Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> That's why I've directed people to groups like NASA, EPA, IPCC, NOAA, American
> Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, etc. But noooooooooo, there
> right-wing idealogues just keep spouting propaganda from right-wing web sites.

And the NOAA proved at least one of your statements wrong.

 
On 9 Nov 2003, st3ph3nm wrote:

> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people.

Doing the wrong thing is scarcely ever a better move than doing nothing.

DS

 
> Aw for the love of....

> Yes, the "80/20" rule is there, simply because countless people in the
UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. <<

And, Lord knows, we've already composited enough excrement with THIS thread!
(The noise you hear is the greens piling up more anti-society $#!t!)


 
> Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :p <

Or, sufficiently unproven to the point of nauseum. Indeed, we can hevily
impact the problem through an immediate reduction in the greenhous gas
emissions emmanating from the mouths of Socialist elitists ....


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

<parker forgot how to trim>

>>> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
>>> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
>>> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
>>> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>>
>>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>>nations?

> Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
> 4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.

Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
strive for?

If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?

secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?

>>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.

> No, that's the first step.

Relocating factories and the means of production to the developing
nations and increasing net global CO2 output is the first step. What's
the second step? Setting all the world's oil fields on fire for the good
of the environment?

>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

> If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
> first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?

I'll tell you want I don't do, and that's stab a knife into my neck so
the blood leaks out there instead of out of my head. And that's what
the kyoto treaty does as solution to the idea that there is too much
in the way of CO2 emissions. It just moves where the CO2 goes into the
atmosphere.

So you and the rest of pro-kyoto-treaty bunch are left with the following
question that you've never been able to answer: Why is it better to
make a widget in china with no environmental controls for sale in the
USA than say in georgia with environmental protections for sale in
the USA? Is the CO2 somehow less harmful if it comes from communists?
Please explain, using scientific journal references.



 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>for.<
>>
>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>
>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
>wrote:
>
>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Me wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
>Sensational topics get more research money.
>
>
>Matt
>

Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.
 
In article <ssDrb.113604$mZ5.763812@attbi_s54>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>> Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
>> technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
>> opportunity, not a problem.
>
>Again, no problem there. Nobody has a problem developing technology
>that conserves resources, etc etc.
>
>>> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
>>> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
>>> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
>>> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>
>>> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>>> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>>> nations?
>
>> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
>> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
>> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
>> going to be a dramatic improvement.
>
>NO IT ISN'T. Because the means of production simply get RELOCATED.
>Worse then that, they get relocated to places without the environmental
>protections of developed nations.
>
>> It would also make the
>> technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
>> developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
>> gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
>> else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
>> clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
>> did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
>> so.
>
>Make all relocated factories be as clean as those in developed nations.
>Make the carbon quotas based on the *ITEM* being made, not by where it's
>being made. If this is a global problem the way the left says it is, it
>needs to be addressed as such. It's being addressed as a 'the USA is
>evil and must be punished' issue. And that will meet significant and
>continued resistance.
>
>You want the people in the USA to get behind it? Demand that factories
>in china, india and elsewhere meet the same requirements as ones in the
>USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK, etc. They are being built by or with
>the money of the same corporations. The money being made comes from the
>same markets, so there is no reason to allow them to be dirty. Do that
>and sell it as leveling the playing field for the american manufacturing
>worker and you might get some support. Until then, you are telling
>americans that you want their jobs to go to china.
>
>>> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their
lives
>>> >> rearranged for no reason.
>
>>> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>>> > inland.
>
>>> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>>> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>>> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>>> it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>> Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
>> for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
>> time.
>
>See above for an alternative. If this is a real, global, serious problem
>then there is no reason to allow nations that are manufacturing on the
>scale of china not be restricted.
>
>>> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC
will still be
>>> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work
anyhow.
>
>>> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>>> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>>> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
>>> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>>> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>>> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>>> CO2 output per product.
>
>>> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>>> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>>> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>>> atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
>> countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
>> that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.
>
>So you now see why kyoto is hopelessly flawed, can only make matters
>worse, yet support it because? It feels like something is being done?
>It feels good? I want to see real solutions, not ones that feel good.
>
>>> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>>> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>>> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>>> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>>> things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
>> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
>> an alternative.
>
>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>which-country-emits-it basis.

Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

>
>>> > Efficiency isn't a bad
>>> > thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>> is about in this regard.
>>
>> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?
>
>Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
>encourages relocating manufacturing.

OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

>
>>> If they were about conservation they would
>>> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>
>> They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
>> that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
>> lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.
>
>Again, doing it that way is hopelessly flawed. The CO2 sources simply
>get moved to where there are no restrictions. If this is a global problem
>then what difference does it make if the widgets people in the USA
>buy are made in China or Ohio? The Kyoto treaty concept tells is there
>is some difference between the two, or the people who drafted it were
>too stupid to figure out what it obviously encourages. In either case
>it's worthless. It's a direct parallel to addressing fleet fuel
>consumption with CAFE. All CAFE did was give us even lower fuel economy
>then we would have had without it as people converted from large passenger
>cars to passenger trucks.
>
>
>>> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>>> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>>> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>> are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
>> Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
>> the most impact can be making the biggest changes...
>
>There would be *NO* impact. The factories that make things would get
>shutdown and new ones would be built in china, india, etc and the
>products shiped back to the markets in the developed countries. So
>instead of just the CO2 from the widgets, you get the CO2 from building
>a new factory plus the CO2 transporting the widget to market.
>
>So it's not a solution at all. It makes no impact other than maybe
>put more CO2 into the air. Lovely. Typical feel-good policies that
>are using the environment as an excuse for something else, nothing
>more.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>st3ph3nm wrote:
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>
>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>
>>
>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is

Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

>and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
>has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
>don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
>Matt
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Agreed, it's a choice we get to make of how much government we want. The
>problem I have with the left is when they lose legislatively, they often go
>to the courts.... to "progressive" judges.... to implement their agenda. So
>instead of legislative choice, we get an obligation of government.
>
>The more the government is saddled with the responsibility for people's
>welfare, the bigger government will be and the more taxes must be collected
>to support it.
>
>With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.

The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.


> At
>least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to the
>left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. We all know
>who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist goups, "victim"
>groups, etc.

And giving free rein to megacorporations is your idea of being in touch with
the average American?

>
>
>"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
>> this is much of the stuff of daily politics.
>>
>> DAS
>> --
>> ---
>> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > You list precisely the limited government I support, which must
>establish
>> a
>> > secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
>> security,
>> > safety, rule of law, etc.
>> >
>> > If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
>> > across the board.
>> >
>> > "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bill Funk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
>> > > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
>> > > > used.
>> > >
>> > > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
>> > sailors and
>> > > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
>> > inspectors
>> > > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
>> aren't
>> > > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>> > >
>> > > Ed
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
>> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
>> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
>> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
>> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
>The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
>Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
>to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
>debacle is less than 0.1%.

But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2003 18:11:28 -0800, [email protected] (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>
>>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>>> in the climate.
>>
>>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>>
>>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>>
>>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>>dramatically.
>
>Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
>
>The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
>change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,

Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.

>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>

True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.

>>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>>Nor a "good thing".
>
>More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
>short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
>we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
>has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.

Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.

>
>>The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
>>research into climate change have been published by people funded by
>>vested interests.
>
>Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
>respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
>even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
>you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
>will never understand.

Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

>
>>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>>> theory" with liberals.
>>
>>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>>companies argue that it's quite significant.
>
>Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
>publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.

You're an idiot; publish that.

If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Osborn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, [email protected] (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>
>>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
>>people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
>>developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
>>going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
>>technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
>>developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
>>gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
>>else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
>>clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
>>did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
>>so.
>
>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>warming'?
What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?

Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>>warming'?
>>
>>
>> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>>
>> Ed
>
>But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
>do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :p
>
>

If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!

> What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.

Cite?


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
>>Sensational topics get more research money.

> Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.

What research grants have you gotten Dr. Parker? Where were the resulting
papers published? Just want to see the basis for which you claiming that
you know how science works.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Matt Osborn <[email protected]> wrote:

>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?

> What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?
>
> Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
> evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

But you don't go around setting your other neighbors' property on
fire to protect your life. And that's what the kyoto treaty 'solution'
does. It moves the CO2 output from the US to other nations. This does
nothing to prevent or lessen a problem that may be caused by CO2 ouput.

 
> We all know who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist groups,
"victim" groups.....>

....Trial lawyers.


 
> With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.
At least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to
the left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. <

It should not be a surprise that the party who caters most to Socialist
special interests and wants to confiscate income & property, also wants to
take away the right to bear arms.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top