tfergusonmahacham
turd ferguson
tfergusonmahacham

In a perfect world, yes. But some of these people are in truly dire situations—they're not taking out the loans to buy frivolous crap, they're just trying to survive. What they need is a helping hand, which in some cases they might be able to get from a non-profit, but I am willing to bet that the usurers like

And that somehow excuses Tucker from breaking the law? Methinks you miss the main point of the article. Yes, there is the undercurrent that Tucker has made huge amounts of money preying on the poor, but the same could be said of a lot of "successful" businesspeople. But the main thrust of the article is that the

If what he was doing was merely "unethical but legal," then you might have an arguable point. I would still argue that just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it. Unfortunately, we live in an age of sociopath financiers, who don't believe in a social contract.

But global standards have become more stringent as well. The Chinese manufacturers aren't designing cars that they will only be able to sell in China; China is a huge market, but certainly their aspirations are global. If their cars comply with European standards, it will not be difficult to certify them for sale in

The best wrong-wheel-drive answer to this QOTD, for sure.

People said similar things about Japanese manufacturers in the '60s and '70s and Korean manufacturers in the '80s and '90s. It's not a question of if, but of when.

Yeah, clearly the Koreans are taking the path laid out by the Japanese decades earlier. And it seems to be working for them. Of course, that leaves something of a vacuum at the really cheap end of the market, which the Chinese look poised to fill.

I've been saying this for a long time, but the Korean car companies are trailing the Japanese (in terms of perception) by about 25-30 years. 40 years ago, many Americans considered cars made in Japan to be a joke. 10 years ago, many Americans felt the same way about Korean cars. 30 years ago, many people started to

Yeah, I never thought about it much until you mentioned it, but my observation is that VW owners tend to refer to it most often as the CEL, rather than the MIL. So I thought about it some more, and my perception (which admittedly lacks empirical data to back it up) from frequenting various forums is that owners of

Don't forget CEL.

Yeah, I'm not complaining—it was great to see France so well-represented in response to this QOTD!

Um, you've gotta scroll way down, but I nominated Renault early on. Chose a pic of the Avantime, too. [jalopnik.com]#comments

Yeah, when it comes to American car companies, AMC (and its ancestors) win this one. I still have a soft spot for AMC, for all of the reasons you've mentioned. They did so much with so little, and even though their platforms were getting a bit long in the tooth near the end, there was so much ingenuity in the little

Me too. But historically, they've been one of the car companies more willing to take chances.

The French pretty much have a lock on this QOTD. Citroen has already been mentioned, and is probably the best answer, but Renault is a good runner-up. Not afraid to take engineering (R5, R8, Alpine, etc.) or styling (Avantime, Vel Satis, Twingo) chances.

For starters, his figure is grossly inflated. The Northeast actually accounts for about 23.4% of the national GDP. To answer your question: Delaware only contributes about 0.4% of the national GDP. This is unsurprising since GDP is a measure of production, and very few Delaware-registered corporations actually

I don't "have a thing for CR." The cars they tend to recommend are cars that I find unbearably boring. I like my cars to have a few quirks and some character. I like to be reminded that what I'm driving is a machine, and not an appliance. So yeah, the cars I gravitate toward are unlikely to make CR's "recommended"

And I'm not your buddy. But neither am I your "opponent." I'm merely a curious commenter trying to determine whether you believe that CR takes bribes in return for their ratings or reviews on all manner of products. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this kind of thing could be going on in all the

Simmer down, pal. You wrote, "One instance where Honda couldn't pay CR anymore doesn't qualify. It's the exception, not the rule." Your statement suggests that CR accepts bribes in exchange for favorable reviews or "recommended" ratings. I was just curious if you believe that CR's ratings of all the products they

You do realize that CR reports on other products than cars, right? So are you saying that CR is also on the take when it comes to vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, breakfast cereals, deck stains, etc.? Or is it just cars?