RangerM

Neither do I. Which is why social issues shouldn't be national.

No. Serving blacks isn't the same. And I'm not talking about publicly-traded corporations. I'm talking about small, family-run businesses.

To me it means speech codes, gender-neutral [everything], and coercing private businesses into providing services regardless of personal objection.

The State's themselves determine how their respective electors (in the college) are selected. What you want is possible....now....right now....if you get the states to change the way they select electors. That's called politics--and flip-flopping and demagoguery are cornerstones. I'd say it isn't coming at all. Most who favor a social free-for-all aren't fiscally conservative (with other peoples' money). And most fiscal conservatives understand that a self-sufficient society requires personal responsibility and standards of conduct.

3rd party candidates don't win, anyway. Another problem is it all but guarantees that the ultimate winner won't win a majority vote. Clinton only got a little over 40% in 1992 (and still didn't get the majority in 1996). He won (obviously) according to the rules of the electoral college, but it also meant that a pretty overwhelming majority of the public didn't support him on Day 1. That is not to say I favor a popular vote over the electoral college. The electoral college is the only thing protecting us from absolute majority rule. There is nothing wrong with a 2-party system; except perhaps the blind allegiance that people demonstrate toward the ones we have now.

That was a bit harsh, on my part. But still, while this is a bad thing, I don't think it rises to the level of #lionsmatter--especially when people are blasted when they say "all lives matter" to the #blacklivesmatter crowd. Meanwhile, the current administration just gave Iran a pretty sweetheart deal that all but guarantees they will have a nuclear weapon in my childrens' lifetime. The priorities here seem completely out of whack.

We're talking about a lion...an old lion.....a non-endangered species. That said, the guy is still a P.O.S. in my book. I'm not a recreational hunter. I never owned a gun, and don't plan on it. But I'm related to plenty of people who are/do. Let the country where this occurred prosecute, if appropriate. And let our country worry about our other 1st-world problems like where to plug in our iPhone. It's not like we're swimming in excess Social Security cash; enough to devote resources to "working with Zimbabwe officials". I fail to see why this is a major concern---OTHER than to bring attention to this guy and his poor life choices.

It's certainly my "Family Truckster". Just wouldn't have thought it so common. But I suppose it's the lack of suitable V8 (ok, V6 turbo) rear drive family (friendly) sedans.

...... the 2015 F-150 SuperCrew — which accounts for 83 percent of 2015 F-150 retail sales.... Wow.

I have the backup camera on my 2013. It was part of a package, and the image appears in the rear view mirror. It's a nice touch, and I find it handy looking at it in the mirror moreso than if it were on a larger screen on the dash. I don't have to look down. I just glance.

Twenty years ago (as far as our work trucks), I'd have said manual trannies will outlast. BUT, I also remember having to replace clutch plates and/or throw out bearings at about 100k, with the automatics failing completely at about 150-200. These days, the automatics seem to have solved whatever problems they had back then. The F150 I have now is automatic, but my old '93 Ranger was a stick. I miss rowing my own gears, but I don't know that I'd want it in my F150. I'd just rather have another Miata with a stick to get my fix. Maybe one day.

Why didn't the driver (in the story) simply engage the emergency brake?

Then I suppose we agree the sword served God's purpose.

I can agree to some extent. Although if Cadillac were to ditch the trucks/SUVs, then GMC could fill the role quite nicely with the Denali trim level. If Cadillac were to drop the trucks from its brand (assuming it could ever get its cars to attain some sort of brand identity), I wouldn't be surprised if Lincoln followed. Although I'm not fond of the looks of the coming Chevy/GMC fullsize trucks, I've long considered the GMC variants the more attractive. I don't know how many GMC dealers there are, but most I've ever seen were paired with another franchise. I'd speculate there were more Pontiac dealers pre-bankruptcy than GMC dealers.

If they weren't making money with them pre-bankruptcy, would it not have made sense to ditch it then, as they did Hummer? If GM wanted to drop GMC, I'm sure they could find a way as they did with Oldsmobile.

You don't buy it, because you're more informed about cars/trucks and understand that vehicles can be clones. Most people are completely ignorant and have no (or at least very little) idea. If this weren't true, then GM might spend millions referring to Chevy as "Professional-Grade". They don't, and that's due to their brand strategy. You can see it in the original Durant strategy of tiered structure for GM (Cadillac on top, then Buick, etc). It's largely the same thing. It was only made too obvious to the ignorant in the '80s when you saw the Cimmaron/Cavalier/Firenza/Sunbird/Skyhawk clones.

I got my 2013 in August of that year. The 2014s were about to (or had) come in, so the discounts were pretty good, iirc. Since I'm usually a long-term type of owner, I didn't mind getting "last year's" model.

Some people prefer Diet Coke and others, Coke Zero. Some prefer Tide over Cheer. (both are P&G). Point being, the more products your company sells in the same market, the greater your market penetration; assuming you can be profitable selling two (or more) products in the same market.

If the older model Chevy was like Mayor McCheese. The last one and this are like Officer Big Mac. Ungainly.

Two things. First, I thought I'd read that GM was already making moves toward "alumininum-izing" their trucks. Have they given up on this? Second, the indentation in the bumper is fine, on a dry day with clean shoes. Try it on a rainy day, with muddy shoes, and see how much grip there is. Also, how convenient is it when you have a camper shell?

If you're suggesting that making use of weapons and making them is the difference between right and wrong, the I disagree. If there's a legitimate Christian use for a weapon, then it is legitimate (and I'd argue no less Christian) to make it.

Haven't ever heard mention, but Ford (at some point) will have to cut its older version Sync users loose.

Point being, the swords served a purpose, and someone had to make/sell them. If the Pope wants to call them sinners, fine. All are. But, it would seem strange to render them ineligible to call themselves Christians, when they served the Lord's purpose. Just as (you pointed out earlier) the Pope is protected by armed guards.

He told them to put their swords away, AFTER they cut the centurion's ear off. Prior to that he told them to sell their cloaks and buy swords, iirc. (no, that is not suggesting that all persons should do this)

Where did Jesus' disciples get their swords from just before he was arrested?