ehaase

Neither one of them would have owned a Dodge Aries 2 door in the 1980's or a Suzuki now.

I will say that, for the few weeks or months it existed, AH-HA's website was the best thing I have ever read on the auto industry.

Regfootball and Ninety Eight Regency expressed my opinions on this car better than I can. I can't get excited about the LaCrosse, Lucerne, or even the Enclave, but, apart from the 1964 to 1970 muscle cars, the 1980 to 1984 C bodies are GM at its best.

This Amurricun wants most of those things. I don't know what I'll do when Ford drops the Panthers.

Fascinating post, GuionM. I have long felt that the 2009 model year was the earliest we would see any Zetas, but GM can't afford to delay much longer than that. Although some of the posters here from the Midwest and Great Lakes are big fans of FWD, GM needs powerful RWD cars to compete on the east and west coasts, in my opinion.

Yes, let's just bring back Oldsmobile names from the 1970's and 1980's.

GM has proven it can't do that. It said that the 1987 Corsica would do it - failed. It said that the 1997 Malibu would do it - failed. It said that the Epsilons would do it - failed. It said that Saturn would do it - failed. People will only buy GM cars if they get a good deal, but GM can't survive on low prices, when it pays such high wages and benefits to UAW workers and retirees.

Financial accounting and tax accounting are quite different, and the increased losses reported by GM may have little or no effect on taxable income. Several days ago, the IRS commissioner proposed public disclosure of corporate tax returns, which I agree with. However, the reasons are opposite of GM's situation. Many corporations, like Enron, inflate financial income, perhaps to boost their stock value, while doing all they can to reduce taxable income.Generally, net operating losses may be carried back 2 years and carried forward 20 years.

Evok and Thegriffon for obvious reasons. I enjoy Chicagoland, Wildcat, Ellives, GuionM, Chazman, and The O.C. also. Mule Bakersdozen LS could be my son or little brother - I like his ideas, even though I don't think some of them are feasible any more.

I have been AH-HA's (and Evok's) biggest fan since I first encountered him on The Car Connection boards about 5 or 6 years ago. (However, I have known who he was for quite some time, as he left hints here twice.) Somehow, as the end of GM and Ford as we know them seems more inevitable each day, his departure now seems appropriate. However, I will look forward to seeing him quoted from time to time in The Detroit News and Automotive News.

You're from Canada. There's really no big demand among Americans for national health care. If there were, Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would be President now. Although I am ultra conservative on most other issues, I think a strong argument can be made for national health care because I don't think that free enterprise actually exists or can exist in health care. I think Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman of the NY Times have written on this issue. I personally think that doctors are way overpaid, even considering their education and work hours. However, the doctors have a powerful lobbying group, and Americans do seem to love their local doctor.

Ultimately, if Ford and GM are to continue producing vehicles in the United States, they are going to have to be able to pay wages and provide benefits comparable to what the transplants offer. I think I read (and I could very well be wrong) that Hyundai pays its workers in Alabama about $40,000 per year, with health insurance, a 401(k), but no pension.

If GM declares bankruptcy, I believe that Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, GM China, and Daewoo will survive, as will truck production in North America, but I think that car production in North America will be slashed, with only larger and performance models surviving. GM will have to break the UAW and eliminate the benefits for retirees to compete with the transplants

You're right. Plus Bob Lutz has a history at all of the automakers he has worked at of renaming cars.

I like Roadmaster and voted for it, but it's probably too old sounding for most people. I think that the car will be the next generation Lucerne, but with Bob Lutz's habit (at Ford, Chrysler, and GM) of renaming cars, I can see the Lucerne replacement will be renamed Invicta.

The Zeta Buick will probably be called Lucerne, because the Lucerne replacement is probably going on that platform. We already know that there will be no more new cars on the G or W body platforms.

I grew up in Asheville in the 1970's and early 1980's and went to Asheville High. Asheville was liberal back then, but there weren't very many hippies. Many kids were preppy, many were rednecks, and many were fans of Karl Marx. When my employer sent me to Atlanta in 1999 for a lengthy detail, I drove up to Asheville every other weekend, and it hadn't changed much physically.

I don't favor going back to carburetors, but I don't think that people enraptured with the Camry, Accord, and Altima, as well as BMW's, Acuras, and Lexuses, etc., will ever give Ford and GM a chance. I don't think that the Fusion is doing very well; it will be interesting to see if the Aura and next generaion Malibu succeed. I favor more cars like the Mustang and 300, and it appears that GM will give them to us.

I agree entirely with this article. Ford and GM need to return to building the kind of cars they are good at. They will never be good at building the kind of cars that Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are good at. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/1...26886/index.php Harley-Davidson has been making obsolete, inefficient and technologically deficient motorcycles since the 60’s. Despite an unrelenting onslaught of technically superior Japanese product, the Harley-Davidson brand has stayed true to its roots (however inadvertently). They’ve never stopped building bikes that maintain the charm and character of old-fashioned American motorcycling. Or, put another way, Harley makes its living convincing otherwise responsible adults to pay premium prices for old technology. This transition-- from cutting edge to outdated to nostalgic to a way of life-- is a perfect model for the American automobile industry

I don't think it's pointless.As Hebrews 4:12 says: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Isaiah 55:11 says that God's word will return void. Hopefully, the Holy Spirit will convict some of these boys, and they will repent and believe. Some of them just want to debate and argue and reject the Bible, no matter how much proof is given them. At least none of them will stand at the Great White Throne Judgement described in Revelation 21:11 - 15 and tell God they weren't warned.

Blasphemous.As Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name (Jesus) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

As Psalms 14:1 says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." As Proverbs 14:12 says, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death."

No. Hebrews 10:25 says: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more as ye see the day approaching."

Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity have little in common. I am glad I am a Baptist, because most of the Protestant religions (Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodists, Lutherans) never completely rid themselves of some Catholic doctrines. 1. Nothing in the Bible supports apostolic succession. 2. Nothing in the Bible supports sacraments, except for Baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper. 3. Nothing in the Bible supports the Pope. 4. Peter certainly was not a pope, as he was married and there is no evidence that he was ever in Rome. 5. Nothing in the Bible supports the Priesthood. 6. Nothing in the Bible supports the mass and transubstantiation. 7. Nothing in the Bible supports infant baptism. 8. Nothing in the Bible supports the purgatory. 9. Nothing in the Bible supports penance. 10. Nothing in the Bible supports to worship or veneration of Mary (she was a sinner in need of a Savior like the rest of us - see Luke 1:47 and she and Joseph had children after Jesus was born - see Matthew 13:55-56). Most Catholics I have known are great people, but Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.

No. Proverbs 20:1 says: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."The Christian believer is forbidden to drink any alcohol.