balthazar

First off, I have not seen the tape where JM "jokes about killing iranian citizens"; without context the claim is difficult to either damn or refute. Secondly, if such a joke was made, clearly there's a difference between a joke and a sworn vow to enact genecide, no ?? I don't recall any fallout from Reagan quipping 'My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.' Then, everyone understood what a joke was. Even you diehard dem indoctrinates must realize JM doesn't wish to kill innocent civilians intentionally, don't you ???

QUOTE(Sixty8panther) Old school: ANY full size boat... my B-59's Wiiiiiiiide front and BACK seat works well.

There is a certain... faction that strives to push society towards panic & anger, because it helps pave their way to get their agenda in place. Add to that the doom-n-gloom mainstream media, which thrives on blood and scandal, AND the glut of available John Q Public's opinion echoing the same (the BlogOSphere), and that's about all you hear, so the response is not only to be expected, but it self-perpetuates.

Did he mention Glass-Steagall, which Clinton signed the repeal of in '99? Sub-prime lending skyrocketed afterward compared to being flatlined prior to. >>>"Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s – lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn’t paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas."<<< -- Robert Kuttner This was stated before Barney Frank’s Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Frank, a MA Dem, has repeatedly denied there was an impending crisis in the banking industry, and loudly rebuked proposed regulation numerous times in the last 10 or so years. In the last few days, however, in typical hypocritical Democratic fashion, Frank has done numerous interviews attempting to pin blame on Bush & McCain for blocking financial reforms. McCain, 05-25-06 : >>"I join as a co-sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

>>"M-B's were spartan, under-equipped & slow (mostly) in the 60's, but they were built like vaults---the 70's Caddy's were fancy Chevy's & other proletarian underpinnings with lots of frosting...only the Seville and the last US 'vert could arguably make any car-guys cut, IMO."<< You have been misled. '70s Cadillacs had nothing to do with Chevrolets- neither on top nor in the underpinnings; the closest product to your theory would be the original Seville, but even there physical sharing only runs about 10%. The 'E', of course, shared it's underpinnings with the Toronado, but nothing from Chevy. And Cadillacs of this period were also overbuilt and very solid. Thing of it is RE mercedes - there's just not much to stress a structure when 82MPH is all you can muster, and the 'luxury' car in question, with options, weighs but 3000 lbs. From pics, the interior door latches & window cranks (!) are dead ringers for VW's. Comparitively, it's quite pathetic, really (the largely intangible of body structure aside). I don't see a lot of "great" product from the german brands in the '70s at all- so they don't pale Cadillac in comparison, IMO. Mercedes had a long dry spell between the '55 gullwing and a creeping return to relevence in the late '70s. Oh; not saying neccesarily it was bad product- just not 'resume-fluffing'. BMW had 1 car of note in it's history up to & including the 2002, then not much else there until the '80s 3-series. Add in the lacking luxury and performance aspects of the later 2 inbetween these periods and you don't have much of a platform of 'greatness' to stand on.

>>"If I were Ahmenijhad and was being asked to negotiate the cessation of building nuclear reactors by President McCain (shudder), I'd demand a public apology for his heartless joking about killing Iranian citizens before moving forward."<< Yeeees, because when Ahmenijhad talks about killing every last Israeli citizen, he never jokes.

I hate this era, and 'button-tuft' upholstery pretty much hallmarks it.

3- and 5-series do not sell at their levels because of perceived superiority over their competition. The vast bulk of sales volume is because BMW relies heavily on fleet sales. Worldwide, as a brand, BMW's fleet percentage is 67%. BMW has the fewest private owners of all brands in Germany (except audi).

Well, IMO you are grossly overstating ("bunch of crap") : mercedes was scrambling to boost power, performance & amenities as Cadillac climbed to dizzying marketshare and nearly 400K in sales by the late '70s. In the late '60s the mainstream mercedes sedan was undersized, underpowered (82 MPH from a gas 6??) and under-equipped. I've seen mid-late '60s MBs up close: tinny & spartan- 1 step removed from a Beetle. They learned a great great deal at the feet of the then-master... yet strangely, no one knocks mercedes of the period as being woefully uncompetitive with the market. BTW- the Seville absolutely had a much larger impact in it's segment (at least from the other domestics, but not just there) than the z did in its, but '76 is straying from your implied circa 1970 era. But there's no 'maybe' about the Seville. According to the press (if you value stranger's opinions in this fashion), the CTS absolutely breaks your 'string'.

Good to see someone (satty) is picking up the recent consumer spending slack. :wink:

>>"...there isn't a Caddy of that era that holds a candle to the 240Z in significance...that's all I was trying to say."<< Well, as the 240Z came out in '70, I would easily put the '67 Eldorado up against the z in the broad category of "significance". It elevated the personal luxury coupe to it's then-zenith, was an engineering & stylistic (completely unique here) tour de force, and was nearly as quick as the Z despite being over double it's weight (16.5 @ 83 vs 17.2 @ 81). It lags the z in collector value, but I've been puzzled for years as to exactly why this era E is where it is. They are far more common that earlier 'E's...

CARBIZ- are you sure Kenzie's is the review you are thinking of? There was one by Dan O'Neil ('Neil' ??) that referred to the GP's grilles as 'Hitler's moustache', and then things really got bad. I read the Kenzie link above- it is nothing really bad and nothing compared to O'Neil's, which tripped over it's own outmoded cliches, and that is the one I recall Lutz challenging the writer on and arranging the head-to-head w/ the maxima and some others. Correct me if I am wrong...

Not only is it NOT factory built, it's not even as nicely done as the Mirage 'Pick-Coupe deVilles' done around the same time. The integration of the roofline & quarters into the B-Pillar & bedsides is no where near Cadillac design levels and it's not even particularly well done.

>>"I thought the original topic was how the death/emasculation of Pontiac would affect the relationship each of us have with GM?<< I would be extremely saddened if Pontiac were discontinued, as -if I had to pigeonhole myself- I would consider myself a Pontiac man. But I'm not one of those 'I-got-a-painful-splinter,-I'm done-with-walks-in-the-forest' types who would swear off GM entirely if Pontiac were my favorite and it was discontinued. Gotta love the dimbulbs who swore off Americans cars in total after 1 bad experience, like country of origin meant anything there. I just don't get that mindset at all- like it's a retaliation of some sort that might actually register somewhere. Would I look at other GM products if Pontiac were gone? Yes. And I agree with : >>"I doubt it would impact most US fans/buyers of other GM brands"<< also. However, my response falls off the scale- my personal love for Pontiacs centers on the 1960s, not anything current.

The next sentance explains it : >>>At Mercedes, each car was developed for a specific set of conditions, with no thought of parts sharing across models.<<< Mercedes needed to learn AMC/Chrysler tech & SOP in order to remain competitive.

Idle thoughts~ The relatively lame show 'Gearz' on Speed this morning did an interesting retrospect. They narrated a brief recap of the mid '70s, centric to the new cars available, showing quick commercial clips of such pulse-quickening cars as the Pacer & Opel, then mentioned as how the muscle car was gone & most 'car guys' were almost looked down apon for valuing performance & performance cars. They were undoubtedly dark days for car enthusiasts. The flip side was a lead-in to the unbridaled fun that was Smokey & the Bandit (and the Year One Bandit III). It struck me we're witnessing a replay of a very similar scenario, esp WRT Pontiac. Of course by '77 when Smokey came out, the T/A was already in the lineup with all the hardware in place & it was the last performance car available. But a refreshing along with it's placement in S&TB had the Firebird line selling 211K by '79. Today is slightly different, in that there's no money and no one in management cares for the potential of Pontiac anymore, but that aside, with the economy looking to be in the dumper for at least a year or 3, and the swell of marketshare for puddlejumpers... a really well packaged -say- Kappa-based 4-place Pontiac, along with the right pop culture nudge, could really pop after a span of years where people are forcing themselves into cars they feel they 'need' vs what they want. Pontiac is exactly type of division to reinject fun into what's going to be a stressful, compromised period of car buying.

That number is going to be effectively HUGE in advertising- that alone is undoubtedly going to build a long & strong bridge for many buyers on the fence over a circa $40K Volt price tag (if indeed it's near there).

Without having driven either (well, a DTS/Deville since circa '00)- I'm going to make a safe bet that the '09 DTS handles decades better than a Town Monster.

A quick poke around the net doesn't show any installations or rebuild kits with gaskets that I found, nor does a search for 'master cylinder gasket' turn up anything that shows one thru the first 7 google pages. There wasn't one on my B-59's 'single pot' unit... but your '72 is a bit new for my hands-on experience ('50s thru '60s). I assume your 'leak' is brake fluid, then, as opposed to water entering the pass compartment? Is the new unit a remanufactured one, or a new one? Was is made in China? Where is the leak coming from? If the leak is at one of the lines entereing the MC, you may have a cracked seat on the line end, and will need to bend up a new one. Ready-bent lines are no doubt available thru resto sources- a Chevelle catalog should have one. Was there a return on the old MC? If not- hang on to it. It's far more recommended to rebuild the orig than take a chance with the Chinese crap in most parts stores these days.

Your Supreme has a color code on the underhood data plate- very easy to verify the original color right there.

>>"2. 1 of 3 bu's are going to Fleet---a clip 4-6X its Honda and Toyota comparables.."<< That includes the Malibu Classic; the new Malibu's fleet percentage is reportedly 9%- equal to the camry. Convert the percentages to actual quantities, and there are FAR more '08 camrys to be found going across the fleet manager's desk than the new 'bu.

>>"If you go around telling people "oh my god things are terrible, you should be scared, things are just awful" then people loose even more confidence and things get even worse. "<< QFT

You are hopelessly lost in this sub-discussion. BTW- BO was 8 in '69.

>>"When did this happen? Oh yea... when Obama was 4?"<< Would you invite Chuckie Manson over to dinner? After all, that bad sh!t was way back in '69, he's a changed man because... the calendar has changed a few times. Oops- there's your doorbell!