Well, as I said, if it's only couple of years old it's good!
But later..... hehe.....hehe....

Well maybe bootleg isn't the right word.. It just seems kinda.. I don't know, odd... heh, making your own fuel.. Anyways.

I'm not worried about it upsetting the market as I'm more wondering how this will effect the market. Its proven that we like import cars, I like import cars. Why? I don't know, most of them smoke American cars with their price and reliability.

We should vote in a president of Chorrol.com!... alright who's the nominees? (w/e)

Not really the point of this thread...



I don't think it will make that much of an impact. So many people rely on the well-known brands, whether they be Japanese or American, because that's what they've seen all their lives and they know that they are reliable.

Now, after the company has been running for a decade or so and builds a bit of a reputation...who can tell?

EDIT: I heard that they are just copies of american cars. (Not sure though, because I haven't really looked at them in too much detail)

This post has been edited by Dantrag: May 30 2006, 09:23 PM

I had a good laugh reading the articles. I don't know if I would trust Bricklin for a succesful import :S. the man seems to be failed attempt after failed attempt O.o. That and theirQQ does look like the spark. I'm not impressed thus far, and while some are expecting it to be a big hit due to the large number htey are importing in their first year. I am not to sure. I would have to wait and see what consumer report's test turn out like for chery's car before I will make a true judgement on these vehicles. If it turns otu to be a good car safety wise and fuel economy wise then I could understand.


and for a quick laugh. now even our cars will come with 'Made in China' stickers. Corny I know

EDIt: spelling >.<

This post has been edited by Megil Tel-Zeke: May 30 2006, 09:47 PM

Did a bit of gravedigging here, but I wanted some more current event talk.

So, two Wednesdays ago, (July 12th) the US announced its desires to have control of South Korea's troops during war time. To quote Wiki -



Thoughts? I think that the US is reaching too far here. I mean, South Korea needs someone to protect South Korean interests, not the United States'. War time is when they would need control of their troops most. We need to mind our own business more often.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jul 30 2006, 11:49 PM

Actually that is what they are proposing. The US has had control of South Koreas forces since the end of the Korean War. They are not trying to gain control here, but give it back to them.

I think they should give control back to them for peacetime and wartime ... with the USA as allies and advisors. Seems to work well everywhere else in the world.

Wow, I feel like an idiot. I'll learn to read one of these days.

This just in: Americans are officially lazier than Mexicans

Protesters freeze Mexico City's Economy



Mexican protesters completely froze Mexico City's economy that day because of possible voter fraud there was no evidence of. Meanwhile in the USA we had mountains of evidence against the legitimacy of our last two elections. Take for example:

The security problems with voting machines: Confirmed by both Democrat Representative John Coyer as well as a programmer within Diebold, a single hacker with a Wi-fi connection could shift the results of entire precincts just by driving by. Even the GAO decided the security flaws were "vast and unacceptable" throughout the entire national network.

A Diebold spokesman admitted a flaw was actually built into the system to allow election officials to upgrade their software, but Diebold is confident there are no election officials that would use this to cheat... in fact the quote by Diebold's David Bear went like this, "For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil or nefarious election officials who would sneak in an introduce a new piece of software, I don't believe these evil elections people exist." What he's basically saying is if an official has the motivation to do so they could change the results of their precinct. But of course, who would have the motivation to do so? Well, Ohio 2004's election chief was J. Kenneth Blackwell. He had the above mentioned access. Not long after the election was won, he was given a job as Secretary of Agriculture, and now receives quite a nice paycheck.

In fact, Blackwell personally handled a no-bid contract for Diebold's touch-screen voting machines... while holding stock in the company. Furthermore, under HB3 Blackwell has the sole responsbility of deciding whether these voting machines will be audited or not in an election where he's running for governor.

And that's just voting machines, in the 2004 elections 3.6 million votes were cast but never counted. They were called spoiled votes or rejected provisional ballots. If these missing votes were random it wouldn't matter, but they weren't. In fact, the invalidated votes were primarily against minorities. If you were Latino, your vote was 500% more likely to be not counted than if you were white. If you were black, your vote was 900% more likely not to be counted. If you were Native American, your vote was 2000% more likely not to be counted.

In New Mexico, 89% of votes thrown away were in minority districts. Kerry would have won New Mexico. In Ohio, 155,000 black votes were thrown away. Kerry would have won Ohio.

And after all that, what happens? Barbara Boxer challenges the results, and for four hours "they went over the evidence" but they didn't. If you watched C-Span, the evidence was largely outnumbered by a Glib Offensive tossing metaphorical tomatoes at Boxer. It was very rare to see anyone in this offensive attack what they were saying, or to even refer to the evidence. In more cases, they were knocking down strawmen or using ad hominems. They even refered to Boxer as a "Michael Moore liberal."

And who in the United States froze a freaking city? In Mexico, the candidate asked for it, and bam, complete and total lock-down of Ciudad del Mexico. And it's not that Americans don't believe the election was stolen, either. According to OpEdNews/Zogby People's poll of Pennysylvania residents, 39% of the state thought the election was stolen. 54% said it was legitimate. This is probably a much closer poll than if you took one of Mexico, but here's the kicker: Of the people who watch Rupert Murdoch's Fox News as their primary source of News, .5% believe it was stolen, and 99% believe it was legitimate. Of the people who watched other news sources as their primary source of News, the people who believe the election was stolen are in the majority. CNN: 70%, MSNBC: 65%, CBS: 64%, ABC: 56%, Other: 56%, NBC: 49%, with Fox at just .5%.

And the best part is, none of the above mentioned information made it to ANY of the above mentioned news places. The most the new York Times ever mentioned was that it was "the latest concern about touch-screen machines."

What does our media focus on? Some actor got drunk and talked compassion about jews, and that is apparently more interesting news.

So the final resolution of this Novel, if you want a healthy democracy, move to Mexico.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, this is not really an argument about the legitimacy of the 2004 election, but why was Mexico up in arms with less evidence while America didn't do anything? Do you blame the media refusing to properly inform the citizens? Do you blame the candidates because neither Al Gore nor John Kerry pushed the issu?. Do you blame the general state of mind of Americans today? Because it seems to me we have the exact same problems now as we did in the early 60s, lying politicians, corruption, war, our firends and family dying for stupid reasons, so what's the difference? Why do the people of America today sit on their asses and let the government get away with it?

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Aug 2 2006, 01:52 AM