Democratic Convention 2016

Democratic Platform 2016: Science Planks Good, Bad and Missing

Are the Democrats really the Party of Science?

|

DemocraticLogo
DNC

In his Hillary Clinton endorsement speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last night, Sen. Bernie Sanders declared, "Donald Trump? Well, like most Republicans, he chooses to reject science." Sanders was specifically speaking about Trump's calling man-made climate change a "hoax." Trump later insisted that his comment that climate change is hoax perpetrated by the Chinese was a "joke." In any case Trump still says that he's not a big believer in man-made climate change. (Amusingly, Trump's minions cite climate change as a reason why the Irish government should give him permission to construct a sea wall to prevent erosion at one of his golf clubs in County Clare.)

In any case, are the Democrats really the Party of Science? Let's take a look at what the 2016 Democratic Party Platform has to say about the issues of climate change, fracking, nuclear power, energy subsidies, stem cells and genetically modified crops.

Looking through the 2016 Democratic Platform one gets the impression that "science" is largely confined to climate science. The platform states: "Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred this century." Surface temperature data from NASA and NOAA support the claim that 15 of the 16 hottest years since 1880 have occurred after 2001. Even the researchers at University of Alabama in Huntsville report that 13 of the hottest years in their satellite data records have occurred since 2001. Given the myriad problems with which humanity must cope, it's an interesting judgement call to say that climate change is the "defining challenge of our time." Still, based on my reading of the evidence, I have concluded that man-made climate change is an open-access environmental problem that could create significant difficulties for humanity later in this century and so needs to be addressed.

So how do Democrats think that man-made global warming should be addressed? Despite the fact that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by coal, the Democratic Platform declares, "We will streamline federal permitting to accelerate the construction of new transmission lines to get low-cost renewable energy to market, and incentivize wind, solar, and other renewable energy over the development of new natural gas power plants." In fact, the switch to natural gas produced by means of fracking shale has been the chief cause for the 12 percent reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions since 2005.

What about fracking? Sanders wanted to ban it entirely. The Platform wants the EPA to regulate it and it would allow NIMBY activism to prevent the exploitation of this fuel source. The Platform evidently accepts the activists claim that fracking releases excessive amounts of methane into the atmosphere and pollutes local groundwater. In fact, there is very little evidence for either claim. In 2015, the EPA released a draft study that reported that the agency "did not find evidence that these [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." Earlier this year, much was made of a study in Pavillon, Wyoming which found that in the 1990s unlined open pits that stored fluids associated with fracking, along with inadequately lined well-bores may have contaminated groundwater there. In June, the EPA noted that even as the fracking revolution was taking off U.S. emissions of methane fell by 9 percent between 1991 and 2014. In fact, the EPA reports, "During this time period, [methane] emissions increased from sources associated with agricultural activities, while emissions decreased from sources associated with the exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum products."

The call for more extensive regulation of fracking in the Platform seems to be responding to anti-fossil fuel activism rather than to the findings of researchers.

Democrats are concerned about climate change caused by burning fossil fuels should embrace nuclear power as a source of no-carbon energy. Instead, Sanders wants to phase it out. The Platform is entirely silent on the issue of nuclear power.

With regard to energy subsidies, the Platform states, "Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy." (By contrast, the Republican Platform declares, "We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. Note, however, that the GOPers didn't mention renewable energy sources as possible competitors in unsubsidized energy markets.) 

Somewhat opaquely, the Democratic Platform also declares, "We will provide assistance to producers who conserve and improve natural resources on their farms and double loan guarantees that support the bio-based economy's dynamic growth." Is "bio-based" a dog-whistle to biofuels producers? If so, is it really a good idea to encourage farmers to plow up more land to produce biofuels whose contribution to slowing global warming is likely quite marginal?

The Democratic Platform makes no mention of stem cells. On the other hand, it does state, "Democrats believe we must accelerate the pace of medical progress, ensuring that we invest more in our scientists and give them the resources they need to invigorate our fundamental studies in the life sciences in a growing, stable, and predictable way." By "invest," it's pretty clear that they mean more government funding for research and development.

With regard to private sector scientific progress, the Platform observes, "Democrats are committed to investing in the research, development, and innovation that creates lifesaving drugs and lowers overall health costs, but the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies is simply unacceptable." The Democrats have somehow overlooked the fact that no government research agency has ever managed to get a new pill or injection to a patient's bedside. If Democrats are serious about lowering pharmaceutical prices, they should advocate reining in the highly precautionary bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration and encourage the agency to further speed up approvals of generic drugs to boost competition. Still, they are onto something when they oppose "anti-competitive 'pay for delay' deals that keep generic drugs off the market." Patents are awarded for 20 years and that should be enough.

Finally, there is not a word in the Platform with regard to genetically modified crops. This is probably just as well since Sanders is for scientifically unjustified GMO labeling and darkly suggests that "huge food and biotech companies … are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way."

For my previous analysis of the science policy planks of the Republican Platform go here. See also below the video, "Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?" by my Reason TV colleagues Zach Weissmuller, Justin Monticello and Joshua Swain.

NEXT: Many Bernie Sanders Delegates Protest DNC Platform's Lack of Support for Palestinians

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does science consist of making sh*t up?

    1. Seriously. This entire article can easily be reduced to a single sentence”

      “The entire DNC platform is complete and utter bullshit.”

      1. The RNC and DNC articles could have been combined and reduced to an even shorter sentence:

        “They’re both dumb-dumbs”.

        1. Team Red actually said some surprisingly reasonable things. Amazing how quickly things can change.

          1. until I looked at the bank draft ov $9106 , I have faith that my neighbour was like they say trully bringing home money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than 10 months and recently cleared the debts on their appartment and bought a great new Lancia . Learn More Clik This Link inYour Browser.

            ???????? http://bit.ly/2abXTUQ

      2. The Republican platform calls it like it is, the reason they don’t single out renewable is because they want forms of energy that don’t require massive subsidy, I.E. renewable energy that literally can’t survive market forces without subsidy.

        If you want to call Republicans stupid for literally telling the truth, go ahead.

    2. to the contrary, Democrat’s science is scientifically sound – just asked the government funded scientists who are simply neutral and objective observers with no desire whatsoever to keep the flood of taxpayer money rolling in. Plus, because their science is so unassailable, if you disagree or question in it any way, they’ll throw you in jail.

      1. You know they’re right this time, unlike every other time, because they have told us so. You see, all those other times relied on bad science but this time it’s the right kind of good science. Science. Science, science science.

        Don’t you fucking love science?

    1. Yep, my favorite part of the article. By far.

  2. Does science consist of enriching bureaucrats?

    Then yes. They wholeheartedly believe in whatever does this.

  3. The score of Dem convention articles that slam Trump v those that don’t is now 5 – 2 for the day. I had hopes for Bailey, but he just couldn’t resist.

    1. Correction: 5 – 3. I missed the pro-Pali article below.

      1. RCD: With respect, it what universe is Donald Trump someone that a person who believes in free markets and free minds could possibly vote for?

        1. Not this one. Who said anyone should vote for him? Not me.

          My real concern, Ron, isn’t with the election. Its with Reason, which is becoming indistinguishable from other mainstream/DemOp Media outlets. I don’t want that.

          I do note that your linked article on the Rep platform was completely free of references to Hillary, yet your article on the Dem platform starts out with five mentions of Trump in the first paragraph. Why is that?

          1. ^^^This. What the hell Mr Bailey? I look forward to your articles and hell I even bought and read your book. With respect, in what universe is Hillary (or Donald) someone that a person who believes in free markets and free minds could possibly vote for? Take the high road next time and say something positive about science friendly libertarians….I dont know maybe the one running for president.

          2. I do note that your linked article on the Rep platform was completely free of references to Hillary, yet your article on the Dem platform starts out with five mentions of Trump in the first paragraph. Why is that?

            Search Engine Optimization

            1. This guy gets it.

              Trump brings in the clicks.

              1. I read that as “Trump brings in the chicks,” which is a whole ‘nother rhetorical kettle of fish.

                ….and probably somewhat Freudian on my part.

          3. Because Sanders brought up Trump as a point of comparison and in arguing that Dems don’t “reject science.”

            1. Still pretty gratuitious, MJG. Delete that paragraph, and it takes nothing from the article itself (which isn’t bad, once the obligatory spate of TDS is out of the way).

              1. All: (MJG) is right – I am using Sanders’ remark as a news hook – that is all.

          4. Maybe because the Dem platform was published after the GOP platform?

          5. My real concern, Ron, isn’t with the election. Its with Reason, which is becoming indistinguishable from other mainstream/DemOp Media outlets. I don’t want that.

            Running articles that criticize Democrats while simultaneously criticizing Republicans is “indistinguishable from other mainstream/DemOp Media outlets”? Which outlets are you reading?

            1. Its the ease with which Reason assaults Republicans, often on poorly sourced grounds taken directly from DemOp sources, with no “to be sure” about Dems, while they rarely seem to assault Dems without the obligatory “to be sure” about Reps.

              Its a pattern that I associate with the DemOp media. Reason is still better about being willing to go after Dems at all, but the trend is toward conformity with DemOp media tropes and attitudes.

              Or, it could be a giant case of paranoia and confirmation bias on my part, as my loathing for the DemOp Media causes me to overreact.

              1. Just out of curiosity, which sites would you include in that group? There are the obvious ones like Salon and MSNBC. I would guess most would include Huffington Post and Slate, although I think both of those have a broader range and a willingness to explore issues more widely. What else?

              2. RCD: I am going with “paranoia.” 😉

          6. Prediction: STOP PICKING ON REASON!

            I expect that when the democrats have their convention next week Reason will focus on them.

        2. I hope that isn’t an endorsement of the Democrats.

          1. With respect, it what universe is Hillary Clinton someone that a person who believes in free markets and free minds could possibly vote for?

            1. Exactly.

              1. All: I am voting Johnson/Weld. Yard sign is on its way.

                1. Ditto. Except for the sign. I don’t even wear clothing with advertisements on it.

                2. Thanks Ron!

        3. More to the point: everything Trump said before the nomination was in the 2012 Go Pee platform. The biggest difference I notice in the new one is that the “fence” is now a “wall” thanks to Trump and Pink Floyd. Oh, they also take pity on poor little libertarians being bullied by IRS audits.

  4. Lucky for Bernie Sanders, economics is a dismal science, so we might give him a partial pass on that.

    But there are still some simple rules which prove to be true pretty much 100% of the time. One of those is “price”. It’s not what Bernie says it is, it’s what the market will bear.

    Everything else in economics tends to extend from that.

    1. +1 brand of sneakers

      1. I’m sure if we spend more money on phlogiston chemistry, we’ll have that nut cracked any day now.

    2. Problem with prices is that they aren’t fair. They aren’t what people want them to be. So government needs to step in and make things fair.

  5. DEMS FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

    1. Of course. And we all know the only way to defend science is to jail those who question the prevailing theory.

      1. There’s also lying about the prevailing theory. Some 32000 people with science degrees signed the “petition project” petition asking the Senate not to ratify the Kyoto plutocall transferring money to communist China. When was the last time you saw an econazi bring that up?

  6. Because the government has solved all our other problems, it may as well fight the weather.

    1. not just the weather, but the weather 100 years from now.

  7. Are the Democrats really the Party of Science?

    No

    Next question

    1. Is Science (upper case, of course) supposed to have a party?

  8. …based on my reading of the evidence, I have concluded that man-made (evidence needed) climate change is an open-access environmental problem that could create significant difficulties for humanity (such as? sea levels rising a few inches?) later in this century(how much later?) and so needs to be addressed. (in what manner? at whose expense? with what efficacy?)

    1. CE: Trying clicking on the link provided – it will lead to others. Can’t recapitulate my arguments every time in very blogpost. With regard to addressing the problems, I have a nice long discussion in my book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century.

      1. “Still, based on my reading of the evidence, I have concluded that man-made climate change is an open-access environmental problem that could create significant difficulties for humanity later in this century and so needs to be addressed.”

        Sorry, it’s fabricatedbullshit. The data for pre 1970 have ALL been tampered with to fit the co2 models. Not recognizing this makes you an uninformed shill.

        1. One thing you definitely can’t say about Ron is that he’s uninformed.

  9. Climate “science” is important because it gives power to politicians.

    Economics, at least the non-Keynesian variety, does not. So it doesn’t matter.

  10. Regarding climate science: Who the hell are we to decide what the Earth’s “correct” temperature should be, anyway? Through most of Earth’s history it’s been warmer than it is now.

    Who do these nitwits think they are, to decide that the last hundred years or so (out of 4.55 billion) constitute the “correct” climate, and we must do OMG ANYTHING to keep that from changing?

    1. Climate conservatives.

    2. Temperature changes then were natural. Man-made climate change is not natural. Therefore it is bad. Like plastic.

    3. It’s an arbitrary moral thing, not a scientific thing.

    4. Because climate justice, that’s why.

      You should probably be fired from your job now.

      1. I’m self-employed. Should I fire myself?

        1. the FBI will see you now.

      2. Remember the Correct Tempers like Hillary and Barry etc. are secular humanist pseudo-Christians who nonetheless know ‘correct’ interpretations of Islam from the camel-fucker version.

        They know everything. So be like a good Berniebro and start eating the dog food put in front of you please.

  11. First time posting a link on here, hopefully it goes through. If this doesn’t scream party of science I don’t know what will.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

    1. You did it! Congrats!

      1. Not only that, you got an “https” link to stick, which is beyond the ken of most commenters.

        1. Well, I’ve seen plenty of commenters post broken links before, so wasn’t sure if it would be just as simple as copy-paste. Glad to see it was that simple.

          1. I have to get rid of the “s” in “https” to get my links to stick (a common cause of broken links). Respect.

      2. Its only because the squirrels love science.

          1. I fear Meeps.

    2. Um, how hard is it to file for a name change?

  12. eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies

    I keep seeing this claim, but nobody can tell me what they are.

    I believe they are referring to the depletion allowance, which is a form of depreciation that can be claimed by any extraction business (oil, mining, timber, etc.). WHich means its not a special tax break for oil companies. And subsidies? For oil companies? I am unaware of any such thing, but there’s a lot of crony out there, so maybe. If so, I’m agin’ it.

    1. Same way that medicare spending on 65+ aged vets is defense spending.

    2. One place I looked at said that the largest “tax break” for oil companies is the foreign tax credit, i.e., so they won’t have their income taxed twice — another tax break that all everyone enjoys. (That foreign tax credit is a diabolical plot by those darn capitalists /socialist rant)

      OTOH, here is another source that breaks it down in more detail (and the foreign tax credit is not the largest in this list). Most of the items have a reasonable explanation (see the linked article).

      Master Limited Partnerships: $3.9B
      Intangible Drilling costs: $3.5B
      Royalty Payment Reductions: $2.2B
      Domestic Manufacturing Deduction: $1.7B
      Depletion Allowance: $1.0B
      Foreign Tax Credit: $0.9B

      My reading is that the royalty reduction and domestic deduction are the closest to a real subsidy. And the domestic deduction just tries to compensate for our higher corporate tax rate (apparently companies in some other industries — maybe strategic ones? — also qualify for this).

      1. Also, I imagine these numbers fluctuate from year to year — the foreign tax credit could be much larger in years where the oil industry actually has large profits (i.e., not recently).

  13. Did Bailey do an article on the science planks in the LP platform during their convention?

    Just wondering.

    1. r: No. Sections most relevant below:

      2.2 Environment

      Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

      2.3 Energy and Resources

      While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

      1. Does that answer the question about which is the party of science?

        And why no article?

        1. r: What’s to discuss? On the other hand I did write up an analysis of Gary Johnson’s views with respect to various science policy issues.

          1. Diabetic friendly linking.

          2. What’s to discuss?

            Section 2.2 and 2.3, apparently.

            General concept that how no policy is a pro-science policy.

            It seems pretty straight forward to me.

          3. Yikes. That’s it? Talk about “missing.”

            If science for Democrats is largely confined to climate science, is science for libertarians largely confined to…government?

            1. “If science for Democrats is largely confined to climate science, is science for libertarians largely confined to…government?”

              You do have a very difficult time with reading, don’t you?

      2. Finally! A platform plank–and a good one at that. The top one would be relevant to anyone who has tried to recover loot stolen through civil asset forfeiture or tried to bring a public servant to justice for fatally shooting an unarmed loved one in the back.
        Libertarian party meetings are the only place you routinely find folks with a demonstrable grasp of basic science.

  14. All statists are, by definition, hostile to the science of economics, but collectivists are for worse, since conservatives tend to just ignore it while collectivists try to warp it to their needs. In this regard, Jerry Brown, who signed minimum wage legislation while remarking that it was not economically sound but was socially desired, at least didn’t pretend it would increase the economy.

  15. When I was in school they taught us that science required testable hypotheses proven by controlled experiments.

    “Consensus” ain’t that. And it strikes me as very “anti-science” to pretend and emergent state of political agreement is somehow a suitable stand-in for experimental proof.

    They should call the field “climate statistics”. And actually give us some odds. I can believe the odds lean one way more than another.

  16. Well, depends on whether you consider grifting an art or a science.

  17. Please explain how ‘pay to delay’ violates any libertarian principles.

    1. I can’t answer in terms of principles, but in this specific situation I think there are factors that are simply glossed over by those seeking to throw piles of money at climate change. A couple of those factors would be (in my opinion):

      1. Has the effect of battery technology been factored into the cost analysis. In other words, if batteries get 50 times better over the next 100 years then that will make electric vehicles and other things much more useful (and therefore less carbon emissions).

      2. What are the projections of prices for solar panels over the next 100 years? (same reasons as above)

      These types of quantifications get ignored by people who scream murder when anyone suggests cutting climate change funding.

      1. Why would battery composition do anything at all, since the CO2 emissions stem from energy production rather than energy storage? Electric cars run off fossil fuels like any other, it’s just easier to transport the fuel from A to B. As for Solar energy, are we forgetting they’re full of toxic chemicals and are essentially disposable and in reality not renewable at all?

        I thought this was common knowledge, guess not.

    1. PuPB: Modesty? Nah. Just was busy with other stuff. I may put up a link to it on the blog.

  18. Oooh. An opportunity for my favorite talking point.

    The science of anthropogenic climate change ignores the cyclical nature of climate, including the probability that the current interglacial, which encompasses all of human civilization, is closer to its end than its beginning, and that we can expect shortly to be plunged into a 100,000-year cryogenic hell regardless of any actions we take or fail to take. This is pattern has repeated 50 or so times during the Quatrenary, and shows no signs of abatement.

    Further, the sample size of the data (since 1880) is statistically insignificant when discussing changes to established 120,000-year cycles. It shows nothing.

    That is, of course, unless the Dems reject this climate science and embrace the notion that the world began 5,000 years ago. Party of science indeed.

    It also

    1. 5,000 years ago? Everyone know it was 6,000.

    2. “It also”

      OH FOR GOD’S SAKE MAN DON’T LEAVE US HANGING!

      1. It’s . . .

  19. In any case Trump still says that he’s not a big believer in man-made climate change. (Amusingly, Trump’s minions cite climate change…)

    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome

    If Ron wasn’t just overwhelmed with feelings of smug self superiority over Trump and his supporters, he wouldn’t make so basic a mistake as conflating man made climate change and climate change.

    Sad.

  20. I’m always late to these threads but here’s my standard question.

    Are you really, seriously, stating that mankind caused the Holocene?

    There is not a single, possible way that homo sapiens caused the glaciers to recede 50k years ago. A continuous warming trend for tens of thousands of years but the Industrial Revolution is responsible for it?

    Bullshit.

    I’m still waiting for an answer to a very simple question: How does the rate of warming now compare to the rate of warming from the last interglacial 150k years ago?

    Seems like a simple query but I have yet to receive a simple answer.

    … Hobbit

    1. Well you see it’s like…uhh…the sun is there and it’s a pretty big thing and well, you know CO2 could maybe do a thing when you account for atmospheric H2O that we absolutely can’t model for and…somehow these two things will combine in a way that’s really complicated and involves a lot of fuzzy math, falsified charts, and heat hiding in oceans where we can’t find it, but ultimately the most important factor is you’re going to have to pay a lot of money to 3rd world countries to make it go away.

      Whatever you do, absolutely do not read or quote anyone that mentions or speaks about events that happened before 100,000 years ago. We must keep the focus after that point, or people might ask questions about the Unicorns that are coming to kill them.

      Unsarcastically though, you will rarely if ever see a climate scientist talk about data from before ~100,000 years ago for a lot very good reasons, but also a host of really mendacious reasons. Right now they’re saying we’re just making the climate change faster, but they have yet to explain why that’s a bad thing in any realistic scenario.

    2. The simplest questions are the best to expose liars. My favorite is “what are the three most important greenhouse gases?” Subsidized schools deliberately add lengthy qualifiers to make the question politically leading. One counter to this is “in order of abundance,” the point being that water vapor is THE important greenhouse gas. The conundrum to looters is that lakes, oceans, rivers and clouds have no money to steal.

  21. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    =========== http://UsatodayJobs.Nypost55.com

  22. “By contrast, the Republican Platform declares, “We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. Note, however, that the GOPers didn’t mention renewable energy sources as possible competitors in unsubsidized energy markets.”

    Really? I think this answers itself considering that renewable energy specifically can not survive in the market without massive subsidy. So, what is your point there? That they don’t single out renewable as the non-starter it actually is? Color me shocked.

    “By “invest,” it’s pretty clear that they mean more government funding for research and development.”

    Yes, when Democrats call themselves the party of science they say it because they have bought off the most researchers.

    It’s pretty obvious Democrats fully intended on playing up the potential harms of a changing climate, and that they’re willing to pay off as many people as it takes to get the power they’re looking for. Who cares if the hottest 15 out of 16 days happened since 2001 going back to 1880? I mean it, who cares?

    CO2 concentrations have been at least as high as 2,000 PPM during an ice age, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t shit my pants over less than ~500 PPM when ~170 is required for life to exist on Earth period. We’re at a historical low point, and this is their excuse? Laughable.

  23. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  24. You missed the one about men needing access to abortions.

  25. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  26. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  27. Hudson . true that Chad `s blurb is flabbergasting… last week I got a gorgeous Alfa Romeo after having made $5229 this last 5 weeks and-over, $10k this past-munth . it’s actualy my favourite work I have ever had . I started this three months/ago and immediately started bringin home at least $80, per-hour . pop over to this website .

    ????????? http://www.maxincome20.com

  28. The dems are the party of Lysenkoism just as God’s Own Prohibitionists are the party of Creation Science. If this sounds like an exaggeration, ask any one of them for the definition of energy or, failing that, the dimensions of units that are used to measure energy. This would make good Reason video interview material.

  29. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. – – – – – ????? ???????????? ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.