A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We Needed A Big Gas Tax



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 24th 05, 02:04 PM
ZombyWoof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:35:33 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
<snip>
>
>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are
>the only party that is willing to cut taxes. Even they aren't doing it
>enough to suit most people. It is happening here where I live at the
>local level. People can't understand why there property taxes are sky
>rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local government
>aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The average
>person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax
>standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there
>will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed.
>
>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>

Well I've been saying that for years, but it still hasn't happened.
The average American has absolutely no idea how much their tax bite
really is. Especially when they hide it under the names of user fees,
licenses and so forth. I sat down and added it all up once and about
****.

I retired from the Military ten years ago with a nice "little" monthly
stipend for life. It wasn't anywhere near enough to live on or raise
a young family so of course second career here I come. Currently I
pay my entire monthly Military Retirement Check (funded by taxes) back
in payroll taxes every bi-weekly pay period. Sort of like giving
Burger King a rebate for working for them every year. It sucks to
lose 2 times what I draw annually in retirement benefits funded by
taxes back in taxes.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)
Ads
  #12  
Old August 24th 05, 09:09 PM
lab~rat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:16:04 -0400, ZombyWoof >
puked:

>Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
>not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
>our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
>amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
>already don't pay taxes either.


How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
Saturday delivery? In fact, Monday - Wednesday - Friday delivery
would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other
delivery services already working...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
  #13  
Old August 25th 05, 12:17 AM
ZombyWoof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:09:39 GMT, lab~rat > wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:16:04 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>puked:
>
>>Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
>>not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
>>our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
>>amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
>>already don't pay taxes either.

>
>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
>Saturday delivery? In fact, Monday - Wednesday - Friday delivery
>would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other
>delivery services already working...
>

Us computer literate folks do not yet represent a large enough segment
of the population to go that far. However, I do believe Saturday
delivery could be ****-canned with no adverse affect. I haven't
written or received a postal letter in years. Majority of my mail is
****-canned on my way into the house with it. The rest is simply
bills and an occasional special occasion card.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)
  #14  
Old August 25th 05, 02:54 AM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:35:33 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>>and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are
>>the only party that is willing to cut taxes. Even they aren't doing it
>>enough to suit most people. It is happening here where I live at the
>>local level. People can't understand why there property taxes are sky
>>rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local government
>>aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The average
>>person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax
>>standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there
>>will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed.
>>
>>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>>

>
> Well I've been saying that for years, but it still hasn't happened.
> The average American has absolutely no idea how much their tax bite
> really is. Especially when they hide it under the names of user fees,
> licenses and so forth. I sat down and added it all up once and about
> ****.


It is one good, articulate presidential candidate away from happening,
IMO. A good old fashioned Ross Perot type pie-chart speech to a
nationwide audience would do the trick. Maybe take one of the debates
and give each candidate a 1/2 hour uninterupted time block.

> I retired from the Military ten years ago with a nice "little" monthly
> stipend for life. It wasn't anywhere near enough to live on or raise
> a young family so of course second career here I come. Currently I
> pay my entire monthly Military Retirement Check (funded by taxes) back
> in payroll taxes every bi-weekly pay period. Sort of like giving
> Burger King a rebate for working for them every year. It sucks to
> lose 2 times what I draw annually in retirement benefits funded by
> taxes back in taxes.


If you want to see how the Bush's tax policies have effected your tax
rates check out this link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
It graphs Tax Freedom Day for the last 25 years and shows what that day
was over the last 100+ years. Look further down the page and see the
pie chart that compares federal/state/local taxes to other typical
expenses. Taxes took 107 days of income and household and household
operations (i.e. mortage, utilities, repairs etc.) only took 65 days of
income! On average government takes 65% more money than the average
person spends on owning and maintaining a house every year. Plus, I
would wager they don't calculate all the user fees and micellaneous
hidden taxes in their figures.
  #15  
Old August 25th 05, 02:56 AM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lab~rat wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:16:04 -0400, ZombyWoof >
> puked:
>
>
>>Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
>>not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
>>our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
>>amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
>>already don't pay taxes either.

>
>
> How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
> Saturday delivery? In fact, Monday - Wednesday - Friday delivery
> would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other
> delivery services already working...


They have already dropped most Saturday deliveries to businesses if they
are closed on the weekends.
  #16  
Old August 25th 05, 03:21 AM
Hank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Hank wrote:


>> The problem is that they cut taxes disproportionately in
>> favor of corporations and the wealthiest few, which is exactly
>> the wrong thing to do. Not only do we have a record deficit, but our
>> local taxes are skyrocketing to make up for the federal cuts in state
>> aid. Bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest
>> few are taxed less and the middle class is taxed more.


> Hank, did you (or anyone) ever get a paycheck from a poor person?


Depends on your definition of poor, I suppose. Compared to
the corporate thieves who destroyed ENRON, most people are
poor. The paychecks I received in my teens came from small
businessmen who certainly were not rich.

> Do you think all rich people are evil, dishonest, lazy,
> uncaring, cheating *******s?


Considering that everyone in my family, including
myself would be considered rich by many people, I
should say not! The bu$h regime's fraudulent, war
profiteering friends on Cheney's Halliburton and
those from Ken (bu$h's top campaign contributor)
Lay's Enron certainly are, though.

> Do you think the solution to every problem is to
> throw money at it by taxing the living **** out
> of the wealthy and everyone making a decent living.


With the exception of taxing his wealthy friends, throwing
our money at his problems seems to be bu$h's approach, and
no, I don't support it. Rather than "taxing the living ****"
out of those of us who earn a decent living and giving the
elite few and corporations huge tax breaks, the tax burden
should be shared more fairly.

http://responsiblewealth.org/

More on our tax system that redistributes wealth from
the working class to the elite few:

http://ctj.org

> Over taxing the wealthy will screw our economy in ways you
> can't imagine.


Fair taxing the wealthy would strengthen the economy, since
the middle class would have more disposable income. What
we do know, is that under taxing the wealthy puts too heavy
a burden on the middle class, and forces cuts in education
and other societal needs.

> If there is one thing we have learned without question
> through our experiences of the 20th century it is that
> socialist governments don't work.


Actually, a better argument could be made that capitalist
governments don't work. See Capitalist Russia as an example.
Here in the U.S., 50 million people have no health care, and
if you look at infant mortality rates, you see countries with
a socialist government with the lowest rates and a high quality
of life.
I suppose you're not concerned with bu$h's record spending,
deficits, or his sale of our economy to Communist China,
either. If your neighbor wrote ten thousand dollars worth of
bad checks each month, he could give the illusion of doing
well financially - until someone with a clue takes a closer
look, or he has to make good on his debt.

> IMO, removing incentives goes against nature and what
> drives us humans to succeed and advance.


Fairly taxing the wealthiest top 5% percent, has nothing to
do with your bizarre "removing incentives" rant. You're not
making any sense at all.

> If you really want to help the poor get the government off
> their backs and quit making them dependent on government
> handouts.


If bu$h continues to export our jobs, and cut job training
and education funding, that's exactly what will happen.
We should stop giving government handouts to billion dollar
corporations before we eliminate school lunches for poor
kids. Greed is ugly.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

> Liberals know that keeping the poor dependent and ignorant
> is their only hope of retaining them as a voting block.


You're still not making any sense. Liberals support
funding for education and job training, while conservatives
rabidly reject it. Are you drunk, or always this confused?

> You need to get up with current events and educate yourself on the
> economic conditions of many of the states. They are reaping the
> rewards from the bu$h regime's tax cuts.


You appear to be living in a fantasy world.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-22-03sfp2.htm

Do you think bu$h's illegal and immoral invasion of
Iraq is going well, too?

> The wages in my industry (land development, engineering consulting,
> construction etc.) are up almost 100% in the last 5-7 years. This
> has happened in many other industries.


I notice you don't supply any sort of references to support
your wild, baseless claims.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0822/p...sec.html?s=hns

> I'm going to give you a little history lesson in economics. Back in the
> late 1970s and early 1980s the U.S. transcended to a service based
> economy. You need to read up on what that means. Basically, the
> majority of jobs in the country provide services and not manufacturing.
> It is a natural progression of a growing economy and an improving
> standard of living.


So, in your bizarre, misguided fantasy world, a labor pool based
on mopping floors and flipping burgers is better for our economy
than jobs requiring skilled labor. That's funny. You're giving me a
comedy show, not a history lesson in economics. <chuckle>

> You need to accept that liberalism is hitting a dead end in this
> country.


Because some brainwashed and clueless right wing extremist
who's living in a fantasy world says so, eh? I bet you "think"
climate change and global warming are a fabrication of "enviro-nazis",
and that oil is a clean and unlimited energy source, too.
Go back to insulting the grieving mother of a dead soldier.
That's more your speed...


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
  #17  
Old August 25th 05, 04:16 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> >>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.


> > Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
> > he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
> > in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
> > of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
> > trying to control.), back up.


> I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that
> means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism
> works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the
> government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new
> technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to
> companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices
> to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going
> to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people.


The problem with letting the market set the price on oil is that
nothing will happen until oil wells starting sucking air. Then
there'll be a power grab (read major wars between the Middle East,
China, US, Russia, etc.) to control the remaining reserves) and a
scramble to *try* to come up with alternatives.... but by then it'll be
too late and most of those who survive the war will be left sitting in
the dark and walking. I say get the investment going NOW! Gas is
already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives
to start searching for viable alternatives.

And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher
price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes.


> > Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel
> > sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the
> > oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make
> > good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives.


> I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't
> totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when
> the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative
> energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or
> environmental reasons is anyone's guess.


See above. It'll end up being a big ugly war. A war that no one will
win because all will be lost.

> >>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most.


> > Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the
> > forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes.


> Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the
> lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not
> endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I
> don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be
> money or cheese.


Mike, I'm not talking about only compensating the poor or the middle
class or whoever. I'm saying compensating *everyone* with some form(s)
of tax breaks for the increase in gas taxes.

> >>The reason I am so passionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
> >>them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
> >>local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
> >>seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
> >>is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
> >>disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
> >>through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
> >>haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
> >>think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by offering
> >>lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but I
> >>expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from
> >>people that can't afford it.


> > Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If
> > folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their
> > money to be ****ed away. But let's face the facts, most want a
> > "simple" way to fortune.


> If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so
> small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are
> just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a
> segment of the population that is poor.


Agreed.

> They just don't want to work, period.


Agreed, again.

> This is why I have a problem with just handing out government assistance
> without requiring results. There are a small group of people that will make
> a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the taxpayer, or the
> people that truly need assistance, to let these people be leaches. This is
> why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't work. It entices people
> to become dependent instead of self sufficient.


And agreed again. But I'm not talking about gas taxing everyone and
giving the proceeds to the poor or lazy. I'm talking about giving
*everyone* other tax breaks for the added tax on fuel.

> Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a
> government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes,
> "Whatever you subsidize your create more of it".


And I'd be subsidzing the search for viable alternative fuel sources.

> >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
> >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
> >>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
> >>and more often than not the Presidency?


> > They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket?
> > Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden.


> Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and
> in no way fit the stereotype you just stated.


Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the
religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because
the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger.

> I am self employed and
> haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is
> because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's
> chance in hell of winning an election.


Mike, elections have become popularity contests. I don't buy for a
minute that the Republicans have a lock on anything. All it takes is
the "right candidate" and good PR/spin team around him/her to build an
image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and
company are the best PR/spin team around.

> I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about
> conservative economic issues.


The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's
been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending.

> I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting
> Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I
> know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this
> country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint.


Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary,
liberal sounds pretty darn good.

> Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote
> out and all the corporate CEO's voted.


He won because of what's going on in the Middle East. The folks on the
fence didn't want to see a whole new team try to formulate a whole new
game to win. They figured they didn't want to throw a monkey wrench in
things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can
finish/fix what they started.

> He got them because a vast
> majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun
> control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats.


Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty darn good job with the
economy. Taxes weren't out of control. He was fiscally
responsible/conservative and had us running in the black. Bush on the
other hand has us bleeding red ink, and it appears, for a long time to
come. Gay marrige is hotter subject now than it has ever been. And as
far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
shotguns for quail hunting.

> The majority of
> the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes
> to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday
> lives to name a few.


See above. For the record, I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I
see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday
lives" together.

> Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in all ethnic
> and gender groups from the 2000 election.


> No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54
> million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional
> Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it
> should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than
> anyone thought possible.


Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and
company shouldn't get smug.

> >>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes.


> > They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
> > little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
> > they don't have the funds for.


> IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a
> higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other
> developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and
> still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first.


I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes.

> If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional.


WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in
Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars?

> At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax
> revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and
> reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral.


Mike, you've taken the ball and ran it out of the stadium. I'm only
saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative
fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying.

> >>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here
> >>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there
> >>property taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of
> >>the local government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local
> >>taxes. Theaverage person is starting to see what is being done to them
> >>from a tax standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I
> >>believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how
> >>they are taxed.


> > Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
> > paid.


> Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off.


You're right, not at this rate.

> >>Well, I feel better after that rant.


> > Me too.


> Feels good, huh?


Yes, it does.

Thanks for the conversation!

Patrick
'93 Cobra

  #18  
Old August 25th 05, 04:18 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


lab~rat wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:16:04 -0400, ZombyWoof >
> puked:


> >Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
> >not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
> >our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
> >amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
> >already don't pay taxes either.

>
> How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
> Saturday delivery? In fact, Monday - Wednesday - Friday delivery
> would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other
> delivery services already working...


You know that's a DAMN good idea!

Patrick
'93 Cobra

  #19  
Old August 25th 05, 04:34 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hank wrote:

> Go back to insulting the grieving mother of a dead soldier.
> That's more your speed...


While I agree with much that you say, I don't agree with this. Her son
was an *adult* who knew the risk and accepted that risk. While she has
every right to object to war, to use her son's death as some sort of
justification for us to pull out, is a damn joke. The bottom line is
her son died doing what *he* thought was right.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

  #20  
Old August 25th 05, 06:05 AM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hank, unfortunately you are the classic "Bush Hater" of which the left
seems to have an over abundance. I'm going to spare ramfm a long
diatribe with you because there's great odds that we will NEVER agree
politically on ANYTHING. You said your piece and I said mine. Let's
leave it at that.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anyone know whats needed for 2.7 to 3.2 conversion? Koolaid Dodge 4 November 15th 05 04:00 AM
Technicians needed !! mikesmobile Technology 0 December 27th 04 07:59 PM
Austin Mini A/C Problem and general assistance needed B. Antique cars 3 July 6th 04 05:24 AM
What tools are needed to change a tire? Doc General 7 May 29th 04 06:46 PM
Classic Cars Needed For Oldies Show 8/16 Long Beach! Thomas Haney Antique cars 0 August 12th 03 05:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.