surreal1272

Bringing up a soon to be dead model like...

Do you seriously think that they won’t continue to supply the taxi industry with more just because it’s a 2020 model? You have split that hair into oblivion at this point. (Stupid GIF aside)

Maybe they are going the Mercedes route (G Wagon) and waiting ten more years before they finally update it properly. It worked for them. It could work for Lexus.

Only the LC500 gives that grill a proper look IMO. The rest of them should be taken out back and beaten with a shovel.

You were the one splitting hairs and making irrelevant comparisons to a discontinued car. I’ve made my point and I’ll stand by it. If they haven’t considered it they should. Cadillac has a long history in that market and it should really keep that position.

Because you’re splitting hairs in an attempt to show how much better the E Class is than the XTS. That’s not even up for debate. Yes, the E Class is better than the XTS but not really better than the CT6 that will continue to be sold. That “will continue to be sold” part is the key part of this. The only one confused about that appears to be you.

Doesn’t matter. It is done. There is no 2020 and that’s just the fact of the matter. The CT6 will probably pick up in fleet numbers as a result.

I was not crazy about the previous Colorado, namely the I5 but I would have the new one (or its Canyon twin) in a heartbeat if I were in the market for one. I got a lot of behind the wheel time in them last year when I was working part time at a nearby Chevy dealership. Drove the bass four banger, the V-6 (my personal preference), and the diesel (surprisingly spry but just not a diesel fan). They all share good traits, like a great ride and common sense and well laid out controls. I don’t get the criticisms about the look personally. It’s a truck, not a luxury car. As long as it’s put together well, that’s more important than the look and “soft touch” materials. Yes chewing tobacco, the most disgusting use of a useless product. Hell, I’m personally glad that I never even smoked a cigarette, especially during my first 35 years in the biggest tobacco producing state in the country (NC).

Hello? Anybody actually listening? Your comment was irrelevant since the XTS is no longer and the CT6 is better than the fleet queen E Class I’m so many ways. Stop being a sensitive Sandy about it ?

The GX is a complete waste of an SUV. How they can butcher the 4 Runner and convert it to this monstrosity is beyond me. Just hideous.

...To *get* it done.

Stop being a baby unless you want me to start changing words in your posts. This is just dumb. I do want to thank you for proving that you really aren’t capable of having an adult discussion about anything you don’t like. Just level 11 jackassery. Damn autocorrect. That should read “making THEM even better”.

The Boeing 737 was a Boeing error. This is already been established. Boeing screwed up big time. Regarding the B-52, yes they aren’t building anymore. Maybe they should because past attempts to replace with garbage like the B1 Bomber have been failures. The B-52 is a rare case of “if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (or try to replace it). All that money wasted to replace could have been rerouted towards making more and making than even better.

I’m sure it will be, at almost triple the initial cost estimate.

Contrary to whatever you may think, no one is trying to piss you off. You do a fine enough of pissing yourself off. Example: you focus on the piss itself as opposed the manner by which it is actually useful. It just proves my statement about those who only want to find the negative in things they fear. Yes, I said it. Fear.

While very unconventional, I say why the hell not? Even in “raw” form, it’s far less foul smelling and it’s vapors won’t cause $h! to burst into flames. I’m sure the thought of fossil fuels was a little unconventional back in the day as well. Of course some only like to focus on the negative and when that happens, negative is all they will ever see.

How well are those updates working for them right (referring to the 737s)? Maybe not the best example lol. The B-52s have seen numerous updates over the years because they are simply indispensable tools that continue to prove their worth. On a side note, my dad was an instructor on the B-52s back in the 60s. He knew every part of that plane down to the last rivet. His speciality with them was electrical.

The F35 program is a perfect example of budgets run amok. Every year, the cost were and continue to skyrocket past the original budget numbers for it.

I’m thinking the use of the term “nationalized” is what brought on that question.

Again, not disagreeing there. At least Bill saw the need for it and got some increases to it done.

Not disagreeing with that but you asked “what about Bill?” And I merely offered the evidence that he at least tried. Implementation is a whole other matter.

And for all Bill Clinton’s flaws, he was probably the last president that was able to work across the aisle and negotiate with both parties. Our current president can’t even negotiate with his own party. Example? The Saudi Arabia arms deal that the GOP wants to stop but Trump wants to push through. Obama also had issues with his own party but they seem to be much worse now under Trump. There just simply is no bipartisanship anymore. That’s a bit socialist don’t you think?

Funny you should bring up Bill. While he had his flaws, he actually helped spearhead increased spending on infrastructure, all while dealing with a GOP majority congress. “Roads and bridges, airports and seaports, highways and canals are all critical parts of a country’s infrastructure. Without them, goods and services cannot move efficiently, raising costs for consumers and dramatically limiting the potential for growth. The Clinton administration recognized this and sought to increase investments in these areas. In 1992 federal spending on transportation infrastructure totaled $40.9 billion, in inflation-adjusted 2000 dollars. By the year 2000, the last year of President Clinton’s term, that total was up 15 percent to nearly $47 billion.” Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/10/28/10405/power-of-progressive-economics-the-clinton-years/

And I’m guessing posts like these two have no bearing on the ability to have a political discussion? What’s that they say about glass houses?

You are technically correct and I should have clarified my point a bit. Half of that budget is toward social security. When it comes to discretionary spending though, we have this. GTFO with that. My pointing that out has no bearing on ones ability to discuss politics. I can discuss it all day long. I have for decades now. I discussed the many failings of Obama back on the old MT threads and caught hell for it from the ultra liberal crowd but at least they still tried to discuss it. Here, however, it seems to be Trump supporters who are incapable of debating a damn thing that dares to point out flaws in Trumps policies. Those folks say they don’t want to discuss yet continually troll the subject with snarky remarks and pointless down votes. I will not apologize for pointing that out when I have been about as unbiased in the political realm as I can possibly be. Democrat or Republican, I have criticized them both. Oh and before one comments on my down vote remarks, at least understand that when I down vote, I try to back it up with a post explaining the down vote. For the record, I agree with your budget remark. That’s why I pointed out the huge problem with said budget. It’s beyond out of hand.