Evo X vs. Evo VIII and IX
Oct 15, 2008, 02:08 PM
#1397
True, although I find that's the case with many of my friends as well. I have a lot of friends with whom I share many views with and yet completely disagree with on others. Either way, at least we see eye to eye on some level. 
Oct 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
#1398
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- S-AWC
- MIVEC on intake and exhaust
- Stiffer chassis
- 4B11t seems to make a crap load of power with minor modifications (reliability unknown at the moment)
Overall, it has better track potential.
Oct 15, 2008, 02:24 PM
#1399
Ewww, a democrat.
What is it with democrats and the inability to see the big picture? Sure, tax breaks for the "working class" sounds good in theory, but it's all just to get votes from gullible people who don't see the other end of things. People who OBAMA says will get tax breaks hardly pay any income taxes right now anyway. His borderline socialist solution is to redistribute wealth by buttf#cking anyone who is actually successful so that they can pay for the bums who can't support themselves. Problem is that many of these successful people are small business owners who cut jobs because they just took a pay cut, which only further raises unemployment rates and increases the number of people sucking on the government teet. On top of all this, the government actually loses money in an attempt to make more because statistically people spend less money when taxes are higher to save money. With less people spending money, there's less money for the government to take in, so it actually has a reverse effect.
I also find it funny that democrats like the kennedys support higher taxes when they themselves don't pay them. They just funnel their money to offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes and then talk about how paying higher taxes is patriotic and that it's great to support your country. Ha! Anyway, this is hardly the place for debating politics so I'll leave it that, but you might want to reconsider which side of the fence you want to be on.
Personally I don't think either could be worse than Bush, although I find too many similarities with McCain. Back to how IX's are better....(I kid I kid....hehe)
Last edited by dbsears; Oct 15, 2008 at 02:26 PM.
Oct 15, 2008, 03:16 PM
#1403
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just have to add a few words of my political thoughts... People view McCain very similar to Bush. Bush has the lowest approval rating since...since...well I'm only 26 and I'm sure it goes back well beyond 1982. People want a drastic change. And the only guy left is Obama. Obama will change things. But it's not like he's going to change them in our favor. I just don't trust him. If the economy was better than it is today nobody would vote for Osama. They feel that he's the answer to the economy and overlook everything else.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, we need to totally clean house in Congress as well as having a strong President. Imagine Obama as Pres, Biden as VP, and Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house. Disaster... McCain is the only guy who belongs in office.
Okay, that's it.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, we need to totally clean house in Congress as well as having a strong President. Imagine Obama as Pres, Biden as VP, and Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house. Disaster... McCain is the only guy who belongs in office.
Okay, that's it.
Oct 15, 2008, 09:28 PM
#1407
Evolved Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here we are, all made up, all friends again...
but im still sad cause in just 3 months, when Osama is president, all my hard earned money will go to some lazy Joe Shmo, who, as we speak here now, is being told that he need not work, just sit and wait till all national wealth is redistributed, like in Russia, in 1917
but im still sad cause in just 3 months, when Osama is president, all my hard earned money will go to some lazy Joe Shmo, who, as we speak here now, is being told that he need not work, just sit and wait till all national wealth is redistributed, like in Russia, in 1917
Oct 15, 2008, 10:10 PM
#1409
And the reason the economy is in the state it is now is because of the lack of enough regulation. Greed brings forth more greed, what's wrong with better disbursement for the middle class? I'm not saying socialist style, but even now as the economy is the richer are taxed more. The day after the bailout the ceo's of the very same corp took a big fat vacation in hotel rooms that were like 10k a day. With our money.
We used to look down on countries overseas for their 'overregulation' of business and now they are laughing at us. And I thought McCain wanted to tax health care benefits... Sorry, completely off topic, was watching the debate tonight
We used to look down on countries overseas for their 'overregulation' of business and now they are laughing at us. And I thought McCain wanted to tax health care benefits... Sorry, completely off topic, was watching the debate tonight
Oct 16, 2008, 12:44 AM
#1410
And the reason the economy is in the state it is now is because of the lack of enough regulation. Greed brings forth more greed, what's wrong with better disbursement for the middle class? I'm not saying socialist style, but even now as the economy is the richer are taxed more. The day after the bailout the ceo's of the very same corp took a big fat vacation in hotel rooms that were like 10k a day. With our money.
We used to look down on countries overseas for their 'overregulation' of business and now they are laughing at us. And I thought McCain wanted to tax health care benefits... Sorry, completely off topic, was watching the debate tonight
We used to look down on countries overseas for their 'overregulation' of business and now they are laughing at us. And I thought McCain wanted to tax health care benefits... Sorry, completely off topic, was watching the debate tonight
At the time, the banks didn't care that much; hell they actually liked it because the housing market was booming and they knew that when these bums defaulted on their loans that they could just repossess the house and sell it for profit (assuming it appreciated between the time of purchase and foreclosure).
Problem is that when the housing market took a crap they were left with a bunch of forclosures that they couldn't sell. Meanwhile, they kept selling these loans off to wall street, who then sold them off to investors all around the world and lied, calling them AAA secured loans so they could sell more of them. Then we're all left with a big f#cking mess that is our economy now... and it all could've been prevented. Anyway, the bailout was about a lot more then just wall street, it was about bailing out the banks to free up the credit freeze so that the banks could extend credit lines again.
Without this, people couldn't get loans to buy houses, cars, etc, and it would be even more detrimental to our economy. On top of that, people have already lost their 401ks because of what has happened with the stock market, so the last thing they need to be worried about is losing their savings if their bank goes under. This bailout was the lesser of two evils, and was absolutely necessary. I assure you that things would be even worse right now if it hadn't gotten passed, so who cares if the wall street fat cats still get to buy their "houses in the hamptons?" At least life on main street can start recoving.
It's not worth punishing yourself to punish them. Besides, the new revision to the bill had changes made to it, one of them being reduced bonuses for a lot of these guys, so at least they took a small hit for being greedy a-holes and helping get us in this mess. But again, this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the democrats in the first place so who should you really be angry with? Ask yourself that. Anyway, let's try to get back on topic since this is a car forum, afterall.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Oct 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM.