balthazar

If Pontiac had, -say- 3 strong, unique performance models, Chevy could retain their semi-hokey SSs well & good- the Pontiacs would be different cars. As much as splitting the Corvette off makes sense on some level, I am far too much of a traditionalist here to support that. Leave it at Chevy. I know there's not enough money for this (thanks, saab!), but the Solstice, G8 /G8 SportTruck and a G6-ish segment car, all retuned to top-notch performance (even if exactly equaling Chevy's SSs), should easily hold their own in the B-P-G sales channel- because they'd be different cars for all the marketing particulars that matter. Oh, and advertize the Division!

Sorry to see that - I was hoping you had gotten a job with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lookit that rainbowed taillight billboard (with the plate sliding greasily off of it). Does it scroll 'Backen Offenhaus' in an Old World script?? Gruesome. One thing's good- even after the interum decades, that exact grille --with it's oversized, bling-bling-lookitme emblem-- is back on the new ones! It's... sort of, back in style! Keep all them windows rolled down all the time - it's its (partially) saving grace!

No prob, loki. Now I must ask: You don't think iran's 'peaceful nuclear program' has caused the price of oil to RISE already? Or the fact that KooKooBob CrazyPants runs that "tiny... no threat to us" country? Hm-mmm...

>>"The thing is, Chevy has had a performance image for certain models for well over 40 years.... so I couldn't see them abandoning that.. "<< Oh, but it has in the past: in the early '70s, the SS's disappeared or were neutered, the Camaro went SB only and the Z-28 disappeared completely. Meanwhile, over at Pontiac the big displacements, and the only truely viable performance car, the T/A, continued, along with a few others. IMO- that was only fitting and proper- Chevys are about basic transportation, Pontiacs are about performance (historically-speaking... y-you know; when Pontiac was all about establishing that... the 'late '50s thru the late-'70s). As many have said- it's all about product. Oh... I'm not discounting what PCS is so subtly hinting at; just pointing out it's all happened before, it could happen again. Again- not saying it will. BTW- how many cars does ferrari or maserati sell in a year?

Silence observed. How much?

Haven't seen one yet- very eager.

I have/had far bigger problems with Olds' validity. Sure- if you give performance models across the board to Chevy, naturally it undermines Pontiac. How about reversing that??

>>"What good is a review? There are polls all the time, Congress knows people think they suck, didnt they have a 70% disapproval rating last week? Your only option, as a voter, is to vote them out or write them to bitch them out for not doing what their constituents want."<< A review in & of itself is empty, but recall I said accountability. I --& without a doubt an ever-increasing portion of the citizenry-- are no longer satisfied with an 'only option' (voting out incumbants). It's NOT working- the system's broken. >>"Do you know how easy it is to access congressional voting records? Pretty dang easy... What do most Americans read? The crap."<< Voting records are not the whole picture, and again- it is not accountability. Voting record's access is not tracked like subscriptions are, perhaps they have a wider viewership than anyone thinks. Also, politicians have gotten relatively good at one thing- perfecting obscurity to a high art (ever read the voting questions on ballots? Intentional gibberish.). >>"I said years, didn't attach a number. "<< So you didn't.... but drilling 'will take 10 years' is unilaterally trotted out as the primary reason NOT to do it. If valid, then it's just as valid a 'reason' NOT to pursue alternatives, which will easily take longer.... but it's NOT valid. >>"I'm not going to believe what any oil company says..."<< Because they're all evil, right? >>"Drilling for oil only delays the inevitable, eventually oil is going to quit being a viable option, I'd rather see the country prepared for that day"<< They are not mutually exclusive! Oil companies are not going to switch suddenly to solar power; there are and will be new energy companies that will arise in each segment. Should oil companies shutter their rigs today because they are going to run out somewhere in the future? What about the fantastic sucking sound the $700,000,000,000/yr makes as it tears out of this country to pay for imported oil?? Will there be any investment funds left in the U.S. to see these alternatives thru to viability in the 10-15 years (MY opinion) it'll take to replace oil ?? >>"Oil rigs visible from the coast would be an eyesore, possibly hurting local economies that rely on tourism. "<< The primary focus for any new rigs are much farther out to sea than the current rigs, these are deep water wells that have already proven to access & pump from very large fields. No effect on tourism. Most existing rigs are not visible from shore, anyway, and no one is looking to place any new ones closer. Invalid.

The market said the same thing in '54, HE.

satty- >>"There are elections every 2 years. "<< And to think: I was going to say- 'don't bother saying 'vote them out' ; that's not accountability. Congress needs periodic performance reviews during terms, not just the possibility of not getting re-elected every 6 years (senators serve 2-yr terms). It's obviously not enough- the system's rotten. >>"You cant blame the media, or the government, for the fact that the voters of this country dont pay attention. Would it be better if news outlets ran stories about bills and whatnot instead of sex scandals? Yep. But that would require the politicians not soliciting sex in airport bathrooms, or trying to hook up with pages or whatever else. America is a white-trash nation that is more interested in crap like that than actual politics, and its their own damn fault."<< Media choses content, and therefore conditions the public in a certain direction. But that direction is 'entertainment', not news & information.... you know; of significance. You CANNOT say the media hasn't played a major role here. Also, I do not agree with your assessment of America as a white-trash nation, either; like all sorts of sordid sh!t doesn't go on all over the 'civilized' world. >>"Its not that simple. They have to locate the oil, locate a suitable spot from which to drill, get the rigs in place, it will take years for any oil drilled from new reserves ends up in your gas tank."<< Democrat sound byte. Oil companies have stated it would take 1-2 years in areas where infrastructure is at least somewhat present, no more than 5 years where there's none and for the outer continental shelf. And since the oil companies are saying 1-2, where did Congress get the oft-quoted figure of "10 years" from, besides the ususal Brown Well of Information ? This is besides that fact- what does Congress think (hahah: I said "Congress think") energy prices are going to be in 2, 5 or 10 years ? What if drilling had been allowed instead of Clinton banning it -hmmmm- at least 8 years ago- we might still be paying $30/barrel. >>"Drilling domestically isn't the answer, alternative energy is the answer."<< Not that I'm against it, because I'm NOT, but how long will alternative energy take to 'get into our gas tanks' ???? Funny how we never hear an estimate there. There is zero infrastructure for most of the alternative suggestions- and only 10 years would be an amazingly short timepsan for any alternative to 'save us'. Still, as a supporter, I say: damned straight - start now, and meanwhile fire up the reactors! But at the same time, drill now, too. >>"Oil companies can drill in the Gulf of Mexico, they have leases, they're just not doing it."<< By & large. these leases have either no recoverable oil, or not enough to provide a price reduction. The seemingly automatic assumption here is there's plenty of oil under all the lease sites. Well, who determined that- the government? Oil companies WANT to drill, if they have oil-rich leases but aren't drilling, what exactly would their motive be for not doing so? If your answer is profit- why pay the lease costs at all? But ask yourself why no new refineries have been permitted to be built since 1976- many analysts say that is the bottleneck to supply, not drilling; existing refineries are running at 98% capacity. If profit were the primary goal, why not dial that back? >>"Allowing offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific *may* get speculators to back off, which *may* stabilize oil prices, but none of that is a given."<< There's no givens with any of the alternatives, either. Just heard a piece on the proposed wind farms, in order to be the power grid source, they obviously need fossil fuel back-ups, for those times the wind isn't blowing. Ooops. How often are they going to run in high demand and/or no wind situations?? That's not an alternative, that's a NEW DEMAND for fossil fuels. Still, the threat of a Gulf storm causes the price of oil to move higher. you don't think actual drilling would get it to move lower?? >>"Gas isn't going to back to pre-Bush levels anytime, no matter how much we drill and where we drill, so the government would be better off encouraging alternative energies..."<< Do both. >>"...instead of promoting potential environmental and aesthetic disaster."<< Technology today is far safer than years ago (notice not a drop of oil spilled during Katrina?), plus directional drilling and outer continental shelf rigs greatly reduces.... ahem... "aesthetic disasters".

Not using more clenched-fisted violence in my past.

Much like in the corporate world: government officials should be given performance reviews, and terminated for insufficient grades. There's zero accountability.

Hmmm, what's the point of a DTS that's as short as a 2-door?

Huh; my brother lives in West Amwell. Was your uncle's place at the end of a 1/2-mile driveway, back in the woods? Yeah- the yard has to have been Manchur's. They had an orange '50s truck door leaning against the telephone pole, and there was a long, long driveway back to the buildings, with the yard behind it. Road is Pittstown Road, but the only thing left is that truck door at the road- place was crushed out circa '98 after the owner died in '95. His widow still lives there, weezing down the humped driveway in a battered toyo, like a final insult to all that awesome steel & stainless. We might have been in the same yard on the same day- I was still going there around '90.

I agree completely, usonia.

Me no likey tubbys.

>>"It's a work truck. But whoever owns it apparently doesn't work much. The thing is free of dust, dirt, dents and scratches."<< What a load of unmitigated crap. I'm going to state that a lack of scratches & dirt on Mr Brown's keyboard indicates he apparently doesn't do much research or writing.

So, 90 days of an 18.4 / 23.4 cent tax equals $9,000,000,000 ? And they're facing a shortfall ?? When they had a $10,000,000,000 surplus 3 years ago?? 10-cents more would return roughly a $20B SURPLUS annually - how is that remotely justified when we're only supposedly looking at a $3B shortfall ???????????????? Sorry: denied. I don't support the gas tax holiday, but then again- I don't support the gas tax, period.

'Republican' is not the opposite of 'liberal'. The whole stupid mess reminds me of a reoccuring practice in gov: This happened this year (I forget where) and I saw the same thing reported in a 1968 NY newspaper I was paging thru last week: local government urges water conservation... gets it... and is forced to raise water rates due to lower revenue. Cut waste somewhere else to take up the slack, because... you know.... it's WASTE ? Nope.

Tee-hee- the motor looks.... so.... tiny. Is that a XS (extra small) block ? Just kiddin', congrats on the 'drop'!

CA recently made home schooling a criminal offense. Can a state be more misguided ?? IMO- the typical & pervasive CA liberalism is finally biting it's own throat. Good- perhaps... just perhaps some of these whiny libs will scuttle back under their rocks for a decade or so.... but I'd bet against that.

What junkyard near Flemington was this- Manchur's Auto & Truck Parts, by any chance ??

>>"GM has had 25 years to copy the 3-series and never did, 40 years to copy the S-class and never did. At least Toyota tried, Cadillac won't even try."<< Mercedes copied far more from Cadillac in the last 40 years than vice versa, vs. now. mercedes' mainstream cars then were tiny, tinny, anemic and archaic, Cadillac's certainly weren't. But in the last 40 years the car market has been shrinking while the truck market was growing. GMC alone sold 148K units in '68 and nearly 600K in '06. Market crests in '06, toyo builds a BN truck plant in '07. Well planned. >>"I recognize that they are the wealthiest..."<< Who has ever debated this point with you, yet you make a point of repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating it. You would spend weeks at the Grand Canyon. As if all toyo's revenue was proportionally reflective in their products... at all. >>"...and most efficiently managed car maker."<< I think most would agree that the deluge of recalls and TSBs in the last 2 years have greatly hampered toyopet's 'efficiency', (multi-billion dollar product buy-back ring any bells?) and I would easily believe there are more streamlined & more efficient manufacturers out there than toy-bloat-o.

It's a lot farther removed from the concept than -say- the G6 was. But what I want to know is- why change any of it at this price level?? >>"It's not as good as the Silverado or F150, so less people bought it, but over time Toyota will get the quality issues fixed. If selling 197,000 units and making $6 billion in revenue..."<< The crime here is toyota had decades and decades of studying/copying the class leaders, endless buckets of bux, and they weren't. even. close. And with all that mad, crazy, outrageous R&D spending.....

>>"honestly, all of BMW's designs are aging incredibly well and looking like the most forward-thinking, progressive designs of this era. the surfacing is inspiring automakers everywhere to do unique things there."<< :rotflmao: