Teh Ricer Civic!

Meh i'd rather just go to Santa Barbara instead of LA, maybe check out the mission and uh enjoy the nice waters.

Oh i don't know, i think a smoker could do it.

Uhhh well technically its illegal to open someone elses mail... but i'd just walk over to your neighbor and hand it to him in person

So mr ideal has no job or obligations? heh

Here's something interesting... I don't know if this is racist or not... its overloading my racist sensors... a black man with a confederate battle flag in a confederate outfit...

No... they dont. If the government puts up bail money it makes Ch 11 hardball negotiations even harder. The last time chrysler was "bailed out" it was essentially a Ch 11 in disguise, under the laws it allowed Chrysler to play hardball with its creditors to emerge from it, however Chrysler was essentially bankrupt throughout the entire process.

I find the question irrelevant because if you lead a good life here on Earth then you will be remembered for being good. And if there is a god then he will undoubtedly look kindly upon a good life. And if not, at least you made the Earth a little bit better of a place as you rot in the ground. As to the arguments, it is logically impossible to prove that there is, or is not, a god. Perhaps i view myself as my own supreme authority, however i can never logically argue this point with sound reasoning.

But after leaving the union, a state is not subject to the constitution. However yes, it is probably not a great idea to attack the other peoples stuff.

Right but as the Confederacy found the last time they tried it, that no such right is guaranteed to not be met with resistance either.

That does not contradict my previous statement.

No they cannot. No state can secede. Well i guess technically ANY state can secede, but only if they 1) win a war against the Union or 2) the Union doesn't fight them.

Why do companies manufacture generics for other companies under other labels? Why does Dell sell laptops under the Inspiron and XPS names when they really do the same things? Its brand and marketing. You don't divest of yourself a brand that has a strong name recognition like GMC has. GMC is profitable and is still well respected brand, it is rather pointless to get rid of it. The only argument is that you could get more advertising out there for Chevy for the same money and that a company tends to do better when it focuses on its strengths instead of being a jack of all trades.

I believe Chrysler can survive a Ch 11 bankruptcy, they may not be as large, but i am confident they can make it, after all they essentially have done it before.

Oh please, do not buy into that media garbage. Yes there are people on both sides who advocate violence to achieve their aims, these people target civilians and are terrorists. We a not a bunch of domestic terrorists and i know that i, at least, would never advocate violence to achieve anything because all it does is delegitimize the movement & harms others which is unjustifiable. Although i obviously cannot speak for others and there are undoubtedly people who would advocate violence. Us law abiding people will use all the political & social movements necessary to achieve our aims... and even if those aims leave no option other than the secession of some states from the Union, there is nothing to say that has to be violent. Just because you do not seem to mind losing your freedoms in the name of "fairness" doesn't mean that other are fine with it.

Become a FoMoCo fan and register Libertarian? 2012: Down with both parties! But yes, i completely agree with you, i have become rather disenfranchised with everything going on.

+1 for rofl.

Les Miserables

And you don't think our EPA/CAFE/Safety laws are any different?? Please!

There is a distinct difference between holding together better and protecting its passengers. a 1950s truck will hold together great, but the same can probably not be said of its passengers. A Formula 1 car will totally disintegrate, but it will protect its passenger.

Well if tomorrow France/Japan/Germany decided to impose a 50% tariff on any non-french/japanese/german made car, i do believe the US would retaliate.

Ugghhhh that would only serve to increase prices on ALL automobiles. The Domestics would realize that they can raise prices simply because the imports now have to charge higher prices as well. PLUS, it would severely reduce the Domestics incentive to substantially improve their products, after all they can simply now focus on cost cutting and if sales begin to sag, they can simply lower prices, its not like the Foreign cars will be able to do the same. The tax credits would only reinforce this position. As for the tax breaks, you can expect governments of Germany, France, and Japan to retaliate severely, which would send us into a depression era trade war (and probably a Depression to boot). Yeah, i'd rather not have either of those two.

Thinking about it, Chrysler's managing to get through its past bailout (which was just a quasi-ch 11 in disguise as is today's bailout) was only at the expense of GM and Ford. Chrysler's attainment of market share was primarily at GM and Fords loss, not imports. It could be argued that had Chrysler been allowed to go through normal Ch 11 filings and failed, that GM and Ford could have bought out the remnants of Chrysler and been stronger themselves, perhaps to the point where they were able to have avoided their current day problems (after all 2 bigger companies carry more bargaining power against the Union than 3 smaller ones). Of course, Chrysler probably could have survived a Ch 11 even back then and we would still be in the same boat as today.

Grapevine, middle of night, as fast as all the lanes allow you

Well the smaller cars are more agile, may be able to dodge the accident entirely and not flip your car.