Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no you havn't. you've attempted to reduce my arguement to the very few portions that you felt as though you could respond to without having to re-examine your own thought process. you are very transparent.
in this segment, it was explained to you how life doesn't necessarilly fit into the black and white boxes of categorization through which you view the world. it was explained through personal life experience how a small, fuel efficient car may not suit everyone's needs. your response: "Good for you." fail to answer what area you live in; urban, rural, suburban, cold/snowy, hot, temperate; grey out all potentially enlightening explanation; and write, "Good for you."
well, i'm still not sure why you felt i would need to see a Wikipedia page about the Dodge Durango. i mean, i own one, so i'm fairly familiar with it.
as far as the graphic images of vehicles that have been (uceremoniously?)
and what is this clunker problem that you speak of? my Dodge Durango (a 1998 model, btw) is well maintained and in great condition. are you saying that repair parts will become unavailable now that the model is no longer in production? do you think the Ford dealership stocks parts for my '68 Mustang coupe? they still make Mustangs, so they must, right?
intellectual dishonesty is the true mark of a lying ass, fake ideologue who doesnt even believe in what she's spouting. so, i guess the whole point of your original contribution to this thread was for you to come here and try to feel like you're smarter than everyone else. (total backfire, btw)
alright, Miss Intelectual Dishonesty, lets try it this way:
this is what you said:
those were your words. what did you mean by compensate for 'something'? you meant it in a genreral sense, right? right. or maybe you meant to compensate for their lack of prowess at sports? we all know what you meant and so do you. dont even bother responding to this because for you to respond honestly would mean to concede that i am correct and you have been caught engaging in intellectual dishonesty. we all know it, so lets just not bother saying it.
to be honest, it was just plain to see that you were a political ideologue based on the narrow-mindedness that came through in your posts. furthermore, based on your latest post, i beleive that you are a woman, and probably a lesbian. if that is the case, then that's great. i have no problem with gay people. if i am incorrect, then, that's fine too. i've been wrong before.
is that so? what about the point that if it were under my control, the market would be flooded with fuel efficient vehicles. and that the United States government should aggressively research alternative energy so that the oil companies can be told to take a hike. but, i guess those ideas were not deserving of further discussion or energy. some envronmentalist you are. probably the only topic that is worth discussion and energy is what a smart and clever girl you are.
^^^ this is just an idea for how your next post should read. believe me, you will appear a bigger person, and a lot more honest and wise than if you try and formulate some sort of retort. (which i will disect, piece by piece)
(Someone has waaaay too much time on their hands.)
You're kidding me right? Who do you think is going to go through all of that, except you.
From a sample of your previous posts, with others on other topics,
1 - YOU DO APPEAR TO HAVE A PENCHANT FOR PENIS SIZE DISCUSSIONS....according to you...
"...it sounds like what you really want to do is compare penis size and are therefore calling out everyone who society has, through ongoing feminization, allowed to be deemed as engaging in some form of penile substitution. well, i beleive youre barking up the wrong tree. nobody here is interested in the size of your schlong....09-24-2009, 01:50 PM
2 - SUBJECTIVE/CONDESCENDING, PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE ALSO A PART OF YOUR M.O...according to you...
"...you have taste for **** when it comes to movies...." 10-02-2009, 12:01 AM
"...you sound ignorant...dont hate on MMA because people have lost interest in boxing. you sound like an ass.... 02-25-2009, 07:42 AM
"....you are a joke!.." 02-22-2009, 07:50 PM
3 - RIDICULOUS LEAPS TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS, ARE USED TO SUPPORT YOUR FAULTY BELIEFS..according to you...
"...i am assuming that youre a female. this is based on the fact that youre interested in an H3." ...07-23-2009, 04:17 PM
It's easy to conclude that exchanges with you can quickly become unproductive, particularly as they go, unfortunately, severely off-topic.
You should have listened to jc76....
"....Your a real mans man! Xanax will help you..."
sayonora? so, that's your "out," right? you dont think that it's plain how transparent that is? see, your problem is that all one has to do is go back and review our posts leading up to this. you think it isnt clear that you've made no point or argument? do you think that by saying "sayonora" and have a nice life, people will buy into the idea that you're the bigger person?
Quote:
(Someone has waaaay too much time on their hands.)
you say I have too much time on my hands, and then you do a search of all of my posts (going back almost a year, i might add) looking for 'mean things i've said.' wow, that's really interesting.
Quote:
You're kidding me right? Who do you think is going to go through all of that, except you.
well, i would think, anyone who has time to go thru a year of past posts trying to drudge up argumentative statements. so, you're telling me you didnt have two minutes to read my last post, but you had time to go through at least nine months of my posting history? how long did that take? now, who's kidding who?
so, you are saying that you would have us believe that you did not bother reading my last post, right? that is so typical of a political ideologue - to not even want to hear another point of view. to essentially cut one's self off from information that doesnt follow a particular ideology, and then (as you demonstrate below) refer to small sound-bites taken out of context. how very Fox News-worthy.
Quote:
From a sample of your previous posts, with others on other topics,
1 - YOU DO APPEAR TO HAVE A PENCHANT FOR PENIS SIZE DISCUSSIONS....according to you...
"...it sounds like what you really want to do is compare penis size and are therefore calling out everyone who society has, through ongoing feminization, allowed to be deemed as engaging in some form of penile substitution. well, i beleive youre barking up the wrong tree. nobody here is interested in the size of your schlong....09-24-2009, 01:50 PM
yeah. some nimrod made the exact same stupid comment that you made and i gave him the exact same response. i stand by it. i think i even got a couple of reps for that.
Quote:
2 - SUBJECTIVE/CONDESCENDING, PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE ALSO A PART OF YOUR M.O...according to you...
"...you have taste for **** when it comes to movies...." 10-02-2009, 12:01 AM
"...you sound ignorant...dont hate on MMA because people have lost interest in boxing. you sound like an ass.... 02-25-2009, 07:42 AM
"....you are a joke!.." 02-22-2009, 07:50 PM
Quote:
3 - RIDICULOUS LEAPS TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS, ARE USED TO SUPPORT YOUR FAULTY BELIEFS..according to you...
"...i am assuming that youre a female. this is based on the fact that youre interested in an H3." ...07-23-2009, 04:17 PM
that is so "political smear add" the way you dug up a bunch of old posts and then use them out of context. i find it absolutely hillarious that you did that, and even more so that you thought it would work to further your argument.
and i stand by each and every statement that you've referenced.
Quote:
It's easy to conclude that exchanges with you can quickly become unproductive,
is it? that's uncanny the way youre able to come to such a conclusion, given that you dont even read my posts.
Quote:
particularly as they go, unfortunately, severely off-topic.
yeah. like this thread, for example. hey, who was it that turned this thread about ugly cars into a political debate? speaking of staying on topic, you cant even keep a train of thought:
notice how in your last transparent argument that i took apart piece by piece, you did not address the arguments made against you.
notice how in your latest thread, you again, in no way address any argument made against you, but you rather, claim not to have read the arguments against you and go off and drudge up a few 'sound-bites' to suggest i'm just a mean person.
you remind me of Sarah Palin at the VP debates. "dog gone it, i'm not gonna answer your questions, Joe. i'm here to talk about drill baby drill !"
Quote:
You should have listened to jc76....
"....Your a real mans man! Xanax will help you..."
i should have listened to who? i dont get what you or jc76, if that is his real name, are talking about. "i'm a real man's man" - i'll go ahead and agree with that part, but Xanax is an anxiety drug isnt it? what makes you people think i'm suffering from anxiety?
anyway, it would appear that (typical of an ideologue) you are good for making an arguement, but when it comes to the follow-up questions...not so much. and when the follow up questions come - you change the subject.
I don't like all the outside body parts made out of that black plastic. It turns Grey, and starts disintegrating in just a short time. Plastic is OK, I guess, but give it some paint to protect it from UV degradation at least.
my most hated automotive trend is this: GM, particularly Pontiac's new line of performance vehicles. i.e. boring, ugly, sedans with performance car engines. for example, the Dodge Charger - a slap in the face to anyone who remembers the 68-70 Chargers. any late model Impala with a V-8, even if it is RWD. let's not forget about the mecifully now defunct GTO. and worst of all IMO, the Pontiac G8. yuck! my blood boils every time i see that god damned Grand Am with with that stupid damned ram air hood. yeah, that's what we need are ram air hoods on four-door utilitarian sedans. let's just beat the success of the 1998-2002 Trans Am WS6 hood into the dirt by putting it on everything immaginable.
but, Linson, the G8 is a great performing car, and it makes 375 HP, and it can do this and it can do that and its uuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnggggggggggghhh...... --shut your mouth! you know nothing of sports cars. if you drop an LS1 or an LS2 into anything, it's gonna have a respectable level of performance, period. if GM wasnt so corperate (i.e. soulless) and that what those G8's and others are - soulless - they would design a new Firebird, or a GTO worthy of the name, or imagine this - an all new sports car, with an all new heritage. nah, they would never do that.
historically, a GM backer, i will say that Ford did it right with the new Mustang, and for that i give Ford credit. 300 HP & 320 TQ from a high reving 281 ci motor, and great styling, and an awesome muscle car sound, for under 30K. oh, yeah, and a huge after market.
word ot the day - purpose-built performance car.
Cars have been going down hill ever since they first started to downsize back in 1977. Remember how beautiful the full size Grand Prix's were? Then in 1978, GM came out with a completely square box and put the Grand Prix name on it. When I look back at the AMC Pacer, and how people ridiculed that car, I don't think anyone suspected how much uglier cars were about to get. The Pacer was actually very stylish compared to cars made later on.
Why did GM, Ford and Chrysler assume that people wanted American cars to look more German or Japanese?? We liked them the way they were! But, some people with a lot of money wanted something even more expensive, and didn't care if a car looked plain and non-descript. That's why Mercedes or BMW sold. Look how the American car companies are giving their models "numbers" and "letters" instead of an actual name. Such as the Lincoln MKZ. What about the name "MKZ" is going to make you even want to consider buying this vehicle?? A Pontiac "G8", what's the matter, they couldn't brush off the old Le Mans name or maybe Tempest or somthing like that? Why did GM have to make the Corvette look more like an exotic Italian sports car? Of course, the car still has that up to date cheap GM look to it anyway. The new Camaro is a dissappointment; look at the back end, this car was not make streamlined enough---but, its an improvement, at least there IS a Camaro now, at least for a while. I wouldn't complain about the Dodge Charger! No way, that's the best thing Chrysler has designed in decades, even if it doesn't look as nice as the originals back in 1970.
That is probably the last of anyone's worries. People have been mixing motor/engine for decades. I could bring up the same issue about "rims" because they are actually wheels. The rim would just be the outer portion of the wheel and in most cases I don't believe you could buy those separately.
Cars have been going down hill ever since they first started to downsize back in 1977. Remember how beautiful the full size Grand Prix's were? Then in 1978, GM came out with a completely square box and put the Grand Prix name on it. When I look back at the AMC Pacer, and how people ridiculed that car, I don't think anyone suspected how much uglier cars were about to get. The Pacer was actually very stylish compared to cars made later on.
Why did GM, Ford and Chrysler assume that people wanted American cars to look more German or Japanese?? We liked them the way they were! But, some people with a lot of money wanted something even more expensive, and didn't care if a car looked plain and non-descript. That's why Mercedes or BMW sold. Look how the American car companies are giving their models "numbers" and "letters" instead of an actual name. Such as the Lincoln MKZ. What about the name "MKZ" is going to make you even want to consider buying this vehicle?? A Pontiac "G8", what's the matter, they couldn't brush off the old Le Mans name or maybe Tempest or somthing like that? Why did GM have to make the Corvette look more like an exotic Italian sports car? Of course, the car still has that up to date cheap GM look to it anyway. The new Camaro is a dissappointment; look at the back end, this car was not make streamlined enough---but, its an improvement, at least there IS a Camaro now, at least for a while. I wouldn't complain about the Dodge Charger! No way, that's the best thing Chrysler has designed in decades, even if it doesn't look as nice as the originals back in 1970.
it has alot to do with aero dynamics since they try to get as many mpgs as they can the styling is stuck with the modren egg shape to get the most interior space. I don't like the look of the charger they ruined it with 4 doors the challenger is really nice but it is too big and heavy to run with the camaro and once ford brings back the 400HP 5.0 it will be mustang vs. camaro rivalry
it has alot to do with aero dynamics since they try to get as many mpgs as they can the styling is stuck with the modren egg shape to get the most interior space. I don't like the look of the charger they ruined it with 4 doors the challenger is really nice but it is too big and heavy to run with the camaro and once ford brings back the 400HP 5.0 it will be mustang vs. camaro rivalry
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!"
