Lol! You couldn’t be more wrong. A blanket ban on all bumper stickers would be prior restraint and a clear violation of the First Amendment in every court in every state America (unless there was some urgent, imminent, demonstrable safety risk in allowing people to have bumper stickers).

States certainly have the right to regulate the content of vanity license plates.  They just have to do so within the confines of the First Amendment.  There are well-established limits to protected free speech.

Yeah, as is her right...

Second Amendment? That’s your idea of a joke, right? And since you obviously haven’t read our Constitution, no, the Second Amendment doesn’t give you or your well-regulated militia the right to shoot or brandish arms against someone with an offensive license plate. You’re confusing that with the right to plead not…

There’s a reason Maine seeks to restrict license plates that they deem to be vulgar, yet doesn’t aim to regulate bumper stickers - and that reason is the First Amendment. Maine is on much firmer ground Constitutionally when they choose to regulate state-issued identification tags as opposed to privately printed…

The whole purpose of the federal First Amendment (at least as it pertains to speech) is that it protects speech that some people might find offensive. If the First Amendment only protected innocuous speech that everyone agreed with, we wouldn’t need the “free speech” portion of the First Amendment.

And no - "UAAS" was NOT just an indictment of the first generation Corvair...

And the only reason the Feds showed any interest in safety at all was Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at Any Speed” which came out in 1965. Not only were seatbelts not mandatory in 1965, as Nader pointed out, it was unforgivable that AIRBAGS weren’t required. In 1965...

Some “articles” leave you thinking, what the hell was the author thinking? (Or better yet, was this even an article)?

You didn’t miss anything, but shear laziness. There was no article. No commentary. No analysis. No insight. It was just random responses posted by random people, many of whom know nothing about cars.

I don't think that V6 was designed specifically for your El Camino.  So the fact that it only had 95 HP doesn't really qualify it as being one of the "worst engines ever".  I'm pretty sure it was designed to have 95 HP.  

Agree exactly. This whole article is nothing more than a bunch of random shit thrown out there, with no attempted insight or analysis. Much of this nonsense is contributed by people who know very little about cars.  

The Cadillac Cimarron didn’t use a Cadillac engine - it used the run-of-the-mill Chevy Cavalier Iron Duke. The Cimarron wasn’t really a “Cadillac".

The Kizashi had a really nice interior.

Except there's no deep water port and there are no views or anything to look at.  At least it's finished...

1998-2000 Mercury Mystique, V6 five-speed. Dirt cheap? Check. They’re practically giving them away. Sleeper? Check. It’s a Mercury. And its 4-door sedan. The very definition of a “sleeper”. Safe? Reasonably so, it was decent size (3000 lbs) with modern safety features like dual airbags, ABS, and side impact door…

For under $5000?

And they're tiny deathtraps...

Yeah, just fine - except for the unsafe deathtrap part...

What struck me as odd, is that within minutes, the owner of this Tesla in suburban Philly hires famous LA criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos to represent him in some capacity...