Well, I don't hear conservatives saying Pastor Bill Shanks or Pastor John Hagee hate America when they said God punished New Orleans for its sins with Katrina. Do you think they hate America

You ask a different question, a moral equivalency question. "If A does this and B does this, then it doesn't matter if A does this." Well, in my view, it matters if A does something even if B does something else, or similar, that also is wrong, harmful, misguided, or just plain stupid. Let's take them up one at a time.

Some fringe whacko religious people really do think (along with that numbskull liberal who said the same thing recently about Ike in regards to interrupting the Republican convention) that hurricanes are god's mechanism of vengeance for this or that human transgression. In this case, this isn't a Progressive issue. It's a metaphysical one, and one I don't agree with. There's just not even a hint or a hope of an objective standard regarding "god caused this to happen because of that transgression." As you know, if a proposition can't be disproved, then one really isn't saying anything very definitive, and certainly not definitive enough to claim that god did this or that because of this or that.

Is it possible that some conservatives hate America too in your world view?

No doubt many conservatives hate certain parts of America. But by and large, conservatism itself is about an appreciate of the fundamental principles of freedom, the Constitution, limited government, meaning-via-individual-lives and not meaning-via-government. It's about an appreciation for free speech, free markets, hard work, personal responsibility, and the very ideals on which this country is based and which have to do with equality of opportunity and not the Progressive obsession with equality of outcome which is death to society and to the individual. And conservatives sure ought to learn a healthy dislike for all forms of fascism, Communism, and other forms of totalitarianism, although prudence and moderation usually demand that it remain a healthy dislike and not a burning hate, although I make no bones about hating Communists. How anyone could be a Communist in this day and age (one of Obama's mentors in Hawaii was a Communist) with the horrible swath of mind-numblingly inhuman destruction behind that system is almost inconceivable to me. To be a Communist is to hate the American ideal. I return the sentiment.

Or is this only a "liberal" trait? If some conservatives do, then why spend your time only focusing on "liberals"? Seems hypocritical to do so in this case.

You sound like Markle. It's this inability to face the truths of one side of the argument and always falling back to the "If A does it, then so what if B does it too?" Okay, we'll acknowledge the faults of both A and B, which seems to be a real mental chore for liberals to undertake. But if you do a bit of reading here, at NRO, at Spectator.org, at American Thinker, or listen to Limbaugh and company, you'll hear espousal of conservative ideals, for sure. But these people also tend to spare no criticism of conservatives and Republicans. Conservatism, properly understood, isn't about propping up power for power's sake. If it's about propping up anything, it's some very good ideas, and ideas that do not require emotionalism, bamboozlement, or heavy doses of denial in order to espouse, understand, or even just consider.

For me, her stance on abortion after rape or incest would be one, frankly. If a woman chooses to have a rape-produced baby, her choice, awesome. But if not, there is no way in hell she should ever have to bring that baby to term. As an evolving society, no one should force another person to have sex and bear a child against their will.

Actually, by an reasonable measure, an evolved society doesn't dispose of fetuses as if they were old gum wrappers. If one errs on the side of not killing babies, no matter how they are conceived, I can disagree with that, but respect where they're coming from. But the opposite standpoint, Obama's support for letting born-alive babies die is most certainly not an evolved position. It's a barbaric position.

Other than some common political corruption bullshit that goes on with all politicians that I am generally against, I don't see much else in her personal life, attitude, or values that are at direct odds with progressives.

Great. Then I guess the Palin Deranged Syndrome is all due to a dislike of her hairstyle or something.

Just because you impute marginalization of religion or the indoctrinization of sex to progressives does not mean that is what all in the progressive movement want in general.

The Progressive agenda is quite varied. And obviously no two people have the exact same idea about anything. But there are general trends, goals, and stated philosophies...as well as actual actions and votes taken by liberal/Progressives.

I'm fine with her religious practices. I'm fine with her family life. I'm fine with her personal hobbies.

I think that's admirable. Many people have absolutely freaked out over the fact that she has a pregnant daughter, that she's had a Down's Syndrome baby, that she hunts moose, that she comes from a small town, that she is a Republican, that she is a Republican woman, etc., etc. That's the Palin Deranged Syndrome defined, although it's by no means restricted to just those things.

quote:

Originally posted by mithradites:

quote:

I guess when I hear someone like Pastor Wright say "God Damn America," I don't think he's a real lover of this country. Either words mean things or they don't.

Well, I don't hear conservatives saying Pastor Bill Shanks or Pastor John Hagee hate America when they said God punished New Orleans for its sins with Katrina. Do you think they hate America? Is it possible that some conservatives hate America too in your world view? Or is this only a "liberal" trait? If some conservatives do, then why spend your time only focusing on "liberals"? Seems hypocritical to do so in this case.

quote:

Palin represents a life, an attitude, and set of values that are at direct odds with progressives.

I'd say SOME of her values are at odds with progressives, and some should be for good reason. For me, her stance on abortion after rape or incest would be one, frankly. If a woman chooses to have a rape-produced baby, her choice, awesome. But if not, there is no way in hell she should ever have to bring that baby to term. As an evolving society, no one should force another person to have sex and bear a child against their will.

Keeping a policy in place that rape kits should be paid for by the victims while she was Mayor? Sorry, that one is fucked too. As an evolving society, shouldn't we provide the victim some relief in a terrible time. Seems civilized.

While she said it was only a "question", I'd have to say that just the thought of banning books in libraries is bad too. We shouldn't even ask that question after the events in the early 20th century.

Other than some common political corruption bullshit that goes on with all politicians that I am generally against, I don't see much else in her personal life, attitude, or values that are at direct odds with progressives. Just because you impute marginalization of religion or the indoctrinization of sex to progressives does not mean that is what all in the progressive movement want in general. Some, possibly, but hardly the majority. I'm fine with her religious practices. I'm fine with her family life. I'm fine with her personal hobbies.

My only real issue concerning Palin is that McCain made a hasty decision and could've picked a far more qualified woman, if he wanted solely a woman. Christie Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleeza Rice all come to mind. Any one of them would have made me consider McCain much more seriously.

Miths this is all so weak. Pathetically weak. You can do better than that I hope.

The major problem with your first statement is the fact Reverend Wright has been Senator Husseins personal pastor for 20 years. He married the Husseins. He baptized the Hussein children. The Hussein family attended church and were active participants in Reverend Wrights racist bigoted anti semitic separatist church. On top of all that Senator Hussien named his second memoir after one of Reverend Wrights sermons.

You just dismiss this by trying to put the shoe on the other foot. How do you get any of the experiments done properly with such logic.

quote:

Again, thalo, I do stand by my statement that there are many leftists (liberals, Progressives, etc.) who do not like large parts of this country as it is currently constituted. Surely the Palin Derangement Syndrome alone is evidence of this. That's not love. Palin represents a life, an attitude, and set of values that are at direct odds with progressives.

Speaking of derangement....

Miths, I don't know how much you lurked around here before openly returning, but there are a couple of things you should know. First, debating Brad point-by-point is a waste of time because he is totally incapable of ever, EVER, admitting that he could be mistaken about anything, or that there could be the slightest merit to any alternative point of view. (Notice how when thalo tried to soften Brad's claim about liberals hating America, Brad made a point of coming on to reiterate it.) He is infallible. And there is always some quotation from the vast nutjob internet to make it look like the craziest assertion has some documentation.

And debating Bozo is even worse, because he divides his time between just making stuff up out of thin air, and insulting you for your "pathetic, weak" views.

I don't want to discourage you from offering a different perspective, but just don't entertain the illusion that you can actually have a give-and-take discussion with these guys.
.

Dar don't mind Markle.

He has become the squelching police demanding what can and can not be said at thalo.net.

Just ignore him and post away.

Well, good night, Irene, they passed it.
I swear, if I hear the juxtaposition of "Wall Street" and "Main Street" one more time, that vein on my forehead is going to friggin' start squirting blood like a squirtgun.

First, debating Brad point-by-point is a waste of time because he is totally incapable of ever, EVER, admitting that he could be mistaken about anything, or that there could be the slightest merit to any alternative point of view.

Actually, Darr, I specifically welcome point-by-point debate of issues. But Markle is the kind of befuddled liberal who can never be pleased. If I post lots of facts, opinions, commentary, ideas, links, etc., he complains about that. So don't believe his typical BS. I'm actually more than pleased to get into the details of any and all issues because that's how one learns. Ignorance is not my goal. But Markle is a one-man prevarication machine. That's all he seems to know. Me, I'm curious about things. I'm curious about American history. I'm curious about the political process. I'm curious about human nature. I'm curious about science. Never do I want to hold a supposed fact as truth if it can be proven otherwise, although many matters are matters of preference, not proof, per se. I rather enjoy knowing facts rather than just being right, although the one will naturally lead to the other, of course.

Arguing with one-note liberals like Markle has taught me far more than even he knows. Again, one of my interests is psychology and human nature. Why do people hold beliefs about things that are clearly in defiance of known facts? The resolution of that question at this point is mostly a matter of conjecture, although it's likely evolutionary psychology will shed some light on issues such as these in the future. But coming up with piece-by-piece objective tests regarding such questions takes time, and without that data (although I think EP is a very good theory in which to view the data), we're somewhat left reading tea leaves. (Maybe there are some good books on the subject that you know about.) But that said, I think it's obvious why people hold beliefs about things that are clearly in defiance of known facts and it is because our evolutionary minds are shaped to win, not to ascertain the truth, per se, although the latter can serve the former. Persuasion is far more important to human beings than whether there is actually truth behind one's assertions. People don't demagogue and prevaricate because they're evil. They do it because it works and because it's part of our built-in cognitive functions. But in science, as you well know, we often have to fight our built-in human propensities that served us well in our hunter-gatherer days but can make us look like chimps in other fields. Science cares very little about how warm and fuzzy some idea makes anyone. It matters what the evidence is (although science, if you've read any Pinker lately or watched this whole global warming hysteria, can become highly politicized). But in politics, chimp behavior is not only normal, it's advantageous. I don't deny that. I don't deny that Markle's constant misrepresentations of me are typically effective in the world of people, personalities, and coalitions. But regarding actual facts, it's very weak and quite irrelevant most of the time.

I get much from these online dialogues on many different levels. But as a point of fact, I love getting into the details. And I present as evidence Markle's continued misrepresentations and distortions as what I think is too often a liberal trait. They won't argue facts. But they're happy to accuse the other side of doing the same. I have repeatedly asked Markle to move beyond his one-line opinionating and instead of simply saying "You're wrong, bozo" to actually articulate why. He almost never does.

It still has to pass the House.

Thalo I know you don't want this thing passed but if it isn't the whole system will collapse. We would have been better off passing it with President Bush's three page plan. Now it is the size of a novel.

Well, good night, Irene, they passed it.

I had the same reaction. We'll see what the House does tomorrow. I don't know if Rico is right or not about any collapse. There are probably a half dozens ways to resolve this issue, none of them that require anything to be rushed, and certainly none that require panic. I smell fear politics meant to give these scoundrel politicians the green light to do even more dodgy stuff. They're like alcoholics in denial of their problem. There have been few, if any, national elected politicians of either party to clearly describe what the problem is and whose fault it is. All these cries of "bipartisanship" is cover-your-ass stuff, if you ask me. In McCain's case (especially considering he warned these stupid Democrats more than once about the problem, as did Bush), that's clearly not his approach. I'm with you. I just think he's being genuinely McCain, god love him or hate him for that, but I think he is.

If the House were controlled by Republicans, they ought to pass and send back to the Senate a very minimalist approach that relied on a few accountancy things to make sure the credit market stays good, but that in no way rewarded government for having fucked all this up in the first place by intruding into the free market. And we're not getting this message so, like I said, it seems to me it's much like an alcoholic in denial. Oh, this one more drink, this one more bit of legislation, is no big deal.

quote:

It's this inability to face the truths of one side of the argument and always falling back to the "If A does it, then so what if B does it too?"

Nope, that ain't it at all. I'm not saying that if guys you won't denounce folks on your side that say similarly hateful things about America, then it is right for the other guy. I actually don't think Wright hates America. I think he likes saying inflammatory crap because he wants to get a rise out of folks and put himself in the spotlight. Sorta like you and Rico and the dumb ass rib-poking bullshit you say most of the time. I don't think Hagee or Shanks hates America either. Most of this "hating America" tack is just the Republican fear machine trying to gin up their base and scare some independents into voting for them. It's okay. You can admit it. But to focus on the made up "hating" argument, harp on it, say it's all the other side is about, well, that's just plain ignorance baiting.

There are legitimate issues concerning Obama/Biden ... tax policy, foreign policy, energy policy, entitlement programs, budgets. All this other stuff is quite idiotic. But, I see why it's done by Republicans. It distracts from the legitimate questions being asked about McCain's policies. Hey let's distract everyone with cult of personality crap and they won't think to look under the hood. If folks in this country are stupid enough to fall for the baiting, then we deserve what we get.

quote:

Conservatism, properly understood, isn't about propping up power for power's sake. If it's about propping up anything, it's some very good ideas, and ideas that do not require emotionalism, bamboozlement, or heavy doses of denial in order to espouse, understand, or even just consider.

I agree. Just like you agreed with the basic premises of "classic" Liberalism and working to support individual freedom. But some prominent conservatives are for propping up power for power's sake. The current administration has done a great job at misleading and lying for power and power's sake. Why even John McCain admitted to being only about power in his own 2002 biography:

"I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time"

It happens. It's okay. Just like some progressives do try and use government for mass control. It's okay. It happens. That's politics. The power and money grab is very enticing for all. Republicans are no less immune than Democrats.

quote:

then I guess the Palin Deranged Syndrome is all due to a dislike of her hairstyle or something

Palin Deranged Syndrome, boy, Republicans love to make up crazy shit. There is no mass obsession about Palin (other than 15-50 year old men who aren't getting laid and are eagerly waiting for the porn video to come out). Sure, there are SOME obsessed folks who want to pull a National Enquirer type gotcha revelation. But that's equivalent to a puffed up Clinton Deranged Syndrome that infected SOME conservatives (thank god they finally caught him getting a blow job, the country was so in danger of the errant cum shot). You can make the supposed Palin obsession to be bigger than it is, but it really is just a bunch of fringe folks who have nothing better to do with themselves. Like the folks who have nothing better to do with themselves than obsess about the folks that are obsessed about Palin.

However, questioning Palin's political history and actions is within the limits of public political vetting, as is questioning McCain, Obama, and Biden. Shouldn't we get to hear her opinions and values on the matters of great importance to our country today? Or do ya have to get back to me on that one?

quote:

Actually, by an reasonable measure, an evolved society doesn't dispose of fetuses as if they were old gum wrappers.

We've been over this before in the last election. I, and most liberals or progressives or other folks who disagree with you, are all for figuring out ways to reduce and eliminate abortions as an evolving society. But where are the policies and the political will by the conservatives who are against abortion to provide education and support so that no one ever needs to contemplate abortion? Oh I forgot, we can't have sex education, that's too progressive. What about financial support to help those who are scared about affording a basic life if they bring a fetus to term? Oh I forgot, we can't have any welfare, that's too progressive. Let's just outlaw abortion cause that'll solve the problem, 'kay. Sweet little baby Jesus!

quote:

Well, good night, Irene, they passed it.

That's why I'm now voting for the Libertarians and Bob Barr. I can't reward these guys. Not. At. All.

quote:

Miths, I don't know how much you lurked around here before openly returning, but there are a couple of things you should know. First, debating Brad point-by-point is a waste of time because he is totally incapable of ever, EVER, admitting that he could be mistaken about anything, or that there could be the slightest merit to any alternative point of view. (Notice how when thalo tried to soften Brad's claim about liberals hating America, Brad made a point of coming on to reiterate it.) He is infallible. And there is always some quotation from the vast nutjob internet to make it look like the craziest assertion has some documentation.

And debating Bozo is even worse, because he divides his time between just making stuff up out of thin air, and insulting you for your "pathetic, weak" views.

I don't want to discourage you from offering a different perspective, but just don't entertain the illusion that you can actually have a give-and-take discussion with these guys.
.

I just arrived today, but it's as if I never left. Don't worry Markle, I have no illusions about making points that will change any one's already formed opinions. I'll say my say and leave it at that. I would pay good money to see Rico's face when Obama wins. That would be priceless.

I actually don't think Wright hates America.

Oh, no doubt he might have been somewhat playing to his congregation. But it's equally plausible (and I'd say much more plausible, especially given his praise of Farrakhan and his visit with Quadafi) that he hates America. One has to look honestly at probabilities.

There are legitimate issues concerning Obama/Biden ... tax policy, foreign policy, energy policy, entitlement programs, budgets. All this other stuff is quite idiotic.

All that other stuff might be idiotic, but if Obama wins, it will go a long way to explaining what he actually does. A person's past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

Palin Deranged Syndrome, boy, Republicans love to make up crazy shit.

No, that's my crazy shit, and I'm not a Republican. I just vote for them when they espouse conservative policies. And if you look back at this thread of the comments of Snobby Robby, or just follow the online Krazy Daily Kos-like media, it is indeed deranged. But call it what you will. I'm not married to the words, just the idea that Palin who is, let's be fair, a pretty normal person, has caused some people to raise the level of the language where you'd think McCain had picked Mrs. Goebbels as his running mate.

However, questioning Palin's political history and actions is within the limits of public political vetting, as is questioning McCain, Obama, and Biden.

Absolutely. And it would be great to have a free press who actually did that with even a modicum of objectivity and fairness.

I, and most liberals or progressives or other folks who disagree with you, are all for figuring out ways to reduce and eliminate abortions as an evolving society.

You may be sincere about that, and maybe a few of your good friends, but that's a talking point among Democrats, nothing more.

But where are the policies and the political will by the conservatives who are against abortion to provide education and support so that no one ever needs to contemplate abortion?

Where are the policies and the political will for the state to teach people to wipe their own asses? This highlights one of the main differences between conservatives and modern-day liberals. A conservative says that it ought not be the state's place to be the National Moralizer and Nanny Extraordinaire. People can, and ought to, take care of such things as wiping their own asses and handling their sexuality. It's a core Progressive belief that the state knows better and should intrude on people's lives. This is a habit we are best weaned from or we'll all be living 1984, and very soon.

Let's just outlaw abortion cause that'll solve the problem, 'kay. Sweet little baby Jesus!

That is the kind of condescending emotionalizing that I've gotten used to from liberals. Rather than casting off abortion as in inconsequential question, or one that concerns only religious zealots, it can be taken up in more rational ways, which is arguably what the left is supposed to be all about. Reason over irrationality. But, as I've so often noticed, that is just another talking point.

quote:

Thalo I know you don't want this thing passed but if it isn't the whole system will collapse.

Good. It should. Collapse Schmollapse. Eventually the markets would recover. There's opportunity in every disaster, IF you follow solid business practices. This is like giving heroin to a junkie because they're suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The symptoms feel like you're gonna die, but it's part of getting clean.

quote:

I would pay good money to see Rico's face when Obama wins. That would be priceless.

I don't think there will be much of it left after his head explodes.
.

That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas.

Oh my god. I think it moved. Harv, well said. I hope your version of health care reform includes tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits and ridiculously high cash-prize awards by juries have added enormously to the cost of healthcare. But weaning the Democrats from their trial lawyer constituency will be very difficult. But it's needed. I'm of the mind that if you simply decapitated each and every member of Congress and brought in 10 health care insurers at random, you could put together a package that would provide enormous savings and cost reductions that would make health care affordable to even more people.

And this current fiasco aside, I think the best way to shore up the economy is to reduce spending, reduce taxes, reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax, and possibly reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax. One of the odd ideological truths of the left is that they like to punish the rich…not just tax them, but to punish them. No matter how many times it's been objectively shown that reducing tax rates actually increases government revenues, there are the types like Obama who just like to stick it to "the rich." These kinds of people are disasters for the economy.

Anyway, you may not agree with any or all I've said, but I sure as hell agree with 90% of what you said. It's the ticket.

By the way, the Lincoln is running okay, but I had an expensive repair on the air bag compressor a few months ago.

quote:

Where are the policies and the political will for the state to teach people to wipe their own asses? This highlights one of the main differences between conservatives and modern-day liberals. A conservative says that it ought not be the state's place to be the National Moralizer and Nanny Extraordinaire. People can, and ought to, take care of such things as wiping their own asses and handling their sexuality. It's a core Progressive belief that the state knows better and should intrude on people's lives. This is a habit we are best weaned from or we'll all be living 1984, and very soon.

That is trivializing the issue.

Please, sexuality is far more complicated than wiping one's ass (although if you think they are equivalent, then I'm starting to get your jag). The progressive position is based on the idea that people aren't going to make just one of two choices: have sex to make babies or be abstinent (like the almighty Brad). People are going to have sex for a multitude of reasons that having nothing to do with baby making. Unwanted pregnancies are going to occur in situations that the individuals may have difficulty handling the situation. And incest and rape are extreme examples where abortion may be the only viable solution.

As a society, we should come together to help people out in these situations if we truly feel that a baby's life and its subsequent childhood and adult life are worth something, shouldn't we? Progressives think that the government can play at least some role in helping out in this scenario. Not the main role, but some helpful role. Education about sexuality to help avoid the situation, financial aid to help someone who is struggling to provide a basic living, counseling to help the emotional aspect of the choices to be made. These aren't talking points to be political. This isn't that the state knows better and will intrude on your lives. This is trying to provide help for those who WANT it, and to help prevent or improve what is sometimes a difficult and complicated situation.

There is the ancient proverb, it takes a village to raise a child. The "progressive" idea goes back thousands of years and extends across many cultures. Let's get involved as a society.

What's your plan? Only fuck if you want a baby? Otherwise, you're on your own no matter what? Have the baby because giving it life is most important, but who cares if the subsequent life will be crap because once born the baby should take care of wiping its own ass and raising its own self? Really Brad. Don't just criticize the message. Stand up and offer a realistic plan to help solve the problem. Don't you think solving the issue of unwanted pregnancies and abortions involves more than making abortion illegal? If so, why then only focus on abortion? Why not focus on things that can help minimize the need for abortion?

quote:

That is the kind of condescending emotionalizing that I've gotten used to from liberals. Rather than casting off abortion as in inconsequential question, or one that concerns only religious zealots, it can be taken up in more rational ways, which is arguably what the left is supposed to be all about. Reason over irrationality. But, as I've so often noticed, that is just another talking point.

I'm far from casting it off as inconsequential. It is consequential, important enough to not just let someone hang all on their own. Important enough to have help from others. Nonreligious people think about this as much as religious zealots like yourself. Progressives try to provide reasonable alternatives to help with the problem, including education, financial support, making adoption easier, providing contraception, and providing counseling if someone makes the extremely difficult decision to have an abortion or to have the baby. What are your rational ways to solve this troubling problem in our society? You decided to attack the style of the argument rather than give substantive solutions. Please, feel free to dispense with reasoned ways. I'd love to hear your salient points on this. Can you get past a clenched ass about the left, liberals, progressives, or whatever other philosophy you disagree with and actually articulate reasonable solutions?

quote:

Harv, well said. I hope your version of health care reform includes tort reform.

Clueless.

quote:

But Markle is the kind of befuddled liberal who can never be pleased. If I post lots of facts, opinions, commentary, ideas, links, etc., he complains about that.

Notice how quick Brad has to toss someone into a category so he can bring out the stereotypes and generalities.

All those outside things he posts ("facts"??) come from the same spectrum of websites, so the information and views range all the way from A to, um, A.

So welcome, Miths, to Bradville, where, as you can see, every single point you make will be invalidated or rejected.

Not to discourage you, just to make sure you aren't taken by surprise. I can see that you can handle it, and it's good to have a fresh voice around here to keep people on their toes.
.

quote:

By the way, the Lincoln is running okay, but I had an expensive repair on the air bag compressor a few months ago.

Sorry to hear about the expensive repair, Brad. My compressor went out eventually too, but I replaced it myself. Some time after that I got sick of the repairs on the Lincoln though, sold it for $2K, and got me an '05 Accord coupe V6 manual 6-speed. Way more funner and reliable.

The advice I gave to the kid I sold the lincoln to was to replace the air bags with the spring kits that are available. If I'd a kept it I would a done that.

Let me know if you have any other MVIII problems, maybe I can help you out.

Harv.