weedkillers ...Len

Discussion in 'Planting, growing, nurturing Plants' started by ~Tullymoor~, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. Ichsani

    Ichsani Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi,
    (apologies in advance...these are my views, I think these things are important to debate....sorry to any I offend, I like you all)

    Hmmmm...the old Round up debate.... perhaps I could add a little circumstantial info......use of that stuff doesn't follow permi ideas as far as I can understand, bit of a stop gap, hey look the weeds are dead, oh crap they're back again, oh spray them again....

    As to their use in conventional agriculture......hmmmm massive industry investment.....issues with resistance build up to gylphosate.....ongoing expense (not to mention Round up ready crops, so I have to keep buying the seed and the chemical every year?.....).......

    ....I'm sorry but these chemicals bolster a massively deficient, primary successional agriculture.....treatment of symptoms and not the cause.....when considered in context with convention practice......its just silly....any idea how much energy is used to produce,transport,market these things......let alone diverting attention from causes!

    ....what about oil issues, oops there goes the fertilizers (hello 5% world comsumption of oil for the production of N fertilizers alone! not including the varios herbicides, pesticides, farm machinery etc etc) Oh, what green revolution? No sorry that ended with the oil age....

    So what if it is safe? Sales of the stuff are bolstering a company with an illustrious reputation. So many angles and implications, flow on effects.....people simply don't like the stuff....for a variety of reasons.....'BUT ITS SAFE" This is where I gravely dislike science conducted by those with bias.....Having done enough science myself, I know how EASY it is to either 'design' an experiment to get results that are desired, fudge the statistics involved, misrepresent the data, or generally lie........this is where its not science anymore but a matter of integrity. Who checks:? I DON'T TRUST THE INTEGRITY OF MONSANTO. There, I said it.
    Aside from this, all ideas in science are meant to be falsifiable, but studies that have gone contrary to monsanto's claims are not heeded. Like their experiment is the only one that counts! That smacks of ABSOLUTISM. This is not science, this is business and politics and money.

    (end rant now)

    Back to weeds, Pat colby's (I think this is the right name) has some interesting advice on weeds in her book- Natural Farming....

    Love to you all

    Ichsani[/b]
     
  2. biofarmag

    biofarmag Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I've said before, whether you like it or not, non-permaculture agriculture exists. If the dreaded system all collapses in the next 60 years, and the world decides it's time to rip up the pavements and everyone goes self-sufficient, then feel free to say "I told you so". Until then, soil health is being improved and soil conservation is being practiced RIGHT NOW by farmers using zero-till farming methods which include the use of glyphosate for weed control. They've made decisions to go that way because they believe it's a much better and less wasteful (in terms of soil-loss and energy-loss) than the older heavy cultivation practices. I happen to agree with them. At least I've provided something to think about. Anyone here is entitled to disagree. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I think you'll find an INCREASE in farmers choosing this method over older soil-destructive methods. If the world goes permaculture in the meantime, we'll have to wait and see.
     
  3. Ichsani

    Ichsani Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi again,

    Sorry Biofarmag, you posted when I was writing my little rant (I hate when that happens)..

    I have to question the mycorrhizal fungi, and the other beneficial microbes...considering the biology involved, a conventional farmed feild is colonised by ruderal organisms, fast growing, unspecialised, and a major group of plant pathogens....a complication arises from the fact that food crops don't have much lignin in their tissues, and no polyphenolics, or waxes...these ingredients are required to form stable humic matter. Carbon forms are not all the same. Thats chemistry. So I'm sorry but what you've said in regards to humic matter is simply not true, and if my qualifications are not good enough, I can direct enquiries to the Microbial Dept. of Sydney Uni. And I have studied under one of the guys (Les Copeland) who helped impliment no-till ag in aust, and so I do know the processes involved. Yes it is a vast improvement on tillage systems, but it ain't the bee's knee's. We have a long way to go yet. Sorry to be harsh.

    NO MORE! I hearby call all forum people to put this arguement down.

    THE SCIENCE IS UNRESOLVED. (as you can probably tell)

    AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ROUND_UP IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.

    Cheers all you rabble rousers, I'm going back to my garden.

    Ichsani
     
  4. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think for this Xmas?end of season party etc etc That we have an end of year gettogether at murrays house an organic bbq,with organic aquponiquafied fish and see food platterI ll bring some mullberrty wine everone bring a bottle of their choice .....I wonder how many of us will bring their own.. maybe we could make it a BYOR.....Bring your own round up, and all the roundup drinkers can get on the piss with the saltwater brigade.......Ill come with the organic coffee grower please...

    Why are we still debating this subject anyway?

    Tezza
     
  5. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for making your arguments BioFarmAg. It is actually quite compelling when you think that there are so many people who are going to need to get something to eat, and that we have thus far wasted most of our topsoil. I think it is great that farmers are at least concious of the idea of soil conservation and conserving fossil fuels these days.

    But, BioFarmAg, surely you would concede that a buildup of chemicals in our environment is also an undesirable thing?

    I think that I have read in Mollison's works where he says that one off applications of roundup type chems can be useful to get a Permaculture system in place. Just like he advocates the judicious use of fossil fuels to run machines that can establish systems that thereafter don't require them. As long as you don't get on the treadmill of regular mowing or spraying, I guess is the point.
    Personally I would rather see millions of people (myself included if necessary) starve to death rather than see all the frogs disappear because we spray roundup on the wheat crops etc.
     
  6. grease

    grease Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    weedkillers len

    Those steam cleeners that you see advertised occasionally are supposed to be good weed killers. Newspaper and mulch I use to good effect( if only 10% of the weeds come back then your ahead) Certain 'weeds' are great hosts for beneficial bugs, lady beatle larvae like my 'farmers friends' although they really love the crepe myrtles in the front yard. As for round up, anything used to excess or unwisely can be bad. Monsanto is basing one of its stategies for big profits on its widespread use (GM plants). And believe it or not people do drink the stuff. I have experienced two cases in the last 2 years of people trying to escape this mortal coil by ingesting the stuff (probably couldn't get their hands on a gun? who knows what goes through the mind of a depressed person?) All I know is that we looked after the first person without protection ( Suit with respirator) for half a day before we found out the correct procedures in dealing with this type of poisoning (It is fairly rare). The suit was protection for us Nurses as the poison came out through his skin , protacol dictated that you didn't enter the room without one. Heinous stuff when abused. Who would have thought? DDT was good in its day.
     
  7. biofarmag

    biofarmag Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You'd rather see human beings starve than see frogs die?? I don't know what to say to that.......
     
  8. earthbound

    earthbound Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a 'big picture' thing biofarmag.

    Understanding that this world isn't OURS to do with as we wish, and that frogs have as much right to life, and are no less important than humans..
     
  9. biofarmag

    biofarmag Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Allow me to disagree. And somehow I suspect if they were YOUR kids starving, you'd think differently. Ever seen hungry kids?
     
  10. earthbound

    earthbound Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SO you think this world is ours to do with as we wish, and that we have more right to life than other animals...?
     
  11. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Im curious to know where bill wrote,said, text etc to the fact of round up and using fossil fuels....Musta been tounge in cheek.I can not beleive hed say that.unless of course he was fibbing a bit to someone for the purpose gettingh his message accross and then promptly being taken out of context....Anyone else hear this before?

    Tezza......

    Hey biofarmag just between you and i..Why are you so keen on arguing for roundup against the odds in here, are you crazy :lol: :lol: :?: :?:
    or just a shit stirrere :?: :?: I dont totally know your back ground.But In here THIS PERMACULTURE BOARD weve (well i thought so anyhow) been busy trying to reduce costs,reduce chemical,reduce harm to our envioroment,be organic,be responsible,be far away from the things that we cant replicate without outside influences(unrenewable sources included)A need to reduce our dependance on outside sources,to have a sustainable lifestyle,in a clean,healthy way,and promoting our beleifs to our fellow humans....Are you sure your in the right forum?

    Tezza
     
  12. ~Tullymoor~

    ~Tullymoor~ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad I started this thread...NOT!!

    I know nothing of science, I know not much at all really, I have a form three education but I *think* the day that all the frogs are dead will be the day all the kids start starving :( :(
     
  13. biofarmag

    biofarmag Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Crazy? Not particularly. Shit stirrer? Not at all. I saw a post where someone suggested using salt as a weedkiller, and I firmly believe that it's much better for the environment to use roundup than to use salt. I also suggested simply pulling them out, or smothering them. I tend to think there's very few completely black or white areas in this world, and a fair few shades of grey. I also don't believe that all farmers will put away their spray rigs and tractors to become permaculturists in the next few years, and I happen to think that it's preferrable for them to minimise cultivation and use some herbicide than it is to see gullies washing across their paddocks taking precious topsoil away whenever it rains. Maybe it ain't perfect, but at least it's well-intentioned and it's doing SOME good. And yes, I also rate human beings as being more important than frogs. I think we're better than cows, sheep, pigs and chooks too......which is why I eat beef, lamb, pork and chook meat with a clear concience. Hey, if that makes me a monster and if opinions that differ from what Bill said are simply not welcome, then I'll go. Just say the word. I'm happy in my own mind to know that whilst I don't agree with all opinions here, I don't feel offended by anyone, nor would I question anyones right to have their own opinions or to express them.
     
  14. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey mate we do appreciate your comments Here..And are wellcome anytime ...Yes we agree that salt is bad salt isok
    depends of areas and different countries most agree that salt is bad for aussie and land in general i wont use salt unless on my dinner.We agree

    But taking into accounts our own feelings experiences,phobias,sound skills and knowledge and our own desires feel that maybe just once we dissagree with you,,cmon mate even some dissagreee with me 8) 8)

    The fact of the matter is most people on average dont like roundup or even care.The main proponets for it appear to be the manufacturer
    or the farmer who dont know what/who ta beleive apart from his bank manager reminding him about his overdraft...If farmers were that clever you think theyd be battling for a dollor as a farmer or a rich salesperson who sells it in the first place.....I just nipped into your sight sounds very impressive lotsa fancy words mentions Organic produce as well ..

    Do the various Organic associations agre with your hypothasies on Roundup?................

    If they do I for one will NEVER EVER use the word Organics in my dealings in life or buissness ever again

    Im proud to say Im cleaner than Organics ..They allow certain chemicals to be used during growing periods I have refused to use anything at all the whole of my 16 years of Permaculture......

    If Organics want to use roundup they wont get my blesing or wanting to use there Label......

    Hope your day is going well mine is

    chow
    Tezza
     
  15. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sigh. I don't have any of Bill's books with me in Hawaii, unfortunately. My entire book collection pre-2001 is in a garage in Brisbane, or at least it was. I was only supposed to be gone for a year so by rights my friend who was storing them for me could have hocked it all of by now. Anyway, I am almost positive that it is in Permaculture: A Designers Manual. He says that for certain scenarios, it may be the most practical thing to do to use roundup initially to get over the rampancy of certain plants in establishing Permaculture systems. Sorry I can't give you a more accurate quotation, Tezza. Of course, I could be confused :lol: .
    BioFarmAg, its not so much that I value frogs more than people. What I mean is that a world without frogs probably won't be very liveable for people or much of anything. Everything is connected. No life form is better or worth more than another. Its all good. You don't have to think you're better than the chicken to eat it. You are made of the same stuff, afterall. Especially after you eat it! And please continue to be a part of the forum. Diversity of opinion is valuable. You are certainaly not unique in arguing for the place of herbicides sustainable agriculture. A minority probably, but not unique. Anyway, please don't be put off by our collective dogmatic outrage! Hopefully we can learn something from each other. :)
    Hey Frosty. What everyone else said, except Tassie is too cold!
     
  16. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Before I reply to biofarmags question, I want to thank Ichsani for writing about Round Up. Sorry, your advice to stop now is sound. However, regrettably I can't help but answer Biofarmags question to me, with some additional thoughts.

    You and I probably have similar kinds of friends. I just live in an impoverished part of the world where hopelessness and misery is endemic, at times, and killing yourself with herbicide is a preferred method of suicide. None of my friends has done this, but plenty of people have.

    Biofarmag, I am not meaning to attack you, but I live in Central America, and throughout Central America these chemicals are promoted as "the chemical machete", and there is practicaly zero mention of the potential dangers of such use. The Kekchi Maya have adopted all agro chemicals here under the English word "medicine", so talking about these substances is already loaded in favor of using chemicals. medicine is good, right? Its also sold by missionaries, hallalujah!

    Chemcials are applied by kids in shorts and flip flops, no glasses, no masks. Noone tells them it's dangerous. Noone believes you when you do try to explain it's dangerous.

    Chemical companies promote heavily down here (up here, I guess for you lot down under :lol: ), and business rules the day. No serious discussion happens about wether or not these things are dangerous because there is a lot of money involved, and those people can buy and sell all the scientists they need, pay for whatever legislation they want, there is money to be made at every step of the chain, and I know that they hire people to write articles promoting these chemicals using the same terminology and reasoning you do (I am not saying you are a hired hand in this, either!). Because of this persistent background of disinformation, manipulation of science and the entrenched special interests who have so much to gain from selling the technology, I am deeply suspect of such arguments.

    There is a pattern of minimizing the dangers that has long term repercussions to the end users, almost exclusively poor uneducated farmers and laborers here, but also adjacent biotic communities including frogs, fish, birds, insects, mammals, and people, etc, etc, etc...

    I am not a doctor, or a soil person, my main areas of interest are broadly agroforestry, agrobotany, cacao, and biodiversity in agriculture, and food security through complex food systems.

    I feel that these overly simplistic and reductionist approaches to complex biological proccesses that result in food production are ultimately counter productive, and create a false economy based on artificial inputs that are simply not sustainable if true cost accounting is factored. And true cost accounting is NEVER factored in, unless it is an incomplete "true cost" model that supports their agenda ("Round Up saves lives, it stops hunger, it stops erosion, it creates more soil humus, its wonderful and all environmentalists MUST support Round Up, etc, etc.....")

    I am working with others here in Belize to create an environment where traditional knowledge is placed into a context where it is valued, where the true value of a country or region to produce its own food without importing petroleum derived inputs is acknowledged. I think the Green Revolution has hastily discarded millenia of knowledge of food production for a model that is less productive than older systems, and has a huge, but difficult to quantify, cost, if anything close to true cost accounting is practiced..

    The world is undergoing a series of erosions besides soil, and perhaps in an overly simplistic model of agriculture that is divorced from nature, soil erosion is THE defining problem. However there are other substantial losses.

    We have genetic erosion as more and more of our food is produced by less species, and as less varieties of those species are selected for a smaller criteria, especially transportability, ability to store well, esthetic features involving size and color, while nutrition, ability to grow without inputs, taste (taste, taste, taste), ability to save seeds, etc, are all discarded in favor of thes other criteria, often times intentionally.

    We also have an erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge, and that may be the single biggest problem we have to face as a species because the effects are difficult to see, hard to measure, nearly impossible to reverse.

    I watch as the old people die, and each time an old man or woman here dies, we lose more information. When they die, that information dies with them, and we are losing a whole world of information about how to farm sustainably because young farmers are trained in these supposedly "environmentally friendly" techniques based on applications of biocides and older, more sustainable, and "less productive" (in the reductionist kilograms per hectar model) models are discarded.

    Food security is imperiled when a large percentage of food production in the world is dependent on imported petroleum based technolgy. What happens when the ships stop coming?

    I have touched on this before here, and if you can wade through some of the yucks and jokes I enjoy writing, these concepts will come up again and again, but where we are right now is perilously close to losing our ability to sustain our population via the dominant agricultural model. The signs are there. Round Up is just another problem, it is not an answer (neither is salting the soil, and I am in %100 agreement with you there). Aquaponics :wav: , for example, is an answer, an answer that is NOT a problem (anybody else think Joel is a genius here? I think Joel is a genius. Didja know he's gonna teach a course in March? Dang, wish I could go. All of you in OZ really should go check it out!.....). Round Up is a symptom of a problem in the farm, as well as a problem in and of itself, and, to my biased way of thinking, a problem in the users head, a failure of imagination, a lack of ability (often intentional as true cost models scare the crap out of people) to see true cost.

    We as a species are dumbing down our food supply. And Round Up is, in my opinion, an examplary model of everything that is wrong with this approach.

    The dual model of "Round up versus gully erosion" is a false argument because there are other models to work with, other methods that are applicable, other techniques we NEED to develop, NEED to dissemminate, other modes of thought, other POV on our relationship with the earth, with the soil, with the plants we use to feed ourselves, etc, etc, etc.' Those two models of "Round up versus gully erosion" are arguing that getting hit on the head with a hammer is better than getting hit with a mallet! Which one is better? This equation is incomplete! Lets not hit ourslves in the head! There are other models.

    My friend Debora is a midwife/RN/Teacher/trainer for local traditional birth attendents (midwives). She reports that the incidence of severe birth defects is significantly higher in Maya communities like the village of San Pedro Columbia, where I live, than in town, where there is limited exposure to agro chemicals like the supposedly "safe" herbicides. She says that it is 10-20 times more likely for a baby to be born with severe, life threatening or lethal birth defects in these communities than in non agrarian communities, and that heavy users of chemicals are even more likey to have a child with a birth defect than their neighbors.

    I am not a scientist, an epidemiologist, either, and this is also anecdotal evidence, but these numbers are frightening.

    You never responded to the danger of endocrine disruptors. You have any thoughts on them?

    I mentioned the old man in the village who died after accidental ingestion, but through out Latin America, people kill themselves drinking biocides, including Round Up.

    There was another suicide that I read about a few months back, a young man who drank some herbicide (not sure if 2,4,D, Gramoxone, Round Up or Arsenal as article in Amandala paper did not specify) and died. This happens fairly often, once or four times a year here in Belize. I have known people who have tried to kill themselves with these chemicals, and known, peripherally, others who succeeded, and I am sure others in other countries where poor people have access to chemicals will have heard of similar experiences.

    There are some serious costs to this chemical usage that you do not mention. Locally, here in Belize we hava accomplished the death of a river. Monkey River is now dead. Bananas killed the river. There are no fish in the river, the frogs are gone, the iguanas, the alligaotors, gone, and the ospreys and other fish eating birds are not reproducing. Belize's barrier reef is dieing, too. Any serious marine biologist can tell you why, though I am sure you know where I am going with this. This system death, this destruction of this valuable riparian environment, this previously productive and healthy environment was killed by chemical and fertilizer use. So the false economy of "bananas earn Belize income" is only half a model.

    Bananas also killed Monkey River, wiped out the village (noone wants to live there because of the contaminated, stinking river), raised the cancer rate in the communities adjacent to the banana farms, increased the incidence of birth defects, reduced a whole segment of society to perpetual serfdom, displaced domestic food production, and Round Up was a big part of that. Round Up (or 2, 4, D, or the nitrogen rich run off that is killing the oceans, especially Belize's barrier reef, or GMOs that are contaminating land races of corn, or whatever I feel like, depending on the phases of the moon :lol: )is my personal poster child for everything that is wrong with modern agriculture.

    Yes, I've been to many places in Latin America, and I have seen hungry kids. Without exception those hungry children were hungry because of politics regarding food production. These problems were created by the solution to other problems.

    To cut to the chase on hungry kids:
    In no case have I EVER seen a child who would have been fed if ONLY their folks had access to these chemicals we are talking about. That spurious argument is always what the pro-chemical people say, and it is utter horse shit (actually, I LIKE horse shit) everytime anyone says it, yesterday, last week, today and tomorrow. That is a typical over simplification/justification that people who know little about food politics sy to defend chemical use when chemical uses other costs are adressed.

    The same economic models I hate so much because they are so self serving, short sighted, so incomplete, so blunt, dull, stupid, inadequate and destrucive, like export based ecomomies developed while domestic food production languishes, land use patterns dominated by foreign currency winning crops at the expense of local food consumption, LOSS OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FOOD PRODUCTION IN FAVOR OF IMPORT DEPENDENT AGRICULTURAL MODELS IN ONE GENERATION, are all right in line with the thinking behind biocides! A whole knowledge base of traditional food productin systems has been systematically dismantled, reducing "farming" to a series of herbicide and fertilizer aplications, reducing farmers to serfs dependent on chemicals. Monsanto is making billions from this, and I believe that this systematic loss of information was intentional.

    Backing up a bit to other models, there are alternatives to stupid reductionist agriculture with annual crops, but these methods generally take more work, and they take more time, they require more thought and observation and, most challenging of all, they challenge a model of agriculture that makes Monsanto and other companies BILLIONS of dollars..... that is a near impossible fight.

    However, there are developing alternatives that respect natural cycles, thatoperate within a context that values biodiversity, systems that control erosion with out trading soil retention for watershed pollution. For example, in Honduras they are working with inga alley cropping with corn, beans and other annuals (two members of our project are going over there in December to see what they are doing), and in other countries they are using vetiver, and in other places mucuna beans, and in other places other types of sustainable slash and mulch. These systems need exploring, the ones that are working need extension officers to train people in these techniques, but, ever notice that there is almost NO funding for these programs, but PLENTY of funding for the Round Up and input requiring methods?

    As Joel and Richard said about the frogs: bigger picture? We need to care about the frogs because we are the frogs, too. I mean that in a we-are-all-in-the-fish-bowl-way, not a "Wow, man, I love the froggies" way. We need to start seeing that we are all here together. We are not divorced from other species. What happens to the frogs is what is going to happen to us. We start knocking blocks out of the web of life for our own short term short sited, short attention span self interest, we are going to reap a terrible reward, eventually.

    Anyway, we just had another thread about differences of opinion, and we talked about this sort of situation, so i will end my monologue saying simply that I respect that you have an opinion on this subject, but that my experiences and thought processes have led me to another conclusion. You raised some interesting points, but I believe that we as a species have got to start developing more sophisticated production models with more complete accounting (and I DO agree that soil loss is imprtant) but I think argrochemicals create additional problems while they may solve some other problems. Just my thoughts.

    I encourage you to post more, and not to let anything we/I,he/she,they, them/us say or said to chase you away. You may never think the way I do, and I sure as hell will never see the "benefits" of chemicals, but you have lots to share, and perhaps you will see what some of us are trying to say.

    A question: do you use chemicals or is this an intellectual argument for you? (Do you own stock in Monsanto :lol: ? You're not a hired pen, are you? :lol: )

    Respectfully,

    Christopher

    [/i]
     
  17. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If i become aussie Pm will you nominate for the Pm of central america

    chris..........Hail King Cwistopher King Of The Jungles


    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa


    Tezza
     
  18. earthbound

    earthbound Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or when we become totaly globalised you can be

    Minister for world food production methods...........
     
  19. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yeah, at the convention hall, when you nominate me. I WILL RUN! I WIll RUN! (right out the door, down the street and off into the night!

    C
     
  20. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I ll make joel Minister for fisheries with you chris


    Tezza
     

Share This Page

-->