Dedes: The Paris agreement.

Dedes 06.08.17	Personally i think that for being one of the biggest gas emitters it's a little ironic that we'd do this but hey whatever lines the fuel industries pockets.
Flugmorph 06.08.17	humanity has declined (google that shit)
unclereich 06.08.17	Not wanting to subsidize other nation's pollution issues is a pretty good reason to pull out
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	americas retarded
unclereich 06.08.17	Not wanting to end up like germany rip, such insanley high electric prices that theyre turning back to coal. All in the name of chasing the imaginary co2 limit
Dedes 06.08.17	I don't get what's so "imaginary" about it however. Exaggerated perhaps but hardly imaginary. Even so, do you really think he wanted to withdraw for a good reason.
butcherboy 06.08.17	it's sensationalist politics.. global warming exists, but this planet has plowed through more cataclysmic environmental moments, just as it will plow through us and our emissions at some point.. but hey, at least they gave al gore something to do after they ruined his political career..
Rik VII 06.08.17	This isn't about the planet, it's about us, how we live and, moreso, about our successors. Trump is just another old man who will never live to see the worst consequences of the arbitrary nonsense he does, just like most of the people who voted for him.
Dedes 06.08.17	I mean of course the earth has I get it, but why cause more problems? People in China wear masks for smog outside and here our own country is removing the limits on emissions from big companies.
unclereich 06.08.17	being apart of the pairs agreement is very important, just look at how its helped china slow its emissions down
Dedes 06.08.17	I suppose that's true, but I just can't imagine that's the real reason our country left it. It's more symbolic than anything.
butcherboy 06.08.17	when I lived in Korea, in the summer, if you left your windows open, there'd be a thin layer of black dust on every surface from the smog.. that country is all industry..
Dedes 06.08.17	I feel like our administration wants to allow companies to do absolutely as they please, which, as an environmentalist, I cannot support.
Dedes 06.08.17	Also we need people to enforce the treaty more. It's ineffective because people don't uphold it.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	"imaginary co2 limit" americas retarded
unclereich 06.08.17	Says the world's greatest free rider LMFAO
butcherboy 06.08.17	it's ineffective because big business runs most every developed country, not just America, which is vilified pointlessly in this sense.. environmentalism is bad for business.. in a perfect world, this divide would be negotiated, but that's hardly going to happen.. pulling out of the treaty was a bad foreign policy move, but that agreement, like most internationally-brokered left wing organizations will end up a group of frustrated suits piddling around without results.. old money doesn't give a fuck, and every year, less and less of new money does..
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	says the guy who said "imaginary co2 limit"
unclereich 06.08.17	patiently awaiting for the free rider to establish what is too much co2 and what is acceptable. Though i suppose like any free rider their answer would be "well ours of course"
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	your comment implies there literally is no limit retarded
unclereich 06.08.17	What is the limit
zakalwe 06.08.17	What happened to the hole in the ozone layer?
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	on venus the surface pressure is 90x that of earth and the surface temperature averages 460 degrees celsius (yes venus is closer to the sun but its actually hotter than mercury because of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere) is that too much
Snake. 06.08.17	WE'RE NOT VENUS STILL IMAGINARY HURR DURRRRRR
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	MUH DADDY SAYS AL GORE INVENTED GLOBAL WARMING I FINISHED GRADE THREE I KNOW WHAT I SAYS
RadicalEd 06.08.17	"Not wanting to end up like germany rip, such insanley high electric prices that they're turning back to coal. All in the name of chasing the imaginary co2 limit" Lol. Let's just state shit with no basis in reality like the God Emperor. Germany is not "turning back to coal". Coal makes up ~ 40% of our Energy-mix in 2016. In 1990 it was ~ 60%. The trend is steadily going downhill (albeit a bit too slow in my opinion but we're also phasing out nuclear energy at the same time) in the last 25 years and it's continuing in that direction. Yes energy has been getting more expensive (although it's by no means "insane") as a result and we have a fair share of problems with this transition but the transition is happening.
RadicalEd 06.08.17	Also how disingenuous can you get. "How much Co2 does it take EXACTLY? Got no answer? HA! I got you, every amount is acceptable then."
Sevengill 06.08.17	Is it true the Paris Agreement is an outdated pact signed by Cecil, Harambe, Flipper, Lassie, Smokey, Clifford, Nessie, Bigfoot, and 187 other charismatic megafauna in an effort to stop human expansion??? That's what they said on FOX News.
unclereich 06.08.17	I'd like to see your counter argument for the Germany example I provided, and how their failure to use renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels and nuclear proved devastating to their economy. According to the Paris Accord requirements the United States is must cut co2 emissions to 25% below the level they were at 2005. However, China only has to stop INCREASING co2 emissions by the year 2030. GHG emissions in 2025 total are projected to be 75% more in China than they were in 2005, why does this not concern you? The Paris deal allows the US to drastically cut its energy use while allowing China to drastically INCREASE its energy use, which is very good for China as well as a good way to lose many US manufacturing jobs overseas.
unclereich 06.08.17	The job killing nature of the Paris agreement as well as many other globalist agreements comes in the form of regulatory burden. Much like the TPP and other policies which strengthen other countries whilst weakening the United States, in the Paris agreement we are paying a disproportionate amount and taking on the financial burden of the agreement. Here are the biggest problems with the Paris accord, first, in order to meet the regulatory cost and mandates, businesses are forced to invest in less productive technology and adapt to these compliance costs as well as a rise in energy costs. Big business who strongly backs this deal (companies like Walmart, Apple) won't have a problem with these costs, but it will have a devastating effect on small businesses and many could not survive. In order to fit the regulatory burden the industrial sector is projected to lose over 1 million jobs, primarily within the iron/steel and petroleum industry. More densely populated countries which harm the environment more than the United States such as China and India are allowed to build more and more coal plants under this agreement, while the US is not. It is not good for Americans to give away jobs and inexpensive energy to better the economies of other countries and weaken ours. This agreement fosters a platform for transferring fossil fuel jobs out of the United States and provides them to foreign countries. The heritage foundation projects that the electric costs of an AVERAGE American family would increase by 13 to 20% annually, that is simply devastating. In addition, the Paris agreement REDUCES US GDP by over 2.5 Trillion by 2035.
unclereich 06.08.17	inb4 calling me retarded again and using awful analogies and all caps, translation = 'I didn't actually read any of the provisions in the Paris Climate'
Sinternet 06.08.17	you're retarded
unclereich 06.08.17	thanks dad
Sevengill 06.08.17	I hope we do this planet a favor and drive ourselves to extinction sooner rather than later.
Flugmorph 06.08.17	political arguments on sput, oh boy... gj dragging germany into this early adolf oh wait
Snake. 06.08.17	who gives a flying fuck what china is doing, that's totally out of our control regardless of whether we pull out of the agreement or not also you make it seem like jobs for renewable energy just simply do not exist, either that or you're so concerned about your country that you'd just rather we keep fucking the environment for the sake of MUH CAPITALISM
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	tax carbon -> invest in clean energy -> profit (aka jobs) you're welcome murica its time to invest in more than just war or you're going to fall into relative redundancy sooner or later i don't know where you're getting germany is in shambles, given the events of the past 6 or so months one could make a strong argument their economy / global influence is healthier than any other country in the world but there's no co2 limit too amirite
RadicalEd 06.08.17	"I'd like to see your counter argument for the Germany example I provided, and how their failure to use renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels and nuclear proved devastating to their economy" Counter argument 1: THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. You are living in a fantasy world. Germany has the strongest economy in Europe by almost every conceivable metric (only country that is even comperable is the UK really). No it's not without it's problems (most of them have nothing to do with Renewable energies), wages are not high enough and we need a consorted effort to make sure that the wealth is not only going to global buisnesses, but also to the everyman, but overall we're doing more than fine. "More densely populated countries which harm the environment more than the United States such as China and India are allowed to build more and more coal plants under this agreement, while the US is not" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html Your whole job argument is leaky as fuck anyway. New industries, new jobs.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	"It is not good for Americans to give away jobs and inexpensive energy to better the economies of other countries and weaken ours." so you think importing oil for energy from the saudis is better for americans at home job-wise than developing at home clean energy infrastructure ? reichy for prez
RadicalEd 06.08.17	CHINA. They're taking OUR jobs. They're killing us on trade. It's a very, very bad deal. terrible. Believe me.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. 11:15 AM - 6 Nov 2012
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	http://www.nasdaq.com/article/trump-is-intent-on-killing-renewables-but-clean-energy-jobs-outnumber-fossil-fuel-coal-jobs-in-the-us-cm798784 "The Sierra Club reports that clean energy jobs now outnumber coal, oil, and gas in 41 states and Washington D.C., based on the agency's data. "Nationally, clean energy jobs outnumber all fossil fuel jobs by over 2.5 to 1; and they exceed all jobs in coal and gas by 5 to 1" the report reads"
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	this just out today too- "Wind, solar and nuclear power have each generated more electricity than coal and gas combined – for the first time ever in the UK. The National Grid said the landmark was achieved at 1pm on Wednesday. Wind supplied an estimated 9.5 gigawatts, nuclear provided 8.2 gigawatts and solar contributed 7.3 gigawatts, all ahead of gas on 7.2 gigawatts. There was no electricity from coal at that time." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nuclear-power-solar-wind-provide-more-electricity-gas-coal-combined-first-time-renewable-energy-a7778541.html?
RadicalEd 06.08.17	IT'S KILLING JOBS!
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	its killed reichys participation in this discussion thats for sure
Dedes 06.08.17	Guys be a little more civil lol Yeah it's a massive cost to start on more renewables but over time it's been proven the cost is less than non renewables. Not insanely, so it'll take a long time to make back your money, but it'll get there.
RadicalEd 06.08.17	Also the fossils will run out one day. Also we may fuck the enviroment up so bad that a lot of people will be forced to move (and become the refugees that Trump loves so much) because their native regions will become unliveable.
butcherboy 06.08.17	I remember that in his last term, Schwarzenegger decided to finally give the Green Party something, and commenced these giant plans to build a massive wind farm in the Mojave.. he secured funding for it, they were drawing up plans.. then the Green Party nixed it because the wind farm was going to impinge on the habitat of seven obscure reptile species.. thoughts?
GhandhiLion 06.08.17	Good. It targets highest earners and not highest emitters. The idea that leaving it means you don't care about the environment is like saying the UK hates trade for leaving the EU.
zakalwe 06.08.17	Fuck the reptiles. Scaly bunch of wankers. I'm talking about the Green Party obvs. Snakes and lizards and things are cool.
MO 06.08.17	it's all about solar, I mean it's basically an infinite renewable resource. why we haven't begun tapping into it is beyond me...oh yea big oil and gas quelch that any chance they get, sigh. what a world
grannypantys 06.08.17	It didn't bother me at all that the Paris deal will fail just like the Kyoto deal before it. Prices of renewable energy are falling fast and have almost dropped to the levels of fossil fuel. The market shift to lower priced renewables will solve our dependence on oil and coal and this is happening sooner rather than later. Now if we could decrease our meat and dairy consumption we could make an even bigger difference.
MO 06.08.17	"Now if we could decrease our meat and dairy consumption we could make an even bigger difference." ehh, in terms of total ghg emissions, agriculture is bad but a lot of that is from emissions that would happen naturally (cows farting, manure management, denitrification/nitrification, etc). CO2, which everyone holds as the worst one could be slowed if we fit combines and tractors with solar energy it would eliminate a lot of emissions from agriculture. the biggest changes need to happen in transportation (mainly airplanes and shipping over sea), construction and infrastructure and industrial processes. get solar powered energies into those sectors and you'll see a DRASTIC decrease in overall emissions. again it's because big oil and gas has it's hands in all of these and don't want that to happen since it destroys their centuries old methods of making money.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	molecule for molecule methanes is 23x stronger a GHG than co2 which comes from cow bums of which there are so many unnaturally present from factory farming that it actually does have a significant impact A a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days (New Scientist magazine, 18 July 2007, page 15 ).
Dedes 06.08.17	The weird thing is that the higher ups in business could start investing in renewable energy and sell the energy and still churn out a profit without causing damage to the environment, but because it costs money in the short term they don't want to do it. This is odd because over time, renewable energy is a more consistent source. Fossil fuels will run out and their businesses will be put in the soil. I mean as will they of course because their all 80 year old tycoons who have no use for the money anyways but still.
Snake. 06.08.17	"The idea that leaving it means you don't care about the environment is like saying the UK hates trade for leaving the EU." smfh
Dedes 06.08.17	While that may not necessarily be true it is still symbolic. Also our current government alongside a sizable portion of the American people do not give a fuck about the environment.
Snake. 06.08.17	hey while we're at it why don't we just discuss how the wage gap doesn't exist either
butcherboy 06.08.17	the cow methane thing is archaic bullshit that has long been contested by people who actually work in the scientific field for advancement and not chasing "innovative" academic buzzword degrees and grants.. also, yes, cow/bullshit
Dedes 06.08.17	I think the wage gap is really fucking dumb on both sides, lol people really let their emotions take over on that topic. The wage gap is very much there in certain professions, in certain regions more than others.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	'the cow methane thing is archaic bullshit that has long been contested by people who actually work in the scientific field for advancement and not chasing "innovative" academic buzzword degrees and grants.." false
Dedes 06.08.17	you have to explain why you think it's false dude lol
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	i literally already posted that
Deathconscious 06.08.17	Even if you dont believe in human influenced global warming, switching to clean energy is still good for ourselves and the planet. Trump is just being Trump, big surprise. The fact that we pulled out while even North Korea is cooperating is embarrassing. Im glad some states are choosing to honor it regardless of what the retarded orange gerbil says. Im hoping more follow suit.
butcherboy 06.08.17	didn't say it's false.. said the cattle emission thing is false.. it's effects were grandiosely exaggerated, like most of this shite.. shale gas wells and fracking have actually been documented with empirical data to have been releasing scores more of anthropogenic methane than the cattlefield conjectures (because those were all they were even when that belief was a popular fad with greenies - conjecture)
MO 06.08.17	"molecule for molecule methanes is 23x stronger a GHG than co2 which comes from cow bums of which there are so many unnaturally present from factory farming that it actually does have a significant impact" molecule for molecule CFCs are even worse than methane though, like substantially, tens of thousands times worse. so should we start shutting off our air conditioners and fridges? it's only 5% of the emissions pie, half of methane sure, but SUBSTANTIALLY worse. where does it end chuck bro
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	net impact + necessity of the source of the emission is whats should be considered, its a small part of the pie and more necessary than eating beef
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	kg of CO2 produced per kg of meat: beef 34.6 lamb 17.4 pork 6.35 chicken 4.57 Source: Environmental Impacts on Food Production and Consumption. http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/EV02007/EV02007_4601_FRP.pdf
butcherboy 06.08.17	those are just buzzwords.. just because someone sits on the cosmetically virtuous side of a debate, doesn't preclude them from actually backing up their nonsense.. explain to me the ratio of methane emissions of cattle to humans and other living organisms, the concrete process that happens when that methane enters the atmosphere, and then tell me why India, who don't raise cattle en masse for consumption are one of the worst methane offenders..
emester 06.08.17	From my understanding, the only choice the US really had was to pull out of the agreement. Because of all the dismantlement the incumbent administration has been doing towards federal environmental organizations, i.e. the EPA, by staying in the agreement we would certainly not follow through with the requirements and regulations of the Paris Agreement. So basically, the US had the choice to remove itself as soon as possible or hold out for eventual criticism that would most likely be even more negative. By this logic, from a political standpoint, I totally understand why this was done. However it doesnt dispute the fact that the dismantlement of environmental regulations is just plain stupid.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	india doesnt raise cattle for consumption but a quick google search shows me that they have more cows than any other country - 283 million http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html
MO 06.08.17	are those Co2 numbers from producing meat mainly from emissions from farming the land for their food chuck? or from another source? I am genuinely curious
butcherboy 06.08.17	exactly.. because if they aren't consumed, like any creature without natural enemies, they overpopulate.. so controlling cattle population is the answer to this completely legitimate cattle methane conundrum? again, I'm not arguing the fact that methane's effects take a toll.. but the cattle thing is absolute fap..
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	check the pdf bro
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	butcherbro youre wrong man read the artcle i just posted like you guys im posting sources for a reason and youre ignoring them if we're just going to spew shit out of our ass (pun intended) and when someone actually backs themselves up they get ignored this conversation is useless and ill move on
butcherboy 06.08.17	check who wrote it first.. I can start a fap master's on the topic tomorrow and get a grant.. and the fact that environmental science keeps flinging itself from one hot topic nonsense to another, screaming of the end of the world is the reason why people don't take actual liberals seriously..
butcherboy 06.08.17	that being said, I'll read the article.. but I spent way too much time around academia and I know that 90% of people writing shite like this do it out of financial and status necessity and that they pad data or take it at face value like a motherfucker.. also, just having a debate, so hope I don't come off as a contrary prick.. not trying to attack you personally,,
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	thats great dude i studied climatology in school and i know what im talking about and ill also say this idea that agenda-fueled funding and biased studies is extremely overblown 90% of what anyone does with any sort of time and effort has to include financial gain, thats why there are government grants + journal fees + high tuition etc, there is the peer-reviewed system that is in place to mitigate bias in science and it does a pretty damn good job the bigger problem is the media taking the science out of context to push their agenda, not the actual science itself
butcherboy 06.08.17	fair enough, but we both know that just because shit gets published doesn't mean it's not politically motivated, or that it actually holds water.. I work on the editing board of a magazine and every week I have to deal with being pressured to include nonsense submissions that are coming from politically popular sources.. and they get through!
butcherboy 06.08.17	anyway, again, sorry if I came off too pushy.. reading now
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	yeah i mean i would think most times the reason people get into the field theyre in is out of pure curiosity and/or as a sort of activist for a cause, but i kind of don't think their motivation matters because there is a system in place to filter out the bullshit any addition of knowledge to the whole body of science is welcomed, again it's how that information is taken and conveyed in the media that it can be spun in different directions, not enough people take the time to look into sources its all good dude i never take debating things personally, MO's my bro too, my best friend in real life is a hard lined conservative trump supporter we're always debating it's all love no worries
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	Ok Mechanical Engineer here, just wondering an alternative way to derive massive power output without any combustion from people who want to limit CO2. I'm not being cheeky, I'm just shocked at how we demand cutting emissions but provide no reasonable alternative.
Kalopsia 06.08.17	Y CANT U JUST MAK WATER POWERED CARZ ALREADY?? GAWD GUYS, COMON!
Dedes 06.08.17	Well I mean there is the solar powered highways that Germany plans on doing that are an extremely efficient idea in terms of lowering co2 emissions, although of course that's also costly as hell. If we made even a 25 percent military cut we'd get a fuckton of funds however, but that is unlikely to happen.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	@space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy i am being cheeky but really though what of question is that i assume what you're getting at is the cost it takes to develop the infrastructure and yeah thats a thing but eventually it would pay for itself both financially and in terms of emissions saved
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	@king 1. Solar energy is not viable at all as of right now. You couldn't feasably have the heat addition to a rankine cycle be completely based off solar power. If you could, companies would be doing it already. Sunlight is free, natural gas isn't (profit motive is actually helpful most of the time) 2. Why should we cut military spending in order to destroy our infrastructure?
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	@chuck no its not the cost to develop it, its the efficiency, rate and feasibility. dude its like suggesting to cut your electricity bill by running your house off of a potato
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	the future of solar- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power but anyway to answer your question it depends where you are located, for instance in canada hydropower is and can be huge given the vast stream and tidal resources, other places that are drier but have more hours of sun could go solar + wind, etc. i mean quebec has been running on somewhere between 80-100% hydropower for at least a couple decades now, yeah i know that's a bit of a broad range i forget that exact numbers but you can look it up if you want
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	i mean brayton cycle turbine+compressor pairs cost millions and millions of dollars and corps buy em all the time because they have extreme investment payoff. money isnt even the issue here
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	true geothermal, hydo and solar have spikes of efficiency depending on location. but still just a fraction of combustion a reasonable alt is nuclear but people fear that even more.
Dedes 06.08.17	Most nuclear power plants are extremely safe, but the effects of a breakdown are just so extremely devastating that it is understandable. Nuclear power is a gamble. Also what do you mean by "destroying our infrastructure"?
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	i don't know it's done and been done in certain places for a long time, im just about to head out right now or I'd look into it a bit more but maybe next time I'm on here
RadicalEd 06.08.17	just letting you people know that chuck has slaughtered you. "a reasonable alt is nuclear but people fear that even more." ehhhhhhhhh. Nuclear has a very high risk factor. There are literally places on earth that you can't go anymore because of nuclear reactors. Also the waste disposal is a gigantic problem.
guitarded_chuck 06.08.17	what i will say right quick though is that i remember an article published in nature like 4 or 5 years ago that put forth a comprehensive replacement plan for all energy globally from fossil fuels to clean sources and it seemed more than doable and that was years ago now, I'm sure the advancements since would make it even more so, I'll try and find that soon and post it
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	yeah chuck i'll admit i'm much more educated on combustion power since thats covered heavily in my job and degree, and know very little about renewable so i actually do appreciate what youre saying. i'd love to read up on anything. @king ok there i admit i was being a bit.. idk the word... but i mean you'd be cutting a massive, massive, massive chunk of funds to an industry that puppeteers our economy and put it towards tearing up our highways
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	@rad um i dont feel slaughtered. im discussing, not dueling. you sound like youre hiding behind his legs going "take that!". lol just playin obv @chuck please do
Dedes 06.08.17	Yeah dude I guess, I guess I just always felt we spend ridiculous amounts on our military and being a very pacifist person i'd rather see something that doesn't feed the war machine. Unfortunately it drives our economy a lot, however.
porcupinetheater 06.08.17	Most of the nuclear power disasters occurred because of improper adherence to regulation (not counting the Fukushima geological meltdown, of course). That said, it's still preferable to doubling down on massive carbon emissions, particularly if you build the structures in very isolated environments. I'd rather risk a low probability meltdown with a several hundred mile radius than play Deerhunter roulette with the entirety of the globe. And particularly if there's a plan to slowly phase out nuclear power as other forms of renewable clean energy become more advanced with technological development, I definitely think it should be pursued
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	@king yeah i totally get that, our (assuming youre american) defense budget is a very tricky thing. interestingly enough, i'm pretty sure the modern version of the brayton cycle (rotary blades instead of linear pistons) used for generating power was designed through military spending since its basically just a repurposed jet engine. i'm just assuming though, so good chance im wrong
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	@porcupine agreed 100% its the future as of right now, just fighting terrible PR
Dedes 06.08.17	Yeah dude i'm American. It's weird, like we spend multiple times what the next highest spending country spends military-wise yet I always here from people in the military that they're under funded.
TheSpaceMan 06.08.17	i personally think some of that stems from the federal usage of the money -- meaning its going to gov't run sectors (obv) which tend to be much less productive then privatized sectors (the DMV for instance). cause like we certainly arent underfunded in terms of weapons and technology/ R&D, which is handled through privatized contracts funded by the defense budget. that being said I dont think we should ever privatize the military.
RogueNine 06.08.17	He really didn't.
Dedes 06.08.17	Who really didn't what?
Snake. 06.08.17	hey reichy wya blotha
Azertherion 06.09.17	https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/6epnc2/les_guignols_de_linfo_we_fuck_the_world/
Dedes 06.09.17	Dude that's genius