GM plans to release autonomous car in 2019

2

Replies

  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 395 Deckhand
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Total and utter BS.

    Probably but our water politics here are some of the dirtiest their is. There have been some great documentaries on it.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    Probably but our water politics here are some of the dirtiest their is. There have been some great documentaries on it.

    Yes, very different than Florida. I don't even think you guys own the rain that falls on your roof, hence no cisterns.

    I think fins was dissing wetland regulations, not water policy.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    Tarponator you said it yourself in the first sentence of your reply, incremental. You are correctly stating what Fins fears. The fringes know they could never outright say we will today ban all private automobiles and everyone will use mass transit and live in giant skyscrapers in cities. So they begin the process by chipping away and using the same arguments you are using in your statement. Example: Here in California you can legally own a gun. But if you think you can simply walk into a store, buy a gun, ammo for that gun, walk out and go to a range and shoot you are sorely mistaken. You must fill out an application and get a background check done (seems reasonable right?), take and show proof of a firearms safety course (seems reasonable right), wait for 7-14 days as a cooling off period (seems reasonable right?), register your firearm (seems reasonable right), buy proper storage and trigger locks for your firearm (seems reasonable right), buy ammo but you must register all the ammo you buy (seems reasonable right?), when transporting your firearm the ammunition and weapon must be secured separately for the duration of transportation (seems reasonable right?). Now when gun enthusiasts state their rights are being infringed upon they are told that they can still legally own and keep a firearm, but going through all of the above makes many law abiding citizens say no thanks, the exact intention. Then the apathy shows when so few law abiding citizens put up with the hassle that the needed votes can be accrued for an outright ban on firearms, the goal from the start. This is not paranoia this is how the system is used by vocal minority groups to get the results they want for their particular issue. Just take the above scenario and apply it to cars. I can take you down the process for cars here in California and how it has changed over the years and the comparisons are similar. California tends to lead the nation down these types of paths. The fringes are patient and very calculated.

    It must be very, very scary in your world.

    Those laws in California make it one of the safest states in the union in terms of gun deaths, too. You see, those laws aren't in place to take away your rights to own guns, which as you point out is still very much in place, but rather to make the state safer.

    You can disagree with the policy, and I'll certainly give you the right to defend it, but to portray the entire argument as a long-term plan to disarm the public (or move them all to cities and take away their driving wheels), seems a bit off the deep end to me.

    But fear of change and paranoia make people do and say all sorts of strange things -- and that is patently obvious. I'm more interested in how someone comes to fear change so much rather than the (twisted?) logic used to justify it.

    I am not questioning your belief (at least not in this thread :) ), but rather trying to understand how you came to believe such things. What life lesson did I miss?

    Did your Dad sit you down at a young age and indoctrinate into you thees beliefs? Did you make some mistake as a child and this was a formative part of your youth?

    I just don't get it.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 7,421 Admiral
    Cyclist wrote: »
    I just can't see how these cars are gonna function under certain circumstances and someone already pointed out.

    I do see some advantages though. You're going to a football game or major sporting event, have the car drop you off and go find a parking spot on it's own. Or go home and come back in a few hours. car doesn't need people in it right? Be nice for those overnight drives up to our hunting property for sure. Just set the destination and take a nap.
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 395 Deckhand
    Tarponator wrote: »
    It must be very, very scary in your world.

    Those laws in California make it one of the safest states in the union in terms of gun deaths, too. You see, those laws aren't in place to take away your rights to own guns, which as you point out is still very much in place, but rather to make the state safer.

    You can disagree with the policy, and I'll certainly give you the right to defend it, but to portray the entire argument as a long-term plan to disarm the public (or move them all to cities and take away their driving wheels), seems a bit off the deep end to me.

    But fear of change and paranoia make people do and say all sorts of strange things -- and that is patently obvious. I'm more interested in how someone comes to fear change so much rather than the (twisted?) logic used to justify it.

    I am not questioning your belief (at least not in this thread :) ), but rather trying to understand how you came to believe such things. What life lesson did I miss?

    Did your Dad sit you down at a young age and indoctrinate into you thees beliefs? Did you make some mistake as a child and this was a formative part of your youth?

    I just don't get it.

    Because I disagree with you I made some huge mistake as a pre-formed youth? You must be a lonely person if you judge so much based on such little knowledge of what you are judging. My father taught me to think for myself and he often referenced Plato's Republic, oddly enough, when talking to me. My life experiences and observations have led me to the thought processes that I posses today. I do not live with my head in the sand. I read, I live and I learn. Do you disagree that the end goal of gun control advocates is the removal of guns owned by citizens in society? Do you feel that mandatory seatbelts was the beginning of the end of car ownership? I can think down the road and I put myself in the place of those with these agendas and imagine what it is they want in the end that would satisfy their ambitions. I don't think in my own terms, I do not own a firearm but I am not naïve to the fact that people dedicate their lives to a single cause and will stop at nothing to see their end enacted. They feel that they implicitly know what is best for me and the society that I live within. I feel that should be our choice not theirs, but a coordinated, educated and well financed ambition can be bought in our current legislative environment. Just look at the real possibility of drilling for oil off the Florida coast even so soon after the Horizon incident. When the people pushing these agendas stop negotiating and debating and begin the process of shaming or talking down the opposition then I no longer engage them, because it is a waste of time.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    No, simply because I don't understand and hope to.

    Sorry if I have upset you for asking. For what it's worth, I don't think Plato would have gotten upset, nor do I think he would agree with your conspiracy theories or fears.

    As for the "end goal of gun control", couldn't it simply be a safer society with guns? For instance, I'm a big advocate for common sense gun control, AND I'm a gun owner as well. I don't advocate for any of the end goals you say, nor would I want them. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect and an example of the type of logic [sic] I'm taking about.

    I suppose I'm just dim witted and being blindly led to a gun-free utopia by some liberal mastermind....or perhaps I'm just not as fearful of change and recognize there are fringes on both sides that don't represent the whole.

    I still don't get the fear of change.

    Sincerely...Lonely Mike
  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 395 Deckhand
    Tarponator wrote: »
    No, simply because I don't understand and hope to.

    Sorry if I have upset you for asking. For what it's worth, I don't think Plato would have gotten upset, nor do I think he would agree with your conspiracy theories or fears.

    As for the "end goal of gun control", couldn't it simply be a safer society with guns? For instance, I'm a big advocate for common sense gun control, AND I'm a gun owner as well. I don't advocate for any of the end goals you say, nor would I want them. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect and an example of the type of logic [sic] I'm taking about.

    I suppose I'm just dim witted and being blindly led to a gun-free utopia by some liberal mastermind....or perhaps I'm just not as fearful of change and recognize there are fringes on both sides that don't represent the whole.

    I still don't get the fear of change.

    Sincerely...Lonely Mike

    Not offended. I don't fear change I generally like it. Being a gun control advocate is different than being an activist. I do not feel a gun free society would be safer because I believe that only law abiding and well intentioned people would adhere to the laws. Criminalizing guns would be about as successful as criminalizing drugs has been in my opinion. Guns would just be smuggled in and criminals would find a way to get them. At least now people have the option of having a firearm for home protection if they choose. I doubt most people would win a fist fight with a criminal in their home especially if there were more than one intruder. You may not want all guns to go away but you are incredibly naïve if you think that the elements pushing gun control on the state and national level want to simply make gun ownership safer and not abolish the right to own guns. And since they have tried and failed to make the ownership of guns illegal here they have used the system to get incremental infringement on the right to do so. Successfully.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    I'm glad to hear you're not upset.

    However, can you not recognize that "there are fringes on both sides that don't represent the whole"?

    It would be like me accusing those opposed to gun control of just wanting to kill innocent people -- a ridiculous assertion on its face.

    Yet, you make such accusations without so much as a backwards glance.

    Which just doesn't make sense to me.

    And thus the questions....
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    There is a difference between change and control.
    The only way for fully autonomous vehicles to work is for all non-autonomous vehicles to be removed from the roads. Simply because they must communicate with each other. A non autonomous car would throw the whole system into chaos.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    There is a difference between change and control.
    The only way for fully autonomous vehicles to work is for all non-autonomous vehicles to be removed from the roads. Simply because they must communicate with each other. A non autonomous car would throw the whole system into chaos.

    There is a difference. Some view change as a loss of control.

    In thinking about this a bit more, I believe that's the crux of the issue.

    But why?
  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 395 Deckhand
    Tarponator wrote: »
    No, simply because I don't understand and hope to.

    Sorry if I have upset you for asking. For what it's worth, I don't think Plato would have gotten upset, nor do I think he would agree with your conspiracy theories or fears.

    As for the "end goal of gun control", couldn't it simply be a safer society with guns? For instance, I'm a big advocate for common sense gun control, AND I'm a gun owner as well. I don't advocate for any of the end goals you say, nor would I want them. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect and an example of the type of logic [sic] I'm taking about.

    I suppose I'm just dim witted and being blindly led to a gun-free utopia by some liberal mastermind....or perhaps I'm just not as fearful of change and recognize there are fringes on both sides that don't represent the whole.

    I still don't get the fear of change.

    Sincerely...Lonely Mike

    LM, I don't fear it I don't like the way the agenda is trotted out. No guns would not change my life in anyway that I can think considering that I do not own any. Why I have a strong opinion on the matter is that giving everyone with a gripe the ability to change the lives of others is not acceptable to me.

    You are not dim-witted as far as I can tell. You make valid points, I just don't necessarily agree. OK?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    Of course that's OK, and that's about as nice -- "not dim witted as far as I can tell" -- of a response as I could have expected. :)

    People may have agendas, but change is the only constant....and I think we'd be better off getting used to it.

    Take care...>Mike
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 13,897 AG
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Total and utter BS.
    It absolutely happened.

    If and when I find the article you can eat those words.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    There is a difference. Some view change as a loss of control.

    In thinking about this a bit more, I believe that's the crux of the issue.

    But why?

    Because it’s nobody’s **** business where I drive my car too, where I stopped or what I did there. And I need no ones permission, especially a a lame brain government worker, to pack up and hit the road to any destination that I please.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • GA FinGA Fin Posts: 8,459 Admiral
    My thoughts on when driverless cars become the norm:

    Apparently they will be much safer than cars driven by humans. No surprise there.
    The downside I see to that safety margin is that it will be irresistible for the government to keep there nose out of the business of those who like to turn their own steering wheel. Ironically enough, the @#$%^&;*# in California, the mecca of the car culture, will probably be the ones to lead the charge.

    It is going to be hard to resist banning drive it yourself cars when they are killing machines compared to driverless cars.

    If the worst case scenario comes to pass, what will happen to the car "hobby"? I ain't paying 4 mil for a Hemi Cuda ragtop if I can't drive it.

    Will they came out with a retrofit kit so that Cuda can drive itself(be nice for bracket racers), will rich folks start driving clubs with private driving circuits or will the market for collector car collapse?

    I am not saying this will happen, but I'm a "the glass is empty and the **** thing dropped on the floor and shattered" kind of guy.

    While we are on the subject of driverless cars, when they become the norm, what will traffic cops do? Ticket revenue will drop to darn near nothing.

    What will body shop do? Those cars won't be crashing themselves(very often).

    We will need a lot less ambulance chasers. A lot less DUI lawyers. A lot less trauma centers.

    What will insurance companies do? Sure, you will need some insurance, but I would guess it won't be much.

    How about high end new cars? I'm not buying a new Lambo if I can't wring it out.

    Heck, if I'm not driving my car it might as well be a Prius.

    I could see the parts/modification after market drying up too.

    It should cut down on traffic congestion. Those cars should be able to drive nose to tail at WOT. Cut your commute in half. Maybe we won't need so may new lanes around Atlanta after all.
    Straight white male living a life of privilege and proud of it.


    "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters."
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    Because it’s nobody’s **** business where I drive my car too, where I stopped or what I did there. And I need no ones permission, especially a a lame brain government worker, to pack up and hit the road to any destination that I please.


    I don't think anyone cares where you drive, where you stopped, or what you did there.

    However you do need permission from the government to do so -- in the form of a driver's license and license plate/registration.

    And you won't be able to take that car out of the country without a passport.

    But that's just the man trying to keep a Mustang under the yoke, I suppose.

    Good evening...Mike
  • Conchy CritterConchy Critter Posts: 925 Officer
    fins4me wrote: »
    Eliminated physical currency, , underway

    Eliminate the right to bear arms,,,underway

    Eliminate the freedom to travel at will in an automobile, , underway

    Eliminate private property rights,,,,underway

    Eliminate business owners rights,,,underway

    Eliminate freedom of religion, ,,underway

    Eliminate the spirit of competition, ,,underway

    Eliminate the right to privacy, ,,underway

    Etc

    Etc

    Etc

    Just getting started down a path that will lead to,,,, well we are underway.

    :rotflmao
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Total and utter BS.

    http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=8846
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I don't think anyone cares where you drive, where you stopped, or what you did there.

    However you do need permission from the government to do so -- in the form of a driver's license and license plate/registration.

    And you won't be able to take that car out of the country without a passport.

    But that's just the man trying to keep a Mustang under the yoke, I suppose.

    Good evening...Mike

    That is true. But you do not need permission or documents to travel. Yet.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    dave44 wrote: »


    And thats just one example.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 7,421 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    That is true. But you do not need permission or documents to travel. Yet.

    I'll man that wall on the GA/FL border! If your tag says New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, or anywhere in the New England area, go ahead and turn around and head straight back up nawth.
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    fins4me wrote: »
    It absolutely happened.

    If and when I find the article you can eat those words.

    I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying it was a wetland.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    Wetlands are wetlands even if they are not "permanent". The rule was a clarification of existing laws. Ask Ducks Unlimited what they think about farmers plowing wetlands. California has already lost 90% of their wetlands and Florida 50% or more. The farm bureau sucks and farmers that plow wetlands do too.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-habitat/the-waters-of-the-united-states


    The Waters of the United States
    The future of prairie potholes and many other wetlands depends on how this simple phrase is interpreted
    a

    Photo © Chris Jennings

    By Scott Yaich, Ph.D.

    Boiled down to the simplest recipe, two basic ingredients are necessary for the Prairie Pothole Region to produce ducks: grass and water. Biologists have long known that the "Duck Factory" can raise ducks in proportion to the amount of grass and water-filled wetlands on the landscape. And every spring, duck hunters anxiously watch for news of wetland conditions on the prairies as their first indication of what the next hunting season might bring.

    Unfortunately, after 30 years of protection by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), prairie potholes and other wetlands of vital importance to ducks have been put at significant risk by U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. These decisions concerned what constitutes the "waters of the United States," and therefore which wetlands the federal government has jurisdiction to regulate. The net effect of these cases was that CWA protection for tens of millions of acres of wetlands was weakened or withdrawn. Wetlands most important to waterfowl, including prairie potholes, playa lakes, and rainwater basins, are among those at greatest risk.

    The question of exactly which wetlands and other waters remain protected by the CWA has been unclear ever since the 2001 Supreme Court decision was issued. And it's widely agreed that new federal legislation will be required to resolve the confusion and protect these important waterfowl habitats. Federal legislation to restore former wetland protections afforded by the CWA has been introduced several times, and the most recent bill has advanced further in Congress than any other to date, but its chances of passage now appear slim in this Congress.

    Ironically, the seeds of the confusion and risk to wetlands and waterfowl were planted when Congress defined "navigable waters" as "waters of the United States" in the original CWA of 1972. Unfortunately, the court's recent decisions have only magnified misunderstandings about what Congress intended to protect with this legislation. Many people, including many policymakers, have been erroneously led to believe that the CWA applies only to navigable waters—in the context of being "boatable"—and doesn't necessarily apply to all wetlands. In reality, Congress intended to broadly protect the nation's wetlands and waters because they recognized that protecting navigable streams and rivers from pollution and other degradation requires tributaries and wetlands in their watersheds to be protected as well.

    While many wetlands like prairie potholes may not have a surface connection to rivers or streams, these waters are connected in many other ways. These connections are the key to understanding the intended definition of "waters of the United States," which includes not only navigable waters but also wetlands and other water bodies that are linked via shared water resources. For example, prairie potholes are clearly connected to rivers like the Missouri when they spill over into small streams and other tributaries. But more often, prairie potholes and other geographically isolated wetlands are linked to rivers through the water table, which forms a continuous subsurface connection among a variety of water bodies. Thus, to protect rivers, you also have to protect all the wetlands that share the same groundwater supplies.

    This is well known in the arid West. In Colorado, for example, private landowners along the South Platte River who manage wetlands in partnership with Ducks Unlimited receive compensation for the clearly documented role these wetlands play in recharging groundwater supplies that sustain river flows. On the southern Great Plains, the Ogallala aquifer is a vital water source for agriculture, homes, and communities in eight states. At low elevations, the aquifer discharges water directly into navigable rivers such as the Platte and Arkansas. At higher elevations, the aquifer is recharged from the surface by sandhill wetlands and rainwater basins in Nebraska and playa lakes in Texas, forming a direct connection between the region's wetlands and rivers. But if these wetlands are not considered part of the "waters of the United States" and therefore are not protected by the CWA, the navigable rivers they sustain with groundwater will be vulnerable to pollution and other degradation.

    Migratory waterfowl provide another ecological link between wetlands and other waters. Waterfowl hunting and viewing are clearly forms of interstate commerce, which is among the primary legal foundations of federal authority under the CWA. Arkansas's duck hunting economy, for example, measures in the hundreds of millions of dollars and depends heavily on ducks raised on geographically isolated wetlands—particularly prairie potholes—in other states. If wetlands in the Dakotas are drained because of the confusion and weakening of the CWA, interstate commerce, including the waterfowl-based economy of Arkansas, will suffer as a direct result.

    Wood duck on clean water
    Photo: Robert Sendlein

    As the legal wrangling over the definition of the "waters of the United States" continues, we must all help our elected officials and policymakers understand that science and common sense must prevail. Wetlands such as prairie potholes clearly have significant connections to navigable rivers and other waters. CWA protections must be restored to wetlands not only because of the important value they have for fish and wildlife but also as a matter of public health and safety. To reduce flooding, provide ample water supplies, and support healthy populations of waterfowl and other wildlife, Congress must pass legislation that recognizes the true connections among wetlands and navigable waters.

    Migratory birds and their habitats, and what they mean to us, are among the many important things that link DU members to the hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens who share and depend on our nation's water resources. As this issue progresses, DU will be working with our partners in agriculture and our broader membership to formulate supportive wetland policies.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage Posts: 12,789 AG
    Griz wrote: »
    I was just reading a post on a truck forum about a guy driving from Dayton to Detroit through the snow yesterday. One of his comments were the lane assist, traffic warning and back up sensors all quit working due to being iced/snowed over. How’s a self driver going see lane indicators and such in bad weather. Even my back up camera gets distorted from just being in the rain.

    Living in Florida you have probably never used mirror heaters, but they are common. Sensors can simply have heating wires in them that automatically come on at near freezing temperatures and keep the sensors ice free. New roads will have wires in them to indicate lanes, it won't be done by sight.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage Posts: 12,789 AG
    GA Fin wrote: »
    My thoughts on when driverless cars become the norm:

    Apparently they will be much safer than cars driven by humans. No surprise there.
    The downside I see to that safety margin is that it will be irresistible for the government to keep there nose out of the business of those who like to turn their own steering wheel. Ironically enough, the @#$%^&;*# in California, the mecca of the car culture, will probably be the ones to lead the charge.

    It is going to be hard to resist banning drive it yourself cars when they are killing machines compared to driverless cars.

    If the worst case scenario comes to pass, what will happen to the car "hobby"? I ain't paying 4 mil for a Hemi Cuda ragtop if I can't drive it.

    Will they came out with a retrofit kit so that Cuda can drive itself(be nice for bracket racers), will rich folks start driving clubs with private driving circuits or will the market for collector car collapse?

    I am not saying this will happen, but I'm a "the glass is empty and the **** thing dropped on the floor and shattered" kind of guy.

    While we are on the subject of driverless cars, when they become the norm, what will traffic cops do? Ticket revenue will drop to darn near nothing.

    What will body shop do? Those cars won't be crashing themselves(very often).

    We will need a lot less ambulance chasers. A lot less DUI lawyers. A lot less trauma centers.

    What will insurance companies do? Sure, you will need some insurance, but I would guess it won't be much.

    How about high end new cars? I'm not buying a new Lambo if I can't wring it out.

    Heck, if I'm not driving my car it might as well be a Prius.

    I could see the parts/modification after market drying up too.

    It should cut down on traffic congestion. Those cars should be able to drive nose to tail at WOT. Cut your commute in half. Maybe we won't need so may new lanes around Atlanta after all.

    Very valid points that I had not fully considered. What a wonderful time it will be to be alive when all cars have a bar in the back like a limousine...
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 13,897 AG
    Cyclist wrote: »
    I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying it was a wetland.

    Sorry we are not going to allow every pisshole to be declared a wetland as a tool to block agriculture and progress,
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 7,421 Admiral
    Living in Florida you have probably never used mirror heaters, but they are common. Sensors can simply have heating wires in them that automatically come on at near freezing temperatures and keep the sensors ice free. New roads will have wires in them to indicate lanes, it won't be done by sight.

    I use the heated mirrors in my truck every morning. You get condensation built up on them and can't see. I also keep a squeege under the seat for the back window. I don't have a power back window, i'm not lavish like some of you guys with the King Ranch editions or Power Wagons.
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    Hell, my late 90s VWs have heated mirrors.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,029 AG
    fins4me wrote: »
    Sorry we are not going to allow every pisshole to be declared a wetland as a tool to block agriculture and progress,

    Says the farmer that plows wetlands and is clueless as to the science. Progress? Ha ha ha. Progress appears to be FIXING all the damage that people like you cause.

    You happy with with Tennessee losing 59% of it's wetlands? Sadly, I bet you are.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
2

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file