greg1647545532

It makes so much sense that nobody in congress voted for it. Maybe the liberal snowflakes have mind controlled the conservatives?

Not to be a dick but, I mean, no shit. The fact that this didn't occur to you until someone pointed it out on TV last night worries me. I honestly just don't get the support anymore. Was Trump's promise that Mexico would pay for a wall stupid? There should be 100% agreement on that. Was Trump wasting billions of dollars on a 35 day shutdown in what was inevitably going to be a failed power play to badger congress into allocating taxpayer dollars for his stupid pet project a stellar example of terrible politics? There should be 100% agreement on that. Is declaring a national emergency to use military funds for a pet project which congress explicitly refused to fund a gross overstep of executive power? Jesus Christ there should be 100% agreement on that. Some of you are so hell bent on adopting any opinion that will piss of the libs that you can't even dare to agree with the most basic of obviously correct opinions.

Guess congress didn't either. Fortunately Trump knows better than everyone and an unilaterally do whatever he wants, eh?

If Trump wanted to buy $8 billion in magic beans to curb illegal immigration and drugs and human trafficking you could have written the same post. That's essentially what we're doing now. Congress wouldn't give him the money because they realized the Wall was magic beans. Oh well. Fuck the troops. It'll be worth it when Trump gets his beans somehow.

I figured this was something we could all agree on.

Interesting. "I can't believe young people are eschewing cars in favor of public transportation and Uber," says generation saddled with incredible amount of debt just to own cars.

Trump got elected by a bunch of rubes after saying that Mexico would pay for his wall. But Mexico didn't pay, so Trump wanted congress to pay for his wall. But congress refused to pay. Even after Trump shut down the government for 35 days to try to get his way. So now he wants the US military to pay for the wall. What a leader, this guy is. Loves the troops.

Used to be a ringer in certain auto-x classes, at least at a local level. Not a lot of similar cars with a factory LSD. Since I haven't see much buzz about them I'd assume they're no longer competitive, but maybe ask around autocross forums. Most of these had 250k miles 10 years ago so you're looking for random survivors.

Supplies power that can't be interrupted

What do you service? That sounds like a dream job to me.

<-- super jelly. I love the 2 series, pretty much the only modern BMW that has done anything for me.

We're talking company, not brand. Unless you think Kerry's notion of "anti-Japanese sentiment" applies to Toyota but not Lexus somehow.

Well how did it compare to European supercars of the time?

Lingering anti-Japanese sentiments!

It came out the same year as the McLaren F1. $815,000, 600+hp, mid-engined center-seat exotic. That was a proper supercar. You just can't say that a Supra was "technologically advanced" enough, or "apex" enough, or "expensive" enough, or "visually distinct" enough to put it in the same category as the McLaren F1. It just wasn't enough of anything to earn that title. The McLaren is one of the few cars that you'd get broad consensus on even calling a supercar in 1993. Personally I wouldn't call the ZR1 or a 911 Turbo a supercar, and as you can see from this thread even my emphatic inclusion of the NSX in that club isn't universal.

If I cared more I'd start a thread about whether or not the LFA is a supercar. I don't think people care as much about the company behind a car as you think. What do sales have to do with anything? We're talking about a colloquial definition here. You're saying that people didn't call it a supercar because of anti-Japanese sentiment, not that they didn't buy it because of that. Because, you know, Toyota did produce it and sell thousands of them, so somebody was buying them. They just didn't call them supercars.

McLaren Honda was literally dominating F1 at the time. I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that "one of the biggest complaints" about the Japanese was that they "couldn't build supercars." Who was complaining? You're gonna need to start producing some actual evidence to back up this assertion that anti-Japanese sentiment factored into people's definition of a supercar in 1994. First of all, it's 2019 and 84% of people in this thread still don't consider it a supercar. Is that lingering anti-Japanese sentiment as well? Secondly, the Supra had been around since 1978. My dad had one. It was a known brand, and nobody had any reason to consider it a supercar because it just wasn't one. The 1992 Supra wasn't "not a supercar" because of anti-Japanese sentiment, it's because it just wasn't. And when the mk4 turbo came out, regardless of the performance, it was still just a Supra. Had Toyota rebranded the car and tweaked the styling maybe the story would have been different, but they didn't and it's not.

Can't be, in the 93 Esprit Turbo was slower than a Supra. /s

Which BMW? Would a 95 E36 M3 be on that list? What's the performance and technology gulf between the Supra and the 320hp high revving M3? Is the M3 a supercar? Oh come on, the NSX came out in 1990 and EVERYONE considered it a supercar. Maybe not the fastest, maybe not the coolest, but Winston Wolf was driving a supercar.

In terms of performance and technology, what's the gulf between a mk4 Supra and a 4th gen Camaro?

Don't wuss out, rent a Lancia Ypsilon or something and bomb around Rome like a true Italian, no turn signals, lots of hand talking, etc.

Nm

Hey man, you're a smart, accomplished person, don't let me get you down.

Who hurt you?

They are. Your ten thousandth dollar of income is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's ten thousandth dollar of income. Your millionth dollar of income is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's millionth dollar of income. It's truly a wondrous world.