Drew Dowdell

Doesn't mean I can't reward the company that purchased the way I want them to. It all trickles down. Both the Solstice and S2000 are halo cars at rental places. Placing more demand on the Solstice encourages the rental company to buy more of them.

About a 100 point increase in the average IQ of the country.

Read my sig.

2-3 bodies of Zeta + 2-3 bodies of alpha, 2 bodies of delta II = success

I wish Toyota would hire Carl-Peter-Foster.

I can see being pissed at AIG and the banks. First, they created this mess. Second, the blew the bailout money on things like bonuses, payments for foreign banks and private jets. *gasp* AIG's CEO still has a job. Being pissed at GM for asking for a LOAN from the government since no one else is able to loan such an amount is just foolish. GM isn't throwing lavish parties, they are cutting everywhere, and even accepted firing the CEO as terms of the loan. Back in 1979, there was reluctance for loaning Chrysler $1.5 billion, but with that money, the K-Car and Mini-van came out and sold very well. There wasn't the vitriol directed at Chrysler that is being directed at them today. That was before domestic bashing was what all the cool kids were doing....... Well let me tell you Donny, when car companies develop cars, it generally takes longer than a month. Chrysler has been working on this car for years. And seriously, were you really going to trade in your '04 Accord for a Dodge? Seriously now...... .... and then she drove home in her Toyota 4Runner. The Malibu has been at least as fuel efficient as the Camry since 1997, and the Corsica was the same before that. A 1991 Saturn SL was even slightly more fuel efficient than a 1991 Corolla...... but NO ONE BOUGHT THEM because of stupid import humping. I guess I won't be hiring you as a contractor any time soon since you'll be next as the economy tanks while GM and Chrysler sink below the waves.

Albert says that my two favorite designers are Mark Down and C.L. Rance. Marshalls, Ross, TJ Max, Filene's Basement - high quality, designer clothing at not high prices. Sure there is crap there, but you just have to look to find the good stuff. Many of the mall stores, Guess, American Eagle, Gap, Banana Republic, have good clearance sections. I rarely buy from H&M anymore because I find that their stuff falls apart way too easily despite generally fitting very well.

I'd take a bus first.

Just more foreign humping idiots who fail to understand how important the big three are to the welfare of this country.

We decided to scrap the Solstice idea. We found a package for $520 that includes round trip airfare and our choice of DTS or Mustang convertible. With the money we're not spending on the Solstice, we're going to do an overnight in Key West or take my parent's boat out for an overnight.

With the top up? The luggage only has to be in the trunk from Fort Lauderdale to Miami and back.

We're going on a 4 day visit to my parents' place in Miami. Budget is offering a Solstice for $357.00. Albert really wants a convertible <and I agree>.... the other choice is a Mustang for $341.00 which makes the Pontiac a no-brainer. But how small is the trunk? Can we get two small roll aboards in there?

Hardly. When congress nationalized then Penn Central and other railroads, the Union Pacific, Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, Chessie System and others all survived. Conrail was allowed to reorganize under federal supervision and became quite successful. After it was clear that it could stand on it's own, Conrail was sold off to the CSX and Norfolk Southern who both have thrived ever since. This is exactly how the banking should work. If I were in Obama's place, I'd want control of the banks too. They're the ones who F-ed it up this much. They clearly can't be trusted. Form Congressional National Bank. Combine all the failed banks into that, then sell off pieces once it's been profitable enough to recoup any taxpayer losses.

You've been talking about that possibility for almost a year now (and I agree that it makes sense). It has nothing to do with Biden.

We're using it on this site. It gives decent results but it's more for e-commerce sites than BBSes like this.

See? It's not us! Webster changed the definition way back in 2003! Gays aren't redefining marriage! Dictionaries are!

It's not a liberal v. conservative thing so don't take it there. Quite honestly, I don't know which way Roberts would fall as a conservative but not (as much) a constructionist. Scalia and Thomas are both self avowed constructionists when interpreting the Constitution. They claim that they strictly interpret the Constitution in the way the framers intended it to be read. They cannot hold that position AND hold that DOMA does not violate the Full Faith and Credit clause. It's one or the other. It would be extraordinarily hypocritical <even for these two> to try and hold both positions. The "liberal" justices subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is a living document that was intended to be changed over the years. (this is the position I hold, the framer's wouldn't have provided an amendment process otherwise). If you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, it's not hypocritical to suggest a different interpretation of your own. I'm not saying the "liberal" justices are never hypocritical.... just that they aren't in terms of constructualism.

DOMA itself is an overstep of authority. It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution quite blatantly. Parts of it have already been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit. I expect a full ruling against it will come as soon as Scalia or Thomas is off the bench. Those two will rule in favor of keeping it but be incredibly hypocritical and partisan when they do.

No it doesn't. DOMA basically takes the Feds out of the state level decisions.

That's really what it boils down to. Sexuality should not determine how laws apply to you.

There's more Mini than Infiniti in that interior....

I don't get it. What is stylistic about a giant black slab on the front of the vehicle?

Was he trying to make an AuroraBird?

I'll post it if you really want me to.... but suffice it to say that 25% of this site's population are of alternate sexuality and a large segment of the "regulars" are gay. A great many more members of this site care about gay marriage than there are members who care about B-pillars....... not that there's anything wrong with that.

The gay marriage fight isn't about legislating something that doesn't exist into existence. It's about recognizing that something already exists and the laws don't fairly address that something. It is not in society's best interest to prevent the stabilizing factor that comes with marriage and banning gay marriage won't end gayness or gay couples being together. All it does is prevent the legal protections that marriage provides. It's almost spiteful. Sometimes I wonder if the people who are against gay marriage are just worried we'll be better at it than them.... I'm going to be with Albert with or without gay marriage. What do "the haters" care if he gets to inherit my house tax free in the sad event I'm run down by a Pruis?