 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / September 2007Senator Edwards tells Americans to give up SUVs
I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to wheel around his entourage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2158324,00.html Edwards tells Americans to give up SUVs Associated Press - Wednesday August 29, 2007 Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards today said he would ask Americans to give up their SUVs, as he set out his plans to curb carbon emissions. At a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Florida, Mr Edwards said he believe Americans were "actually willing to sacrifice". He said "one of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles." When asked if this meant telling voters to give up their SUVs the former senator said "yes". Mr Edwards was clearly popular with the group, several times drawing standing ovations, including once when he said weapons and equipment used by the US military needed to be made in the United States. He said tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries. "If your tax dollars are being used to produce the products that keep America safe, that provide defence for the American people, those jobs should remain in the United States of America," he said. He also said as president he would ask residents to conserve energy and said the US needs to focus on being a leader in creating alternative energy. He said he wants a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year. "We are the worst polluter on the planet. We are 4% of the world's population, we're putting out 25% of the world's greenhouse gas," Mr Edwards said. "America's going to have to change." He needs us a s Carbon offsets for his Gluttonous mega mansions Huge energy bills and of course those thousands of trees he felled to clear the land for his mega mansion. http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848 > I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to > wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > population, we're putting out 25% of the world's greenhouse gas," Mr > Edwards said. "America's going to have to change." I'M NOT GAY!!!!!!!! On Aug 29, 3:42 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to > wheel around his entourage. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2158324,... > > Edwards tells Americans to give up SUVs Just another socialist hypocrite. Nothing new to see here. > On Aug 29, 3:42 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just another socialist hypocrite. Nothing new to see here. Socialist, commie, neo-con... no difference. All want central control to be in command of our lives. What's new is that more and more people buy into the BS they base these things on and they become ever bolder and more dangerous in their plans. The carbon tax is based on the fraud of CO2 driven global warming, and might as well just be a breathing tax for all effective purposes. Those who believe CO2 is a problem should just stop breathing to help solve it. >> On Aug 29, 3:42 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS >><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > might as well just be a breathing tax for all effective purposes. Those > who believe CO2 is a problem should just stop breathing to help solve it. You ever notice that the same morons who believe in the "science" and "scientist" of gullible warming are the same morons who disbeleive the "Science" and "engineers" of the world trade center collapse? What's wrong with this picture? >>> On Aug 29, 3:42 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS >>><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "Science" and "engineers" of the world trade center collapse? What's wrong > with this picture? Not sure what you are getting at. There are differing theories regarding WTC 1,2,and 7 that are supported by different people in science and engineering discplines. Some agree with the government theory others do not. I know the media paints a picture than anyone who doesn't believe in the government story believes in space beams, alien attacks, and other nonsense for the WTC buildings, but that isn't the universal case. Or are you trying to say those who accept what government says about one thing accept it about others? That's true in some respects, but in the USA it generally breaks down along the lines the media defines as 'liberal' and 'conservative'. For instance, a media definition conservative believes the government on 9-11 but considers it lying that global warming is man made. The media definition liberal is the other way around. If that was some sort of dig at me, well, I think that government must meet a very high standard of proof to be believed on anything. Especially things that it uses to justify greater power. (ie, global warming, 9-11) Hell, if government is using something to get greater power we can be pretty damn sure it's lying in some form or fashion. > On Aug 29, 3:42 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just another socialist hypocrite. Nothing new to see here. He drives a Cadillac SRX. >I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >wheel around his entourage. Heh heh. Watch Edwards fail miserably. Then watch his supporters scream "it was rigged! it was rigged!" ROTFLMAO.  SignatureBeauty is in the eye of the beer holder. Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS polluted: << SFB's ECP removed >> > I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to > wheel around his entourage. What do you think? > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2158324,00.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Americans to give up their SUVs, as he set out his plans to curb carbon > emissions. Hmmmmmmmm, Edwards.... ....Isn't he the one who got the US$400.00 haircut? SignatureP inhead R at E eats S hit I n D allas, E mulating N igerian T wits B eing U utterly S tupid & H omely > Hmmmmmmmm, Edwards.... > > ....Isn't he the one who got the US$400.00 haircut? So we're told though i suspect he himself started that talk. He'd rather be thought of as a dilettante than the corrupt monster he really is. Like the way Clinton invented the monica scandal so the press wouldn't pound him over Waco or OKC or what he did to iraq. Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Americans to give up their SUVs, as he set out his plans to curb carbon >emissions. Welp, that's that - he just hammered the final nail into the coffin of his presidential campaign. Signature"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and loved ones. F*CK YOU." - Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006 Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> > Welp, that's that - he just hammered the final nail into the coffin of > his presidential campaign. You're probably right. Americans won't make sacrifices. They'd rather start a war. > > Welp, that's that - he just hammered the final nail into the coffin of > > his presidential campaign. > > You're probably right. Americans won't make sacrifices. They'd rather > start a war. Worked for Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. And for LBJ, but only for a short while. Snicker. > In article <13df0i155vqn...@corp.supernews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Worked for Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. And > for LBJ, but only for a short while. I'd love to hear how Wilson, FDR and Truman started a war. Truman ENDED a war. >> In article <13df0i155vqn...@corp.supernews.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'd love to hear how Wilson, FDR and Truman started a war. Truman > ENDED a war. Didn't wilson bring the federal reserve into being? That money system is what makes war so possible. >> Welp, that's that - he just hammered the final nail into the coffin of >> his presidential campaign. > >You're probably right. Americans won't make sacrifices. They'd rather >start a war. *Such* sacrifices they (whether North or South) shouldn't need to make either, since oil is plentiful and can be extracted, in many regions of the world, quite cheaply too. It's just the bad governments (the US one above all) that are making it artificially expensive, out of very reactionary political motives. See my homepage on this, for instance. Rolf M. www.rolf-martens.com > I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to > wheel around his entourage. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2158324,00.html Good point, not to mention private jets. Hypocrisy, your name is DemocRAT. > In article <13dbj0jbevgn...@corp.supernews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good point, not to mention private jets. Hypocrisy, your name is > DemocRAT. Exactly. It proves that the DemocRATs are just as corrupt as the Repugs. Not that that surprises me a bit. >> I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >> wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good point, not to mention private jets. Hypocrisy, your name is > DemocRAT. Repubs are hypocrites too. Like how they talk about family values and turns out they're all homos. > >> I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to > >> wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Repubs are hypocrites too. Did I say they weren't? >>> I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >>> wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Repubs are hypocrites too. Like how they talk about family values and >turns out they're all homos. What is this bizarre fascination you have with homosexuality, fruit cake? Signature"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en On Aug 30, 10:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article <13dbj0jbevgn...@corp.supernews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Repubs are hypocrites too. Like how they talk about family values and > turns out they're all homos. Dems have been telling us that homos can have family values. Are you saying they're wrong? >> I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >> wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good point, not to mention private jets. Hypocrisy, your name is > DemocRAT. How many Republicans are giving up their SUVs and jets? Can you name one? Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is something that is very real and is going to pound the sh.t out of the US economy in the very near future and has already started. I don't see one single Republican proposing one single realistic solution. In fact, the only President who has ever done anything meaningful regarding peak oil was Jimmy Carter, and you wingnuts still are pissed about that one. While you fuckwits are squealing "hypocrite" like a little schoolgirl, the economy is going down the toilet. By the time you dipshits figure out SUVs aren't such a brilliant idea, you'll be sucking Saudi cock for your oil fix. > Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is > something that is very real You might want to find out who has promoted that theory... guess who it is? Those who will profit if oil is thought of as 'scarce'. Meanwhile go read their annual reports.... see the reserves vs. sales. Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off line in war area. >> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Meanwhile go read their annual reports.... see the reserves vs. sales. Bogus reserves, especially OPEC's stated reserves. Peak oil isn't a conspiracy. Global crude production peaked in May, 2005. > Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off line > in war area. SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. >>> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >>> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off line >> in war area. Got the graphs and maps showing that? And do they include China? >>>> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >>>> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Got the graphs and maps showing that? And do they include China? http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html and pretty little pictures from the data http://swnews.net/node/11 SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. >>>> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >>>> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Got the graphs and maps showing that? And do they include China? I've already posted about the massive reserves of less conventional oil in the americas several times over. If you don't know about the oil in the USA that has been blocked off for environmental reasons you live in a cave and shouldn't be discussing the issue. Same if you don't understand that Iraq's oil taps are effectively turned off as well as some in africa due to war. >>> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >>> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bogus reserves, especially OPEC's stated reserves. Peak oil isn't a conspiracy. > Global crude production peaked in May, 2005. So you're saying big oil is lying to their share holders while promoting peak oil? Guess you do not know that crude oil production is constantly tweaked by oil companies and nations to manipulate the market price. Saddam Hussien fell into disfavor because he broke ranks with the cartel and started pumping flat-out, balls-to-the-wall to pay off the iran-iraq war debt. Fooling him into thinking the US wouldn't do anything if invaded Kuwait was just classic... Guess old saddam there wasn't fully up on history. >> Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off line >> in war area. >> Whether you believe in global warming or pollution, peak oil is >> something that is very real [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Meanwhile go read their annual reports.... see the reserves vs. sales. You're confusing reserves vs production capability. Peak oil has almost nothing to do with reserves. You can only pull out out of the ground so fast without destroying the deposit, no matter how much is in the deposit. All deposits eventually reach their peak at some point and start to decline as far as how much you can produce from a given deposit. The US deposits (still the largest single source) reached their peak decades ago and have been declining ever since. > Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off > line > in war area. I'm not really big on vast conspiracy theories. > You're confusing reserves vs production capability. > > Peak oil has almost nothing to do with reserves. > > You can only pull out out of the ground so fast without destroying the > deposit, no matter how much is in the deposit. > All deposits eventually reach their peak at some point and start to > decline as far as how much you can produce from a given deposit. You're missing the point... deposits are still being found at a rate that exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. > The US deposits (still the largest single source) reached their peak > decades ago and have been declining ever since. Of course... when you're not tapping into the other deposits that are found that's bound to happen. If you're going to ignore deposits because the oil over in saudi arabia is cheaper to extract and refine the result is going to be declining production. Middle east oil is simply cheaper to the oil companies because the US taxpayer pays for the military and political costs of instability of the region. Oil in the americas is technically more expensive to use and that cost would have to be paid by the oil companies. >> Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off >> line >> in war area > I'm not really big on vast conspiracy theories. I didn't realize the wars in the middle east and africa that have taken oil production off line were conspiracy theories... The environmental reasons for not drilling areas in the USA are a matter of congressional record. I also didn't realize that simple cost analysis was a conspiracy theory. >> You're confusing reserves vs production capability. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You're missing the point... deposits are still being found at a rate that > exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. Where do you get your info? Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1233533,00.html> More from Life After the Oil Crash: According to an October 2004 New York Times article entitled "Top Oil Groups Fail to Recoup Exploration Costs:" . . . the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls. In other words, significant new oil discoveries are so scarce that looking for them is a monetary loser. Consequently, many major oil companies now find themselves unable to replace their rapidly depleting reserves. A June 2006 report indicated the world's biggest five oil companies are now "focusing on developing existing reserves." That's a nice way of saying "there aren't enough significant sized oil fields left to find to make it worth our time and money to look for them." Take a look at the above chart. During the 1960s, for instance, we consumed about 6 billion barrels per year while finding about 30-60 billion per year. Given those numbers, it is easy to understand why fears of "running out" were so often dismissed as unfounded. Unfortunately, those consumption/discovery ratios have nearly reversed themselves in recent years. We now consume close to 30 billion barrels per year but find less than 4 billion per year. In light of these trends, it should come as little surprise that the energy analysts at John C Herold Inc. - the firm that foretold Enron's demise - recently confirmed industry rumors that we are on the verge of an unprecedented crisis. > >> The US deposits (still the largest single source) reached their peak [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > region. Oil in the americas is technically more expensive to use and that > cost would have to be paid by the oil companies. Oil production peaked in 1971 in the US. To imagine it will ever increase back to those levels is folly. >>> Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off >>> line [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I also didn't realize that simple cost analysis was a conspiracy theory. SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. >> You're missing the point... deposits are still being found at a rate that >> exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. > Where do you get your info? I already told you, oil company annual reports. > Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the > past few years. Has nothing to do with what I wrote. > We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find. ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1233533,00.html> Those figures are clearly from a certain type of oil and not all oil or are just out right lies. Just the oil sands of alberta alone blow those claims out of the water. Not to mention exxon mobil's annual report (see below) > In other words, significant new oil discoveries are so scarce that looking for > them is a monetary loser. If you're looking for texas sweet crude. If you're just looking for oil viable at $40US a barrel, well it's not like it's scarce. > Consequently, many major oil companies now find > themselves unable to replace their rapidly depleting reserves. A June 2006 > report indicated the world's biggest five oil companies are now "focusing on > developing existing reserves." That's a nice way of saying "there aren't enough > significant sized oil fields left to find to make it worth our time and money > to look for them." Of course you didn't read their annual reports. I haven't read them in a year or two... so I just went to exxon mobil's 2006 report... page 3: "Our Upstream business started up seven major projects in 2006 in locations including West Africa, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Norway, and Canada. These projects are the culmination of many years of investment and development. Each of these projects is delivering new supplies of oil and natural gas to global markets and value to resource owners and our shareholders. In addition, we made significant progress in advancing our large portfolio of projects currently in development and further enhanced operations of our producing assets." Page 5: "Proved reserves additions replaced 122 percent of production" Replaced reserves increased 22% more than what they pumped. SWIMMING IN OIL. They have more oil at the end of 2006 than they had at the end of 2005. So, why don't you put away the media lies, go to the horses mouth. Use the information that the investment class uses. It will tell you the real story instead of the sucker story. We are being told a sucker story that increases their profits. It's about monopoly (or at least just a few companies) and artifical scaricity. Production is controlled to maximize profit. Because free market forces have been effectively weakened/disabled in the oil industry there is no fear someone else is going to come along and start pumping oil and cause the price to be driven down. Especially when the US military will kick the a.s of any country that tries. >>> The US deposits (still the largest single source) reached their peak >>> decades ago and have been declining ever since. >> Of course... when you're not tapping into the other deposits that are >> found that's bound to happen. If you're going to ignore deposits because >> the oil over in saudi arabia is cheaper to extract and refine the result >> is going to be declining production. >> Middle east oil is simply cheaper to the oil companies because the US >> taxpayer pays for the military and political costs of instability of the >> region. Oil in the americas is technically more expensive to use and that >> cost would have to be paid by the oil companies. > Oil production peaked in 1971 in the US. To imagine it will ever increase back > to those levels is folly. And to create strawmen is also folly. However there remain resources that are not being developed. But that doesn't matter since reserves used are being replaced. >>>> Oil is basically being bottled up in 'no drill areas' and taken off >>>> line >>>> in war area >> >>> I'm not really big on vast conspiracy theories. >> I didn't realize the wars in the middle east and africa that have taken >> oil production off line were conspiracy theories... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> I also didn't realize that simple cost analysis was a conspiracy theory. >>> You're missing the point... deposits are still being found at a rate that >>> exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. > >> Where do you get your info? > > I already told you, oil company annual reports. I suggest you take notes next time you read those annual reports. What you're getting out them is nothing like I'm getting from them. > >> Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in >> the past few years. > > Has nothing to do with what I wrote. Oh, really" You wrote: deposits are still being found at a rate that exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. Bye bye. >> We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find. >><http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1233533,00.html> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] >>> >>> I also didn't realize that simple cost analysis was a conspiracy theory. SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. >>>> You're missing the point... deposits are still being found at a rate that >>>> exceeds extraction of existing known deposits. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suggest you take notes next time you read those annual reports. What you're > getting out them is nothing like I'm getting from them. That's because you didn't read them. >>> Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in >>> the past few years. >> Has nothing to do with what I wrote. > Oh, really" You wrote: > deposits are still being found at a rate that exceeds extraction of existing > known deposits. I take it you don't understand the difference. All that has to be for both statements to be true is that 1962 discoveries be greater than today's discoveries and both be greater than today's usage. Does simple math escape you? > Bye bye. Figured you'd turn tail after reading: >> Of course you didn't read their annual reports. I haven't read them in a >> year or two... so I just went to exxon mobil's 2006 report... >> page 3: >> "Our Upstream business started up seven major [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> start pumping oil and cause the price to be driven down. Especially when >> the US military will kick the a.s of any country that tries. Your peak oil scaremongering is nothing but another excuse of many to create a new version of a european middle ages economy. On Aug 30, 10:53 pm, Nebuchadnezzar II <Nebuchadnez...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > In article <13dbj0jbevgn...@corp.supernews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Can you name one? You're missing the point. I don't hear any SUV driving Republicans telling everybody to give up their SUVs. > I don't see one single Republican proposing one single realistic solution. The market will determine the solution. We don't need government to f.ck it up. When oil gets too expensive, alternative energies will overtake it by necessity. Happens all the time with all sorts of products and commodities. > In fact, the only President who has ever done anything meaningful > regarding peak oil was Jimmy Carter, and you wingnuts still are pissed > about that one. So peak oil was in the 70's AND now we have it 30 years later too?? > While you fuckwits are squealing "hypocrite" like a little schoolgirl, > the economy is going down the toilet. LOL! It is? Low unemployment rate, pretty good growth, low interest rates. Yeah, I guess if you hate all of that, Carter IS your man! > By the time you dipshits figure out SUVs aren't such a brilliant idea, > you'll be sucking Saudi cock for your oil fix. Then you better tell Edwards to stop driving HIS SUV first. >I'm all for this but i'd also like to know what vehicle Edwards uses to >wheel around his entourage. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >population, we're putting out 25% of the world's greenhouse gas," Mr >Edwards said. "America's going to have to change." So he thinks SUVs are a big problem? Well, let's do a little math. Automobiles are estimated by people who know what they're talking about to represent about 10% to 11% of air pollution. That's automobiles in total, the World over. SUVs are what percentage of total automobiles? So Edwards wants you to focus on SUVs and ignore industry, which is responsible for the vast majority? And he knows that industrialists would still be reaping huge profits even if they did install more advanced pollution control equipment, contrary to their lobbyist's ridiculous claims. Tells you something about him, doesn't it? > So he thinks SUVs are a big problem? Well, let's do a little >math. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So Edwards wants you to focus on SUVs and ignore industry, >which is responsible for the vast majority? No it isn't. The automobile is responsible for a huge proportion of the CO2 output of humanity. And he knows that >industrialists would still be reaping huge profits even if they did >install more advanced pollution control equipment, Is there any pollution control equipment that will prevent the release of CO2? >> So he thinks SUVs are a big problem? Well, let's do a little >>math. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No it isn't. The automobile is responsible for a huge proportion of > the CO2 output of humanity. What is huge? And what percentage of that "huge proportion" is SUV's? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.