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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: > >>>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate > >>>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would > >>>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade, > >>>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy? > >>>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I > >>>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went > >>>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming > >>>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I want him to > >>>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the > >>>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly > >>>> conservative principles. > >>> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as > >>> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're > >>> telling us he's the best choice they/we have? > >> ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are > >> making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in > >> 2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough. > > And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. But the > > Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's > > war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners. > > It's crap. And they're back at it again this year with Obama. A > > hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American, > > Muslim and elitist. And people, once again, are taking the garbage, > > hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and > > are willing to swallow the reel. It pains me to watch/see it happen, > > again. > Both sides are presenting their arguments and it is up to us to decide > who wins the most points. But that's the thing. The talking heads on the 24-hour news networks are not presenting "arguments". They're doing biased propaganda/bull **** instead of presenting intellectually-based information. What they deliver instead is some hot head "news" host carefully selecting wacky guests to present the other side. Then he controls the "discussion" demeans them/yells/calls them names -- like pinhead -- and then finishes with "tune in tomorrow for another 'fair and balanced' report." > The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote > their way are stupid. And the righties are clannish. > We are in a situation of once again voting > against the other guy and not for someone. Person-wise I like both candidates this time around. My beef is rewarding the Republicans for the last 8 years. > Before you get too involved in trashing the Republicans and their > tactics you need to look into how Obama won his first election in > Chicago. He forced his competition off the ballet through slimy legal > maneuvering. He is far from the "pure as the driven snow" politician > his handlers present to the public. I'll have to research this. Hopefully, it's not a FauOX news "report". I think McCain is pretty clean in this regard. I just don't like his handlers this go around. But I'm hoping, if he gets elected, that the maverick comes out of him and he tells them to go F themselves. > How do you justify Obama sitting in a church that preached racism and > Black Liberation Theology? And look at the religious extremists the Republicans have courted over the years. The only difference is that their skin color is white. > Now he either believes in the Rev. Wrights > views or he stayed there for political gain and let his children be > indoctrinated in this BS. As for him being a Muslim, that depends on > your religious beliefs and point of view. He is actually a REFORMED > Muslim since he attended Muslim schools for a few years and his father > is Muslim. At one time he was a Muslim and this is undeniable fact. Like I said before, who cares? Why is being a Muslim a bad thing? And is it better or worse than being a Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, atheist? Seems you're scared that he's going to form terrorist training camps and attack the US from the inside or something. Please. He's an American. I'm pretty sure there's been enough people vouch for his character over the years and passed enough background checks for him to be this close to the presidency. > The Republicans are only pointing out his political leanings Yea, by making up some weird-ass story about a scary "terrorist fist jab". > and the > FACT he has hardly any relevant experience to qualify him for the job of > president. Saying this is attacking him just isn't true. Yes, mentioning political experience is a consideration. But then again, the Three Stooges' -- Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney -- experience didn't help much. > Obama had > hoped that he could use the fact he is black to bully anyone from > criticizing him in any way. Did he? Or is this what FauOX thinks? > Well that just won't fly with the majority > of Americans. All Obama is attempting to do is suppress the truth about > his voting record and past in any manner possible because he can't deny it. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
"dwight" > wrote in
: > "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message > . .. >> dwight wrote: >>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message >>> . .. >>>> >>>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid. >>> >>> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional >>> thinking. >>> >>> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white, >>> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman, >>> us-them kind of mindset. >>> >>> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps, >>> so we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from >>> the wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling >>> lines. >>> >>> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the >>> other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking >>> the eternal question, "What the ****?" >> >> Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with >> that is apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the >> edges. It is discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population >> make the other 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite >> us as a species is for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us >> with the intent of annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us >> that will side with the aliens and I bet they will be the >> politicians. > > Substitute "nazis" for "aliens," and you'll see the truth of that. > > It was when my children were of school age that I began to notice (and > regret) that the public school system was aimed squarely at the > 50-percentile. > > It is no accident that television programming is geared toward a 12 > year old mentality. > > Politicians also play to the same bell curve. "Change," without any > real definition. Or, hell, the every-four-years constitutional > amendment against some outrage against society, like flag burning or > gay marriage. > > But the broader the brush, the more distorted the image. As long as we > have (virtually) only two political parties, both sides will pander to > the largest possible constituency. This results in campaigns without > substance, fear of taking a real stance on anything remotely > controversial. We know what the party's ideals are, but we won't get a > candidate who represents them (either party). > > The voting public is so evenly split, that both candidates have to do > all they can to attract those just across the center, in addition to > their own power base, WITHOUT losing the fanatical wing of their own > parties. That's a public tightrope walk, and one slip means lost > votes. > > In a sense, the two-party system and the nature of campaigns (and > financing), by definition, means that those elected to office are > deathly afraid to actually DO anything. As we see in every campaign, > every vote cast while in office is recorded and rehashed, and can be > twisted to have a variety of meanings. > > I laugh when I hear candidates for President talk about money - taxing > or spending, since they can't very well usurp the powers of Congress > when they get elected. Talk all you want, candidates, but know that > you'll be working with a Congress just FULL of people who are afraid > to make a mistake (or take a position). Unless there is a HUGE popular > groundswell to support action, nothing gets done. > > Good luck, Obama. Good luck, McCain. Make your speeches, pander to the > good citizens, gather ye voters while ye may. For tomorrow, you, too, > will be stuck in the Oval Office, complaining about a do-nothing > Congress and how you can't get anything on your agenda DONE. > > If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the > one-man/one-vote thing. > > dwight There ya go. What we really need is a benevolent dictatorship. While I'm on a roll, here's an idea for your consideration (although it will never really happen): Legalize marijuana under the same premise as alcohol, and tax the hell out of it. It's something that can actually bring this country back to financial prosperity. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
Two points:
I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post- graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After graduating from Columbia he slacked for four years. He had to work hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three years of your life. Practicing attorneys work two or three times harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed of doing in law school. Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them. Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished lecturer at the University of Chicago. I went to law school too (O went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors. Slackers, most of them, through and through. Particularly in Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the amazement and admiration of their adoring students. But it's a very low level of intellectual activity. The ground is very well plowed. That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal scholarship. On that metric Obama is a nobody. He did not publish anyting. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law school. He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. Not to mention an affirmative action hire. He put in his time in the lecture hall and that was it. A slacker. The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. A slacker through and through. Point two: just what are the advantages to foregoing the development of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a CO2-based society. That is not going to change in this century. We either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad, or reduce our consumption. The wise choice is to strike a balance between all three legs of this stool. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this wisdom. What are the benefits of their foolishness? I can see none. And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September 8. Write it down. What will you think of them then? "Saving the planet," indeed. 180 Out On Aug 9, 10:37*pm, wrote: > On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote: > > > > > >>> I like McCain. *But I would have to wait to see who his running mate > > >>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would > > >>> take out of him. *If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade, > > >>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy? > > >> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. *I > > >> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went > > >> through as a POW. *His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming > > >> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. *I want him to > > >> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the > > >> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly > > >> conservative principles. > > > Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as > > > a POW made him mentally unstable. *And we bought it. *So now they're > > > telling us he's the best choice they/we have? > > ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? *You are > > making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in > > 2000. *IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough. > > And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. *But the > Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's > war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners. > It's crap. *And they're back at it again this year with Obama. *A > hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American, > Muslim and elitist. *And people, once again, are taking the garbage, > hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and > are willing to swallow the reel. * It pains me to watch/see it happen, > again. > > > *He got it > > this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative > > candidates. > > Romney is a Mormon, > > Like this even matters. *So he's a Mormon... big deal. *These > Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!! > > *> Rudy had **** poor strategy, > > Agreed > > > Huckabee is a preacher, > > I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the > top. > > > Fred didn't want it bad enough, > > Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair. > > > and McCain managed to win > > NH and Florida. *When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary > > try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. *Then when the > > Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver > > the top. *Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the > > best chance of winning in November of them all. > > > And the Democrats are the demons... > > Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want. > > I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra. > > > > > >>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is > > >>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the > > >>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of > > >>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he > > >>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from > > >>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws > > >>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge > > >>>> in a walk. *In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have > > >>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good > > >>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without > > >>>> any input whatsoever *on the part of the affected industries. *How the > > >>>> f**k is that a good idea? *It's nuts. > > >>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they > > >>> done for our country's industrial base? *In a word, nothing. > > >> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal > > >> candidates at us election after election. *Bill Clinton didn't run as a > > >> liberal and he got two terms. > > > Liberal. *Find a Websters. *Gotta love how the Republicans repackage > > > words. > > ..... just like the Democrats. *Face it, liberals hate being called > > liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word. > > Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to > tease you with. *"You're a... ginglehopper." *Then starts laughing and > thinks they've really got something on you. *You just smile and say, > "boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that." > > > > > >>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a > > >>> bi-partisan cabinet. > > >> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. *At best he is a blank slate and for me > > >> that makes him too risky to be president. *He is a loaf of bread that > > >> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. *Just > > >> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way > > >> needed to run the country. *Have you really watched him when he hasn't > > >> got a teleprompter? *The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess. > > >> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the > > >> point I can't listen to him for long. > > > Ever listen to Bush? *And we elected his dumb ass. *And McCain's > > > speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering > > > his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. *In comparison, > > > Obama is light years ahead of these two. > > Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider > > qualifications to be president. *So anyone that doesn't have a silver > > tongue is disqualified? > > Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important. > > > *Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter? > > The guy is a bumbling mess. *If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary > > he would have a mental meltdown. > > Sure. *A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. *One of _this country's_ > best and brightest. > > For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a > Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for > some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is > off just smidgen. > > > *Hitler was a great speaker so that > > made him a great leader? > > Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. *He's > already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. *Care to explain how that > is? > > > >> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually > > >> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political > > >> messiah we have been waiting for. *In reality he is just the latest > > >> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros > > >> is trying to con us into electing president. *The only thing that > > >> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin > > >> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
> "dwight" > wrote in
>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the >> one-man/one-vote thing. >> >> dwight Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others. Smacks of Animal Farm. Scott W. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
On Aug 12, 10:31 am, wrote:
> Two points: > I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post- > graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After > graduating from Columbia he slacked for four years. He had to work > hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three > years of your life. Practicing attorneys work two or three times > harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed of doing > in law school. Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his > classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them. From Wiki. Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition.[17] In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.[18] Obama's election in February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[18] He graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and returned to Chicago where he had worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. > Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished > lecturer at the University of Chicago. I went to law school too (O > went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by > U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors. > Slackers, most of them, through and through. Particularly in > Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks > they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the > amazement and admiration of their adoring students. But it's a very > low level of intellectual activity. The ground is very well plowed. > That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal > scholarship. On that metric Obama is a nobody. He did not publish > anything. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law > school. He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. Not to mention > an affirmative action hire. He put in his time in the lecture hall > and that was it. A slacker. Obama directed Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[21][22] In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[11][24] Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[11][25] He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993– 2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994–2002.[11] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[11] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center. > The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. > A slacker through and through. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[26] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[27] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low- income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[28] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[29] and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations. And now, at just age 46, is running for President of the United States. Yep, no ambition, no drive... what a slacker. > Point two: just what are the advantages to foregoing the development > of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a > CO2-based society. That is not going to change in this century. Correct. As long as the fossil fuels can just undercut the price of any developing alternatives. > We either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad, Agreed. But the point is we're not going to drill ourselves to independence. Supply goes up, price goes down, alternatives take a back seat. An interesting article. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipelin...nsumption.html > or reduce our consumption. That doesn't happen when oil is cheap. Hell, the recent surge in prices didn't really change habits until we neared the 4-buck-a-gallon mark. > The wise choice is to strike a balance > between all three legs of this stool. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry > Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this > wisdom. What are the benefits of their foolishness? I can see none. We have an addiction to oil, but be keep resorting to feeding it. > And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going > to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September > 8. Write it down. What will you think of them then? "Saving the > planet," indeed. Some unrelated to your post, but related to this thread info. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp Patrick |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:58:32 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote: wrote: > > On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: SNIP > >I am very frustrated with politicians across the board. The problem is >that neither side seems truly interested in solving our problems and >they have proven this to us decade after decade by their inaction. Why >the public allows this to happen election after election is a true >mystery to me. Kick a dog (or voter) enough times and he'll either cower in fear, bite, or give up and take it every time it comes. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)
Spike wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:58:32 -0400, Michael Johnson > > wrote: > >> wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: > SNIP >> I am very frustrated with politicians across the board. The problem is >> that neither side seems truly interested in solving our problems and >> they have proven this to us decade after decade by their inaction. Why >> the public allows this to happen election after election is a true >> mystery to me. > > Kick a dog (or voter) enough times and he'll either cower in fear, > bite, or give up and take it every time it comes. There are a huge number of voters, IMO, that are waiting for a decent third party or independent candidate. The tide against the two party system is rising and there are circumstances just off the horizon that will be the catalyst to bring about a true independent movement. The pending baby boom retirement is one, the inaction on a coherent national energy plan is another and the increasing instances of politicians thinking they are royalty (John Edwards is the latest example) are going to bring about a slow mutiny in the next 10-20 years. Or at least I hope it will. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)
"Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
... >> "dwight" > wrote in >>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the >>> one-man/one-vote thing. >>> >>> dwight > > Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the idea > that there are some of us MORE equal than others. > > Smacks of Animal Farm. > > Scott W. When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that there are still something like 11% UNDECIDED... Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between the two viable candidates? dwight |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Front.jpg 255893 bytes | HEMI-Powered@[email protected] | Auto Photos | 0 | April 23rd 08 01:02 PM |
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Back.jpg 242202 bytes | HEMI-Powered@[email protected] | Auto Photos | 0 | April 23rd 08 01:01 PM |
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. | [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | January 23rd 05 08:35 AM |
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. | [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | January 23rd 05 08:31 AM |
New place to buy and sell muscle cars on the net. | [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | January 23rd 05 08:30 AM |