- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Questions to ask at town hall meetings
by Paul Driessen
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system ? 17% of our economy ? with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation would dramatically affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.
They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy ? the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do ? supposedly to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back.
And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.
Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian carbon dioxide reductions at the December Copenhagen climate conference, so that he can pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.
Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn?t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain all the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can?t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?
2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?
3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said ?every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,? so that America can reduce energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?
4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It?s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama?s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?
5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and cause ice-cap meltdowns?
6) Replacing hydrocarbons with ?green? energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that wind and solar systems can?t be built, either ? and we have a huge ?energy gap??
Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people?s property and expedite construction of these projects?
7) Replacing hydrocarbons with ?green? power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?
8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical ? so that we can have honest, unbiased science ? and sound public policy decisions?
9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don?t call predictions ? but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 50-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America?s energy and economic future, based on computer models?
10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster ? until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Will you demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Will you penalize EPA for fraud?
11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That?s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?
12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn?t that violate their most basic human rights ? including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?
Exercise your constitutional rights. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children?s future.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, two groups that have received some ExxonMobil support for work by him and others on malaria eradication, Third World agriculture and economic development, climate change, and other issues. He is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).
by Paul Driessen
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system ? 17% of our economy ? with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation would dramatically affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.
They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy ? the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do ? supposedly to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back.
And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.
Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian carbon dioxide reductions at the December Copenhagen climate conference, so that he can pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.
Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn?t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain all the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can?t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?
2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?
3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said ?every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,? so that America can reduce energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?
4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It?s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama?s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?
5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and cause ice-cap meltdowns?
6) Replacing hydrocarbons with ?green? energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that wind and solar systems can?t be built, either ? and we have a huge ?energy gap??
Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people?s property and expedite construction of these projects?
7) Replacing hydrocarbons with ?green? power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?
8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical ? so that we can have honest, unbiased science ? and sound public policy decisions?
9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don?t call predictions ? but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 50-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America?s energy and economic future, based on computer models?
10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster ? until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Will you demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Will you penalize EPA for fraud?
11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That?s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?
12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn?t that violate their most basic human rights ? including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?
Exercise your constitutional rights. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children?s future.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, two groups that have received some ExxonMobil support for work by him and others on malaria eradication, Third World agriculture and economic development, climate change, and other issues. He is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).
Oh God, I how have a whole army of eco-imperialists under my bed. Whatever am I going to do. I'm so scared.
Any climate change that kills off millions of the worlds poor is just Mother Nature's way of correcting imbalance. Why should we care about people who contribute nothing to human existence?
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Take 1 part hellokeith add some PJ
Add to that 2 parts ripronin and what do you get? You get the picture. There must be a fire sale on old, unused accounts at freeperville.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Snared another libby! Got the hook sunk in and pullin' him in, puullliinnn him in. Slooooowly, sloooowly, aaaaahh, like fishin in a terlet!
Snap! This is a weak one. Gotsta throw him back in with the other minnows.
Question: How do liberals brain cells die?
Answer: Lonely.
Question: What's the difference between God and a Democrat?
Answer: God knows He's not a Democrat.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Sorry, I refuse to hold back the progress of a first world economy (and humanity in general) because of a bunch of poor third world nations.
We send money and aid, the corrupt governments devour it, and things continue as they were. Time after time.
You can't help nations that won't help themselves.
We send money and aid, the corrupt governments devour it, and things continue as they were. Time after time.
You can't help nations that won't help themselves.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Your arguments are tendentious and intellectually dishonest. The fact that you continually use the term "climate change alarmism" and quote reports that consistently use the same term clearly shows that you and the reporters you quote have pre-judged the validity of anthropogenic climate change.
There's no point in responding to the content of your posts - you clearly have a closed mind.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
shirasez,
Life is suffering.
The Second Noble Truth locates the origin of suffering - desire. The other side of desire is aversion, pushing away that which you don't want.
In your ignorance, you redouble your efforts to attain the very things that caused your suffering in the first place. Any change, including that of the ideas that you may hold now, leads to the pain and disappointment of loss. Attachment to what is endearing and alluring binds you to the wheel of samsara, the endless cycle of death and rebirth that prolongs your suffering, lifetime after lifetime.
Change isn't always negative. It is the very essence of life, it is vital to growth. Maybe, with time and contemplation you will see this.
As for myself, I both embark on and offer paths to wisdom, not one of which you need to take until you are ready or wish to.
My life is one of contemplation and the seeking of enlightenment.
Have you heard the term "bodhisattva?"
The nature of the bodhisattva is apparent from a teaching story in which three people are walking through a desert.
Parched and thirsty, they spy a high wall ahead. They approach and circumnavigate it, but it has no entrance or doorway.
One climbs upon the shoulders of the others, looks inside, yells "Eureka" and jumps inside. The second then climbs up and repeats the actions of the first. The third laboriously climbs the wall without assistance and sees a lush garden inside the wall. It has cooling water, trees, fruit, etc. But, instead of jumping into the garden, the third person jumps back out into the desert and seeks out desert wanderers to tell them about the garden and how to find it.
The third person is the bodhisattva.
Life is suffering.
The Second Noble Truth locates the origin of suffering - desire. The other side of desire is aversion, pushing away that which you don't want.
In your ignorance, you redouble your efforts to attain the very things that caused your suffering in the first place. Any change, including that of the ideas that you may hold now, leads to the pain and disappointment of loss. Attachment to what is endearing and alluring binds you to the wheel of samsara, the endless cycle of death and rebirth that prolongs your suffering, lifetime after lifetime.
Change isn't always negative. It is the very essence of life, it is vital to growth. Maybe, with time and contemplation you will see this.
As for myself, I both embark on and offer paths to wisdom, not one of which you need to take until you are ready or wish to.
My life is one of contemplation and the seeking of enlightenment.
Have you heard the term "bodhisattva?"
The nature of the bodhisattva is apparent from a teaching story in which three people are walking through a desert.
Parched and thirsty, they spy a high wall ahead. They approach and circumnavigate it, but it has no entrance or doorway.
One climbs upon the shoulders of the others, looks inside, yells "Eureka" and jumps inside. The second then climbs up and repeats the actions of the first. The third laboriously climbs the wall without assistance and sees a lush garden inside the wall. It has cooling water, trees, fruit, etc. But, instead of jumping into the garden, the third person jumps back out into the desert and seeks out desert wanderers to tell them about the garden and how to find it.
The third person is the bodhisattva.
More likely the dessicated corpse found partially buried in a sand dune, being too stupid to take a gourd of water from that garden.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
While we are considering the economic impact of climate change legislation on developing economies we can't forget that we, too, will have a serious consequence. I am going to post a quick summation of the just released NAM/ACCF study and will also link the three most recent government projections on economic impact. The numbers are staggering, more so considering the country is already under significant economic stress.
It has been 30 years since there has been a new nuclear power plant in the US. Are we to believe it when all of these studies are projecting that 10 - 95 new plants will be built and doing so with a straight face? :shocked:
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
By Jim Snyder
The Hill
08/12/09 04:30 PM [ET]
Add another climate bill cost estimate to the growing pile.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.
Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.
But the business groups? figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.
And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.
?Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,? the report notes.
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps.
Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.
The report?s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some details about what assumption the study makes, relating to the development of wind and other renewable sources of power and the availability of offsets to help businesses meet their emissions reductions. Modelers also assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.
The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.
Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection ?ridiculous? given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction.
She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts.
?We?ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place? that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said.
The ACCF and NAM study can be found here -
Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act
Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here:
EIA - Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454
EPA?s H.R. 2454 analysis
CBO Cap And Trade Costs
It has been 30 years since there has been a new nuclear power plant in the US. Are we to believe it when all of these studies are projecting that 10 - 95 new plants will be built and doing so with a straight face? :shocked:
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
By Jim Snyder
The Hill
08/12/09 04:30 PM [ET]
Add another climate bill cost estimate to the growing pile.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.
Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.
But the business groups? figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.
And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.
?Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,? the report notes.
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps.
Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.
The report?s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some details about what assumption the study makes, relating to the development of wind and other renewable sources of power and the availability of offsets to help businesses meet their emissions reductions. Modelers also assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.
The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.
Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection ?ridiculous? given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction.
She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts.
?We?ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place? that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said.
The ACCF and NAM study can be found here -
Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act
Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here:
EIA - Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454
EPA?s H.R. 2454 analysis
CBO Cap And Trade Costs
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Back when I might have been more intelligent I'd have said that Economics was the conduit through which Imperialists effect their agenda. But now being knowingly dumb as I age into oblivion and much poorer than days gone by my only concern in this topic IS the cost to me considering my meager disposable income... Ya don't think for a moment I'd have traded - cash for clunkers - my '87 BMW in for some new fangled good gas mileage car do you.... I give a hoot more or less about the warming or chilling that may be real... I care only about my pennies and what I can do with them..
I figure it is manifest destiny and we or they are hard at work manifesting destiny under the guise of 'the proper agenda'.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter