My point was that you shouldn't be keeping things the same for the sake of keeping them the same. Things need to move on in order to progress by definition. There are also good traditions, but they are continued on the merit of them actually being "good" not just because they are tradition, whereas the crappy ones have slowly disappeared. Tradition and pre-existing systems are two slightly different things in my opinion. If a system is already heavily adopted and is perfectly functional then continue to use it by all means if you wish to. But dont just continue because it is tradition, its the other factors that are the other reasons. But thank you for the insults anyway... Im not to fond of the rear end of the old style of Fiat Punto.
My point is, responding to "it's traditional" with "so was slavery" regardless of what is actually being discussed is worn out and irritating as all get out. Like "Americans are dumb hillbillies with machine guns" and "Sarah Palin totally said she could see Russia from her house and that gave her foreign policy experience", it's a cheap shot trotted out when someone doesn't feel like making a coherent counterpoint. The slavery-was-traditional-too argument basically boils down to "You want me to explain why we should change things? Well, sometimes change is good because the tradition being changed is bad! Now you have to explain why we shouldn't change things!" It's an argument pattern that reminds me of a certain archetype - the kind of person who approves of absolutely anything as long as it's immoral, un-American, both, or just plain newfangled - and they have a snippy, well-rehearsed comeback for absolutely everything. The U.S. system is traditional? So was slavery and mistreatment of women! You think homosexuality cuases STDs? So I guess you're opposed to heterosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa. And what about when we finally make a practical HIV/AIDS vaccine? You don't think insurance should have to cover abortions and contraceptives? What if your boss is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't his company's insurance to cover blood transfusions either? I don't have any proof that the world just sort of assembled itself over 572 gajillion years? Well you don't have any proof that God created it either! They are some of the most frustrating people you can run into because you know, no matter how clever and witty your argument, no matter how clear a diamond of thought it looks like when you first post it, no matter how much you feel like you're stating the obvious, they will have some sort of strawman or extreme scenario to make you look dumb, and if they don't, they'll just call you backwards, or anti-progress, or hateful, or something and all their liberal buddies will back them up. It's like arguing with a brick wall. You can scream in exasperation "do you consider nothing sacred?!" but apparently they consider something sacred, exactly what, who knows. I'm sorry if you think I insulted you. It's just that... your argument reminded me of a certain type of person I have a lot of not-very-pleasant internet experience with. The kind of person who spells fetus "foetus" to show off their scientific knowledgeability and utter lack of rat's rumps given for the life of an unborn child.
Please do not try and force opinions into my mouth. Not a particularly big fan of the old new beetle either (seriously, who names these things)
They also completely look past the idea of the VW Beetle. It was made to be a cheap car anyone could afford to own, these "new Beetle" things are expensive as fuck for what they are.
Considering that it is just a less practical golf as well. But hey at least you could get flower holders in them :/
Golf but bigger, heavier, turning circle of a small island nation and without the cooler engine options
It can be forgiven for its ugliness though. Allow me to quote wikipedia on the 181: What you basically have in the VW Thing is a USDM variant of the Type 181, itself more or less a Kubelwagen remake intended for the west german army as a cheap and reliable light military vehicle. Function and simplicity were key, looks were thrown out of the window. Should be noted that the american forces captured a few kubelwagens and wrote about them in some of their technical handbooks, in particular their inferiority in every way to the allied jeep. Yet its actually thought this may have been simple propoganda as the vehicle was actually remarkably competent. While only 2wd, it was incredibly lightweight (by about 300 kilos versus a willies MB), featured a self locking differential, all 4 wheels had independent suspension, an 11" ground clearance and quite importantly a very smooth underside which prevented it snagging on various surfaces - it would simply slide over them. Hell, in deep snow and sand it had been noted to simply press forwards as a motorised sledge when many contemporary rivals would have simply gotten stuck. There were test variants with 4 wheel drive. It was found to not really improve performance enough so simply dropped.
I know, I wasn't saying I don't like the car (I actually kind of want to buy one right now) but just that it is a tiny bit ugly
@6677: It did, however, have a MASSIVE horsepower deficit versus the MB, which could be bad in an environment where all situations tend to be massively urgent.
Yes however it was also geared much lower than the MB which largely offset this, although cut the top speed considerably. Late war models upped the horsepower, but not considerably.
I think whether the MB's top speed would have been useful in a war emergency would depend on the rally skills of a typical American soldier circa the 1940s. Judging by a semi-humorous comment once made by Gen. Patton, said skills weren't much.
what is that Gran Turismo 6? uhhhh, whats up with that horrible modelling on the rims...i thought there would be a smoothing effect applied, however there re about 32 vertices on that rim that are clearly visible. way to go! OT, I agree, that T/A is seriously ugly....but with AND without the Firebird on the hood. gross. reminds me of a mobile meth lab.
