PatS....

Richard, Looks like in a few years there may be some discussion about who gets the keys to the Dodge...Great picture, thanks for sharing and here's wishing you and yours the very best of the season. Hope Santa is good to you this year. Pat

This guy hauled his trailer quite a bit. http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/suburban-1951.html

http://www.plymouthdoctor.com/automobile.html Hope you are on good terms with your banker!!!!!!

Joe, you could email any of the regulars on here and we could post it for you. Pat

Merry Christmas to all!!!! Looks like a brown Christmas here. Been hovering around 32 + or - a bit for a week. OK by me. Hope Santa is good to you and yours. Greg, all the nuts will be here for Christmas

Jeff, first time I have seen that grille on a car...looks like a natural. I have seen one on a pilothouse and it looked great. Keep us updated on the progress. Pat

The danger of tempered glass in a windshield is that what would be a simple rock chip on laminated glass would shatter tempered glass. If you get rock chip at speed that shatters the glass, that shattered glass could easily fill your eyes with little pieces of glass, blinding you at 60 mph. Tempered glass is not safe for a windshield at all. Laminated glass will just chip, and many times that chip can be repaired as to be invisible. Please rethink your decision to have tempered glass in the windshield. Rely on the seat belts to stop you from going through the windshield, not the windshield.

They were sure hard on the old cars: http://ww2.glenbow.org/search/archivesPhotosResults.aspx?AC=PREV_BLOCK&XC=/search/archivesPhotosResults.aspx&BU=&TN=IMAGEBAN&SN=AUTO28563&SE=950&RN=10&MR=10&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=0&XP=&RF=WebResults&EF=&DF=WebResultsDetails&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=255&ID=&MF=WPEngMsg.ini&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=13972&NR=0&NB=1&SV=0&BG=&FG=&QS=ArchivesPhotosSearch&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1

What a beauty:) http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=191251

(the 2 missing paragraphs) And, if you will, once again, tell me why it is we are going to reelect any Congressman or Senator who votes for the America Climate Security Act of 2007, or the House version, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? Oh yes, I remember. Because we're stupid. We did, after all, reelect the Congressmen and Senators who voted to give away our jobs under NAFTA. And, of course, this isn't a whole lot different—it just doesn't destroy quite as many American jobs—even though it will quadruple our taxes and our utility bills. And, like NAFTA, maybe you'll still have your job when this global job drain is over, too. Of course, we expect to be bringing home a lot less. But, after all, if we still have a job, it's worth it...isn't it? Wait a minute...wouldn't it be better for all of us—the nation included—if we just called, faxed or telegraphed those Congressmen and Senators and told them we are going to fire their butts if they vote for this? The nice thing is, that where you only have to fire the 14 House Republicans who have already voted "yea" on Gore's climate change puerility, you get to fire 231 Democrats for displaying an absolute lack of intelligence—and greed, since only an idiot in someone's hip pocket would actually vote on a bill that will ultimately reduce the amount of food this planet can produce—and the amount of air we can breathe. © 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States. Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, http://www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

GORE'S LAW By Jon Christian Ryter NewsWithViews.com December 19, 2007 How many more lies will the American people accept from the media talking heads in the pay of the money barons before they realize that the utopian dribble doled to them in droplets—particularly when it comes to global warming and greenhouse gases—is cranial toxic waste? The sound bytes are designed to make the American people believe that transferring the industrial might of America to the third world is essential to the survival of our planet. Four decade ago, before Al Gore decided that the body heat of too many people and the pollutants from their factories created enough carbon dioxide greenhouse gases to make the polar caps melt, the money barons and already finalized their plans to transfer the wealth of the United States to the emerging nations—the human capital of the 21st century—where tomorrow's consumers, awaiting work, lived. All they needed were jobs—our jobs. The reason for artificially creating a crisis that does not exist is twofold. First, it's harder for the US consumers who are losing their jobs to blame their employers when their smog threatens the existence of the world. The real reason, of course, has nothing to do with smog. It has to do with the human capital in the third world needing jobs in order to get the money they need to buy the products they currently can't afford. The job shift is necessary because the industrialized nations, with population replenishment levels of from .5 to .7, aren't creating enough people to replace those who died let alone create tomorrow's consumers. The third world, with replenishment birth rates of 1.2 to 1.5, are creating 12 to 15 people for every 10 people who die. Europe adds five live births for every 10 deaths and the United States creates 7 live births for every 10 deaths. To keep the wheels of profit churning in the factories of the world, the barons of industry need to cultivate the human capital of the third world—consumer who have nothing and need everything. Second, history has proven that a catastrophe—real or imagined—that threatens all of mankind is needed before people—acting like sheep being led to the slaughter by the scapegoat—will surrender their freedom for the promises of immediate safety and eternal security. That said, on Saturday, Dec. 15, the U.S. Senate voted a new Climate Control Bill—the Lieberman-Warner America Climate Security Act of 2007, S.2191, out of committee, following the passage of the House version of the same bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It is amazing the knack Congress has of branding legislation that is detrimental to the people of the United States with names that suggest the bills, when enacted, will actually benefit the people of the United States when they are intended only to benefit the lords of industry, the barons of banking and the merchant princes who fill the campaign war chests of politicians and use the media they own to sell the voters on electing their lackeys in order to guarantee that the laws they need enacted so they can lord over the rest of us are signed into law by the presidents which cost the money barons millions of dollars every four years. The cosponsors of Sen. Joe Lieberman's [i-CT] job sellout bill, the America Climate Security Act of 2007 are: John Warner [R-VA] (who is up for election in 2008 if he does not keep his word and retire), Ben Cardin [D-MD] (who beat Republican candidate and former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele in 2006); Robert Casey [D-PA] who won against Rick Santorum in 2006); Norm Coleman [R-MN]; Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]; and Susan Collins [R-ME]—all of whom are up for reelection in November; and Tom Harkins [D-IA] who is also up for reelection in 2008; Amy Klobucker [D-MN], and Bill Nelson [D-FL]. Those we can fire in 2008—in both the House and the Senate—we need to fire. Because over the next ten years, thousands of us are going to lose our jobs because of this vote by 535 Congressmen and Senators who are voting the will of those who fill their campaign coffers, not the voters who cast their votes. On December 6 the House passed their version of this legislation, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by a very partisan vote of 234 to 181. (The Democratic leadership called the measure a "bipartisan" bill since 14 liberal Republicans voted for it (and 7 moderate Democrats voted against it.) The rhetoric from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office suggested the legislation would "...put us on a path towards energy independence and strengthen national security while lowering energy costs..." as it "...grows our economy and creates new jobs." The bill, which President George W. Bush has promised to veto, will not bring about energy independence. It's a bill designed to subsidize a new oil industry subculture—ethanol and other synthetic fuels that the Rockefeller family believes will conserve the world's oil supply—which they erroneously believe is being rapidly depleted and will soon be gone. Without even considering the escalating costs for gasoline on the world market, the bill begins by increasing the price of natural gas from 19% to 35% (depending on whose math you use). The bill will not only increase the price of gasoline at the pump, it will charge you more for electricity to light your home. Electricity rates will skyrocket from 35% to 60% by 2020—and, according to consulting firm of Charles Rivers Associates International, which testified before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee led by Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA], the new legislation will kill between 1.5 to 3.4 million more jobs in the United States. In addition, it will devastate what is left of the automobile industry in the United States, forcing our "replacement" auto industry—Toyota, Nissan and Honda—to pull up stakes and join Ford, General Motors and Chrysler in their new "American" plants in Canada and Mexico—if not China. Those nations—with closer and more subservient ties to Europe and the United Nations—will be at least partially exempt from the draconian standards imposed on the manufacturers who are still in the United States. In addition tothe lost jobs will be lost tax revenues—which means in addition to lower incomes, the Democratic majority will be obligated to raise taxes—but only on the rich. (That means anyone with a private sector job.) The America Climate Security Act of 2007 will mandate that carbon dioxide emissions be at least 19% less than they were a decade ago. It will also require that 20% of all fuel consumption be ethanol. But even worse, says Sen. Jim Inhofe [R-OK], the ranking Republican on the Senate EPW Committee told the media that "...it's hard to imagine [Lieberman-Warner] will not cost—over time—electric power and industrial—hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the demands of this bill." Inhofe also noted that "...Lieberman-Warner...will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy. Senators are going to be [expecting] the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher at the gas pump for no climate benefit." There can be no climate benefit since global warming is a cyclic event caused by solar activity, not the sweat from 6.770 billion people driving their cars, peddling their bicycles, running on their treadmills or jogging each morning before work. If the world was devoid of human population, global warming and cooling would still be a fact since it is the volume and intensity of the solar eruptions that determines the temperature of the surface of the inner planets in our solar system. The America Climate Security Act of 2007 is a sham designed by the ecoalarmist social progressives who are trying to capitalize on Al Gore's fictional sic fi fantasy, An Inconvenient Truth, to convince the world's population that a catastrophe of global proportions is just around the corner, and that between 2020 and 2040, the global ice caps will no longer exist, most of the Islands of the world will be submerged, and the Appalachian Mountains and the Rocky Mountains will be the new east and west coastlines of the United States. Furthermore, if Congress adopts the carbon dioxide mandates, crop yields in every nation of the world will be reduced immediately by 25% to 30%—and the quality of the oxygen we breathe will begin to deteriorate. Less rain will fall everywhere in the world, and the dustbowls of the 1930s will become commonplace in the 2030s. And all of the nightmares predicted by the ecoalarmists if we don't dramatically reduce carbon dioxide levels will happen because we have reduced those "dangerous" greenhouse gases that are the food supply that feeds that grass, the trees and the crops we grow for food. Take away the food the crops consume to produce the food we eat, and we starve. In addition, the byproduct of the carbon dioxide that grass eats is oxygen. Without oxygen, we die. If you will, tell me again why it is—other than because the money barons bribed them with campaign contributions to enact it—why do we, as American citizens, want anyone to legislate anything as stupid—and expensive—as the America Climate Security Act of 2007? Oh yes, I remember. Because the barons of industry can profit from it at our expense. And, because their campaign contributions have already paid for the legislation. (2 paragraphs missing due to length) © 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

I have a '50 DeSoto parts car with a good dash if you want it. Should just bolt in.

Norm, that in itself is funny in a very sad sort of way. They are using the environment as an excuse to take away the freedom to paint our cars. They are using global warming to as an excuse to take away other freedoms, they are using the war on terror to take away yet more freedoms. And we sit back and take it...dry. Without a sense of humour, I'll be loading my guns. And for a Canadian, That's saying alot.

Without a sense of humor, all is lost. Chill a bit:D

According to Buddy Hackett, anything that causes someone nearby to say "Holy crap, what was THAT?" is huge. All others are inconsequential. So, you see, it IS a scientific term.

Do they just want control of us or is there really THAT many people painting their own cars to actually cause an environmental meltdown if it's left to continue? They have outlawed smoking in OUTDOOR patio's here, but you can stand one foot out the front door and smoke. You can let out a huge fart in the outdoor patio. But don't smoke!!! They just want control. (I'm a non-smoker)

The problem with propane is that it is a by-product of the refining process, so still relies on gasoline use to maintain it's production.

Hi Tim, please extend to Ritchie and family a Merry Christmas from me. I'm hoping to have his M6 moving the Chrysler by spring. Thanks Pat Let Ritchie know his presence and contributions on the forum are missed.

Wouldn't an electric motor over-rev as soon as the clutch was engaged? Interesting.

Fred, a bit nicer here. 28 f at 5:40am, on the way to 37f today and "warm" all week.

Canadian vehicles already have SOME of those things...metric speedo, amber signals. Might be easier to import from here. Otherwise the vehicles are identical. We can import RHD vehicles (many are brought in from Japan) and drive them as is. There are some VERY nice 93 Rams around here, cheap. Check out Craigs List for Calgary

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7299668110171032533&q=%22the+great+global+warming+swindle%22&total=106&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Climate Catastrphe Cancelled: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271&q=%22Climate+Catastrophe+Cancelled%22&total=47&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

No apologies needed. Lets just have fun here on the best forum on the 'net.

That's NICE. The "SpitSfire" is gonna start some conversations! Great Idea

Check out this one...eighth item down: http://www.electricscooterparts.com/headlights.html (from the bed near the window)