AnthonyR

I don't know how you guys do it, but I feel like when I have 10-15posts per day I am pushing it. How you guys do 50-100 per day is beyond me. Only reason I have so many posts is cause I've been here so long.

I say if you do keep them and take away the ad free skin, at least try to maybe blend them in a little better . Now they are just kinda blam there on the top just free floating in a sea of white between the top bar and the forums. Either way, ads or not, I don't mind them.

lots of those names don't appear to have posts, cause of the crash about a year ago. Lol I was just remembering when FHD16 (old OH mod) was posting 1111 members... :P

Thanks for the ad-free!

haha, when I originally posted this there was one response Now bam, 8 more...

Man, I was watchin, just to create a new thread about the 9k members and you jumped the gun by 9 :P

bump

awesome! :)

The forum itself wouldn't change and would still be accessable to everyone, just some thourough in depth writeups, video how to's etc would be available to premium members. That and premium members also have access to a gallery to store images and video clips. Might also get an email. Just things like that.

ahahaha, sounds like you have done this before :P

So if we had this in the middle, at say... my house. If I got up and walked to my front door, would that mean I win the pot? :o

Tried doin a VS meet last summer and it didn't go to well, mostly tbricks and SS guys (we had over 20 Volvo guys though) I drove to DC from MN to do this thing. Was pretty fun though, got to meet alot of people. Definately down for a meet in the middle, as that's where I am Maybe Minneapolis? By then I should have my house and can host And there are a fair amount of Volvo guys here in MN, and it just keeps on growin.

Seems like just yesterday we hit the 1000 member mark (even though that was like 3 years ago) Thanks to everyone who contributes to this forum, it is because of you that we are one of the top Volvo forums out there. Keep up the good work everyone

As of right now only 16 people are eligable, and that's including myself, rich and Chuck so...

Front "Desk" at my work is filled with a bunch of guys with M16's and M4's :rolleyes:

It's either me or Joe, but I vote for me seriously, who do you think made JHE an OH (I'll give you one guess... me!)

Well as of yesterday I now have both RWD (745) and FWD (850) So I need to start meeting some of these RWD guys :P

Colin Powell wouldn't be too bad either for the GOP side. And he was going to run in 2000 before Bush gave him the sec of state position if he won.

That woulda been me I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with a simple small banner, not the stupid other ones, but the official banners from the respective official websites in the smallest sizes

Remember when the lack of WMD's was all over the news? Notice how no ones saying anything about them now? That's because the smaller WMD's have been found, just not covered by our wonderful media here in teh US. You would have thought that the discovery of an actual weapon of mass destruction in Iraq would be big news, especially since it was aimed at American soldiers. But apparently not in the eyes of most U.S. newspaper editors and network television producers, who chose largely to ignore one of the major stories coming out of Iraq this week. On Monday, the Iraqi Survey Group, which is tasked with searching for Saddam Hussein's WMD, confirmed that an artillery round containing weaponized sarin nerve gas was detonated in an improvised explosive device (IED) aimed at U.S. troops in Baghdad on Saturday. Thankfully, the IED didn't kill anyone, and the sarin components dispersed without causing real harm because the 155-mm shell had not been used as an artillery round, as it was intended. The weapon's design required the shell to be fired from a launcher that would have allowed the binary components of the sarin to mix as the shell spun at high speed, which would have turned the relatively small artillery round into a devastating killer. Instead, the device detonated in an IED, and most of the 3-4 liters of sarin were not activated. So how did the major dailies treat this story? They buried it. The Washington Post carried a story on page 14, with a subtitle that dismissed its significance, "Weapon Probably Not Part of a Stockpile, Experts Say." But despite the headline, the story said nothing of the sort. The Post reported that David Kay, the man previously in charge of the Pentagon's search for WMD, "said the discovery did not conclusively prove the existence of stockpiles of concealed chemical and biological weapons," which is very different than saying somehow it proved the contrary. The story goes on to quote Raymond Zilinskas, a former U.N. weapons inspector: "The question is: Was it part of a cache that contains another 10 or 20 of these, or is it one of a kind? ... We have no way of knowing at this point." The New York Times headline on page 11 was also dismissive. "Army Discovers Old Iraqi Shell Holding Sarin, Illicit Weapon." Most of the story was a re-hash of the complaints that the Bush administration had failed to find the WMD the president and his advisers had said Hussein possessed. The Times only grudgingly admitted that the existence of the shell offers "some of the most substantial evidence to date that Mr. Hussein did not destroy all of the banned chemical agent, as he claimed before the war last year." One shell does not a stockpile make -- but where there is one such weapon there are likely to be others, dozens, maybe hundreds. No matter how you slice it, this story is important. But most of the liberal media have been too busy focusing on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or other bad news from Iraq to pay attention.

hahahaha, it's always funny how the liberal people, the same people who have not been over there and don't really know anyone over there can just basically say "If I didn't see it on CNN, then it must be a lie" Give me a break. These 'smiling children' things are really happening over there, and the majority of the Iraqi people do support us being over there. Let me ask you this. I'm assuming you believe that there was prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq because you saw and read about all the pictures of such taking place. Well, if you whole heartedly belive that there is abuse going on there because of these pictures then I will show you some examples of my fellow soldiers helping out school children, and the children seem pretty happy about it. Just take a look thru some of these photos http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=10

Reality is, the major news networks side with the liberals and bow to their demands. What's one of the fastest ways to make this an unpopular war that has people screaming to bring everyone back? Broadcast decapitations and gruesome things on the news to play peoples emotions. and reality check. Stuff like you see on TV happens all the time here in America, it's just not televised. and you never see the pictures of soldiers in Iraq posing with smiling children as they rebuild their schools and hospitals.

It's a loooooong ways from Vietnam. The two are so different, there is no way in which to compare them. Although I do agree that there are oh so many restrictions put upon us (soldiers) that we can not always finish the job like we'd like to, we just have to deal with it and do the best we can. I'm up for deployment next late winter early spring, and I'm actually looking forward to going over there, but that's probably just me Anyways, I'll stop there. I'm gettin tired and gotta be up early <_<

Ok, I'll make my chime in for the day. I am in the US Air Force National Gaurd as an Airman 1st Class, and I fully respect and support Bush. Kerry flip flops WAY too much. Under Kerry we would go to war only to have him change his mind half way thru, wasting billions of dollars and lives. To those who think we should pull out of Iraq now, I say to you that is a VERY bad idea. That would mean that the hundreds of soldiers that have died, died for nothing. At least right now they have died fighting for democracy in a region of the world where it simply does not exist. Anyways, I'm not going to go into depth here, but George Bush simply is a better president than Kerry could ever be. Even if you do compare Bush to Clinton in the traditional sense and in the economy, they are a pretty close match for their respective points in their presidency. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush is straight forward, and if he says he's going to do something, by god, he's going to do it no matter what anyone says. It's dedication like that is why he has the military's respect. And finally a word about Polls. 1. Bush and Kerry are VERY close in polls right now (some polls have Kerry ahead, others have Bush ahead) 2. Considering all of the attacks that every liberal person on earth has tried to heave against bush and the lack of any real attacks on Kerry and they are that close don't bode well for Kerry. 3. The media running these polls is VERY liberal. And polls are very easily manipulated. They don't ask you a striaght questions like "Who are you voting for, Bush or Kerry" They ask you a bunch of bullshit questions about alot of different topics and from that they derive who you will vote for. Like I said very easily manipulated. This will be a close race, no doubt. The liberals in every faction are trying their utmost hardest to defeat Bush no matter the cost. However bush still retains a high approval rating and the support from the silent majority. The only reason the liberals seem like they are more plentiful is only because they are more vocal and active and the media gives them all the attention they desire.