Croc

EV1 didn't fail. Who wrote that for Yahoo? They clearly don't know what fact-checking is. I swear the internet is like an echo chamber for the factually retarded...

It's a chicken and egg problem. If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system. Wrong on both counts. People live in the suburbs because it's cheap. You get more house, more space, more "shiny things" for your money. Why? Because cities are expensive. Why? Because the market dictates it so via supply and demand. There's a reason it's called "suburban wasteland." There's no culture, limited shopping, little social interaction. Also, strong public transit is NOT a prerequisite to desirable urban living. If it were, Los Angeles would not exist. That's getting fixed--slowly but surely--but it still isn't a reality. To be fair, LA was built with the best public transit network in the world...but it grew and prospered after it was all ripped up.

That's what they were originally going to do with Mercury. What happened there? I don't think imported Euro Fords would have the amenities and appointments to come off as anything but overpriced. Certainly would bring Lincoln further downmarket.

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

OK Portland is a pretty tiny city. In fact, I refer to it as an oversized small town. Seriously, it doesn't support a real population and its size is artificially limited. Indianapolis has a larger population, though the Portland Metro Area is definitely boosted by southern Washington State. The rest of the normal, capitalist world has little-to-nothing in common.

Agreed. I'm currently dating a Jehovah's Witness with less issues than that. Are you into emotional masochism as well?? Jesus Christ... He grew up one, he doesn't currently practice, nor wish to thankfully. Oh OK, but then he really isn't a Jehovah's Witness then. That would be like describing me as a Catholic...um no.

They can't go too high without getting into Cadillac's space...they have the bling lux market covered w/ the Escalade..(the Yukon Denali seems to be in the same space). Cadillacs aren't really off-roaders. Perhaps Cadillac should morph the Escalade into X5/Cayenne territory, while GMC can focus on the off-road luxury. Totally agree. X 3

They can't go too high without getting into Cadillac's space...they have the bling lux market covered w/ the Escalade..(the Yukon Denali seems to be in the same space). Cadillacs aren't really off-roaders.

Agreed. I'm currently dating a Jehovah's Witness with less issues than that. Are you into emotional masochism as well?? Jesus Christ...

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived. Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel. It really isn't that hard and awful, people. You are talking tiny numbers here. America is still a nation on wheels. Only in your limited, closed mind.

What in the hell does it mean that his family is "watching him like a hawk"?!?! A grown-ass man can't go about his life as he pleases?! Blu, I think you can do better. Find someone who isn't consumed with "issues."

How high? Range Rover high? I'm down for that.

No kidding. The thing is, though, that you and Camino seem unable to think of the other perspective...you know, how people get through life without driving. I grew up with a family where one parent was blind and the other was legally blind. No car. Somehow they managed to survive, and their kids thrived. Ever think of the disabled? Many of them physically cannot drive. Horror of horrors, they must be complete shut-ins, right? No, they find alternative ways of travel. It really isn't that hard and awful, people.

Why let facts get in the way of emotions? No, it was likely dropped because of how much of an overhaul it would be, and how complicated all the information-gathering would be. It's a lot easier and more convenient to just tax at the pump instead of trying to track odometers.

Yea, it's a pearlescent white metallic. Gorgeous color, impossible to keep clean.

That's cool, you won't be competition when I DO have the money to pursue the purchase of one.

hahahaha I had to upvote this because it really has been hillbilly marketing

I was thinking the same thing. No smiley bottom fascias that's what ruined the mazda line for me. US-spec license plate holder and waterfall grille treatment should greatly reduce if not eliminate the "smile."

It is my understanding that a disproportionate impact on the poor makes it regressive, this qualifies in that regard. That's really stretching it, then. By your definition, any tax that does not increase according to income is "regressive." Sorry, but I don't really consider usage taxes to be regressive, especially when there are alternatives to driving. There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway. In this case, anyway, since poor people have lower rates of auto ownership, it would appear that this would not be regressive.

So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income. And does that not confirm the idea's status as "regressive"? It does not.

How so? It would disproportionately affect lower income drivers. Imagine the pizza-delivery guy, or the girl that delivers the morning paper, or the guy with a uniform rental business... So drive less, carpool more and/or take public transit...things lower income earners already do. You don't have to drive everywhere in a car by yourself. This kind of a user fee system affects drivers, based on how much they "consume" regardless of income.

How so?

Well for one, there'd be virtually no lending. Money now in your pocket is inherently more valuable than theoretical money that someone is promising to give you (back) at some future point in time. That's why there's interest.

Isn't it magnaride? All magnaride is programmable...