sciguy_0504

I've wondered why large companies have not done this. Good idea, IMO.

Some people like to make it out like religion is the sole force against homosexuality but I disagree. The religious bigots are vocal about their opposition but you're forgetting about the silent majority. There are some things that will not be accepted in society, at least openly, and some people see that as a good thing. I am not religious but I have an overall favorable view of religion (at least most of them) because it is the last group of people to judge others on their actions, words, opinions, etc. It is the last blockade against acceptance of anything and everything. There is a difference between good/evil and black/white. All you have to do is look at Europe to see how multiculturalism and that "accept anything and everything" mentality destroys cultures and countries. I know Wikipedia isn't viewed as a reliable source but this is an well supported article on multiculturalism: how it begun, what it is about and the reactions to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism I believe if people would stop feeling the need to come out of the closet and scream to the heavens that they are gay (celebrities and normal people alike) the gay community would gain more acceptance. If you don't want people to focus on sexual orientation and make a big deal about it, why are you doing it? Personally, as a bisexual person, I see no need for those disgusting gay pride parades or rainbow flags, etc. I learned the other day bisexuals even have their own symbol and flag! Give me a break. I would also like to point out there are gay bigots who are just as bad as religious bigots. Take Rosie O'Donnell (sp?) for instance. Her comment about Christians being a bigger threat than Muslims gave me a laugh. I guess she hasn't heard what Muslims do to homosexuals. I'll give her a hint: it's a lot worse than not supporting gay marriage.

According to Motor Trend, the new Altima is actually a bit smaller on the outside than the current-gen. I'm guessing it's larger on the inside, though.

You mean the Sierra. The Silverado looks worse.

When was the Rondo announced/introduced? I haven't heard anything about it.

Yet another Tundra bashing/worrying thread. Seems like these are being started faster and faster as the launch date draws closer.

Why bother putting those small alloy wheels on?

I fail to see the connection.

Oh goody!

Even more amazing are the explanations you would receive from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al. Edit: spelling.

I have never complained about GM not offering enough engine options in its vehicles.

But is it worth selling 5 trucks with the underpowered V6? Why have a 295HP and 315HP engines? I'm guessing one is flex-fuel and the other is not so combine the two and make a 305HP FF engine. The point I was trying to make is that while it may be nice to try to satisfy everyone and get the extra 5 sales, it's not worth losing money/not making much money doing so.

Pontiac and Buick, to an extent, are starving for some product. Saab was a nice surprise last month, wasn't it? The new SRX interior, the best in GM's lineup, is already having an impact. It's nice that gas prices have gone down during the past couple of months. I doubt we'd be seeing these sales numbers if they were still at $3.50 a gallon. I hope they don't rise any time soon. I'd like to see car retail sales up 52%.

Love all the bashing/worrying. I guess we'll wait for the comparos. I also love the silver mid-level model. It looks much better than the dorky Silverado, IMO, and less metrosexual than the F150, which still looks good in high-end models. The new Sierra is on par with this when it comes to exterior design/looks, IMO. The Titan is smack in the middle for me. The interior is what worries me because that silver painted plastic will never hold up in a WT. Of course, we have not seen the interior of the Tundra WT but I think it's the same as the other models. Some of you are saying "not enough engines" blah, blah, blah, but that is one of the reasons why GM was/is in its position. Is there a reason why GM has to offer 10 engines in its trucks? Cut the fat and only offer what the most customers choose. This goes for the other auto manufacturers, too. One V6, a low V8, a high V8, a diesel or two and possibly a hybrid is all one needs. On the other hand, Toyota knows it's not going to sell millions of these trucks so why waste money building 10 different engines to try to satisfy as many customers as possible?

I like the coupe better than the sedan, too.

I think the basic premise of the article answers your question. A Cobalt and Focus, manual or not, should have been included.

For me it's comparable to, "Would you like to know if your 14-year old daughter got breast implants?"

Usually it's just the milk that's in my cereal. Sometimes I'll have something extra like OJ or apple juice but I don't miss them when I don't have them.

I think Dodge could have changed some of the suspension settings from the Liberty. It may be a traditional SUV built on a truck frame but I think the exterior leads people to believe it will be at least a somewhat sporty drive.

19 M Fox Y Y N How anyone could be against Prop 85 is beyond me. The law specifically addresses that.

Camden, across the Delaware River from Philly, is finally starting to get its act together. It's kind of funny how I live in between 3 of the top 30 dangerous cities in the country: Trenton, Camden and Philadelphia.

What I was thinking. Put an ad on Craig's List and you'll pull in some $$$ from both sexes.

Me, too.

I love the selection of tastefully done wheels. They look great. The Sierra is the classiest-looking truck on the road, period.