By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=28148.15
This is an effective diet plan, at least.
-juice
-mike
-juice
-Dave
The rear seat is cool - you get two buckets with a center console, but a child booster seat folds down from it! Weird but cool.
The cargo bay is awesome, sliding tracks and a fridge and oven right there. Styling is pretty radical, though a Volvo buddy says it reminds him of the PT from some angles.
The Ferrari 360 was a step down in stlying from the 355. The twin grille opening just isn't as nice.
The Gallardo came out cute, I like it. The rear reminds me a little too much of the MR2, but that's it. AWD and 500hp, but it'll be 3 times the price of the B11S, which should offer similar performance (!).
Look at the CL65 AMG and then look at the Audi Nuvolari - did Audi copy that green house or what? Especially the C-pillar. Shame on Audi, they used to pioneer, now they follow? I don't even think the C-pillar looks good. It looks like a hard top on a convertible.
-juice
does no one else think it a bit weird that we can just have children and not have one bit of any kind of idea about what to do with them .. but can't drive a car without having a state issued license???
lol
There's this funny little document you might want to check out, it's called the Bill of Rights.
While I support the natural right of a child to have good parenting, the subject is just a tad more complex than a bumper sticker that reads: "Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em!"
-juice
-Dave
-juice
http://www.zztrailer.com/outback/tsvspos.jpg
(Defending the underappreciated TS)
utahsteve
Now if the WRX looked like the P5 I'd have bought one long ago!
Licensing - if we're going to talk about different licensing requirements, then don't forget those older drivers who may have diminished skills. I still remember 78 year old "Woody" introducing the boat he was driving to the drivers side of my car a few years ago. He claimed he just did not see the redlight OR my car in the intersection in front of him. Luckily he wasn't moving very fast so the damage was only to my car and not me. I'm not promoting age discrimination but it's a fact that physical skills diminish with age, so there needs to be some kind of retesting process (IMO). Do any states do this?
Jon
The TS is definitely a great value though, I won't argue that.
Jon
-mike
-mike
Not gorgeous like the B11S, mind you.
This is the Cafe folks, everything here is off topic, so let's give folks some leeway?
-juice
Here’s another subject: How about an IQ test before you can vote? Or maybe you should be asked a couple of questions from the <citizenship test. Or you could be required to name several of your current elected representatives. After all, should you be allowed to vote if you don't know who the current office holders are?
-Frank P.
I'm not sure if it's true that the people who can't name their representatives are the ones who don't vote - it depends on what level of government we're talking about. There's a big drop off in voter awareness from the Federal level to the State level, and again from the State level to the local level, isn't there?
I know that our elections in Colorado are now so complicated with all of the referendums and such that it takes me several hours just to work through all the issues. It's daunting, frankly.
-brianV
Whew, that's a relief !
-brianV
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 by US Senator Robert
Byrd
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human
experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of
battle,every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of
war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent --ominously,
dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay
out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is
nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our
own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only
on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive
discussion re the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular
war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no
simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it
materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and
possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently
threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new
twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in
contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being
tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around
the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's
-- hit list.
High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear
weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq.
What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of
uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital
economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?
There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S.
intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.
Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and
alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid
alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with
little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family
members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the
duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are
being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other
essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is
grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon
spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be
judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has
squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next
decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire
financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our
people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed
economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as
the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been
slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This
Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous
borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin
Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his
forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split
traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International
order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This
Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide
perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This
Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats,
labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the
intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have
consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of
crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have
massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism
alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies
as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.
Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another
devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy.
Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the
augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not
just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is
evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in
that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace
in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in
that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of
destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war
against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with
perils much greater than those in Afghanistan.
Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning
the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the
absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil
fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply
of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose
to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks
on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,
bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide
recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous
disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the
global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more
lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
I'm sorry it seemed to get 'inflammatory' for some with the 'debates' and idea sharing ... I was enjoying the give and take which seemed to remain polite and respectful .. I didn't stay for the whole chat however ...
I think in a chat situation people are more likely to speak without thinking things through, though, whereas if it is written there is more reflection on the visual written word before it is posted (in general)
I also like to see some posting outside of cars because, after all, we do not own these cars in isolation from the rest of who we are ... we are all complex people with many facets .. some of which are similar and some of which are not ... the strength not only of this group, but of our nation as a whole ...
Smiles, guys ... have a good weekend .. and think of me driving the six hours again tonight on a round trip to get the college daughter home for spring break !
arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous
consequences for years.One can understand the anger and shock of any
President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate
the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous,
fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with
the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the
greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements
made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet
this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the
nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under
age 15 --this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we
send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of
chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of
what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our
attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I
pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not
in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild
card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly
must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive
unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in
the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary
at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our
mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to
now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is
still a way if we allow more time
-juice
It took me hours to put together some of those posts.
Guess I should stick to software testing...
-brianV
Be kind to each other. Please.
Brenda: The written word is definately "safer", because you have time to reconsider before inserting your entire foot into your mouth, lol...
-brianV
Anyone care to do a comparison/contrast for me?
-brianV
Items that the EVO doesn't have:
o Front LSD
o Rear mechanical LSD
o Driver controlled center diffy
o 300hp/300lbs torque
o 2.5 v. 2.0 engine (more low end)
o Subaru Reliability
o 6MT tranny
The Evo is basically a step above the WRX in that it has more power but other than that it's really very similar in the mechanics.
-mike
-Used to looking at poor middle school writing in FL-
Better driver's ed would benefit us all. Limited track time, skid pad & maneuvering courses would be great. Maybe an "oversize" endorsement for towing, motorhomes, big SUV's... but make 'em voluntary & give insurance premium discounts?
Rambling on aimlessly...
Cheers!
Paul
I then received a stern "habitual offender" program letter in the mail ! I was offended all right ! lol.
-brianV
The Evo has a lot of former Subaru nuts around here breathing heavy... I'm wondering what all the excitement's about (not an unusual thing with me...)
-brianV
It does offer a moonroof, though, which the STi won't. You can also choose between a huge and a small spoiler. That's about it.
-juice
Which has the bigger rear seat? Friend in question has a 3 year old in a car seat.
-brianV
If you think about it, 0-60 in 5.8 seconds vs. 5.1, will you really notice a difference with our speed limits and pot-holed roads?
The wagon will be practical, and heck, I'd stick with 16"s after driving over these post-snow blizzard roads full of holes. They almost swallow my Miata whole.
-juice
I too, would go with a wagon - prolly a new Forester XT if it were me, then chip that if need be, but he's looking for a "driver's car that fits a car seat".
We're going to the auto show together, so hopefully we'll get to see them on the same night, if not side by side.
-brianV
In NYS they can't even ticket a driver for a moving violation using those red-light cameras, at best they give the owner a non-mover cause the plate is shown.
-mike
-mike
What is worrying is that an Australian (me) can sit the USA citizenship test and get 10 out of 10.
Brian mentioned that in Australia, voting is compulsory. I guess that in the USA, you see voting as a right. Here in Australia, we see it as your responsibility as a member of the community to vote. Actual voter participation is high, typically about 95% with some voters inevitably slipping through the cracks through illness on the day, being unexpectedly detained etc.
Australians are generally fairly well informed and opinionated on their government and its actions. That does mean that the debate over the looming war with Iraq is probably more balanced here than in the USA. Australians were infuriated at the failure of the Allies to finish the necessary task of regime change in Iraq at the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991. You may recall the TV images of bloodshed as the Iraqi Army was driven back from Kuwait resulted in a backlash in the US and an early termination of the war before Bhagdad fell. There was a subsequent failure by the USA to support the Kurds in the North or the Marsh Arabs in the South of the country both of whom had uprisings suppressed.
In a sense, George W's current campaign is cleaning up unfinished business from his father's era. It is unclear whether there is grounds to initiate the proposed offensive. Certainly the government of Iraq is unpleasant, but so are the governments of many nations. Is potential belligerence adequate grounds to initiate a war? If that perspective was generally accepted, the United States which has something of a track record for belligerence, could have found itself on the receiving end more than once.
Our government in Australia is suffering some difficulties in its efforts to play Sheriff's Deputy (okay, very small Deputy) to the USA and Britain. The merits of this potential conflict have been seriously questioned with large meetings before the conflict starts, exceeding those against the Vietnam War in its later, inglorious, stages. The Australian public is very dubious.
Australia expects to take a role in policing and wars as they occur They have been there from the Boer War forward and in First and Second World Wars had the largest deployments and loss of life proportionate to population of any nation. Australia's Armed Forces have a deserved reputation for fair, but tough and aggressive military engagement. Our forces are particularly adept at guerrilla type operations with some of the world's toughest Special Forces. We aided regime change in East Timor three years ago and are continuing that process. We are consistent supporters of UN based Peace initiatives and our forces serve in Peace-Keeping roles around the world.
Jose Ramos-Horta the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Winner and East Timor Foreign Minister argued in the New York Times that much of the protest against impending war is posited upon specious arguments of damage to the Iraqi people, ignoring the plight that they have born for more than 20 years (reprinted around the world - this link is from the New Zealand Herald) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3199147&th- esection=news&thesubsection=dialogue
However, the Australian public is doubtful, seeing the lack of support from the United Nations as a major barrier to engagement. The attitude of many American politicians, particularly your president, seeking to characterize those members of the UN who disagree with his views, as "lily-livered" or equivalent phrases, does not take the process forward. It offends Australians and I suspect much of the rest of the world, to see an administration seek to steamroller its way past legitimate debate. It look like "Playing the Man, Not the Ball" which suggests a lack of merit in any argument.
That concern is reinforced when the integrity of your constitutional right to free speech is circumvented by Shopping Mall Security Guards (supported, it appears by local police) who object to an innocuous T-shirt worn by an elderly lawyer. To the rest of the world, there appears limited difference between the suppression of rights in Iraq and the suppression of free speech in the USA. Simplistically, both appear to be abuses of human rights - who is more wrong? Realistically we can assume that life is worse in Iraq but suppressed rights in the USA do cloud the matter.
If the UN backs the US view, fine. If not, it will be hard to persuade the rest of the world.
Having avoided and car related topic at all, I wonder where this will end?
Cheers
Graham
Someone post in one of the other topics when the war BS stops being posted...
-mike
Cheers! (and keeping quarters in the car)
Paul
I suppose we shouldn't let a hand full prevent the rest of us from increasing our skills but it is a concern.
Jim