EMan

MSNBC Report on Leaf owners getting stranded

nough said?

>>"I've been there for a few conferences for 4-5 days w/o a car with no problems getting around..."<<

>>"...very easy cities to explore and enjoy w/o a car."<<

These comments -it seems to me- are spoken more from the viewpoint of what they are: no-timetable single person.

Sure it's fun & easy to stroll around between meetings and grab a latte from the bistro when there's nothing else to do.

I walk almost the entire week I spend down the shore (where I have no timetable), but then I go home & have to get to work.

It really isn't that simple & easy, people.

I lived in Portland and the only time I used my car was when I wanted to go to the coast or to Seattle. Managed to do just fine doing my daily day to day without a car.

Solstice/Sky

That's just incorrect: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

I agree, but may point has to do more with the company having less responsability when they take on an undocumented working where one who is. If a company asks for a SSN yes they will be contribuiting to Social Security, and the undocumented worker won't see the benefit from it. Now, not all copanies will ask for SSN and these workers become ghost I see it in my line of work all the time.

I think both of us are in agreement with the big picture but just have a few minor items we dissagree and don't see eye to eye.

This is entirely entirely entirely backwards. Why would this be a good thing? Jobs aren't something that just appear because people are charitable: companies are willing to pay people to do those jobs because they get value out of it. Why would you ban companies from filling those positions? How is that good for anyone? Again, why are the current illegal immigrants a bad thing, ignoring the fact that they're nominally illegal?

I don't think you understand me... maybe I just didn't state my point properly. What I'm saying stop giving jobs to undocumented immigrants. As you say, jobs are not just given out of charity, they are given because the company gets value from it. By hiring undocumented immigrants the companies only have to pay the worker, the company won't pay, unemployment, social security, insurance or any other indirect. That is one incentive to hire someone undocumented over a documented one, or citizen. What I am saying is that by stopping companies from hiring undocumented immigrants we will reduce the number of people crossing illegally. That is step one.

The next step would be, what to do with the ones already in the US? I think there should be a path to citizenship. Why would we spend Billions of dollars tracking and deporting them? I mean there are people arguing for government to spend less and less money, but fail to see that if we where to track and deport, it would cost billions if not trillions of dollars. Now if you were to give them a path to citizenship involving but not limited to criminal checks (other than being here illegally), and pay a "fine", we would be a lot better off; even if one half take advantage of it.

Sorry about getting off topic...

In regards to "AZ Wrong on immigration". I think that not only is AZ wrong on immigration but the nation as a whole is wrong on immigration; AZ is just taking a worse path. I believe, as some one already mentioned it, the real focus should be on the companies hiring undocumented immigrants. People come to the US because they can get a job plain and simple. There is this big incentive for people making 5 dollars a day in their original country to risk their life to cross the boarder, because they know they can get work. So in my opinion we need to stop this incentive. We need to stop blaming undocumented immigrants and take a close look at our companies that hire them. If US companies don't hire these people, the rate at which they come will drop dramatically. Why would some one risk their life, spending days in the desert, with little or no food and water, if they can't get work once they get here? They simply won't.

When people lie to get public assistance and when they make no effort to learn the language of the country they are in, it is a problem. It's very refreshing to be able to help a Latin customer who understands and speaks good English.

Don't try to put me somewhere I'm not, EMan.

I'm not "putting" you anywhere you don't put your self in. When you say hispanics and just leave it at that, is not thing different from some one saying that all white people are crak addits, marry their cousins, live in trailer parks, hate outsiders and love NASCAR.

To take on one of your points: My wife worked for Medical, and let me tell you it wasn't only Hispanics people that lie to get public assistance. As a ratio you had the same amount of whites lying to get public assistance. People driving new cars, with housese valued closed to $500 milion. When I asked her how they got away with it, she said it was simple once they knew how to work the system. Towards the end she just couldn't take it... she couldn't take people working the system and having to denie people that really needed it. So I don't buy this argument that people lying and taking avantage of the system is an isolated Hispanic problem.

I agree with the poster that stated you sound xenophobic. I don't know if you are, but they way you communicate sure does make you sound like one.

You need to read this and tell me what you think.

My link

Excuse me? Check your Google maps. I do not live in "the sticks". Lancaster has a huge Hispanic problem.

So now Hispanics in general are a problem... maybe we should just put them in consentration... I mean internment camps.

Santa Cruz, CA to Portland, OR. 12 hrs, then a 12hr trip back.

I have done it two other times but stoping along the way; food, walking breaks.

Quad-4 I believe was only on the Z-24. The others had the 2.2L SOHC. I had a 93' sold it with 196,000 miles with no problems, never understand why people hated Cavaliers.

Best I got out of it was 34 mpg.

Can some on Photoshop it? Paint it black and put a golden bird on it.

A mostly single occupant two wheel human power vehicle delivering approximately 85-95% of the power to the wheels and producing less than one tenth of CO2 per mile compared to a traditional automobile will be in everyone’s future. This vehicle features low resistant rolling tires, single frame design, dual shock absorbers, up to 42 gears (eat that smk) and it is available in a multitude of colors. This vehicle has been recorded to reach up to a 125 MPH speed (although average speeds will be around 20-25 mph) all this without using a single drop of gasoline. In additions to its benefits on the environment, it is believed to have great health benefits on its occupant, some studies shows the occupants increased their energy through the day, higher metabolic rate, loss of weight, longer endurance (she/he will be happy), and it might make you live longer.

Well it will be interesting. I am waiting to see what he will do. I am betting this economy gets even worse with his higher taxes.

Considering where the economy is at now it is safe to assume the economy will get worse and taxes will go up even if McCain got elected. This is not the fault of Obama, nor would it have been of McCain, it is what needs to happen for our economy to recover.

I just don't see what everyone is complaining about. If the car still has a +/- 400 mile range, who cares if the engine recharges the battery, or just provides power to the motor(s).

Can some one just enlighten on this?

I believe you are just upset that the leather seats won't rub your bloated ass five different ways.

20 actually...

I really like the new 2008 STS more than the 2008 CTS. Yes many disagree but the styling and lines on the STS are more me. I would never get a V8 in an STS a Diamond White V6 RWD with Luxury Performance Package and Sport Package with Nav for me please. The car is bigger inside and out than a CTS and that never hurts I am not a small guy after all. Tell your buddy I wish him the best of luck with it.

You are not alone, I agree I love the lines and styling of the STS over the CTS. I even like the interior, simple and elegant.

Top I mean just look at it. :AH-HA_wink:

A friend of mine had a Metro as a first car and we beat the ... out if. That was in the late 90's, after about 10 years and a little over 200k it finaly died. Very sad, sad day for us.

How did Ford make money & GM loose?

Ford is a lame duck!

Ford also sold a couple of its brands. Could that be it?

That's what I figured...It's just sad to see. I know not long ago they were considering phasing out the manual tranny altogether.

I remember talk about this about two years ago. There was some talk about going with clutch-less manuals like most in Europe. Now this was a couple of years back so my memory about it is some what distorted, but I do clearly remember talk about getting manuals out.

B-but, it doesn't have 20-way power seats or Dolby 7.1 surround sound, not to mention the V8 isn't DOHC and needs 6 liters to come close to the performance of the BMW 5.5 liter. And when BMW comes out with its quad turbo 5.5L V8 that runs on cat urine and folds your laundry in between gear shifts, the 550 will totally embarrass the G8. Face it, the G8 is a piece of garbage. Death to Pontiac. Death to GM. Long live BMW!!!! Bwaaahahahahahaha

You forgot: ...it's 0.683987 in. longer, it weights 10.983465 lbs more, it is priced too low, and it doesn't have the looks so therefore it can't compete with the BMW... Cadillac is going down the toilet, CTS is too big to compete with 3 series and too small to compete with the 5 series, Cadillac needs something bigger than the CTS, STS not big enough to compete, STS can't compete with 5 series its .04543 larger... etc... etc... etc...

I like to read all the good information on this web site. I have been coming almost every day to read good and reliable information for the last couple of years. I find my self coming less frequent because of nonsense and miss informed statements.

I was trying to help you understand the authors view point about home sizes, not mine, so you can be the one to STFU! I live in a 3750 sq. ft. house and like it.

You're joking, right? Allowing land to return to its natural state is bad for the environment? I supposed developed land or farm land is better? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant by your post. If not, I think you are right. You should stick to talking about cars.

Vegetated land refers to natural state not farm land.

140bhp is more than ample for a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback. By comparison, the new 1.8 litre MIVEC used in the European-spec Mitsubishi Lancer produces 143bhp, and that's one of the heaviest cars in its class. The 1.8 litre Zetec used in the Ford Focus since 1998, and now due for replacement, produces 123bhp so as you can see, the average output for a car of this engine capacity has increased in recent years.

The Astra's biggest assets are its handling and its build quality - the doors shut with the solid clunk of a Golf, for example.

The Astra here also comes with a 237bhp VXR model with a 2 litre turbo, but as with all VXRs it suffers from horrendous torque steer. A 230bhp Golf GTi is a better prospect.

What he is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Astra could have come with the 2.4L with about 170 HP and have an EPA rating of 22city and 31hwy. So why not go with more HP and about the same mileage.

Because it is a halo car in a division for people that don't care about fuel mileage.

Leave the V6 for the sedans at the bottom of the division (and by that I mean NOT the XLR and NOT the ULS)

Cheapening the XLR would be a disaster. If you want a 'cheap' Cadillac fun car, use Alpha as a basis.

I agree to some degree. What would you say to a Turbo / Super Charged version of the DI3.6?

...The fact that the batteries Necessary for its success are not yet proven commodities with only two years to go unitl 2010 target date.

...

Ask yourself: If the Camaro took 4years from concept to production (& is just a regular, unibody car), how does the Volt stand a chance to appear in 3?

This reminds me of a co-worker. She worked at NASA before joining our team. She mentioned that at the time J. F. Kennedy gave the speech about the US sending a man to the moon and bringing him back by the end of the decade, NASA thought it was impossible to do. However after his assassination everyone at NASA felt this urgency to make it happen. I don't have to tell you how that ended.