Tweet
<<< no hero.
-
<<< no hero. -
Bonnie, your mother had good taste in cars! what year?
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt
Originally posted by The ShootistComment
-
update Hers was a 1968, not 1964. But still a sweet little honey.
Hers was (xxxx) red convertible with a white top, then another, maybe 1983?, same colors. Mine is dark green with a tan top '99 convertible, and I'm gonna drive it til the doors fall off. Gives new meaning to the phrase "my little pony".
There is no substitute for a paid for house and a paid for car...Last edited by BonnieB; 05-12-2013, 9:44 AM.WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY
Comment
-
the first year Ford made the mustang it was called/considered a 1964 1//2........and it had no tail lights. the early 1965 [which I once owned] had features under the hood of the 1964 1/2 and no tail lights but later in 1965 the under the hood components were changed and there was now a "true" 1965. 1966 was also a great classic mustang year. I won't go into the details of how I "lost" my 1965 but suffice it to say I drove that car with a lot of love. I was the third owner and I kept her classic. my head still swivels for a classic mustang."The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt
Originally posted by The ShootistComment
-
All Mustangs had tail lights, its a DOT requirement. The differences between the 64.5 and 65 were mostly cosmetic; Different shaped gas caps, honycomb grill instead of horizontal slats, Generator instead of Alternator, alot of differences in the trim pieces, window cranks, etc. I really wish I still had my '66.Comment
-
sorry, meant to say back up lights.....
see: http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-mustangs.html
rule went into effect 1965 but not until 1966 did the models have back up lights."The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt
Originally posted by The ShootistComment
-
But we digress....WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY
Comment
-
Post a question like that in the ladies forum... get flamed
.
"A rattlesnake that doesn't bite teaches you nothing" -- Jessamyn West
"Only God has the touch to create these magnificent rattlesnakes and their signature greatness in nature" -- unknown
.
......GO HERE FOR--► My YouTube Channel
Comment
-
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."-- as seen on a t-shirt
Originally posted by The ShootistComment
-
Comment
-
I think the better question is why do men marry women who do that? I'll bet you dollars to donuts she didn't wake up and decide to be b!tchy one day all of a sudden. Caveat Emptor.Wish I was rich instead of so damn good looking.Originally posted by stix213Originally posted by Just DaveComment
-
Sorry, as I am a guy, but I have to pitch in to this:Ladies, I come to thee for enlightenment on a subject of interest to many men who own and shoot.
Last month I picked up a new toy. As I was fondling it during the customary Federal 4473 check, a gentleman at the counter was observing my new purchase. He looked at my new handgun as if it were the keys to a new Bentley; a mixture of sadness and jealousy clouded his eyes as his lady friend snapped with the precision of a Marine Drill Sergeant "Don't even THINK ABOUT it".
The comments force took me aback. I felt even guiltier then usual, as I now had to consider this poor man's suffering on top of the mental acknowledgement that even though I would leave the store 10 minutes later with my purchase, Californians are still waiting for guns they bought last week.
The last woman I dated who tried to limit my gun purchases I jettisoned not long after her comments. I'm of the mind that I wouldn't have any standing or motivation to decree to any woman that she's limited to one pair of shoes per month ,so why do women feel the need to block or obstruct their men's purchase of firearms?
The guy: Weak, submissive, and he subconsciously sought out a controlling Mommy figure for a spouse, gf, etc.
The woman: Bossy, Type A, and she subconsciously sought out a weak and pliable guy. I know couples like this in my own life.
I definitely do not boss my wife around, but she knows not to do it either. Nobody really wears the pants and everything can be discussed equitably.
What you saw in the gun store was a couple of people who are dysfunctional and acting out their Mommy/Daddy issues with each other.
Ohh, and spare any further talk about holding out or leveraging the female favors as a tool to gain compliance. That might work for a newly dating couple in the courtship phase, but I think most husbands would laugh at that. It is like a new car that starts to lose value as soon as you drive it off the lot.Last edited by Bobby Ricigliano; 05-13-2013, 11:43 AM.Comment
-
This is correct. Spot on really.
Personally I think it's a downfall of couples that pool their money together fully.
I've always had success with this and it's working VERY well in my current long-term relationship:
Each keep a separate account (both checking/savings/whatever).
Have a joint checking account for shared expenses. Each deposit the EXACT same amount each month into the joint account and it's used for all shared expenses including food/rent/utilities/etc. Therefore everything done together is split 50/50.
What each does with their own money is their business.WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up.
Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFLComment
-
I've done the "yours, mine, ours" checkbook method very effectively in the past. The main modification is, if the couple's respective incomes are very different, to make the contribution of each be reasonably proportional to their income.
It got interesting one time when he complained that I charged my gasoline to my gas card and he was expected to contribute. I countered that I bought most of the groceries from my 'allowance'. He countered that he wasn't allowed to buy groceries because all he bought was junk food. Allowed? I ROFL'd and went shopping... Dumbest argument ever!WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR, MOSTLY THE HARD WAY
Comment
-
You are absolutely right, that's a great way to do it if there's a large gap in incomes. I didn't think to mention the proportional contribution.
One thing we don't do is an allowance with the joint account. There really isn't a time that we aren't together when money comes out of it (we grocery shop and commute together since we work at the same location).
Basically we just keep money in the joint account and add to it as it gets low. Been doing it for about a year and a half now (after moving in together) and haven't had a problem yet.WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up.
Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFLComment
There are currently 17664 users online. 28 members and 17636 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment