Harry P.

Actually we tied a small balloon to the frame and let it ride against the spokes.

I agree that the GM bailout was certainly not the first time the taxpayers were forced to subsidize a failing company. And I definitely agree with you that the reasons for the GM bailout had far more to do with, um, ""other factors" that we can't talk about here than the actual bailout of a car company. I think most of us know the real reasons behind the bailout. But no matter the reason, I don't like the idea of taxpayers being forced to subsidize companies that the government decides are "worthy" of being subsidized. And our "no politics" rule means I can't say any more.

I never said they shouldn't be in business. I said I didn't agree with the bailout, and that businesses should either survive or fail based on their own merits in a free market system... not be propped up artificailly by bailouts. I don't believe it's fair to force taxpayers to subsidize a failing business, but in no way did I ever say or imply that GM shouldn't be in business–only that we as taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them... or any business. Whether or not GM should be in business would be up to them, based on whether or not they can compete in the marketplace. And as for the numbers... yes, I've made a point of pointing that out. It's absolutely mind-blowing how many cars GM has recalled in the first six months of this year alone. That is surely newsworthy. But the numbers isn't what got GM into trouble... it was the lying and the coverup.

And proud of it! What other state can say that two of their last three governors either are currently, or were, in jail!

Ok, I'll give them that. But as far as corruption... we're number one!

Nothing like explosives to liven up a severe drought situation... And I thought Illinois pols were dumb...

Can you direct me to the post where anyone said GM needs to get out of business? Of course you can't, because nobody ever said that. Seriously man... we can debate the real issue, but please don't just make up stuff. I love a good debate, based on facts... but don't start throwing stuff into the debate that doesn't exist. If you want to debate the issue on the facts, great. But debating the issue based on things you're just making up is pointless. And for the last time... and please read this and understand it... it's not about how many cars were involved in fatal incidents. It's not about how many cars GM has recalled. It's not about how many recalls there have been. It's not about the percentage of cars or the percentage of incidents. It's about GM knowing they were selling cars with faulty components, not doing anything about it, and actively trying to cover it up. Jeez, man... how can I say it any plainer than that?

Yes, that would explain a lot.

GM's recalls include problems all over the spectrum, not just the ignition switch. They have issued recalls for all sorts of problems! Read up on it and see for yourself how widespread the recalls are for all sorts of problems, corporate wide. The ignition switch recall is just ONE of over FORTY different recalls for various different problems. You obviously don't understand the whole GM recall/Congressional investigation issue. Why are you jumping on me? I'm not the guy who tried to hide the ignition switch problem.

Very different and very cool! Nice job, Ray!

Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the fact that GM used an ignition switch that their engineer approved while he knew it didn't meet spec, and that GM tried to hide the problem for years. You guys keep getting sidetracked by numbers. Numbers are not the issue.

Same here. Around the 4th, billboards pop up in the metro area advertising the big fireworks stores in Indiana. Of course, the fact that it's a FEDERAL OFFENSE to transport fireworks from Indiana across the border into Illinois is conveniently left off said billboards.

I got a flyer in the mail today from a local Chevy dealer (Biggers Chevrolet in Elgin). It's one of those "scratch off this circle and bring it into our dealership to see if you match our prize board" type of gimmicks intended to draw people to their showroom. The funny thing is, the grand prize is a Chevy Cruze. So... is the recall included with that prize?

Very impressive work on this. I really like the way you "sagged" the seats and added the grommets. Very nicely done. Also nice work on the toggle switches. I've done them the same way on a 1/8 scale Jaguar, but I used lengths of solder... soft and very easy to flatten.

I like the headlights. And I like the wheels. Big, but not cartoon big... just right for the car. I like the whole thing... very slick.

The ability to overcome a kit's flaws and mistakes varies depending on how talented the builder is. The fact that a kit comes from the manufacturer loaded with mistakes and/or problems in the first place is a completely different argument.

Absolutely agree with that. I can't fault the craftsmanship. But "tasteful" is not a word I would ever use to describe that model.

We don't know. But in GM's case, it's been documented that the engineer who ok'd the faulty ignition switch for use knew it did not meet spec. And then he had the switch redesigned but kept the problem secret by not issuing a new part number. There's a big difference between your run-of-the-mill recall involving parts that break or may break. Yes, that's part of reality and you can't guarantee 100% perfection. Nobody ever said that, or even implied it. The problem with GM, as I've said before but you obviously missed, is not the recalls themselves. The issue isn't whether or not we can expect 100% reliability, that's a straw man argument. The issue is the fact that they knew they were selling cars with a potentially very dangerous part on it, yet they continued selling the cars–and tried to cover up that fact.

GM is obviously in major "CYA" mode now. Many of the latest recalls would probably never have been made had it not been for the deadly ignition switch recall that started this whole avalanche.

First of all, only the cars with the defective ignition switches have been linked to fatalities... so it's not all 8 million cars they recalled today, only the ones they recalled for the faulty ignition switch. Others in today's recall total are for other issues (bad engine heater power cord insulation, fasteners torqued incorrectly at the factory, electrical overload problems, and power dor lock/power window switches). And I ask again... if you know you've sold cars with faulty parts, at what point do you take that seriously and issue a recall? Never?

So at what point do you start taking defective cars seriously? If 10% of them are involved in fatal crashes? 50% of them? 75%? How many crashes would be "acceptable" before you decided you need to fix the problem?

Some of today's new recalls go back to 1997! Wow, talk about a major case of CYA syndrome. And strangely, the new recalls affect more Canadian cars then US cars. That's a little odd.

OH MY GOD! When I posted that it was Saturday, any new GM recalls?... I was joking. Apparently they only took the weekend off. SIX MORE NEW RECALLS today. Can this be real? Story and chart of affected vehicles and the various problems here: http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-recalling-7-million-more-cars-2014-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMoneyGame+(The+Money+Game)

Oh, yeah... I forgot to add the part where if you criticize this kit, I will take that as a personal attack on my character and I will be outraged.