On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:14:48 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken

Truer words were never spoken. :)

An excellent metaphor for our last election cycle... ;^)

It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -


Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?

On Jun 2, 9:26*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:55:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.

--Vic
Does it really have to do with taste?

Just depends on how you define taste.
As in, "Not enough Americans have a taste for GM vehicles."
What got to me thinking about this was I saw a Bob Lutz interview
on TV.
Seemed like a reasonable guy.
So I looked him up on Wiki and found this:
"When Lutz became chairman of GM North American development in 2001
one of the first things he stated was that his new 500 hp car was
going to save General Motors. His full compensation in 2008 is
estimated at $6.9 million."

And this:
"He will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason
for his decision was the increasing regulatory climate in Washington
that would force him to design what Federal regulators wanted, rather
than what customers wanted."

That is what I mean by "taste."
Lutz and the others running GM were complete fools.
Gonna save GM with 500 hp car.
Gonna give the customers what they want.
Sorry, close your ears. *I have to say this.
LUTZ, YOU TASTELESS ****ING MORON!!
I WOULDN'T HIRE YOU TO CUT BAIT!!

--Vic

It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.

Like lobster boats?

GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -


Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?


He said the same thing about people who owned handguns.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:18:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -


Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?


He said the same thing about people who owned handguns.

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

jps wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:18:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -

Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?

He said the same thing about people who owned handguns.

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

Two points:
1. I was not discussing you or even talking to you, I was discussing
the person who stated those who owned handguns were using them due to
them having a very small penis. You might have said, it, but I never
heard you say it, Harry said it everyday, till the day he purchased a
handgun.
2. I don't own a handgun, never have. I have no problem if handguns
have increased regulations or completely banned. I really don't have a
problem if we leave the law the way it is. I completely agree that in
most cases handguns are used against the handgun owner (by a criminal
who takes the gun away from them), or they use the gun to kill
themselves. Based upon Harry's behavior, and I would think the odds are
he will eventually use his handgun to harm himself, or he will go postal
at the local mall, but I don't think banning guns will result in
criminals or mentally unstable individuals turning in their handguns.
It will just make selling them very profitable for organized crime.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:48:05 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:16:35 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:17:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Gonna save GM with 500 hp car.

Well, to tell the truth, I might have bought one if it came in a
Corvette body. :)

You can get pretty close in a Cadillac 2 door coupe.
My FIL's CTS is a 4 door but it moves right along and he didn't get
the one with the blower.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Lloyds%20car.jpg

The dealer said "how does it feel to be the last guy who bought a
Cadillac"?

... UAW retiree. ;-).

ROTFL!!!

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:26:28 -0400, HK wrote:

It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.

And the other 19 out of 20 that have reasonable equipment?

Casady

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:36:36 -0700, jps wrote:

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

Tens of millions of handgun owners, a few thousand suicides. Many
people are math challenged. Are you?

Casady

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:49:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

I completely agree that in
most cases handguns are used against the handgun owner (by a criminal
who takes the gun away from them), or they use the gun to kill
themselves

Utter bull****. In most cases handguns are never used in anger. 99% of
them. Your 'most cases' falls in the 1 %. A guy once pulled a knife on
me and demanded money. I pulled a .45 and told him to run. He did.
Had he tried to ' use it against me' I would have shot him several
times. Back in the bin.

Casady