diseases for the masses to prevent an epidemic that would disrupt the social order. The vaccine must be cheap enough so it can readily be distributed to everyone. Pharmaceuticals do not wish to invest in the development and manufacture because the profits are low. This is a case where government subsidies will encourage the production and distribution of the vaccine. Government is not all bad. Private industry is not all encompassing. That is why the partnership of both is desirable. It is what made the USA great.
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37482 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that government programs for the common good are socialism, you have been victimized by the RW fanatics and their biased media. No one wishes to nationalize any industry if it is doing the job that is necessary to maintain a society. It is only when they are not willing because of low profits, do not have a quick enough return for large investments, or monopolize a necessary product that the government must step in. That is why we need government.
An possible example where government must step in is in vaccinations of infectious diseases for the masses to prevent an epidemic that would disrupt the social order. The vaccine must be cheap enough so it can readily be distributed to everyone. Pharmaceuticals do not wish to invest in the development and manufacture because the profits are low. This is a case where government subsidies will encourage the production and distribution of the vaccine. Government is not all bad. Private industry is not all encompassing. That is why the partnership of both is desirable. It is what made the USA great.
You need to learn some real history, not the "social studies" that they teach in today's socialist-minded public schools.

Our country was at its greatest in 1900. American industry was the mightiest in the world. American railroads had more miles of track and more rolling stock than all the rest of the world combined. American industry produced more goods than all of Europe combined. We mined half of all the coal mined in the world. The majority of the oil used in the world came from American wells. The U.S.A. was the world's greatest oil exporting nation.

Government did not subsidize any of that. None. Zero. Government didn't start subsidizing things that it deemed to be "in the public good" until the 1930s. Most of the things that it deemed "in the public good" were things that would not pay a profit and never did pay a profit.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37483 Jul 28, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
I would stop focusing your anger on the “tea baggers.” The anger should be directed to everyone in our government for allowing the outright theft by the banks of the citizens
You can say that laws don't make any difference when it was proven beyond doubt they do. For instance Canada & Australia as well as quite a few Scandinavian countries had laws limiting what Banks could risk their money in, the same laws also demand a certain percentage of their liquidity to be on hand. In the US, some banks over extended themselves by as much as 150%, now clearly any drop in market would render them insolvent. Yet this was Reagan "cutting the red tape" on business by allowing self regulation. Clinton also helped as well. If you have concrete laws in place, like limiting how big any Bank, Media organisation can get that is also a protection from too big to fail. But that has been ignored also.
All the countries that did not have those laws took a huge hit, and by the way the financial markets are connected today there are no borders. So countries doing the right thing take a hit as well.
That is what you ELECT a government for, to look after the interest of the majority & the country as a whole, not just the Goldman Sachs' of this world. But as soon as someone mentions any form of government control, out come the words "socialist" , "commies" from to right trying to protect the status quo. They don't want any Sheriff in town. Global Warming is no different, it's big business calling the shots until someone has the ball$ to say enough is enough!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37484 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn some real history, not the "social studies" that they teach in today's socialist-minded public schools.
Our country was at its greatest in 1900. American industry was the mightiest in the world. American railroads had more miles of track and more rolling stock than all the rest of the world combined. American industry produced more goods than all of Europe combined. We mined half of all the coal mined in the world. The majority of the oil used in the world came from American wells. The U.S.A. was the world's greatest oil exporting nation.
Government did not subsidize any of that. None. Zero. Government didn't start subsidizing things that it deemed to be "in the public good" until the 1930s. Most of the things that it deemed "in the public good" were things that would not pay a profit and never did pay a profit.
You just made my point as to where real hard line conservatives want to be, "living in the past". Well the past has long gone, and you know as well as anyone, everything America once did can now be done off shore. In most cases at half the cost, so any business worth it's salt goes where the money is, not where you want it to be. So the smart thing would be, to create new industries that can't so easily be exported off shore. Clean Energy being one of them, yet this business has to compete against subsidised non clean producers. The model that you are promoting that built America does not apply in the 21st century I'm sorry but that is fact. It has to be refined to address a whole different set of circumstances and the wild west days are gone. There are 300 million extra citizens to look after and dwindling renewable resources.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37485 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn some real history, not the "social studies" that they teach in today's socialist-minded public schools.
Actually, schools are not socialist at all. The term means 'fiat decisions' as opposed to private elite decisions. As long as those decisions are in the 'public good', all government is 'socialism' as it creates fiat laws and penalties to prevent abuses. That includes both individual socialism (i.e social insurance) but also farm bills, defense contracts and all other corporate welfare such as subsidies.

The right wing has TRIED to redefine socialism as 'welfare for the poor' so as to make it an insult but it doesn't really work if you know what the term means.
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Our country was at its greatest in 1900. American industry was the mightiest in the world. American railroads had more miles of track and more rolling stock than all the rest of the world combined. American industry produced more goods than all of Europe combined. We mined half of all the coal mined in the world. The majority of the oil used in the world came from American wells. The U.S.A. was the world's greatest oil exporting nation.
Ah, yes the 'good old days' of pollution, rich resources being wasted at a prodigious rate to fuel quick profits (capitalism) and slave labor. But the problem with profligate and intense industrialization is that you end up running OUT of those rich resources fast. By 1930's in fact. Then you have to try to take them from OTHER countries (globalization) that then decide they need them for themselves. Like having a party on your credit card and then getting the bills coming due.. Works for the stupid and the ignorant like 'Coal is King'. They never see the consequences, only the party.
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Government did not subsidize any of that. None. Zero. Government didn't start subsidizing things that it deemed to be "in the public good" until the 1930s. Most of the things that it deemed "in the public good" were things that would not pay a profit and never did pay a profit.
The problem was that the resources were getting lower grade and industrialization was starting to see labor as the 'enemy'. This meant that instead of the gold watch and pension, people were kicked out of work with nothing. The result was that the government had to take over the job of seeing to the health and welfare of those that were 'discarded' temporarily in order that they be available to the company when it regained it's senses or needed to expand again. With the move to automation, this has gotten even worse, and to some degree the 'working poor' have become entrenched as a subclass, due to the support system allowing business to pay even LESS attention to 'human assets'.
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37486 Jul 28, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made my point as to where real hard line conservatives want to be, "living in the past". Well the past has long gone, and you know as well as anyone, everything America once did can now be done off shore. In most cases at half the cost, so any business worth it's salt goes where the money is, not where you want it to be. So the smart thing would be, to create new industries that can't so easily be exported off shore. Clean Energy being one of them, yet this business has to compete against subsidised non clean producers. The model that you are promoting that built America does not apply in the 21st century I'm sorry but that is fact. It has to be refined to address a whole different set of circumstances and the wild west days are gone. There are 300 million extra citizens to look after and dwindling renewable resources.
Yes. The minimalist government, low taxes, low spending, free market model that I advocate BUILT America. We had great industries, working people worked, and there were jobs for them to do. The socialist welfare-nanny state, nationalize, regulate, subsidize every hare brained scheme that some quack dreams up that you advocate has been DESTROYING it since 1932.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37487 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn some real history, not the "social studies" that they teach in today's socialist-minded public schools.
Our country was at its greatest in 1900. American industry was the mightiest in the world. American railroads had more miles of track and more rolling stock than all the rest of the world combined. American industry produced more goods than all of Europe combined. We mined half of all the coal mined in the world. The majority of the oil used in the world came from American wells. The U.S.A. was the world's greatest oil exporting nation.
Government did not subsidize any of that. None. Zero. Government didn't start subsidizing things that it deemed to be "in the public good" until the 1930s. Most of the things that it deemed "in the public good" were things that would not pay a profit and never did pay a profit.
It has been decades since I have been in school so what history I learned hasn't been from that!:)

You need to go back to school and learn how the government subsidized the railroads.

Most of the capital investment needed to build the railroad were got from selling government guaranteed bonds (granted per mile of completed track) to interested investors. The financial incentives and bonds would hopefully cover most of the initial capital investment needed to build the railroad. The bonds would be paid back by the sale of government granted land and prospective passenger and freight income. In addition to the railroad land grants which the railroads sold at low cost to pay back their government backed bonds (all were repaid) the 37th United States Congress passed the Homestead Acts which were several United States federal laws that sold an applicant 160 acres (65 ha) of unclaimed government owned land, typically called a "homestead", at low cost when the applicant did some prescribed work on it. There was now a strong and relatively low cost incentive for the settlement of the west which many thousands took advantage of. The railroads started new population growth and potential population growth induced many other railroads to be built and connected to the transcontinental railroad to serve communities and states off the original main track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transconti...

I know, the awful government made the coal barons quit using child labor to sort coal and made the owners improve their mine safety.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37488 Jul 28, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The minimalist government, low taxes, low spending, free market model that I advocate BUILT America. We had great industries, working people worked, and there were jobs for them to do. The socialist welfare-nanny state, nationalize, regulate, subsidize every hare brained scheme that some quack dreams up that you advocate has been DESTROYING it since 1932.
Sorry, the expansionist building days are over for the USA. We are in a new era. The old model no longer works. There is no new land or frontier to expand. Our infra structure does not need expansion as much as it needs maintenance and modernization. We have the energy grids. They need modernization to make the transport of electricity more efficient. For example, high voltage DC.

We have one of the poorest communication networks in the industrial world because of the patchwork wireless networks. If you look to the rest of the industrialized world you will find that our wireless communication is more costly and reaches a significantly smaller percentage than others. Another case where the "free market" is behind planned or as you put it, "socialistic" projects.

It is apparent that the market forces cannot and will not consider pollution or problems such as global warming. It will not get done by capitalists. This is a case where planned or government intervention must see to it that it gets done. If this is "Socialism" to you, you need to rearrange your thinking. It is for the good of the country.

Sorry, but as the complexities and growing size of population, there will be more and more regulations and government costs for maintaining society. Pay your taxes and quit listening to those who use taxes for getting votes. They are liars and know full well that taxes are necessary. Taxes are what you pay to maintain the social order necessary for you to help maintain your lifestyle. They are not your money but your dues. Listen only to those who do not promise lower taxes but promise for more efficient use of them.
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37489 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been decades since I have been in school so what history I learned hasn't been from that!:)
You need to go back to school and learn how the government subsidized the railroads.
Most of the capital investment needed to build the railroad were got from selling government guaranteed bonds (granted per mile of completed track) to interested investors. The financial incentives and bonds would hopefully cover most of the initial capital investment needed to build the railroad. The bonds would be paid back by the sale of government granted land and prospective passenger and freight income. In addition to the railroad land grants which the railroads sold at low cost to pay back their government backed bonds (all were repaid) the 37th United States Congress passed the Homestead Acts which were several United States federal laws that sold an applicant 160 acres (65 ha) of unclaimed government owned land, typically called a "homestead", at low cost when the applicant did some prescribed work on it. There was now a strong and relatively low cost incentive for the settlement of the west which many thousands took advantage of. The railroads started new population growth and potential population growth induced many other railroads to be built and connected to the transcontinental railroad to serve communities and states off the original main track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transconti...
I know, the awful government made the coal barons quit using child labor to sort coal and made the owners improve their mine safety.
The federal government DID NOT subsidize the railroads as you say. The only thing that came close to it was during the era of carpetbagger rule in the South. The carpetbaggers did float a great many railroad bond schemes in which the bonds were guaranteed by the states. The schemes collapsed one after another. Most of them were total frauds. They build little or no railroad track. They did make the carpetbaggers millionaires.

The western railroads were built with private capital. That capital was raised by selling land. It worked this way: The government gave wilderness wasteland to the railroads. The railroad companies had to develop that land and make it accessible. Settlers bought the land and made it productive. Goods produced on the land then were shipped on the railroad, making it profitable.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37490 Jul 28, 2013
To Coal is King:
While I sympathize with the Appalachian coal miners, the plight is not limited to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transconti...
WASHINGTON (AP)-- Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

There is no doubt that the economy is in trouble with some gaining bountifully while the majority are losing ground. There needs to be some kind of adjustment. Labor in the USA is losing to foreigners, illegals, and technology.

Robot assemblers, computers, and others have eliminated or reduced assembly line workers, lathe operators, secretaries, for example, and many many others.

No longer are the masses of unskilled and semiskilled needed. The question is what will replace their jobs?

Then the problem becomes, who will buy the products if there is not enough wealth in the lower classes?
Coal is King

Kuttawa, KY

#37491 Jul 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
To Coal is King:
While I sympathize with the Appalachian coal miners, the plight is not limited to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transconti...
WASHINGTON (AP)-- Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.
There is no doubt that the economy is in trouble with some gaining bountifully while the majority are losing ground. There needs to be some kind of adjustment. Labor in the USA is losing to foreigners, illegals, and technology.
Robot assemblers, computers, and others have eliminated or reduced assembly line workers, lathe operators, secretaries, for example, and many many others.
No longer are the masses of unskilled and semiskilled needed. The question is what will replace their jobs?
Then the problem becomes, who will buy the products if there is not enough wealth in the lower classes?
Well we don't sympathize with you tree hugger environmentalists nor do we want your so-called sympathy.

There is no reasoning with you people. The only way to deal with you is head-on, bare knuckles confrontation. We're ready. As John Paul Jones said, "We have not yet begun to fight."

We're going to go after you and your Global Warming Hoax and fraudulent "green" technology from the ground up and from the top down. We're going to work hard to take the U.S. Senate and the White House back. Then we'll press our legislators to put an end to Obama's war on coal and end government support for the "green" energy frauds. We're also going to work at the local level, through state, city, and local ordinances and building codes, to get the wind and solar nuisances banned.
litesong

Everett, WA

#37492 Jul 28, 2013
ol kinked coal wrote:
The federal government DID NOT subsidize the railroads as you say.

The government gave wilderness wasteland to the railroads.
Glad you value land as zero & that the land of america was a wasteland.......so you can say the federal gov't did not subsidize railroads.

We now know how re-pubic-lick-uns view land.....
litesong

Everett, WA

#37493 Jul 28, 2013
ol kinked coal wrote:
Well we don't sympathize with you tree hugger environmentalists......
Coal barons never sympathized with anyone, specially the blue collars who made fortunes for coal barons.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37494 Jul 28, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say that laws don't make any difference when it was proven beyond doubt they do. For instance Canada & Australia as well as quite a few Scandinavian countries had laws limiting what Banks could risk their money in, the same laws also demand a certain percentage of their liquidity to be on hand. In the US, some banks over extended themselves by as much as 150%, now clearly any drop in market would render them insolvent. Yet this was Reagan "cutting the red tape" on business by allowing self regulation. Clinton also helped as well. If you have concrete laws in place, like limiting how big any Bank, Media organisation can get that is also a protection from too big to fail. But that has been ignored also.
All the countries that did not have those laws took a huge hit, and by the way the financial markets are connected today there are no borders. So countries doing the right thing take a hit as well.
That is what you ELECT a government for, to look after the interest of the majority & the country as a whole, not just the Goldman Sachs' of this world. But as soon as someone mentions any form of government control, out come the words "socialist" , "commies" from to right trying to protect the status quo. They don't want any Sheriff in town. Global Warming is no different, it's big business calling the shots until someone has the ball$ to say enough is enough!
The countries you mentioned don't have a Federal Reserve. Like I said, Congress can make any law it wants, but they don’t control the banks or the money. In the United States, the only deposit categories currently subject to reserve requirements are net transactions accounts, mainly checking accounts. A depository institution can satisfy its reserve requirements by holding either vault cash or reserve deposits. An institution that is a member of the Federal Reserve System must hold its reserve deposits at a Federal Reserve Bank. Nonmember institutions can elect to hold their reserve deposits at a member institution.

Here are the reserve criteria:
• Between $12.4 million and $79.5 million must have a liquidity ratio of 3%;
• Exceeding $79.5 million must have a liquidity ratio of 10%.
• Effective December 27, 1990, a liquidity ratio of zero has applied to CDs, savings deposits, and time deposits, owned by entities other than households, and the Eurocurrency liabilities of depository institutions. Deposits owned by foreign corporations or governments are currently not subject to reserve requirements.

Now when an institution fails to satisfy its reserve requirements, it can MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY WITH RESERVES BORROWED FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK. Such loans are typically due in 24 hours or less. This is how fragile our system is. Basically a bank never has to have a reserve. These banks are lending out at least 100%, leaving no reserve ratio, but instead just borrowing it every 24 hours from the FED. So you can see how the banks overextended by 150%, because the FEDERAL RESERVE ENCOURAGED IT, by allowing them to take out a loan every night. Glass Steagull would not have changed that fact because at the same time our government decided to guarantee all mortgage backed loans through Fannie and Freddy, thus creating the ultimate moral hazard. None of the banks felt that they were at risk because now the government will cover them and the Federal Reserve will loan them their reserves every day.

If you want to understand how these bailouts aren’t about us, here is just one example of 7 trillion dollars. GMAC was not eligible for a bailout in 2008 because it was not a bank holding company. The Federal Reserve, on its own, without congress or government oversight, approved an application for GMAC to become a bank holding company. GMAC then received a 5 billion dollar bailout. Seriously they would make companies into banks to give them a bailout.

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Nuculur option 1,382,529
News Suspect Had Quit Rehab (Mar '08) 1 hr Ken Burke 135
Has Casey Anthony Had Sex with Jose Baez (Jun '11) 3 hr bigjohnson321 159
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 6 hr zazz 98,043
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 7 hr Milee 73,636
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 9 hr Murphey_Law 513,233
News Leader of Orlando-area motorcycle club assaulte... (Nov '07) 23 hr BigD LVMc 761
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages