Geeto67

Again, tech doesn't beat looks. I must have had a dozen 200, and it's sister car the sebring convertible, rental cars over the years in various trims, and they were comfy, reliable, quiet, and user friendly. Not once did I ever think to myself "I want to own this", or "wow this interior is great looking", or "you know what, it doesn't look half bad". There were a couple of times where the build quality made me a little queasy, like when on 3 different cars the right side dash vent fell out after hitting a big bump. The one car that cemented my 200 hate was a red 2014 with 600 miles that rattled like a toolbox falling down stairs. I did have a 2015 200S awd that was probably the best 200 I ever drove, but still, wasn't enough to change my mind. Also, I don't know what it is with dodge's colors lately - they can't seem to get a red or a blue that is mildly pleasing that isn't on a challenger. I don't know if hating the 200 constitutes Chrysler hate. the 300 is a great looking car, the charger is a great looking car, the challenger, the ram trucks, the durango...all great looking and working vehicles that they sell of ton of. I have seen the new pacifica around and honestly I hate mini-vans and I think it is good looking. but the 200. yawn.

That may have been because the 200 in general was an ugly car. Ive never known anyone to say "man' that Chrysler 200 looks sexy". It doesn't matter how great a car is, if it isn't at least visually inoffensive it isn't going anywhere. Good visual design can overcome more advanced tech (I'm pretty sure this is apple's business model when it comes to phones), but tech rarely can overcome ugly. The one thing the Buick has going for it is that is is genuinely a pretty car. Not sexy, but pretty. For some reason it looks to me like a Mazda product from a few years ago, which I also happen to think are good looking. The sedan market is phucked in general but who knows, can't sell any worse than the previous model.

Where is the fun in that?

The finish on those range rovers is usually so poor that I'm genuinely surprised that there is metallic in that black. Good job as always Tim. Your work is stellar.

If I have personally done anything that caused you, grant, to participate less here then I consider it as having done this forum a favor.

Not everyone is a 2 dimensional as you. Context is important here. I get that there are hard concepts for your deep as a kiddie pool view of politics but try to follow along. I am not a party person. I am not a democrat, I am a registered independent and have been since the 1990's. If the democrats were as compromised as the republican party current is they would deserve all the shit they would get. The reality is while they may suck at marketing, and have a hard time appealing to the working class, they still have their integrity as a party, something the GOP can't claim right now. I like senator McCain. I think over the course of his career he has been an asset to the senate. I feel this way because he has a history of understanding the right thing to do is preferrable to the party thing to do and has gone against his party when the situation called for it. He has an excellent history of bipartisan collaboration and isn't an obstructionist. He's probably one of the last old school republicans left in the GOP who doesn't have to rely on the ugly narrative of anti-Obama rhetoric (he's a Muslim, he's not born here, he's a socialist, etc...) that the other members of the GOP have stooped to. I have been disappointed by him since this mess started because he compromised his integrity. He went along with the Trump popularity train, he backed down when he had the opportunity to stand up, he even went "but her emails" at the comey hearing. This was a broken McCain. But now there is some light. With this vote there is some glimmer of the old McCain, the one whose spirit Trump and Pence and McConnell, and Ryan have broken. Maybe it took facing his mortality to do that. Either way, I'm glad he found his backbone. It's about fucking time.

in other news: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/obamacare-partial-repeal-senate-republicans-revolt.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news who knew that it would take brain cancer for John McCain to find his lost backbone.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking you to clarify. You said fake news but it looks like the dog actually had the surgery. So what's fake? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/pet-dog-has-sex-change-rare-operation-vets-discovered-hermaphrodite/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ntersex-pet-dog-molly-recovers-rare-gender-reassignment-surgery-jack-russell-hermaphrodite-male-a7703006.html https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/915307/dog-sex-swap-jack-russell-terrier-gender-reassignment-surgery-glasgow-ross-allan/ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39703329

I think, and I could be wrong, Dodge is giving better lease deals on almost all their products as compared to their same segment competitors in the market because they have a lot of inventory and need to move units. They are also the most creative in the leasing area giving really short term leases (1 year) and cash allowances to bring the msrp down. I think FCA actually may have one of the better leasing and finance departments in the auto industry when it comes to product development that moves units. although they don't seem to offer the "toy car" lease Chevy does (48months, 40K miles on a camaro SS and they call it the low mileage lease).

Are you saying it is fake news because it is the guardian? or because you think it's actually a joke article? Because Molly the dog appears to have actually had surgery. Although a matter of semantics since the dog was Intersex it could be considered gender assignment surgery.

Technically you don't need a lawyer to represent yourself pro-se in any legal situation. However GB is right it makes it much easier if you have one handling the paperwork. I imagine you would want a lawyer close to where you live. I don't know where you live but here is the Franklin County probate court website on guardianship: http://probate.franklincountyohio.gov/departments/Guardianship.cfm Please note: they will not grant guardianship for school purposes only. there is an information line you can call and ask about filing on your own without a lawyer: Guardianship Information Line (614) 525-3858

Advertised base (internet) price of a new camaro 1SS is supposed to be $37,995 so it's supposedly within $2900 of the mustang and below $40K. Can you get one for that cheap? it would probably take some work. I have to imagine that ford dealers are going to stock their inventory with optioned up $40K 2018 GT mustangs also so getting a stripper model under $40K in either car is going to be tough. Still I have heard of at least one stock bottom end stock headed LS camaro making 900hp so......

any LS powered camaro since 2010? Still I have to agree the current and new model mustangs are impressive.

tell that to all the focus RS's that are sitting on dealer lots because the "market adjustment" kept people away in droves: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/07/barks-bites-focus-rs-dead-dealers-blame/ I think people are really getting tired of the Dealer "market adjustment" scam, and in a downward trending economy like we are seeing in the automotive industry/hobby markup is going to be a hard thing to justify. Probably won't stop them though. reading through that article I am both impressed and a little leery at the amount of technology honda had to throw into this car to make it surpass an AWD or RWD performance platform. A steering knuckle that adjusts to torque steer? feels both innovative and complicated. also can someone explain to me why the 370Z is in this hunt? Do people really cross shop an STI, a type R and a Z car?

I can only get so hard...

As far as I know, residential custody requires the individual to have some custody rights first. You see it in joint custody divorce cases - both parents have shared custody but one parent is considered to have residential custody so that the child isn't bouncing between schools. here is the Ohio Atty General guide on guardianship: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Consumers/Ohio-Guardianship-Guide-%28PDF%29 one way you can broach this with you aunt is there are two different types of guardianship: one of the person and one of the estate. You could make your aunt the guardian of the estate, which means she can collect the continued payments and manage the finances of the child, where as you could be the guardian of the person allowing the child to live with you, attend schools, and receive medical treatment.

...and yet somehow he couldn't get away with getting a hummer from an intern. Man, he must have wanted to get caught!!!! LOLZ to be fair, nearly everyone has the ability to kill anyone they want, whether they can afford to do it and to not get caught for it is a different story. You don't have to be rich or powerful to "get away with it," unsolved murders account for 1/3 of all murder cases in this country. However, the higher profile you are, how well you knew the individual, and the more confederates you conscript into the plot - the more difficult it is to keep concealed. I think you should read this. Don't do that thing where you pretend to read it and then just spout more conservative nonsense. It discusses at length the origin of this conspiracy theory and it's history over time: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp just in case you miss it here is the relevant part (emphasis mine):

thank you greg. but back to the question: is it worse if he intentionally participated or that he didn't and the Russians thought him enough of a pushover that they backed him?

so I have a question for the group here: Which would you consider worse?: - Trump's team actually colluded with a foreign power to tip the scales of the election in their favor, (the collusion position) or - the Trump team didn't collude, but following that meeting the Russians realized that the team's inexperience, lack of ethics, and desire to overturn "Obama policies" led them to the conclusion that he was the more easily manipulated than his opponent and it was in their best interest to attempt to interfere to get him elected (let's call this the cuck position). At this point it is one or the other, so which one do you look at as less bad? being a colluder or a cuck?

If she is going along with this...it may just take time. The important thing is to be supportive and open about it and not to rock her back on the defensive. The guardianship issue is going to be a hurdle, but it might be better if she hears it come from someone else. Maybe take the child to the school meetings and let the school tell her that you need guardianship for the child to attend, or bring her with you to the attorney's office and let him explain it.

Call me whatever you want, you opinion is of inconsequential value to me.

you know Tim, talking like this doesn't make you sound tough, it makes you sound like an asshole, and it makes it much harder to take what you say seriously. I know you aren't one so how about knocking off the fake tough guy act. Not true. The military trains physicians, same a civilian medical schools. they have to meet the same requirements as other schools in being able to provide relevant training. they have long recognized the link between elective cosmetic surgery and reconstruction surgery, and that there is a benefit and a need to providing that training to their physician students. While some can go to civilian residency programs it is often more difficult to match to them than it is to military programs if you are a military physician. To that end there is a benefit to the military to this issue. How much of one it is? difficult to quantify. This isn't the only benefit either by the way...there are plenty of areas where the military is experiencing personnel shortages and limiting the applicant pool though discrimination isn't helping that situation.

Do you know what the words mean that you use? Let's break this down - a fact is something that is verifiable. An opinion is an expression of feelings and logical (regardless of soundness) conclusions. They can be based in fact but are not required to be. Where people (like you) get into trouble is where your opinion states an unverifiable piece of information (like a misinterpretation, falsehood, unknown quantity, or lie) as a fact as justifiable support for your opinion. It's completely your right to do so just as it is someone else's complete right to point out that you have adopted someone else's dishonesty as your own. A good example of this is the lie that "poor people are poor because they are lazy". This is not only an unverifiable piece of information but has been shown to be false by many scientific studies for well over 100 years. When you assert this lie as a truth you open the door for people to challenge you on this assertion. When they do they are challenging your intellect, knowledge, credibility, and integrity - and guess what you are not going to pass. It's fine you have that opinion just as it is fine for others to have the opinion of you that you are ignorant and not-credible. the cost of a bad opinion is you get called ignorant or a liar. When discussing politics, the general expectation is that you and your sources are knowledgeable and well researched (or you not do it at all). You are discussing the differences in logic between the facts at point A, and the conclusions you have drawn at point b, and whether the logic is sound, based on principles of morality, theory of government, ideology, problem solving, etc..., the point being to keep emotional bleed at bay and to be open and not defensive.If you just state your irrational feelings not based on fact then so what? all there is left is for someone to decide whether they want to continue conversation with you or just dismiss it all together. We have a whole group of people, who call themselves forgotten people because they don't take the time to educate themselves about the means reasons political policy affects their lives. The people who are most affected by government action are in the least possible position to understand it, so they make assumptions and draw conclusions and get angry and do stupid things like elect a sentient yam with all the mannerisms of Ren and Stimpy to the highest position in the executive branch, and rally against intellectualism because they feel marginalized by it. There is a huge difference between traditional conservationism and what passes for the garbage getting thrown around today. William F. Buckley never called the poor lazy. He recognized that poverty was a real problem in this country and he was sympathetic to the plight - he just didn't see how an overarching one size fits all federal government program was the best solution to the problem. He was more an advocate of the states taking the burden of solving the issue because they were better suited to legislate efficiently to their markets in the least intrusive way, to act quicker, and to know how to address the root cause factors rather than treat the symptoms. You see the difference between a real well reasoned conservative viewpoint based on knowledge and fact and one that is illogical and emotional? here is the thing, if you want to base your opinions on lies, falsehoods, misinformation, etc....you have to be honest with yourself and know that it is ok for people to call you uninformed, ignorant, and a liar, because by the technical definition of those words you are those things. If you are insulted by it, then you have the power to change it by becoming knowledgeable and challenging your own logic. Be honest with your self for why your opinion is the way it is - don't get angry that people can see though the lie you have told yourself. If you don't like what vanity fair wrote then challenge it based on the sources they cite and the soundness of their logic in forming their opinion. Don't just rail against them because you "feel" differently from them, put your back into it and find the flaws.

Why so we can have a 5 page conversation about how you can't tell the difference between writing that is bound by the code of ethics and writing that is not? There is nothing wrong with reading opinion pieces as long as you know going in it's an opinion and not strictly news reporting.you have to treat them differently but again if it is well written and cites specific sources that you can verify there is no reason you shouldn't read it to try to gain understanding from the other sides perspective.

I thought this was a great summary of the importance of Bill Browder and the importance of kutschner's meeting with the Russians: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/14/537304186/episode-784-meeting-the-russians Here is what I don't get, there are the great makings of a real conspiracy theory concerning trump and a bunch of really rich Russians....and yet we are here talking about how some stolen office chairs and rental property loans add up to framing republicans for international hacking byt he Russians. I mean it even sounds stupid when I type it.