brick-a-brac

Mine was PUMPKIN - great fall color

Now THERE'S a color from the 70s!

I see you got the 74 -- good looking color and very, very clean. I trust you're bringing it to Carlisle.

Well, anything can be modified, but the extent of the mods required here would mean I would be completely upside-down on this piece, and it would still not have airflow from the fins in the lower valance (another post 1970 change ...).

I think the early sheet metal for the rear is available through GCP. I have just learned, however, that one must be very careful about getting these pieces, as I'm now stuck with an early nose section that I can't use (67-70 has slightly different upper radiator mounts, and pushes the radiator too far toward the fan).

I'll keep an eye out for a 73 bumper.

I like what you're doing with this, Greg. Have you considered a 73 rear bumper?

Greg -- you may have to bite the bullet and get a new radiator from VP Auto. They are pricey, but no more so than a genuine Volvo radiator for your T5M and you won't have to worry about pinhole core leaks.

Do you need a master cylinder? I may be able to help.

Filled the "new" radiator with coolant it's swiss cheese, leaks everywhere. Love being ripped off. Really stoked right now.

Where did you get the radiator, Greg?

Do you have power steering in that, Greg? If so, are you thinking of going to a manual box?

What tranny are you swapping in Greg ? Do you have to go back to the long shifter with the new tranny ? or is your car an auto ?

Thanx, Dave

From 72 on these had the short shifter and Greg's is a 74. I think he mentioned he was going to run an M40, though I don't know why he wouldn't want the overdrive for family cruzin'.

Sure hope that's a 142. 74, of course, was the year they went to the 8 bolt crank and K-jet.

I'm curious what kind of shape it's in overall, and what the plans include. I, for one, would lose the humongous bumpers and swap 'em with a 73.

More pics?

You keep confusing me with a Republican. By the way the tide will turn against Obamites, it has already begun.

Still have not refuted Cloward, PIvens, Alinsky, because you can't. And the cabal you have spoken of is not in power now, the new left is.

By the way, nearly 30% of all attacks on US since 9/11 have occurred in the last 9 months, Oba-maos watch...

Were you troubled by the Bushies policies on terrorism? I wasn't, because no one died by Islamo facist actions.

Well, I am also no leftie - I have found I live longer and with less stress if I avoid extremes ...

My intent is not to refute CPA; I am merely debunking the idea that a so-called "cabal" can change the overall nature of the way in which that cumbersome beast we know as our federal government is run. I tried to do this by illustrating that the previous "cabal" was also ultimately ineffectual in realizing their goals, whatever they were.

But I will say that I AM troubled by the previous administration's policies with respect to terrorism, as I feel that the expanded incursion into Iraq, coupled with those who were wrongly victimized by extraordinary rendition actually helped to spread the appeal of extremist zeal among the Islamic nations.

As to this: <<no one died by Islamo facist actions.>> -- I think you will have to qualify that statement, as it sort of ignores what happened in London and Madrid a few years ago, or Mumbai, or what happens on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul on a regular basis.

That there has been activity within the last nine months indicates that terrorist plots that were launched some time ago are now coming to fruition.

Ummm, facts are still true about the 3 stooges.

And I don't think the right wing cabal you speak of wanted to destroy the system by putting everyone on welfare and over taxing the social safety net.

And then shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Still trying to justify your vote for Obama or what?

No, they simply wanted to create an imperial presidency by misconstruing the Constitution while dismantling civil liberties in an atmosphere of a constant state of war against an amorphous enemy. Of course, David Addington, one of the architects of the warrantless wiretapping policy, carried a copy of the Constitution around with him. It will be hard to know how history will judge the last administration -- especially the office of Vice President -- because Addington was rather effective at elevating executive privilege to a level never before seen in the history of this Republic.

Oh, and while we're talking about redistribution:

Facts.

Does not dispute the facts and history of Alinsky, Cloward and Pivens. Use another source, I don't care what it is, and tell me that these are lies about those 3 communists. Tell me their intent isn't to change the structure of the U.S. Change my mind.

I got pics of C&P on the dais with Clinton as he signs a bill, the fraud ridden Motor-Voter law.More info, if you take off the Rose colored glasses.

Is it a coincidence that C&P were professors at Columbia University, Obamas Alma matter, and a CHicago based community organizer? Or that Alinsky was a Chicago based radical/ community organizer during the times the Chicago ward politics was at it's hay day? And a Capone sycophant in his youth? Mrs. Clinton was also a Chicago area wonk in the day.

Whats your unbiased source, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, Chicago Tribune?

You can gloss over history all you want but you can't change the truth. Start disputing facts without opinion.

I would answer by saying that there are idealogues behind every administration. Consider the influence wielded by Project for New American Century, Kristol, et. al. on the previous eight years. Did this amount to a takeover of anything? Hardly. Did those on the left point this out as something of a takeover conspiracy? You betcha.

Lately, I've found myself in a position to rebut the most outlandish claims based on internet sources that turned out to be largely misinformation that sounded really convincing. I regard most everything I encounter on the net as something that requires additional verification. Usually, it does not stand that test.

Bottom line: don't believe everything you read. Verify.

L8apeks attacks the messenger without addressing the facts or the issues. Clowder-Pivens Strategy. The other part of the plan Alinsky Doctrine.

Obama is a Graduate of Columbia University and the Chicago political machine, Both cited here.

Hillary Clinton is also a disciple of Alinsky. The behavior of the Clinton WH, friends and staffers, can be attributed to these policies. Don't like what I want or stand for? They destroy you personally. Paul Begala and James Carville were the pro's pro's at this. Just ask any woman who tried to level a charge against Bubba.

The Pelosians and the Obamites are slaves to these ideas.

Hmmm -- citing a completely unbiased source, I see: Red baiting R Us

Peronsally I will take the chance with the imperfect system and start using more exacutions.

You might feel differently if you were the person on the other end of the electrode and you actually did not commit the crime that put you there. But hey, if you're in prison, you must have done something to get there, right? No one goes to prison because they had a lousy public defender. Not here.

I'll give you three words to explain our absurdly high incarceration rate: mandatory minimum sentencing. For those in California, I can sum it up in two: three strikes.

Not me, I'd own up to it. I won't give -1 for honest debate.

I figured you wouldn't do that, as this conversation has been pretty civil all along. That was the first rating of any kind I've had here since Chuck inaugurated this system after the site upgrade, so it was a little jarring.

The Mass plan is a failure for the reason I am not optimistic about the one that is heading for a vote tomorrow: it does absolutely NOTHING to contain costs. Health care and college tuition in this country constantly outstrip the pace of inflation by a wide margin and we sit back and take it. This keeps us in debt and complacent, and this is a problem.

A little background: from 1998 to 2000, I lived and worked in Portugal. This was before the introduction of the Euro, so this was under the old currency which traded quite low against the dollar. Portugal has a progressive income tax which can be punitive for high earners, but for most people, it is generally around 25%. Add to this a social security tax of 11% and you have 36% of your income going to the state.

What does not exist there, however, are people going into bankruptcy for health-related problems; you do not have a system by which people cannot get coverage because they have a "pre-existing condition"; you do not have elderly people having to choose between their meds and their meals, because the state subsidizes meds and controls pharmacies.

You can also go to the state universities for basically nothing, but that's a discussion for another day.

Why did you single out Joe? Oh your in CT right? He's no different than the rest, he just grew a spine the last 2 yrs. Check your own senator out. And your local teachers union benefit package.

Ned Lamont would been a real winner.

No, I did not single out Joe-mentum because I'm from CT -- I'm from Mass, actually -- I singled him out because he enjoys a rather nice health plan subsidized by the American people:

<<Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.

Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis -- not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance.

"For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group.

Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can't everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.

Given their choices, lawmakers can tailor coverage in a way most Americans cannot. If a child has asthma, for instance, a federal employee might opt for coverage that costs a little more but has a bigger doctor network and lower office-visit fees.

The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.>>

So who gave me the -1 for my last comment?

Joe Lieberman putting up a stink. If I hadn't voted him in, Ned Lamont, the left wing millionaire would have rammed it down our throats. It will still pass and still suck, but at least it got beat on and won't be so damaging.

I may have saved the country with my vote.

It's fortunate that Joe-mentum and all his Senate colleagues get a comprehensive health care package paid for by the American public, isn't it?

An dis is how we do it...

"Obamacare is modeled after a Massachusetts program requiring residents to buy health insurance. Last week, six community hospitals sued the state for failing to adequately reimburse them for care given to patients insured by the government. Payments were "so low they do not cover the cost of medical care," reported The Boston Globe. The hospitals have eaten more than $100 million in expenses since 2006, resulting in "hundreds of layoffs and millions of dollars in cost cuts." The Massachusetts model, then, was many times more expensive than projected, significantly worsened the state's budget crisis, shortchanged hospitals and doctors, reduced the availability and raised the cost of care, and increased unemployment. Now President Obama and congressional Democrats want to inflict this on the rest of America. No thanks."

Rocking govt run programs allll over!

It is worth noting that the Mass program, which I will not defend, was signed into law under presumptive 2012 GOP contender, Mitt Romney ... ;)

Then lets get down to fines for overweight folks, smokers, drinkers, etc.

I can get into a ton of shity what would be happening if govt didn't steal so much in taxes.

Lets start with the extra cash I would have on hand to donate to private organizations that could provide help to those less fortunate, cuz God knows the Fed is great at that. Or that only one of us would have to work and thus strangers would not have to daycare my kids. And they'd be better citizens, causing less social havoc, requiring fewer cops and judges and prosecutors, thus lessening the Fed budget even more. FEMA? You still send your mail USPS, and they are $1 billion in the red from last year alone.

LBJ and his war on poverty was a joke. It killed the African-American family structure and made a whole segment of the population slaves to govt handouts.

Shall I go on? I got a whole big brain full of shit you never thought of. Stop taxing business to death to cover 70 yrs of failed social programs, so they could provide decent care as a perk. Let insurance companies compete across state lines, lowering prices. Get some goddam tort reform going so unnecessary procedures arn't prescribed to cover a Dr's ass. And the patient gets a ton of cash from that litigation, cuz lawyers work cheap.

Want some more? How about Social Security? I would be a rich motherfucker if I had taken all my SS taxes and invested them myself, even with the last years "crisis". No need to put me in a home or make decision on whether I get treatment or not, cuz I'd pay for what ever I wanted myself. And I'd retire earlier, creating a job slot for some up and coming youngster with a family.

I'm just getting started, so pull my finger if you want more.

Damn right Hollywood sucks.

SHWING!!

Once again bric-a-brac like others has cherry picked one of my posts, ignoring most of the important points.

My biggest argument, and the one that gives me the morale high ground in this debate?

I'm not a socialist, nor do I wish to have a situation where money is taken and redistributed to those less fortunate than me, BY A BIG COERCIVE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO BUY VOTES FROM FOLKS THEY'VE MADE DEPENDENT ON THOSE SAME CASH SEIZURES! caps = yelling from my soap box.

See post #44 for how it works with private donations.

I just wanted to make sure everyone can reference the relevant post, as I'd hate to gain a reputation as a cherry-picker. For what it's worth, I am pretty far from being a socialist myself: government does not do things well, but I also believe there are things that cannot be left to laissez-faire free-market capitalism, either. Can you name a profitable transit system anywhere in the country? You reference the postal service: how would you run this to make it break even, let alone turn a profit? The U.K. tried this with Consignia about five years ago, and it was a colossal failure.

You asked me to <<name one Govt program that has done what they said it would do, didn't exceed cost estimates, died a timely death, or created an impenetrable bureaucracy that wasn't cloaked in BS and red tape? Just one.>> I will do this when you can tell me what private donation got the country out of the Depression.

Then lets get down to fines for overweight folks, smokers, drinkers, etc.

I can get into a ton of shity what would be happening if govt didn't steal so much in taxes.

Lets start with the extra cash I would have on hand to donate to private organizations that could provide help to those less fortunate, cuz God knows the Fed is great at that. Or that only one of us would have to work and thus strangers would not have to daycare my kids. And they'd be better citizens, causing less social havoc, requiring fewer cops and judges and prosecutors, thus lessening the Fed budget even more. FEMA? You still send your mail USPS, and they are $1 billion in the red from last year alone.

LBJ and his war on poverty was a joke. It killed the African-American family structure and made a whole segment of the population slaves to govt handouts.

Shall I go on? I got a whole big brain full of shit you never thought of. Stop taxing business to death to cover 70 yrs of failed social programs, so they could provide decent care as a perk. Let insurance companies compete across state lines, lowering prices. Get some goddam tort reform going so unnecessary procedures arn't prescribed to cover a Dr's ass. And the patient gets a ton of cash from that litigation, cuz lawyers work cheap.

Want some more? How about Social Security? I would be a rich motherfucker if I had taken all my SS taxes and invested them myself, even with the last years "crisis". No need to put me in a home or make decision on whether I get treatment or not, cuz I'd pay for what ever I wanted myself. And I'd retire earlier, creating a job slot for some up and coming youngster with a family.

I'm just getting started, so pull my finger if you want more.

Damn right Hollywood sucks.

SHWING!!

Have you ever been told by an insurance company that you wouldn't be covered for a pre-existing condition? I have. Do you know what it is to live in a place where health care is provided to all citizens? I do.

Perhaps if everyone ate healthy foods, didn't smoke, worked less and therefore did not live in a constant state of stress and sleep deprivation, we would all be sharp, self-sufficient types who invest their money intelligently and can live a life that is not dependent on the notion that government is the last resort for everything. Of course, banks and investment firms would also regulate themselves, manufacturers and heavy industries would not pollute, no company would send jobs to third world countries in order to maximize profits, and we would all gather together and sing "Kumbaya".

Would you rather have the gov't decide ''life or death'' situations?

With a public option there is no incentive to be efficient or make strides to make things better. If you have a constant cash flow what is the point in trying to create more revenue stream? The point of the business to make money is taken out of the equation...

The whole debate is over what the standard level of health should be. You can think of it like a graph of all the different health level from healthy to almost death. Where should that line be drawn in terms of the standard of health that should be given to people?

I agree that the basic health needs of people should be taken care of because of the prosperity we have in our country but beyond that you should have to pay for healthcare.

Healthcare is not a 'right' its a privilege.

Ah, the old "right versus privilege" argument.

It sounds as though many of you would rather have a private insurance company decide just how much health you are "privileged" to enjoy? Very interesting. Perhaps we should allow the privatization of FEMA, so that when the next huge disaster hits and your home is leveled, someone whose company's profits depend on NOT paying out claims can tell you how much rebuilding you are privileged to receive.

Here in the U.S., we will fight to the death for the "right" to own guns, but apparently we insist that being healthy enough to fire them is a privilege.

newspeak was the dumbing down of the language i thought and wasn't ingsoc English Socialism in newspeak? shorten and combine words to shrink the language. it was language destruction.

That's it. I can't imagine that this sort of thing is happening anywhere now ... :o

While I'm sure Orwell is turning in his grave somewhere, I'm not certain that what we're seeing here is a modern exemplar of what he was allegorically protesting in 1984. The book was a reaction to state socialism, especially as it existed in the Soviet Union under Stalin, though Orwell certainly saw bits of that spilling over into English political life. Under Ingsoc, there was not enough freedom to publish a book or give a lecture that would offer the keys to the destruction of the system, which is a pretty significant point of departure.

Having lived in another country, I see the error in "accomodating" non-English speaking immigrants: bilingual signs, bank tellers, etc. I could find work as an English teacher, but I still had to know the local language in order to get things I needed. I also could not aspire to anything else if I did not speak the language fluently, which is why I wound up coming back to the U.S.

However, I'm not prepared to embrace Lou Dobbs and the whole wave of anti-immigration sentiment that seems to be in vogue. Knee-jerk xenophobia has been with us throughout history: it is the positing of "the other" and placing the blame for everything that is wrong on that group (see Germany in the 1930s for an illustration of this principal at work).

Rare book dealer.

Really.