|
Replies: 49
| visibility 675
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
That's why it's called Climate Change and not Global Warming
Apr 28, 2013, 12:52 PM
|
|
Covering all the possibilities always results in win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Wrong, the libtards were wrong and had to change the name.
Apr 28, 2013, 1:01 PM
|
|
It started out global warming to create a political scam to redistribute wealth and help libtards gain more control of government and expand executive authority. A man made crisis to exploit as the progressive always do.
Climate change means nothing, the climate has always been changing and always will, it won't stop till earth is a dead rock with no atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
FYI - a pub strategist came up with climate change name***
Apr 28, 2013, 1:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
So they are the only ones to use the term?
Apr 28, 2013, 1:07 PM
|
|
Because I know many on the left who use the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
Of course not but he claimed it was a libby creation to
Apr 28, 2013, 1:10 PM
|
|
Hide the conspiracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Wrong, that's not what I'm saying. Fail.***
Apr 28, 2013, 1:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
"Wrong, the libtards were wrong and had to change the name."
Apr 28, 2013, 1:16 PM
|
|
You didn't say
"Wrong, the libtards were wrong and had to change the name."
I guess someone hacked your account
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
You don't read and comp well. I know what I wrote and why,
Apr 28, 2013, 1:23 PM
|
|
if you aren't bright enough to understand the context that's your issue. I started understanding context and intent are built into words not long after advancing past "See ####, see Jane, see Spot. Jane see Spot run."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
It's both.***
Apr 28, 2013, 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Because "global warming" was patently false. Climate
Apr 28, 2013, 1:11 PM
[ in reply to FYI - a pub strategist came up with climate change name*** ] |
|
change is the correct term, as global warming is a misnomer, but the concept by any name is a complete hoax since climate is dynamic and constantly in flux.
And don't forget, every time the left uses either term they actually mean "man made global warming" or "man mae climate change" which is garbage.
There are a least 6 to 8 major influences on global climate and temperatures and none are very well understood by science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
1. CO2 is up 38% over the past 15 to 20 years but there has
Apr 28, 2013, 6:05 PM
|
|
been no rise in temps the past 15 years.
2. Most people do not deny that there has been some warming the pat 100 years, although there has been cooling as well and fluctuations. During the late 70s scientists were warning of a pending little ice age.
3. The issue, the debate, is NOT if there is a trend over the past 150 years, but what is causing it. The left is desperate to convince us that MAN is causing the warming, but there is zero hard evidence to support that thinking. Every bit of evidence being rammed down our throats is anecdotal. As I posted above, there are 6 to 8 major influences on global climate, including earth's orbit around the sun, sun spots (which scientists recently admitted is a much bigger influence than they thought), and volcanic activity. Scientists have very little understanding of any of those factors, much less how they dynamically interact together.
There is warming & cooling, trends occur over long periods, there are many complex factors that are sparsely understood. Saying with no hard evidence man is causing the warming is just simple nonsense.
Let's for a moment agree man is causing it. Then what? You can't dial back the clock. We aren't going back to the days of old without modern technology and fossil fuels. Even if Europe & America did that, Russia, China, & India are not going to do it and they are polluting worse than America ever has.
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish professor, a hard core environmentalist, a leftist, and believer in man made global warming, but he is also a pragmatist and understands the realities of the situation. He advocates that all this fear mongering is just political posturing and nonsense by the left and it hurts more than it helps in terms of solving the problem long term. His is the kind of thinking the left should promote, but they want because they want global warming to help them transform America through carbon taxes and wealth redistribution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
So, man has no effect on climate on a large scale?
Apr 28, 2013, 6:13 PM
|
|
No matter what we do, from deforestation to billions of cars on the roads, to factories etc...none of it has any effect on the actual climate of the earth.
While I have personally don't have the time to look up the facts, and any facts I do look up, you would find someone else to refute them, I'm just not sure that makes sense in a cause and effect world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Do you have a high school degree? Can you read and
Apr 28, 2013, 6:28 PM
|
|
comprehend? I never said man had NO influence, I said man is one of multiple complex and dynamic influences and is not the single primary cause of global warming.
Scientists have very little understanding of any of the influences, much less how they interact.
Everything you mentioned is anecdotal.
You do realize the earth has been a lot hotter than today and that was log before man had done anything beyond starting a fire and killing animals with spears.
Earth has heated and cooled in cycles for billions on years.
The left screams "rising oceans" blah blah blah. So? What about it? The beaches in SC use to be near Columbia which gave us the region we call the sand hills.
Man has chosen to build and live on the coast. That has long term consequences as earth's climate and ocean levels change and fluctuate.
All of this just proves how arrogant people on the left are to think man can manipulate the weather and climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
No, no high school degree here
Apr 28, 2013, 7:01 PM
|
|
But wait, let me quote you to start off:
"I never said man had NO influence, I said man is one of multiple complex and dynamic influences and is not the single primary cause of global warming. "
First, I want you to find a scientist that is going to tell you that man is the only influence on global warming / climate change / whatever people want to call it.
Now, since we both agree that man has an influence on climate change, we can start where we agree.
If man does have some influence over climate change as a whole, then isn't man the only variable in the climate change equation that we have the slightest amount of control over?
Also, if we agree that man has some influence on the climate, would you also agree that with the industrialization of countries like China, India, and Brazil, whatever "influence" man has is certain to increase?
Finally, can we agree than even if global warming is a hoax, it is better in the long term to attempt to reduce emissions (car, factory, power plant), etc, if only to have more short term, local impacts on air quality, asthma rates, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Frank Luntz is who he is talking about I believe...
Apr 28, 2013, 5:07 PM
|
|
"Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
And because climate change is a different concept and more
Apr 28, 2013, 6:07 PM
|
|
practical view of what's really going on.
Again, the problem/issue is not "global warming" but the left's hysterics & fear mongering of "man made global warming" which is not supported by anything beyond anecdotal evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Stupid Libtard^^^^^^^^
Apr 28, 2013, 1:07 PM
|
|
#amidoingitright
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Apparently...
Apr 28, 2013, 1:09 PM
|
|
I wouldn't use the derogatory partisan language myself (at least not seriously).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Them's awful big words....for a libtard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apr 28, 2013, 1:10 PM
|
|
Wow, just typing that in jest makes me fell 20 points dumber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111526]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Wait, I'm wrong?
Apr 28, 2013, 1:14 PM
[ in reply to Wait, I'm wrong? ] |
|
This thread reminds me of the game my granpappy used to play on me, it was called "pull my finger". Eventually I realized it was stupid game and stopped playing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
I was referring to intent. Why they had to change it. The
Apr 28, 2013, 1:18 PM
[ in reply to Wait, I'm wrong? ] |
|
left would prefer it were still called global warming. Climate change is a far weaker term, thus hurting their jihad.
Your response in and of itself was correct, but not in terms of the context I was coming from.
Yea now the can spin anything to fit "climate change" but "man made global warming" is the agenda they are pushing to create radical transformation politically and economically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111526]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: I was referring to intent. Why they had to change it. The***
Apr 28, 2013, 1:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Seriously, can we get back to polluting all ready
Apr 28, 2013, 12:54 PM
|
|
No reason why Greenville shouldn't look like a smog filled city in China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
America is profoundly cleaner now than the 1970s thanks to
Apr 28, 2013, 1:05 PM
|
|
a Republican, Nixon, and the EPA. Unfortunately, the libtards and progressives have radicalized the EPA and it's now an out of control left wing propaganda machine and the most dangerous threat, along with the SCOTUS, to America's future prosperity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Yawn
Apr 28, 2013, 1:09 PM
|
|
Can you just post the right wing playbook on all issues instead of posting? Then when I want to know your opinion on something I can just look it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Can you start posting something factual that counters my
Apr 28, 2013, 1:27 PM
|
|
posts rather than typical snarky left wing insults and retorts? Something not a canned talking point from the NYT's or MSNBC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Would it matter?
Apr 28, 2013, 1:30 PM
|
|
No, it would not, so why waste my time arguing with someone who has a set view point? I could present facts, but then you would say that the facts were some sort of liberal conspiracy. Your mind is made up, and you're not doing a very good job changing anyone else's mind, so anyway, maybe just post your manifesto or something instead of constantly posting about libtards. We all ready have JYT to do make these posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
I don't make rash decisions. I don't follow an ideology, I
Apr 28, 2013, 2:00 PM
|
|
take every issue as a unique concept, which they are, and base my beliefs on the evidence. That is why I am a Libertarian and not a Republican.
I'm liberal in some ways, moderate in others, and conservative on the rest. Every libertarian and conservative I'm friends with is that way, but most voters are sheep that let emotions over a few polarizing issues control their thinking and voting.
You are one of those. You tow the party line on everything. You are not a thinker, but a shallow lemming.
No real thinker, no truly intelligent person agrees with everything either side is selling. If you were a thinker you'd understand that, but you and tboy and drew and a few others never waiver from the left wing talking points on any issue. Thus, all of you are sheep, lemmings, not independent thinkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
You are delusional
Apr 28, 2013, 2:12 PM
|
|
Every post you have made on his site is right wing to far right wing, yet you don't follow an ideology?
Your topics
Anti-Global Warming
Ant- Libtard / Pro Fox News
Anit- Obama in regards to Syria
Pro Fox news reporter
Anti- Obama Holder
These are all right wing, not moderate, not liberal, but right wing talking points that you parrot. Now, looking at the facts (actual facts, not opinions, which you confuse with facts) your entire posting history falls into the right wing ideology, and yet, you want me to believe you are not a right wing ideolog, even though everything you post comes straight from right wing ideology.
Also, what I find interesting is that I actually do straddle the line and fall into a more moderate category.
I'm left wing when it comes to social issues.
I'm more to the right on financial issues.
I'm more to the right on military issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
You are the deluded one. I post facts with supportive
Apr 28, 2013, 6:11 PM
|
|
evidence. You parrot left wing talking points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111526]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Speaking of Man Made Global Warming
Apr 28, 2013, 1:29 PM
[ in reply to Yawn ] |
|
This thread is guaranteed to end in flatulence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Wrong, FAIL. .See link, written by a liberal that supports
Apr 28, 2013, 1:51 PM
|
|
man made global warming.
The science in this link has been proven incorrect, which is why there has been a mainstream shift in terminology.
That shift accelerated after the scandal showing all the scientists doctored their data to support man made global waring.
This link gives a more accurate history of the two terms, the terminology, but the authors reasons for the shift are erroneous.
Luntz suggested the right use not just a different term to counter the left, because climate is always changing and Luntz knows man made global warming is a hoax, but to change the conversation completely. Make the conversation about a different concept.
The left has never ever let the right dictate the public narrative, which is why the left can perpetuate their lies. The left controls the narrative because upwards of 90% of the media and journalists in America, and Hollywood, are liberals and/or progressives.
Luntz had no part in the left changing from global warming to climate change. That shift happened because data continually shows man made global warming is a farce and what we have is a totally different dynamic. Thus forcing the left to abandon "man made global warming".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326
The switch happened because the facts didn't support "man made global warming".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Have you ever read catch 22
Apr 28, 2013, 1:56 PM
|
|
If it is written by a liberal it is false, and anyone who says anything that agrees with a "liberal" cause like global warming is a liberal. Therefore anything written that supports global warming and climate change is false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Yes I read it and your assertion is spurious. The vast
Apr 28, 2013, 2:10 PM
|
|
majority of liberal thinking is based on the utopian ideals of fairness and equality. Pretty much every argument on the left is shaped to fit that narrative. But fairness/equality are myths. Life is not fair and equality does not exist.
Equality is a concept created by man and dictated/forced, artificially created, by rule of law. Equilibrium is an unnatural state. Nothing stays at equilibrium for anything other than a brief period before one variable or another throws things out of equilibrium. Scientists struggle to maintain equilibrium in lab experiments, in the same way political science from the left tries to force equilibrium on society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Life is not fair and equality does not exist...
Apr 28, 2013, 2:14 PM
|
|
So, are you a member of the apartheid party. I mean, you have pretty much stolen their talking points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Take any society in world history, any equality was created
Apr 28, 2013, 6:18 PM
|
|
by the government dictating it.
The average IQ is actually pretty dumb. And most people are fairly lazy.
Capitalism rewards effort & risk. Communism/socialism reward laziness, stupidity, ignorance. Capitalism creates incentives. Communism/socialism remove incentives. Communism is a total failure and socialism is not sustainable long term, accept in small countries with very homogenous populations, no immigration, and vast natural resources. Socialism is a failure anywhere you have societal diversity and liberal emigration.
History has repeatedly proven this. Current & past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
See, I'm more for what made our country great
Apr 28, 2013, 6:50 PM
|
|
A mix of capitalism and socialism. I'm all for risk and reward (yet it seems like the rich risk the least and are rewarded the most) but socialist programs like public education are what allowed our country to thrive. Everyone may not have a "fair" chance, but everyone does have chance. The problem is finding the balance on one side of the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Socialism had nothing to do with making America great.
Apr 29, 2013, 11:52 AM
|
|
America was great before FDR and the age of liberalism/progressives taking root. The income tax didn't even exist until almost 1920. Yet we had cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and booming industries and the early days of the middle class thanks to people like Ford. Individuals and industrialists made America great.
Where people like you miss the boat is, no one on the right is saying as a wealthy enlightened society we shouldn't have some safety nets. We should, but those programs have been abused and weakened and expanded o make it even easier to abuse them.
The left wants power, a huge expansion of government, they want socialism, many want communism, but history and present day Europe prove those are failed concepts. But the left wants that and they are getting it by nslaving entire demographics of people. What do drug dealers do when they move into a new area? They give the drugs away. They get kids hooked. Then they own them. That's what the left does. They take advantage of the poor, the lazy, the stupid and enslave them for generations with social programs all in the name of fairness, equality ec., but they know once people get on these programs they rarely come off them.
The reason our economy has been so erratic for over 30 years with wild boom and bust swings is because of government intervention. Economies run in cycles, but Fed intervention tries to smooth those cycles out to create more linear upward growth. All they really do is make things much worse.
Take away tons of cheap money put into the system by Clinton and Greenspan and there is no tech bubble and stock market crash in the late 90s, no housing or banking bubble/crisis in the late 2000s, and we wouldn't have a bubble looming in student aid debt and the cost of college today would be significantly cheaper.
Pumping money into the system does nothing but create opportunities for greedy people to do stupid stuff (Wall Street) and create inflation (stock market, housing, college tuition and student loan debt).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I for one appreciate the socialist student loan program
Apr 29, 2013, 12:01 PM
|
|
Seeing as how my parents couldn't afford to send me to a school like Clemson without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
If insane Fed policies had not pushed college costs so high
Apr 29, 2013, 12:41 PM
|
|
you wouldn't need student loans. When I was at Clemson I had friends that were full time students that also worked 2 and 3 jobs paying their way through school. That's historically what poor and middle class people did until the 90s when student loan programs got out of hand and created astronomical inflation in college costs.
That socialist program is actually making it harder for kids to get a college education because of the cost. And causing students to leave college burdened with 10s of thousands in debt and unable to find jobs, or high paying jobs.
Far too many people go to college. Far more people would be better off, as would our economy, if we did like the 50s, 60s, 70s where kids were pushed into vocational programs, or even further back in time, apprenticeships.
Additionally, over 1/3, possibly as much as 1/2 of all college graduates have a degree that is nearly worthless. Just getting a degree is not doing anyone any good. Unless you get a specific degree with a specific specialized job in mind, it's stupid to rack up tons of debt going to college. Yet the government pushes kids into college rather than what really matters, learning actual marketable skills or a trade.
I had a buddy that was a bartender with a Masters in Art History from UVa. And that was back in the late 80s, early 90s when the economy was good and there was not near as much competition for jobs.
Even Clemson is taking advantage of kids with the bridge program, which has created a big scandal somehow kept under wraps.
What a lot of kids do here in Charleston do is live at home and go to Trident Tech for two years to take all the basic courses then transfer to CofC or other schools to get their bachelors degree. Why? Tech is significantly cheaper than 4 year colleges. SC has a great technical college system, which is like junior colleges in other states and community colleges out west. More kids should take advantage of that then transfer to Clemson or other 4 year schools to lessen the burden on loans. And work part tie. Again, working ones way through college is the traditional route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I never thought of it that way
Apr 29, 2013, 12:44 PM
|
|
College should be reserved for the elite. If you didn't win the genetic lottery you should be S.O.L. Stupid poor people wanting to go to a 4 year college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
What a stupid response. Your view says be born rich or have
Apr 30, 2013, 12:18 AM
|
|
government give it to me cheap and easy. What BS!! The reason college is so expensive now is because of the government. Wake up you rube!!
This is the problem with half of America now. Rich people that earned their money are demonized. Everyone else is a victim that deserves government support.
What a crock.
Earn it. No one owes you anything. Certainly not with my tax dollars you crybaby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
I don't understand the quest to disprove climate change
Apr 29, 2013, 12:56 PM
|
|
I think everyone can benefit from cleaner running, more efficient products. Its just a fact that man made products have some short term and long term effects on the environment, and people are better off in general when those effects are reduced.
All the left wing/right wing stuff is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [610]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 1017
Joined: 3/29/13
|
Because the left is using phony info and false data to
Apr 30, 2013, 12:28 AM
|
|
create fear to promote an agenda that is fundamentally changing America. Hurting businesses, the economy, and hard working families.
And yes, innovation is good, but it should not be pushed via taxpayer funded subsidies as part of some wrong headed agenda. When technology evolves and becomes practical people will vote for it by buying it if it makes economic sense. But spending trillions of taxpayer dollars to fund and subsidize bad technology, and exert extremely expensive regulations on industry in a globally competitive world, when there are far cheaper and more efficient alternatives is beyond stupid.
One day renewable resources will be the source of all our energy needs, but that is at least 50, in not 100, years away. The technology is simply not there yet. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 49
| visibility 675
|
|
|
50
