trinacriabob

Yeah, that's another one of those less-visible but fairly conventional names. Again, it seems like we need to do our own research because Hillary and Obama seem to be getting press because of their "novelty" relative to the demographics of who have seen run for President since it became an institution in this country.

You're avoiding the question. Besides, you've got that "cancello." LOL.

Mustang Ranch

Chi e piu' matto tra noi due?

Absolutely. That's where I'm at, as my initial post indicates.

Ditto. How does Chris Dodd look? Senator or what not from Connecticut since the early 1980s? I, too, like the other less-visible Dems more.Obama doesn't have the track record and experience. "Hilaire" is both hard to listen to and to look at.

Road trips are ADDICTING. What, Z, no Big Apple by car? Even I have driven the Cross Bronx Expwy (:scared:) (from JFK onto the Van Wyck and across the Whitestone) before crossing into Jersey. And, as an L.A. boy in my California plated Cutlass Supreme, I was NOT ready for what I saw on the Cross Bronx...the gutted cars and all...and I was saying my "hail Marys" that the car would not break down and that I didn't get into any fender-benders or what not.

Yo, BV, have you and "the ocn" (as in "the Donald") ever met, as you live so darn close to each other? Or, for that matter, have you met any of the other Pennsylvanians on here?

Yeah, and another factoid on George - he was born in a rural area of Mexico because his parents were under scrutiny from the US for the illegal practice of polygamy, or something to that effect, though he had a conventional married life, as does Mitt.I think Mitt's religion blew my mind as he was elected in Massachusetts which, in my mind, is as liberal as a state can get.

WOW! I happened to be working on something else and got around to some web-surfing because my "leadership ethics" chapters get boring every once in a while. Somehow, I got onto the Presidential electiong prognostications. In a nutshell, nobody that I consider to be fairly conventional is in a front runner position. This leaves me perplexed. On the Democratic side, Hillary is a obviously a woman and Obama is obviously of mixed race. Not only that, there are so many other contenders that no one knows how their pie will be split up. On the Republican side, Giuliani has had an interesting personal life in terms of number of marriages and Romney from Mass. is Mormon, which as a Westerner, I did not know. Let's leave it at that. I can't seem to find any candidate I particularly like who is real practical and middle of the road, and I don't align with either or any party. Without getting into it too much, are you satisfied with anybody that is on the slate for 2008?

New Amsterdam

you got it!Response to thread: chase

I only find myself listening to them when I am channel surfing on a long drive and can't find a decent jazz or rock station. I probably listen longer than I should because of their heavy accents and crustiness which I find somewhat funny. It gets a little frustrating in that they have to go through so many theatrics to dispense their advice. Haven't yet found content that was aggravating, since most of the calls were actually kind of dumb/naive that I would have never called in for myself. If they tilt toward foreign cars over domestics, I probably would not listen to them either.

Mine was the base model. The interior layout was practical and reasonably well assembled. I detected few, if any, fit and finish issues. The overall dashboard design was very generic in a "Main Street USA" kind of way and the materials used (the feel of the vinyl on the dash) were acceptable. It certainly wasn't the dash on something like a Grand Prix, or even a Monte Carlo, where it's unique to that car and not duplicated elsewhere. While the seats were very comfortable, I would have to say I did not care for the fabric as it was very "base model," but then, lately, a lot of the base model fabrics in a lot of cars aren't that nice to the touch.

completion Like you said: laissez les bon temps rouler :AH-HA_wink:

...or a 66-ish Barracuda...

cheapskate (I LOVE coupons)

"lifer" oh $h!, was my spelling off?

hefer MOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Yesterday, I had to do an administrative errand that involved some important paperwork and traveling between Northern California and Northern Nevada. So, I went on-line and rented an ECONOMY car from one of the majors. Upon arriving at the lot, there were no $ 18.99 economy cars, so I knew an upgrade was in order for the same price. The people in front of me were given a Jeep but I wanted something with an actual trunk, so the lady gave me a base model Chrysler 300. Now, I've probably posted before that I am quite disenchanted with the styling of most Chrysler products...and the 300 is no exception. I don't like the grille, the greenhouse and the squatty proportions. I got inside and got myself organized. Kudos to the bucket seats that suited me beatifully. Not too bolstered and not too flat, I was able to live in them for the round-trip of 339 miles with no fatigue. That was great. The dash is sensible, as is the center stack. Everything is fairly predictable and one learns to operate the items in the center stack rather quickly. Additional kudos for less of a blind-spot than anticipated, especially with the thickness of the C-pillar. The seating position is also advantageous. However, the top of the dash cowl is unusually deep, or wide, and the continuation of this plane onto the hood makes it seem more like a truck or SUV. The high and flat hood plane just felt weird. On the minus side, there did not appear to be an automatic door locking feature. The pale green bezel illumination at night with dark gray indicators was not at all pleasing...maybe better in a mental hospital. The cruise control stalk was downright bizarre and no match for the user friendliness of those found on GM products. Lastly, the operation of the power seats, again, couldn't hold a candle to those in a GM car. The movements that the switch allowed for seemed to have limited range and didn't allow for much "blending." Driving the 300 is a mixed bag. I returned home to pick up paperwork, so I popped the hood to see what powered this car. GOOD GOD...I couldn't believe it. It was a puny 2.7 litre DOHC V6...the same one that finds its way into some Sebrings/Stratuses. Fairly quiet at cruise, it is rather rambunctious when throttled...a little on the grainy side. The transmission is just OK. It seems like mine, with almost a quarter of a million miles, shifts more smoothly due to a better marriage to the engine. Here, the tranny seems to hunt a lot to keep the 2.7 litre engine operating at an optimum place. When you consider that each litre is about 60 cubic inches, this engine measures out to 162 cubic inches, give or take. Once I knew that, I could see why the transmission would downshift so often. Handling feels secure. Again, a traditional mounting of the engine told me that this is a RWD car. So I immediately thought of Sixty-Eight Panther! I will admit that I too prefer a RWD car but my reason is the serviceability. (I truly would like for the Grand Prix, the LaCrosse or the Monte Carlo to have the styling and proportions that they do while being rear-wheel drive. However, when "the elements" are out there, the FWD comes in handy). I was expecting a handling bonus from the RWD, given the equal weight distribution. I did not detect one. In fact, on the road up to Tahoe and then back down the leeward side of the Sierra, when pushed hard in the mountain turns, the 300 did NOT seem to like it. Of the W-bodies, the Grand Prix, complete with its unequal FWD distribution, seems more up to the task of taking on the twisties. But, overall, it was a pleasant riding car with a very nice supple yet controlled ride at highway speeds. The fuel economy was about 26 mpg over the 339 miles. This included about 85:15 highway:city as well as a gas guzzling climb from sea level to an altitude of 7,400 feet over Echo Summit on US 50. My knee jerk reaction from Day One has been to hate this car. I no longer hate this car and wouldn't mind being upgraded into one in the future as the opportunity arises. Would I buy one? NO. The drive confirmed that there are other mid-size products better suited to me.

Bored? I wish. If I was ever bored, it would just give me an excuse to get in the car and go somewhere...anywhere. Now, how about depressed? I measure that by how much I nap. Seriously.

architect HA!

opera conductor

What now? What now? Sheez!

Never having taken anything beyond Psych 101, I'm no expert but I'd like to think I've got a decent dose of street smarts.1. I don't think that when relationships "go south" people change their sexual preference. Instead, they become angry or bitter (which is normal), cautious (which is sensible) and find hobbies or other outlets to distract them for a while. 2. Some may change their sexual preference, but I think it's a small minority. (I have a friend from ATL who originates from Philly whose father and mother divorced. It was an abusive marriage. The few times I've met her mother, the woman looks "textbook" "L". She could be one of those that switched over. Funny, because in seeing the wedding picture, the mother looked like an attractive feminine bride). 3. Most people just keep on going and/or sit it out on the sidelines until a relationship that works comes along. One final word: I don't remember how old you are, but if it's any consolation, the "tables turn." You will become more in demand and women will become easier to deal with...that's probably because they know they have the unwanted baggage of lugging around "someone else's kids." LOL. Case in point: Kevin Costner and George Clooney keep on ticking while Sharon Stone and Kathleen Turner have taken a licking. (no, not that kind).