loki

latinum? no P.

is it just me, or does that, from the side, look so much like an altima/maxima/Z...?

wonder if the tranny is modded to be a 6 speed? the range gives an estimated 25mpg. ford's 3.7L can get 23mpg highway, though the city mileage, i'm sure, is 20+ on this dodge. otherwise towing seems to be the same. just a little eco comparo.

yes i thought alpha was going to be 4's , maybe a 6.. and then zeta and sigma were kinda merging for the 6's and 8's....? isn't good news, if true...

upgrade to discs? hahah.. what would that be, like a couple $100? awwww

if it's pretty pristine... maybe $200...otherwise i'm gonna guess 100 to 150

nice. i was on the right track with my ideas. lol

the collector is aluminum instead of cast iron? O2 sensor is in exhaust, and closer to heads, decreasing warmup time: lowering emissions?

how many wives did he have... and he still wanted porn... ah yes, "marital aids"

i'd bet an lt1/6speed t56 (if a manual is possible)would be quite fair. ...unless you don't plan on driving more than ~65mph, ever. (down hills excluded)

be stupid to use the 2.8 when a 3.0L turbo would be better.... cheaper in the long run?

Nope..never..this is one of those things that's going to be argued until the end of time, like FWD vs RWD. least till cams are no more.

not ot make anyone mad, but saturn as a whole. it has a fabulous car with the SKY... but as a brand, overall. it didn't make the test with only the sky being truly remember-able.

if we prolly dont' have enough of these already. http://1x.com/photo/30632/ not easily copy and paste-able w/o possible right infringement. go to the site.

LOL!!!

pittsburg isn't a microcosm of metro areas nationwide. if they don't "pay the tax" then they must be self reliant. which i don't see happening in a city. seeing as this whole topic was about a federal tax, local solutions for local problems. we've talked about the gas tax many times before in other threads. i don't see this going anywhere else.

not relevant? it's showing that there are other options than "public" transit. because public transit "can't" make a profit, it crowds out real businesses providing the "Service" therefore being a drain on tax payers and creating fake jobs(no business can operate w/o a profit). your proposal insists that supply and demand "don't matter" to gov when it taxes it's citizens and tourists if it can provide a service not yet in the market place. this thinking shows why there is no private action to be taken in the market place as far as a business is concerned. the power to coerce can only destroy in an already civilized society. here in my city a taxi company was basically taken over by the city so that we can have a public transit system. granted there are still taxis that run around town, but now they have gov competition which has to be effecting their bottom line, i don't know what the income/expenses are for our transit system is either, but based on what you said, i don't have too.

benefit everyone... the port athority doesn't benefit everyone, not everyone is suffering from asthma, i doubt everyone else is under driving into work everyday. reducing demand on FF, doesn't help everyone, you've said several times it'll be made up in china and india(mostly)... very quickly with only 1 city here raising gas tax...this would only be a drop in a oil barrel for consumption decrease. you're using emotional "reasons" to say you're correct in advocating the tax increase. although i would agree that taxing people that use the "service" is the most fair thing that the gov can do, it is not the best solution available.

corrected. results mean an experiment is over. consequenses can linger on past the experiment. lack of public transit cannot cause unintended consequences. this should be shown as where a market should quickly grow up. unintended consequences can only mean there was a wanted outcome. when you don't play "Engineer" with something, what ever the outcome is, it is, there is nothing unintended. this is how a free market behaves, thousands, if not millions or billions of choices/actions create the outcome, good or bad. from wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences .. 3rd point... A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse), such as when a policy has a perverse incentive that causes actions opposite to what was intended. and more The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results) here's a intervention being proposed by nashville, a video about it. either they plan on those consequences or not, but it's still an intervention by gov.

this is how i read it, and i think this is why the nation as a whole is tired of "just raise taxes". it is niether fair, nor better than lowering expenses in budgets. it would be nice to "exterminate corrola drivers", but there are other ways to do that , which would include lowering barriers to increase car types available. why not just advocate a "C4C" program for people that don't enjoy driving? bring in your car and you'll trade up to a smart, or something with 2 wheels? this shows a use of politics for "special interests" which is how we got here. did you think of it that way?

"The problem is paying for such improvements. We're in a situation here in Pittsburgh that demonstrates how an unwillingness to raise taxes ends up hurting everyone." raising taxes hurts everybody too though... but this is much more a philosophical debate than purely political. if taxes are raised, won't it probably cause people to leave the area, or at least buy their needs elsewhere, if they can? if either of these happens will the effective tax rate go down, or up? what will the revenues do? if that money has to be spent on those things, why not put some pork spending in a federal bill to get that money? maybe they need to consolidate what can be then reassess what needs to be done? if it's such a good thing, donations are prolly accepted.

indeed, .. for others to clarify if it's needed from wiki: being the most subsidized form of transit, and not to mention that oil is the most subsidized energy source, what do you get? an economy that will take much longer to move away from such cheap methods of transit. if other forms are to gain in use, they must be shown to be more economical, if they aren't available exactly how you would use a car otherwise. this can't be accomplished by throwing more subsidies at the other sectors, because we have a fiscal problem in this country, so the other way must be considered as the best way to change this... ending subsidies and finding other means to level the "playing field"

very nice.

it seems we're to the point that ... we know this isn't likely in many years. but..care to look at why this won't happen? i'd say because roads are the most subsidized form of transit. bridges are built with federal money, ...the only roads that the state doesn't pay for are private drives, you think? how many miles of roads are there in thi scountry, and how many are tolled? i bet it's less than 0.001%.

it's good to have a stable influence in one's life. church is that for many, many people. i'm betting if you try to pull him away from it, it'll end quickly, or worse than that. what do you say to that?..um... i'd say ask questions to understand his wants better. this will be my only post here, i'm thinking. good luck.