Lucky... 0 #26 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You know, I think I will start hating Obama now. I'm glad I could be a part of your Obama-hate coming out of the closet. Nope, not out of the closet, I didn't hate him before. but so many ass hats have told me I do, I started hating him today. Glad we coild be of service to you so you could find your real self. Not my real self, the Obama hating projected self you gave me. You should be proud. You must hate him too. He is a fuck head after all Oh, so I have somehow caused you to hate Obama? Transgressive, aren't we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 October 30, 2009 QuoteAlright, I done hating him, Too much work. You keep telling people to hate him if you want to but I done. I will go back to trying to help stop his agenda Yes, I want him to fail Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pontiacgtp00 0 #28 October 30, 2009 Speaking of cash for clunkers...I dropped by the salvage yard the other day and the place was absolutely packed with cars and trucks from the cash for clunkers deal. Most were decent looking, most would normally sell for 2000 - 3500. Each vehicle that was rated at less than 18mpg was ran without oil until the engines seized. Mostly trucks and SUV's....sad. Maybe it will drive up the value of the ones that are left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 October 30, 2009 QuoteSpeaking of cash for clunkers...I dropped by the salvage yard the other day and the place was absolutely packed with cars and trucks from the cash for clunkers deal. Most were decent looking, most would normally sell for 2000 - 3500. Each vehicle that was rated at less than 18mpg was ran without oil until the engines seized. Mostly trucks and SUV's....sad. Maybe it will drive up the value of the ones that are left. Yea, if those are clunkers, what's with my POS? I really hated to see the trucks, esp the s-10 trucks replaced by those ghey Colorado's, what POS and a 5 cylinder; WTF is that, a bastardized Volvo? I think they drained the oil and put some kind of lgass in them until they seized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #30 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAlright, I done hating him, Too much work. You keep telling people to hate him if you want to but I done. I will go back to trying to help stop his agenda Yes, I want him to fail Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 October 31, 2009 QuoteOf course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlright, I done hating him, Too much work. You keep telling people to hate him if you want to but I done. I will go back to trying to help stop his agenda Yes, I want him to fail Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach I see your point, but his plans are for lowering unemployment, continuing market growth, continuing GDP, bringing jobs here, etc. I see how your argument could work in relation to HC, but not to the larger overall economic issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteOf course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOf course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 October 31, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Of course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data. Right, this is a carryover from another thread(s), you and your ghost data that came "from the same place as I got mine." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 October 31, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Of course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data. Right, this is a carryover from another thread(s), you and your ghost data that came "from the same place as I got mine." That's right, it did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 October 31, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Of course, the assumption is that Edmunds analysis is (a) accurate, and (b) unbiased. Both of those are very dubious assumptions. And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data. Right, this is a carryover from another thread(s), you and your ghost data that came "from the same place as I got mine." That's right, it did. But you never posted a source, in your running away. That's like mailing it in with anything. You can't mail it in, think about if you were an attorney and you tried to convince people by saying, "where my opposition got his information - that's where I got mine." Game, set, match - you lose, just like here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 October 31, 2009 QuoteBut you never posted a source, in your running away. That's like mailing it in with anything. You can't mail it in, think about if you were an attorney and you tried to convince people by saying, "where my opposition got his information - that's where I got mine." Game, set, match - you lose, just like here. Two very important differences: 1. This isn't court. 2. I don't give a fuck if you say "I lost" or not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut you never posted a source, in your running away. That's like mailing it in with anything. You can't mail it in, think about if you were an attorney and you tried to convince people by saying, "where my opposition got his information - that's where I got mine." Game, set, match - you lose, just like here. Two very important differences: 1. This isn't court. 2. I don't give a fuck if you say "I lost" or not. QuoteI don't give a fuck... That's clear by the way you create and support your arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't give a fuck... That's clear by the way you create and support your arguments. Nice selective editing, Lucky...which is why you're not worth the effort to debate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't give a fuck... That's clear by the way you create and support your arguments. Nice selective editing, Lucky...which is why you're not worth the effort to debate. By your standard, no one is, you just blurt out whatever works, you rarely cite any source and when you do it's some extremist RW site. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 October 31, 2009 Quotesome extremist RW site. Of course they are...they don't carry Obama's water so they MUST be biased, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuotesome extremist RW site. Of course they are...they don't carry Obama's water so they MUST be biased, right? They have derogatory pictures of Dems, obviously nutty cult sites, fine, but reference, hardly. What's laughable is that you think you can slide this shit past me and others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotesome extremist RW site. Of course they are...they don't carry Obama's water so they MUST be biased, right? They have derogatory pictures of Dems, obviously nutty cult sites, fine, but reference, hardly. What's laughable is that you think you can slide this shit past me and others. Yeah, you're right - I should have gone with a geocities site.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotesome extremist RW site. Of course they are...they don't carry Obama's water so they MUST be biased, right? They have derogatory pictures of Dems, obviously nutty cult sites, fine, but reference, hardly. What's laughable is that you think you can slide this shit past me and others. Yeah, you're right - I should have gone with a geocities site. #1 did I ever use a geocities site? #2 whomevr may have used one, does geocities have a bias? Again, I don't ever recall using one, post where I have or strike up your beef with another person who may have. Until then, no more nutty bias sites like the one you posted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #46 October 31, 2009 what a great program it allowed me to dispose of a polluting SUV that was worth about $1800, sold the tires/wheels for $300 (swapped with someone that had bare tires), sold the head unit for $100, then went to the dealer and got a real nice ride the leather still smells new thank you everyone for your donation Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #47 October 31, 2009 funny when Bush put out huge tax breaks to buy massive gas-guzzlers back after 9/11, few complained, yet they sold tons and tons of new vehicles. Is this any different? Let me see, government puts up an incentive program to buy shit, which in one way or another gives you some of your money back. And guess what, people go out and buy shit. wow. Do we need it? I doubt it. Did we need it in 2001 (or whenever it was)? I doubt it. "The world is going to end when GM goes under" Heard it too many times already. GM WENT UNDER, and then came back out as a new company, I think in 3 weeks wasn't it? The world did not end. EVERYONE, including current & previous administrations could learn from this. But I doubt it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #48 October 31, 2009 It was to me!! I got $4,500 for the American-made POS (2002 Ford Explorer) that needed a new transmission after only 90k mi./ 7yrs. Suffice it to say that in this life I won't consider/ buy another American-branded (Ford, GM, Chrysler) car. My money went to Japan Inc. instead. In hindsight, it was perfect timing. Had the transmission blown two months earlier/ later, I would have really been out-of-luck. P.S.: Ruled out American women a long time ago: also, too much money for too little. QuoteClunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm No way it was worth $24000 a car. Like the rest of obama's economic plan, to much money for to little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 October 31, 2009 Here's a variant of the C4C I wholly back: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-astor/trading-in-republicans-vi_b_249904.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 October 31, 2009 QuoteSpeaking of cash for clunkers...I dropped by the salvage yard the other day and the place was absolutely packed with cars and trucks from the cash for clunkers deal. Most were decent looking, most would normally sell for 2000 - 3500. Each vehicle that was rated at less than 18mpg was ran without oil until the engines seized. Mostly trucks and SUV's....sad. Maybe it will drive up the value of the ones that are left. It's Sodium Silicate: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atGyvjeWv3wg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
