loki

any w-body with a series 1 3800 any w-body with a 3.1L that has been "fixed" ..the intake manifold gasket. option 1, if they're in decent shape shouldn't be more than 2500.. or so... option 2, could be as high as 5K but prolly closer to 3K. i know mine are "lame" but they would be good for a first time owner.

it should be able to do well if it can be styled well, have a clearly upscale interior, smooth, powerful quiet engines.... if it's based on stuff from chevy, i don't care... but it just has to be worth it... not like the W-body clones (for the most part)

those gaping grills remind me more of audi's..... it certainly more agressive... that is all

this looks more feminine.. or at least more BWM X6 esque (i think) the interior does look nice ish. I wouldn't buy it.

seen before... hehe. but it just plays on pop culture stereotypes, it's funny, but doesn't address why some people have legit reasons why they oppose it.

Semantics are were loopholes are made. and this is where we typically have quarrels(generalizing too much). I know it can be hard to think ahead how your post will be taken, but trying to be consise will keep these to a minimum.

...counter point.... are you saying... morals being tied to religion... "atheists" don't have morals then? cause i'm sure there are people out there that would disagree. I don't believe religion has to tie people down. obviously some of the worse decisions are made for religious purposes, but equally bad ones are made for science. Ethics and morals are together, but even those can contradict each other... there will be things religions believe that will never be proven by science. but many moral judgments are based more so on natural law. having said this, obviously we, well, many of us (as a whole society) are learned, to some point. Don't you dare think i'm trying to be mean by saying these next things! natural law = gays can't have children, if it's a monogamous relationship. (monogamy was practiced in many more religions than Jewish, Christian, Muslim sects) if being gay has anything to do with genetics, suppressing gay "unions" is anti-natural law. obviously this wouldn't prevent more people growing old and realizing they are gay, it would only reduce that number. unless it's not genetics... and say more about pollution/nutrition or just something the mother can't help while pregnant. as long as "gay propaganda" isn't pushed on children of parents that don't want their children exposed to such things in state institutions aka, taking parenting rights away from them. i have little problem with allowing such things going on... the problem i still have is it being called a marriage. usually marriage in the wider use of the word is used for 2 different things being joined, like chemistry.

+1 anything else is discrimination just like how affirmative action is discrimination your first statement... learned... hehe, the stereotype that comes to mind are the "over-learned" "ivy league" that would not agree with what you said... but that's just stereotypes that come to mind.

...but all it has to do is get stuck on something , like the budget, or something "more immediatly needed", like a "stimulus bill" (that will only give out 10% of it in the first year) now a days... things like that are opportunities for these wacko bills to get attached. more generally about how this thread has gone...I'm not surprised, but i'm also dismayed at how how some people are treating 68. he's trying to be patriotic, in the words of "Mark Twain":"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

how can it be a conspiracy if the laws are being proposed? i would think as soon as they are proposed it is then not a conspiracy anymore, it is public. unless you're insinuating that the government is not a public affairs sort of thing, which i don't think you are.

this thing has a grill that looks like it's from the challenger. among other things. a coupe version of that would actually be pretty cool, i think. i think this was in an xbox game i used to play at a friend's house. great car, just had no topspeed to stay in front.

not surprising at all...

wow... that almost looks planned... horrible,

the front reminds me of how big the grill looked on the G6 GXP, and then adding some headlights from the sierra(edit : actually they look closer to Pilot's), and the lower (fog)lights look styled from a saturn... it will be a love/hate design.

...thus entering , or exiting, the "silent majority"

i wouldn't be shameful to rock that. lol

sorry for going back a little... Prenup is what i was thinking. prenups make sense for the law to uphold, because it says what will happen if "things don't work out" or it's f'd up by one of the persons. but if it's just a contract of fidelity of the two then the law should have no place in authoring/overseeing the contract. "The Law" should go back to what it's good for, protecting people's rights. there should be no penalty or reward for married people. if 2 men or 2 women want to live with eachother and have a "contract"or Will made up incase of certain events, that should be totally fine. from an Ayn Rand quote page i think this works as a goal. we shouldn't be so involved with other people's lives who don't mean to do us harm.

hehe, you didn't saw what "religion" lol

olds: ok. it still sounds like a social contract, not a typical law backing contract.... as in there would have to be legal repercussions if one was to breach the contract. i don't see that happening more so than any ..can't think of it atm, but the way things are divided typically nowadays in divorces... satty: driving is a responsibility , not a right, so yes, it's regulated, that's fine. Voting age was amended, so while it's a right, the proper authority was used to change it. I would agree "As long as the government provides tax breaks to married people, they have to allow all consenting adults to marry whomever they would like, its pretty simple." ....but many, many people probably don't think the government shoudl be marrying people, and yes, the tax break is obviously discriminating.

you last statement/? .... uh yeah, sure. if you like an estimated inflation of 30% in 4 years...

might have, but never stopped while in it, i think. lol

are you looking at HP because of past history with them, or some deals you're not letting us in on? lol

some words quoted from my highschool years, seldomly after that... PIMP TIGHT!!! just kiddin. it's actually kinda cool though... not very, just kinda.

so, are you saying it's not a right? seriously curious...

I'd like for this not to be moved to the payers only section... having said this... I am against the government marrying people.... if there is a religion that marries man and man or woman and woman, than you should have every right to do so. I do have to disagree with thinking that marriage is a "right"....if it's a right, then why can't children get married?..it's regulated by the government.... so why are restrictions on who can get married suddenly unconstitutional? it's just a double standard perpetuated by the elected...or judges... civil marriage isn't like owning a firearm, freedom of speech, press, religion....