Drew Dowdell

Profit is dollar amount Profit margin is the percentage above cost that is counted towards profit

So will your mechanic. Trust me... -Passat owner.

Let's see. Exxon had record profits for any company, ever. GM now has full size SUVs rated at 27mpg highway, that can run on E85 <at lesser economy> , and hybrids on the way. GM has 300hp front drivers that are rated 27mpg hiway. Cobalts routinely get higher then EPA fuel mileage Chrysler is introducing new diesels. ... but Exxon has record profits even when consumption grows at the normal rate.

I thought this title was held by the Corolla, which only replaced the original Beatle a few years ago as #1.

Glad he's my senator. I can't wait to vote out the junior senator from Pennsylvania.

You go from an S-class or X5 to a Cobalt rental? If you're driving either of those high end makes, why aren't you renting something a bit higher class? I can imagine why your vision might be skewed if you get out of your X5 and into a Cobalt. I get out of my CTS and sit in a Cobalt/Civic/Corolla/Sentra and just think to myself "People actually drive these every day?" [/Karen] I'm sure you could say the same about my CTS, but my point still stands. Perception is everything and looking at the compact market through the windshield of an S-Class does distort the vision.

All the Volkwagen VR series engines and W series engines have offset bores. They run fine.

Pontiac - serve indian cuisine.... see if anyone gets it. In western PA <I dunno if they're anywhere else>, we have a chain called Quaker Steak and Lube. They're entirely Quaker State oil themed... and if you've ever wanted to eat under a corvette, you can. They are famous for their buckets of wings

Hopefully this means "Developed by GM, 50% of the bill paid for by Ford" Seriously, automatic transmissions are not Ford's strong suit. Knock GM for lots of things, but the quality of their transmissions* is definately leader of the pack. *When paired with an appropriate engine.... sadly with GM, that doesn't always happen.

It is entirely possible to tune the engine to the test while ignoring the real world mileage.

Because I've been through it. I've had the "I better find a girlfriend even though I don't want one" thoughts. I know so many gay people who've had completely different situations to realize that since there are such huge differences in upbringing, it can't be a "nurture" thing. Since everyone is raised differently yet there is still a fairly consistant percentage of homosexuals. You've fallen down the slippery slope You falsely assume that: a. gays do not reproduce. b. an entire generation of people would have to be born gay simultantiously for a check/balance to occur. c. Only the best and strongest survive. To address those: a. gays do reproduce, usually having heterosexual children. I think it should be fairly obvious to you that gay people usually are born to heterosexual parents. My partner and I have every intention of having children some day. b. the number of gay people has been fairly consistant. the number of openly gay people has increased though. c. Jerry Springer show. Not the first time I've heard these arguments and I'm sure it won't be the last. That doesn't make them less wrong. You need to study genetics. Which is odd because I think you've mentioned that you are a scientist <forgive me not remembering the field>. My parents both have brown hair and brown eyes. I have blond hair and blue eyes. Both of my grandmothers had blond hair and blue eyes. It's called recessive gene. As far as re-population is concerned. Heterosexuals are certainly capable of over supply. unlikely.... as you're still wrong. There are members of this society, regardless of sexuality, that never reproduce, yet contribute greatly to the common good. There is much more to society and life then spraying your DNA across the land. There are those in this society whos job it is to pump out kids. There are those who's job it is to pump out ideas. There are those who grow the food. There are those that own the land <me>. There are those who care for the ones who pump out the kids, and grow the food, and think of ideas, and own the land. Think of a bee colony. If producing offspring were required of every single member of the colony, bees would only be seen in chunks of amber. In a bee colony, only one member ever reproduces yet the species lives on. All the other members that never reproduce still contribute to society. Indeed, the be colony couldn't go on without the non-reproducing members. Obviously, this is an extreme example and we humans have a more hybrid system. We like to think of ourselves as "higher beings" over the rest of the animal kingdom. We share traits with many other species. New York City, the worlds largest bee colony. Again, agree to disagree is a way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want to accept it. You're not going to insult me and you're not going to come up with any argument that I haven't already encountered. To summarize: A. Gays reproduce. B. Gays are the product of heterosexual sex. C. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that homosexuality is gentic. D. Homosexuality being genetic does not mean the human race will end. E. People can contribute to the good of society without reproducing. F. Regarless of the cause of homosexuality, there is no reason to deny the legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples. G. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not cause more people to be gay. H. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not harm anyone. I. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will reduce the potential for "high risk behavior" J. As we've already learned, seperate but equal isn't equal. K. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not increase health insurance: a. As if insurance companies needed an excuse to raise rates. b. It would have happened already since most large companies offer partner benefits. L. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not lead to beastiality. M. Agreeing to disagree is not a solution.

Let's not agree to disagree. That's just an easy way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want their beliefs challenged. The percentage of homosexuals in the population is fairly consistant across cultures. Some cultures may hide it more than others, but that doesn't mean the people don't exist. People who turn out to be gay come from so many different situtations, backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and countries. that to "blame" homosexuality on some kind of childhood trauma, upbringing, or accident is futile. There is one population where the incidents of homosexuality are a bit skewed. In identical twins, if one twin turns out to be gay, there is a signifigantly increased chance that the other twin will also be gay. That has been shown to be the case even in situations where the twins are raised in seperate households. Then there is the idea that homosexuality is "against nature". The falsehood there is that homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom. Pengiuns, Dolphins, dogs, the list goes on and on of other species displaying homosexual members. So... no, I won't agree to disagree. You've been wrong in nearly every statement you've made about gay people and rather then learn from some of the, IMHO, finest examples of gay people around you choose to just sit there and continue to be wrong. Stop forming all of your opinions of gay people from what you see at the gay parade or when you're channel surfing and catch a glimps of Will & Grace.

I think that the Aura will sell to folks who: 1. Have an Altima but got bit by Nissan's current reliability 2. Have/interested in a Mazda 6 but need something bigger 3. Last 4 cars were Camlys and now they want to try something else. 4. Former Sebring/Stratus owners.

I'm not a millionaire..... yet :AH-HA_wink: I'll only call myself a milionaire once my net assets are over one million. Right now, only gross assets are there.

As if the insurance companies needed an excuse to drive rates up...... but still, insurance premiums are not calculated that way. There is no "perception" about it at all. It's all based on past performance. The equation goes like this: (Last years medical bills for the entire company + 10%)/number of members in the plan = individual insurance premium for the year. again, it has nothing to do with any perception at all Most of the fortune 500 companies, GM included, offer partner benefits. If the insurance thing was going to be an issue it would already have happened! You cannot marry a goat because a goat cannot legally consent. Same reason you cannot marry a child. The difference is that one day, the child becomes a legal adult, and then they can legally consent. I like how you throw Darwinism and religion into the same rant. You are using a logical fallacy call Slippery Slope. I don't care if you affirm my union or not. That's your business. I just want my union legally protected in all the ways yours would if you were married. I'll let the nature of english language take it's course on the rest. :AH-HA_wink: No, it doesn't offend a gay person at all. But when I'm holding hands with my partner while walking through the mall... guess what, you can get over it. no, you took his statement the wrong way. He was saying how it is hipocritical of people to expect gay people to be invisible <no hand holding, etc> while straight people can be affectionate in public. It isn't the affection that is offensive, it's the hipocracy. because you keep setting up pins for me to knock down. eh, we pretty much all agreed it was a stupid commercial, and it is stupid for the gay rights group to get upset over it.... no one else had anything more to say about it so we moved on to a more important discussion.

Short wheel bases will do that to ya...<the fit's wheelbase that is>

BTW, The unitarians, episcopalians, lutherans, some sects of jewish faiths, many american indian faiths, and I'm sure some others, have some sort of homosexual union/marriage cerimony.

Kids are smart. Why not let them figure it out on their own?

uh.... we're everywhere. Not all gays live in little clusters in big cities. I live in a quiet, upscale suburb.

Majority rules? That's why we can no longer discriminate on race right? Calling it marriage is religious based? Three things to address that: 1. Seperation of church and state, you are now discriminating against me based on religion. 2. Some religions allow gay marriage. You are discriminating against one religion in favor of another. 3. The false assumption that the current definition of marriage that you tout is: a. The only current definition of marriage b. The way marriage has always been defined. Keep setting up the pins. I'll keep knocking them down.

How is promoting a monogamous relationship between two guys going to cause "higher risk"? The whole idea of allowing and promoting gay marriage is to promote monogamy. If gay men are monogamous, I fail to see the "high risk" you do. Secondly, that's not even the way company sponsered insurance works. They take the total cost of the employee's bills from the previous year add a little padding, then divide by the number of participants. Have someone with a major case of cancer in the company, and every one's bills go up. You want to target people affecting your health insurance co-pay/premium? Go after smokers. You keep setting up the pins. I'll keep knocking them down.

Mediocre? Why though? If this is the best of the epsilons, where does mediocre leave the G6, Malibu, and 9-3? Let's not lose our heads here....

I don't see what all the fuss is about, I think it still looks great... on of GM's current best below Cadillac and certainly the best of the Epsilons.

Actually, it IS that easy. If I have a marrage certificate, then the other person listed on the certificate is my spouse. Nothing else needs to be re-written. With healthcare, marriage couples just get the discount rate from the insurance agency not the employer. If two guys have seperate insurance policies, then get married, it costs the company nothing more then if a heterosexual couple gets married. I didn't know that if gays got married, heteros would somehow have to pay for it..... I'll have to look that up. If I can get a bunch of straight people to sponser the costs of my wedding, that would be awsome..... oh wait.... parents.... right. There are a ton of reasons why gays need the legal recognision of marriage: Visitation rights in the hospital. When my partner was in a coma back in November, I was not allowed in to intensive care to see him until his parents gave permission to the hospital. I am very close to his parents so I knew it would not be a problem. Others aren't so lucky. When one half of a heterosexual married couple dies, the other half inherits <nearly automatically> the assets tax free. I currently own close to a million dollars worth of investment property. I can will all of it to my partner, but NONE of it would be tax free and he'd likely have to sell off a substantial amount just to pay the taxes... thereby generating even MORE taxes. As far as feeling "complete". You're right, all we need is each other. We'll still have a wedding some day and exchange rings, but I would really like to know that he is going to be legally protected if I were to die. I am not close with my parents and he could have a legal battle with them <while also dealing with my death/hospitalization> if my parents choose to fight him. It will take a substantial amount in legal fees to afford him the same protections as you would get by filling out a marrage certificate and paying your $55 fee. There was a time in this country when the majority of the population felt that inter-racial marriage should be illegal and the minority <interacial couples who wanted to get married>, should just shut up about it... isn't their love enough... etc. Yeah... we should go back to those days. Short answer: Because gays getting married doesn't hurt you in any way shape or form. Do you feel harmed because gays can be married in Massachusetts now?