backtop


Print 172 comment(s) - last by Dan Banana.. on Feb 28 at 8:11 PM

Bob Lutz has had enough of the Volt flaming

Bob Lutz has never been one to back down from a fight. The former Marine has served at a number of car companies over the decades including General Motors, BMW, Ford, and Chrysler. Most recently, Lutz served at GM's Vice Chairman for Special Advisor Design and Global Product Development.
 
When it comes to hardcore "car guys" in the auto industry, there aren't many as rabid as Lutz. In recent years, Lutz is responsible for spearheading the development of enthusiast-oriented vehicles like the fifth-generation Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac G8, fourth generation Pontiac GTO, Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky, and the upcoming Cadillac Converj (now called the ELR).
 
One of Lutz's most famous "babies", however, has been the Chevrolet Volt. He has been an ardent supporter of the plug-in hybrid, so it should come as no surprise that Lutz is coming to the Volt's defense after a barrage of negative press has rained down on it.


[Source: Patrick Arena/VW Vortex]
 
Lutz, writing in a column for Forbes, went straight after those that have been most critical of the Volt. He rattled off six “truths” about the vehicle including the fact that the Volt was conceived before GM's federal bailout and that no Volt has caught fire on public roads during an accident. Lutz also asserted that 278,000 gasoline-engined vehicles caught fire between 2003 and 2007, but no one seemed to launch an attack campaign against those vehicles.
 
But Lutz saved his harshest criticism for the "right-wing media" which has gone after the Volt with many a hollow-point bullet:
 
But the Oscar for totally irresponsible journalism has to go to The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, with, as its key guest, Lou Dobbs. Amid much jocular yukking, the Volt was depicted as a typical federal failure. In attempting to explain why Chevy has sold fewer than 8,000 Volts, Dobbs states, flatly, “It doesn’t work.” He elaborates, “It doesn’t go fast and go far on electricity. What happens is it catches fire."
 
Lutz then went on to try to clear up any confusion about who enabled the $7,500 tax credit that has been another sore point for people upset over the very existence of the Volt:
 
To top it off, these two media pros lamented the fact that the same government that had forced GM to produce the Volt was now extending $7,500 tax credits towards its purchase, thus squandering even more of “our taxpayer” dollars on this failed Socialist-collectivist flop. Truth? The $7,500 tax credit was enacted under the Bush administration!
 
Lutz’s column comes just days after GM CEO Dan Akerson testified before Congress to defend the Volt's safety record. "The Volt is safe. It's a marvelous machine. It represents so much of what is right at GM and, frankly, American ingenuity and manufacturing," said Akerson in his testimony last week. "The Volt seems, perhaps unfairly, to have become a surrogate for some to offer broader commentary on General Motors' business prospects and administration policy."
 
Late last week, GM introduced a new commercial to put the Volt in a more positive light.

Source: Forbes



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 1/31/2012 8:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is typical of Fox and their viewers. They spew out talking points without much research as if they are facts. So they lied about the tax break and had no clue about when it catches fire. Typical Republicans. Not all, but most fall in this group.

A Republican will take an idea and look at it from a grade school point of view and ask why this and that but never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts. I've followed politics for a while, and I can spot a Republican by how they evade questions like they wrote books on misdirection.

You can call me an elitist or whatever word of the day Fox gives you, but it is the bleeding truth.




RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 12:19:45 AM , Rating: 1
Well it's taken a while to understand the immense scope of their claim, but now I get it. Faux is in fact "fair and balanced." It accomplishes this monumental task by putting together the immensity of all left wing b/s delivered on the billions of bleeding heart socialist channels and creating one massive piece of right wing b/s to completely offset it.

Really who but Faux could come up with a story so important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MjRV-UTs9o

That other channels decided to pick it up as well? Really, some of these other channels simply could not have enough news to stay in business if not for Faux.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:36:06 AM , Rating: 4
LOL oh yeah, cause you know, nobody else takes people out of context at all. Certainly not the mainstream left media, who invented that tactic decades before Fox News was created. Come on, you know that happened DAILY when Bush was in office.

I think it was pretty stupid of them to use that part of Obama's statement. When right before it he handed them a real gem in that he blatantly lied when he said the Bush tax cuts increased taxes for "all" American's. That's a lie and they should have ran with it.

quote:
That other channels decided to pick it up as well? Really, some of these other channels simply could not have enough news to stay in business if not for Faux.


There isn't enough news out there to keep a 24/7 News network busy. I think one of the worst things that's happened to TV news in general is the 24 hour platform. Because they have to create so much content, recycle, or focus on self-creating news stories.

But blaming Fox for this? Fox Only got started in 1996 Yash. This practice had been going on for decades before.

But I know. It's easier to attack Fox than to ask ourselves why the Volt just isn't working for the consumer. GM didn't bring the EV1 to market because they knew this would happen. Who do you guys blame when the Volt gets the axe?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:41:43 AM , Rating: 5
How about using a natural disaster to bash Bush?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01...

Even Jon Stewart has a limit on how far to the left he'll go. MSNBC sure doesn't.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 3
Tax cuts that are not paid for through cuts do increase taxes for the public down the road. You and up paying for the money plus interest.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 10:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
end


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 4
Yes but it's just not accurate to say "The last guy raised your taxes". That's rhetoric. It's JUST as accurate to say Obama "raised" our taxes because of the massive debt he's put us in that will have to be addressed at some point in the future. Using your logic.

It's understood that when you say "raised taxes" you mean the current tax rate. Not some point in the future that may or may not happen.

If that Youtube clip is accurate and unedited, Fox was clearly being dishonest by taking Obama's speech out of context. But if Yash is saying Fox isn't balanced by showing a half truth, than I'm saying that NOBODY is. Because every single network has been doing that since before I was born.

Yash seems to think "Fair and balanced" means you can't ever take the Conservative view on something. And that's just absurd. From what I can tell Fox is the most balanced when it comes to allowing the other side to give their opinion. Fox routinely gets real Democrats to give their point of view on issues. When's the last time MSNBC and the rest had anything other than a token Republican who's job was to sit there and get barraged by one-sided attacks?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
The Economist is a perfectly legitimate, informative, professional, and enjoyable conservative read.

So much for your Faux theories. I didn't realize paranoia was a by-product of years of drug abuse.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 12:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
The Economist is not a news network, or even a newspaper, with a significant market share in America. Or any other country. I don't know why you keep bringing it up when the topic of discussion is Fox News.

And I'm suffering from years of drug abuse now? You usually throw the first low blow, but that one doesn't even make sense. So I must be on crack to be a Conservative? Who's being fair and balanced now.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 1
The fact that the Economist has no significant market share is a testament to the right's burning desire for a truthful and legitimate news outlet.

The other part was a reference to your own admittance of drug abuse. Or will your faux memory prevent that?

quote:
So I must be on crack to be a Conservative?


I can always rely on your to come to the faux conclusion.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 12:22:10 PM , Rating: 4
LOL and there you go again.

This time I'm just going to ignore you. I've said everything to you I've needed to. I've beaten you again. Score another one for the good guys.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here we see how it's possible for the police to investigate an auto collision, question half a dozen eye witnesses, and end up with six totally different accounts of what actually happened.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By ekv on 2/1/2012 10:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Economist is a ... conservative read.
Nnnnnnhhh. And there goes our tacky-buzzer. Will have to call you out on that one. Good grief, even Wikipedia labels them as progressive adherents of economic Liberalism, holding to Keynesian principles when it suits them. Hardly conservative.

Methinks you likely consider the DPRK an ideal model for Obama to follow, with your "Faux News" jibes and asinine personal attacks. What next, put the Republicans and Christians in the concentration camps? But then, that's fits perfectly with your Liberal version of Tolerance. 'Hell, they're alive ain't they? ... that's tol'able enuf.' [/sarcasm off]

The Volt is a p.o.s. Though instead of hiring 100 engineers to make it better, or 100 lobbyists to change the laws, Lutz the klutz goes on a PR campaign. Wonder how much he's kissing BHO's ass?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By voronwae on 2/1/2012 7:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
Borrowing money from China to pay for tax cuts does, in fact, just end up increasing taxes later. We get to pay it all back with interest now.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 7:13:45 AM , Rating: 1
"A Republican will take an idea and look at it from a grade school point of view and ask why this and that but never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts."

This is mostly true, especially when it comes to Fox news and the right wing blog-o-sphere... But the left does it too.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 4:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would say the Left does it more often.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 4:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
That would be your oppinion Kurz, but the fact is all media is biased. Fox has cornered their market with a loyal following, something no liberal media has yet achieved. Because of this, it appears liberal media is further biased because there are more oppinions from more sources.

In reality it is important to hear all sides, however extreme they are. Jason Mick writes some very conservative-feeling oppinions (my perspective) but I still read, and agree with them quite often when I have traditionally been quite liberal.

Back on topic, I agree with Lutz. GM is attacked far too often. Yes they took a bailout, but so did Chrysler, and they have little chance of long-term survival. GM is actually selling cars (at a profit) and have been slowly paying back government loans. I'm a Ford guy but I wouldn't hesitate to put my kids in a Chevy Cruze or Chevy Sonic, both very attractive, safe cars. Without government bailout, these cars would never have come to market, and chances are GM will pay back their loan, unlike wallstreet who is still completely unwilling to work with home owners to refinance upside-down mortgages and still reaps record earnings at our expense.

We didn't HAVE to bail GM out, but odds are if we didn't, it would have sent shockwaves through the industry. Delphi, Bosch, Delco, Good Year, all heavily dependant on or owned by GM, would have been nearly shuttered if the worlds second-largest (at the time) auto manufacture disappeared. Nobody had the resources to purchase these supply chains. Imagine if Toyota had transitioned exclusively to Denso when the 2011 tsunami literally shut down Denso factories for months. Without Delco to backup Toyota for fuel injectors, solenoids and motors, Toyota would have been more screwed than they already were. Ford, Toyota and Volkswagen all depend on these suppliers for a variety of parts. The world-wide automotive industry would have suffered if GM were not bailed out, there is no arguement, unlike wether or not the federal wall street bailout had any effect whatsoever. The only arguement is why they haven't paid us back yet, and that has a lot to do with wall street not privatizing their loan with the government.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 4:46:46 AM , Rating: 1
I can't believe Firefox changed my spelling of opinions...


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 10:02:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fox has cornered their market with a loyal following, something no liberal media has yet achieved.


Of course because they're all competing for the same market share. The far left news market. Fox is the most balanced and offers a clear contrast to what EVERY OTHER network is doing. And if that means going to the right sometimes it's only seen as such a big issue because the other networks NEVER go to the right on anything ever.

Why do you think Fox's ratings are so big? Either the majority of this country is center-right. Or the other networks are too left leaning. It's probably a combination of both. I'm sure I could dig up a poll that would have the answer, but it would probably fall on deaf ears here.

I think these people have been in Liberal land so long, and been fed it so much on a daily basis, they can't really recognize Liberal bias when they see it. I once heard MSNBC's Chris Matthews call the Washington Post a "conservative" newspaper. Really Chris?? Conservative!

That just goes to show when you spend that much time on the left, ANYTHING that conflicts with your world view must be "far-right". You really lose the ability to tell one from the other objectively.

And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 10:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well, to be honest, George W Bush didn't do the republican party any favors in the same way Bill Clinton didn't do the democratic party any favors, but GW's effects are "fresh." It'd be nice to have a real president in my lifetime (I'm 30.)

No arguement with your statement of the media, but you have to admit Fox takes a brute, tactless approach (think Glen Beck) every now and then that really opens up the doors to the liberal media (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Paul Krugman.) They are so easy to slander because they are so big, and there is a liberal audience willing to listen. Since there are so many 'small' liberal media outlets, Fox rarely attacks them on a 1:1 basis, and instead has to talk about (relevent topics) the president, government malfunction, biased studies, etc. And that's why I still watch Fox. NPR, CNN and Fox all often have such over the top stories I have to turn them off.

It's really out of control. Everything is. Because as you said, people tune themselves to only hear what they want to hear (probably because of the environment they were raised in) and don't bother challenging what they listen too.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, to be honest, George W Bush didn't do the republican party any favors


You know what, he sure as hell didn't. Because Bush is somehow still thought of by people as a Conservative, when he clearly wasn't. And that hurts the Republican party and Conservatives when we have to constantly be compared to someone who was, frankly, a moderate President who was left leaning on a lot of issues. And we get put in uncomfortable positions where we end up defending Bush because our party is being attacked.

I think if 911 had never happened, we would be talking about his administration in a completely different light perhaps. But as of right now today, Bush probably hurt our party more than helped. Don't get me wrong, Democrats and Liberals are always going to hate us no matter what. It's just that Bush provided SO much ammo to them while also alienating those of us who wanted a true Conservative in the White House.

Or it could be that, much like Lincoln was, he was thrust into an impossibly perilous situation and it's going to take the next 40+ years to come to a historical consensus. The wounds might be a bit too fresh right now, so to speak.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Icebain on 2/1/2012 5:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Conservative does not equal "Republican Party". Don't defend the party, defend the conservative ideals.

GWB was exactly what the left wanted. Someone who would kinda do what they wanted, and still made enough mistakes in order to scapegoat the party he associated with. The damage done to the conservative movement isn't fully realized yet, and I think it will come to fruition this election cycle. Once they can no longer claim, "BUSH DID IT AND HE WAS 'CONSERVATIVE' BLAH BLAH BLAH" with spending, Medicare Part B, No Child Left Behind etc., then real inroads can be made against the current establishment.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By JediJeb on 2/1/2012 10:35:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so.


From what I understand being "right wing" means you believe in the Constitution as it was written and that the government should have as little power as possible. If that is so then our Founding Fathers must have been "right wing" too. If so then I guess that is where I fall also. But honestly I prefer to take news from as many sources as possible and intelligently process the information to try and figure out what the truth really is.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 10:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
"And honestly, this is America. Since when did being "right wing" become a bad thing? Oh yeah, since the Liberals in charge of print and broadcast media said so."

Since the start of the Revolutionary war. The idea that individuals had rights and weren't just the subjects of the elite were very liberal ideas at the time. Republicans always talk about freedom but what they mean is for Corporation to have freedom to do whatever they want. Republicans seem to be the ones always wanting to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans seem to be the ones always wanting to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms.


Care to give me some examples please? I know you're going to throw the Patriot Act in there, even though both parties virtually unanimously passed it. But what else you got?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Schrag4 on 2/1/2012 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans seem to be the ones always wanting to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms.


I think you aren't being intellectually honest. BOTH parties seem to exist, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of growing government and restricting freedoms. The only difference is WHICH freedoms they vote to restrict. And as Reclaimer has pointed out, there's a lot of overlap between the two parties (Patriot Act is an example).

Can you really not think of any individual liberties that the left wants to restrict?

quote:
Republicans always talk about freedom but what they mean is for Corporation to have freedom to do whatever they want.


Ok, so you're saying that the left wants to limit the freedoms that corporations have? How is that a good thing? What freedoms should individuals have that corporations shouldn't be allowed (since corporations are made up of regular people like you and me after all)?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 1:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, so you're saying that the left wants to limit the freedoms that corporations have? How is that a good thing? What freedoms should individuals have that corporations shouldn't be allowed (since corporations are made up of regular people like you and me after all)?


Oh man you said it now. Don't you know Daily Tech is home to the most rabid anti-Corporation lackeys this side of MoveOn.org?? Good luck my friend. I'll do what I can for ya...you'll need this.

*hands you flame retardant suit*


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 1:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you really not think of any individual liberties that the left wants to restrict?


Well aside from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Freedom of Speech, etc etc. Nope. Can't think of a one :)


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By rocketbuddha on 2/1/2012 12:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Add to it Ford was begging the Gvmnt to prevent GM and Chrysler bankruptcy.. Why? Because if the other 2 had gone bankrupt, the suppliers would likely default the payments to Ford disrupting Ford's supply chain.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Keeping GM and Chrysler alive means that Ford is much further away from doing anything that could possibly be misconstrued as anti-trust. Fighting anti-trust accusations is very expensive in court, whether they are real or Faux accusations.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Black1969ta on 2/1/2012 10:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without government bailout, these cars would never have come to market, and chances are GM will pay back their loan, unlike Wallstreet who is still completely unwilling to work with home owners to refinance upside-down mortgages and still reaps record earnings at our expense.


That is key right there, people say that Volt was stupid to release and it was totally funded by the government bailout, Which was announced Dec 19th, 2008, so that was before Obama took office in January of 2009! By then GM had already spent Million on the Volt/Converj project, by the time of the bailout, GM would have lost more money by scrapping the program than by releasing a flop.

Second, the EV market is growing and will continue to grow, number may not be very high as far as sales but they do sell all they make, by Volt 2.0 the Volt will be a very strong competitor to the Prius(s).

Third GM didn't need bailed out from a cash and poor management situation, GM needed bailed out of its Union situation, you look at Automotive Union pay-rates vs. inflation, and those Union have demanded higher and higher wages to the point of near if not hyperinflation, hyperinflation cannot be sustained, something had to be done and the loss of thousands of Auto manufacturer jobs, along with thousands of auto supplier jobs along with thousands of natural resource jobs, added to the thousands of dealership level jobs, adding in the Hundred of thousands of service industry jobs and well if you don't get the idea yet you never will.
I support GM, still sore about cancelling the Firebird, but still support them and all the men and women who have to suffer thru the idiots that treat GM and its employees like its a political whipping boy.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2012 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Third GM didn't need bailed out from a cash and poor management situation, GM needed bailed out of its Union situation, you look at Automotive Union pay-rates vs. inflation, and those Union have demanded higher and higher wages to the point of near if not hyperinflation, hyperinflation cannot be sustained, something had to be done and the loss of thousands of Auto manufacturer jobs, along with thousands of auto supplier jobs along with thousands of natural resource jobs, added to the thousands of dealership level jobs, adding in the Hundred of thousands of service industry jobs and well if you don't get the idea yet you never will.


The bailout didn't fix this problem. In fact Obama made it worse. Unions are a huge contributor to Democrat's in general. But Obama especially got huge amounts of campaign contributions from the UAW and other Unions. He actually gave the UAW shares of GM, a move which I must point out, is actually illegal.

This is why people like me are so angry about GM, the Volt, the whole thing. We see our President using billions of dollars of public money to pay back the unions blatantly, engage in crony capitalism, everything. The whole thing stinks of corruption and greed and selfishness. It's everything that's wrong with politics and big government.

The UAW is not only stronger than before, but they have an actual leadership stake in GM itself! He bailed out the pension plan that was killing GM, like you said. He gave them shares. He put union members on GM's board of directors for god sakes. Do you realize what that means? He handed GM to the unions. Things will never change for the better now.

And before any of you people say "Hey, Obama himself didn't do all that". Remember his "Car Czar"? That's right. Someone appointed by Obama, unanswerable to everyone - even Congress - completely above the law carrying out Obama's expressed orders. Obama DID do all those things.

What happens when the money runs out and GM is facing the same union-driven problem years down the road? They had a real chance to restructure.

quote:
Second, the EV market is growing and will continue to grow, number may not be very high as far as sales but they do sell all they make, by Volt 2.0 the Volt will be a very strong competitor to the Prius(s).


Provided Obama keeps the price of gas and EV subsidies high as hell?

I say enough of the Government picking winners. If the EV market grows, let it grow on it's own. Let Capitalism play out as it should. Purposefully manipulating markets and inflating the cost of gas is NOT the way to do it.

In closing, the Obama administration has a clear and present vested interest in the success of the Volt. A car. Is this something you honestly feel should be the role of our government and President?

And as far as Lutz and his rant goes, he can just suck on this.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/01/answers-and-que...


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Black1969ta on 2/18/2012 4:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
How did Obama make this worse when "Obama" was not in office in December 2008?

quote:
He actually gave the UAW shares of GM, a move which I must point out, is actually illegal.


It has been almost 2 years since the restructure, if this was illegal, name and link the court case.

quote:
The UAW is not only stronger than before, but they have an actual leadership stake in GM itself! He bailed out the pension plan that was killing GM, like you said. He gave them shares. He put union members on GM's board of directors for god sakes. Do you realize what that means? He handed GM to the unions. Things will never change for the better now.


I don't see the UAW owning part of GM as a bad thing. The UAW had GM by the "Balls" before, now they have a vested interest in what benefits GM as a whole; whereas, before UAW only cared about benefiting UAW.

Don't get me wrong I am not Pro-Union, I think when founded they were very useful in balancing power between the capitalist giants and individual workers, but now laws do most of that for us. Unions are antiquated now.

As for the Auto Czar, he does answer to the president, his sole purpose was to ensure that the minute details of allocating the bailout money authorized by H.W. Bush did not steal too much of Obama's time and focus.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 10:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
"I would say the Left does it more often."

Both do, I would put it this way specifically.

The left: Look at things from a left point of view and never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts

The Right: Look at things from a grade school point of view and never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes a grade-school point of view is all it takes. A lot of accomplishment can be achieve when you break down a topic into its simplest form.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 10:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
Grade School point of view? What do you mean by that?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 11:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
Something even a child can understand.

A lot of media sensationalizes even the simplest topics with unneccessary complexity and moot information. This approach might appear intelligent, but anyone who can read between the lines will know its just an "inception" scripted story; that is, too much information.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 12:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's true. I think a lot of the reason Liberals are made out to be "smarter" than Conservatives is that it truly takes a brilliant intellect to make such terrible ideas and theories sound like a good idea to average people.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 1:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
See George Bush and Sarah Palin for dozens of examples. See Arizona's ignorant immigration policies as other examples.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Kurz on 2/2/2012 9:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
You think I subscribe to them and believe in everything they preach?

Arizona has a problem with illegals, They are trying their best to control the problem. It is against the law to enter this country illegaly, they are just fullfiling the law.

Though you still didn't answer the question.
You just finger pointed and disagreed with what state holds on a specific issue.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
LOL Retro, you have a gift. This was subtle humor right? Because you just posted something that uses grade school logic to attack "the right" on having a grade school point of view.

Bravo man :D

Seriously now, I would say the fault in the "both sides do it" point of view is that it assumes a morale relativism. If both sides can't be wrong, that means both can never be right. And visa versa.

Conservatism, the "right", what have you isn't just some point of view. In the larger context of politics and the impact on the country, it absolutely is the CORRECT point of view. It's what this country was founded on.

Liberals don't like hearing this because they view America as a critically flawed venture that breeds inequalities, prejudices, and has a Constitution which was written to keep "rich white men" in power. So we need to take as much freedom, personal responsibility, and wealth out of the people's hands and use it equally and favorably distribute it to fix these issues. Now, obviously, we know this cannot be the correct point of view. It's just not.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 1:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
"Seriously now, I would say the fault in the "both sides do it" point of view is that it assumes a morale relativism. If both sides can't be wrong, that means both can never be right. And visa versa."

Can you see it ever working out with the current left vs. right, arguing and getting nowhere mentality? Both sides are wrong.

"Conservatism, the "right", what have you isn't just some point of view. In the larger context of politics and the impact on the country, it absolutely is the CORRECT point of view. It's what this country was founded on."

Who are you to say what is "correct" ? There are many opionions, I think we both agree our country is in a bad way right now, well, the reps have had most of the control in recent history, so how "correct can it be?

Also, this country was not founded by conservatives. This country was founded by people getting on boats and sailing the hell away from the conservatives of their day (The king of englands etc.)


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 2:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
You really needed to bring it, and you didn't. Really weak reply. Republicans might have been in power, but that doesn't mean they were CONSERVATIVE Republicans. And we could debate all day long over which party is responsible for what, regardless of voting "power".

Modern-day Conservatives embrace the ideology of our Founders. I didn't say America was settled by modern day Conservatives. Talk about grade school logic! It seems to be all you have.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe in NONE of our founding principles or the Constitution in general.

quote:
Who are you to say what is "correct" ?


Who are you to say I'm not? I'll err on the side of liberty and personal freedom and smaller government.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Republicans might have been in power, but that doesn't mean they were CONSERVATIVE Republicans."

OK, so when your conservative party fails miserably, then the claim is "they weren't REAL conservatives" LOL... OK. thanks for the laugh. Its a cop-out answer and a great way to remove all responsibility for actions. LOL.

"Liberals, on the other hand, believe in NONE of our founding principles or the Constitution in general."

Now you are generalizing and totally incorrect. Just ridiculous. Just because the liberal half of the USA disagrees with you doesn't at all mean they don't believe in the constitution. That is a total load of crap.

"You really needed to bring it, and you didn't. Really weak reply."

Right back at ya. Your arguments are totally baseless, and DONT assume to think you know what "liberals" think about the constitution, because you have no clue.

"Who are you to say I'm not?"

I am no-one to say that... But I didn't make the claimdid I? You came out and said conservatism is the "correct" way to govern. I pointed out that reps have had all the power in the modern ERA and have made a mess. You have no answer for that other than "oh, well, they werent REAL conservatives. If the reps aren't the conservative party who the hell is?

I am not touting the greatness of the dems by any means, but you really have to get over this "blame everything that is wrong in this country on liberals" thing. Its just narrow, one sided, ill-though out and plain wrong.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 4:28:49 PM , Rating: 3
"you're on ignore too. Come back when you grow up, start paying taxes, and have more of a clue about realities instead of just idealistic platitudes."

Nice... clearly I disagree with you, so I must be immature and pay no taxes... Just like all "librals". Your so imbalanced and prejudiced that its not even funny.

You have no argument, no comeback and no grounds to stand on, so yes, put me on ignore so you can claim the high road. Really classy. I am the immature one.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
put me on ignore so you can claim the high road.

Why would he treat you different than anyone else?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 4:40:07 PM , Rating: 3
"Why would he treat you different than anyone else?"

I guess thats how it is... Attack the librals at all cost, its ALL their fault, its all their fault!!! . Then, when confronted with irreputiatable logic (/Palin LOL),like the fact that the reps have had nearly all the power in the past 30 years, run like a coward and insult me. He cant admit he is wrong and that the reps screwed this pooch. Clearly you and I must be nutty liberals and pay no taxes.

I live in AZ, am married with 2 kids, one going to ASU now, and own 2 homes, but clearly, I pay no taxes and am immature because I dont blame all our issues on the liberals.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 5:08:46 PM , Rating: 3
"and still defend Liberalism."

This is why a true conversation cannot be had with you. I am NOT defending liberalism. I am simply stating you cant blame it ALL on the liberals, when the reps have had all the power. You are so far to one side you cant even comprehend someone that disagrees with you and consider for just a minute that they arent a liberal nutjob. THINK about that statement for a minute. Where did I defend liberalism? All I ever do is point out how one sided and incorrect you are for blaming everything on the libs.


"I really hope you didn't think this discussion was about saying "everything" isn't the Liberals fault. In that case I'll be REALLY pissed for you wasting my time. Because you can't find me saying that here at all. Not once. "


Lets not mince words here reclaimer. Your name is littered all over any and every political article and Anandtech/Dailytech for YEARS blaming everything on the liberals. That's all you do. YOu cant fathom for a minute just maybe your side made most of the bad choices here. Not even a possibility is it. Its as if All Presidential legislation happened under Clinton, and in since Jan 2007 in Congress. Seriously, get some perspective.

If you truly arent going to "ignore" me, at least come up with a decent argument, becasue as of now you are failing.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 5:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why a true conversation cannot be had with you. I am NOT defending liberalism. I am simply stating you cant blame it ALL on the liberals


So you aren't defending Liberals, you're just anti-me. That's MUCH better.

quote:
That's all you do.


That's not fair at all! I bash Apple too! Some of my best work has been in that field :)

Anyway you're just projecting. I never said "everything" bad is because of Liberals. Just that ALL of their ideas are.

quote:
Seriously, get some perspective.


Confidence and being self assured beats perspective any day. Ask your wife. It's damned sexy.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 5:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
"So you aren't defending Liberals, you're just anti-me. That's MUCH better."

LOL, no, just anti-blame everything on the minority side. Its all of the govt, not 1/2, and defintely not the smaller 1/2

"That's not fair at all! I bash Apple too! Some of my best work has been in that field :)"

Hey, I am right there with you on that! =)


"Confidence and being self assured beats perspective any day. Ask your wife. It's damned sexy. "


Ah yes, but I have both and the wifey is lovin it! ;)


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 5:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
"That's not fair at all! I bash Apple too! Some of my best work has been in that field :)"

Anyone else doing the exact same thing would be called a troll.

Got double standards?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 7:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
Apple does a lot of crappy things that are very bashable. From the bold face lies and skewed benchmarks of the 90's and early 2000's to todays frivolous lawsuits claiming other companies are copying Apple's copied tech... But that's another thread.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Black1969ta on 2/1/2012 11:11:04 PM , Rating: 3
Funny story!!
Google Whig party and look at the wiki for that party, replace Whig with modern Republican, newspapers with FOX and names for the person modern equivalent position IE... Obama for Jackson, Gingrich for Clay, and you have the same story we do now!
History repeats itself!

Reclaimer, you forget that the earliest party was the democrat-republican, and they focus on almost opposite what we consider to be the modern Republican Point of View


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 9:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're on ignore too

Which apparently is accomplished by replying to all my posts addressed to you or not.

That's pretty impressive, few people can raise hypocrisy to an art form. Oh, it was a Faux ignore. Me silly.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but you really have to get over this "blame everything that is wrong in this country on liberals" thing. Its just narrow, one sided, ill-though out and plain wrong.


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
All the pundits on Faux do the same thing, if information is forthcoming that is contrary to the goal then it's "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you time."

For a lot of people out there, this here is the truth.
Cause if it's on news channel it must be true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_cont...

Gotta love the Photoshopped images, what other stations do that?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By KCjoker on 2/1/2012 6:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
The left are the grade school mentality....instead of debating issues they just call you a racist or show ads pushing old ladies over cliffs. Heck even Newsweek a magazine that used to be respected resorts to calling people that don't like Obama's policies "dumb".


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Hlafordlaes on 2/1/2012 4:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Bigots, fools and cynics cherry-pick facts, inventing them when not found, to support their world views. Done by anyone, right or left, who prefers dogma over critical thinking.

That said, the massive tsunami of BS currently polluting the planet comes mainly from the right, and from religious fundies. Immature, feces-tossing, overweight and undereducated, they are the new red threat.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 10:18:06 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with this... Both sides are full of s$%t. But the "the right, religious fundies etc" are often really childish, ignorant, undereducated and narrow minded.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 1
I should have added, the right is more ignorant and childish, while the left is freegin retarded when it comes to throwing away money.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 10:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
No its been show again and again the right knows how a Economy works while the left don't. The Left lives in Fantasy land when it comes to economics.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 3
I will say the fox news division is a little better at delivering the news. The pundits or spin artists have no intention of delivering the facts their goal is to tell you how to think. Why people listen to shows who's purpose is brain washing is beyond me.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 1:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
"No its been show again and again the right knows how a Economy works "

I dont know about that. When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the econnomy was in a freefall. At that time he reps had the oval office for 20 of the previous 28 years, and had control of congress for 14 of the previous 16 years.

Explain that one.

Not that I think the dems are any better, at best you can say the reps are less aweful, but "the right knows how a Economy works" no. Not in actual practice.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 2:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont know about that. When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the econnomy was in a freefall.


Because of a housing collapse precipitated by "Fair Housing" Democrat mandates? Yes, it was. Who do you think invented the "sub-prime" market?

You seriously need to educate yourself. Instead of blindly saying "ooohhh who was in power", look at how things actually get through Congress and the President's office.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive...

"But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.'' "


And if you don't think Democrats are clueless about the economy, look at what Obama did after he took office!

What you don't want to admit is that the biggest problem Democrats have with our "free-market" economy is that they don't BELIEVE in one. To them our markets exist for them to take as much from as possible, and redistribute it into areas that they DO care about.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 3:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Your right wing talking points fail again. Sorry, its just not how it all happened. The Dems took congress in Jan 2007. The reps had it the previous 14 years. These mortgages were out there LONG before anything the dems did, or voted on , or failed to vote on went in to effect. You act like they came in to office, voted on all this legislation, and sold millions of bad mortgages in a year before the housing collapse started. Dont be a fool. These loans were out there for years already.

Open your eyes, not everything wrong is the dems fault,, they simply haven't had the power. Clearly, "the buck stops here" isnt in the reps party mentality. Yes, we had the white house for 20 of the previous 28 years and congress for 14 of the previous 16, but ALL the problems are caused by the dems and their overwhelming minority of power.

You got nuttin... End of story.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't even read the article. At all. Not a single line. It doesn't matter who has the technical "majority" in Congress when the entire Senate refuses to vote on something! I can't believe you're THAT ignorant.

I'm done wasting time with you. Liberals never admit when the other side has a point, and you're no different. I would ask you to look at the fundamental changes made to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act by the Clinton administration, but you're too busy sitting there with your hands clamped over your ears going "la la la I can't hear you" like the child you are.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 4:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
I read the article, I disagree with its assertions and motive.

Glad your done wasting time. This means you have no comeback to the points I made... And since we know you cant admit any of our issues are the fault of the party that has been in control for the vast majority of modern times, there isnt anything else to say. Clearly we live on different planets.

Without taking any side at all, I simply say that the reps have been in charge of the white house, and congress most of the time and you cant even get past the part where you assume I must be some nutty liberal. Its a far and valid point, and you cant deny any of it and you know it. Get some perspective man and try to see past your own sheltered life.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I read the article, I disagree with its referenced facts and inconvenient truths.


That's your whole problem right there. Instead of talking crap, find me a source, any source, that can credibly say my source is wrong.

And again, this was a discussion about IDEOLOGY, but you keep bringing up parties.

quote:
Without taking any side at all, I simply say that the reps have been in charge of the white house, and congress most of the time


LOL yeah and why do you think that is? Because when people vote Democrat they get Jimmy Carter and Obama! Even Clinton, who wasn't that bad of a President, ended up being a complete embarrassment and was only the second Prez in our history to go through impeachment proceedings while in office.

Your next reply better be facts and sources. Because as far as I can tell, you made NO points. Just conjecture.

You said Republicans caused the housing collapse. Now prove it.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 5:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
You crack me up man... Where did I say "Republicans caused the housing collapse". You are so caught up in the blame game, you assume I am too. Again, all I am saying is that the reps have had all the control in the modern era, it cant all be the dems fault. In general the govt. has let us all down, in a major way. Not the reps, not the dems ALL of them, but you cant even see past your right wing blockades to a middle ground where it might possibly be that reps were in control and cant be totally free of guilt in this mess. Zero perspective, just blame blame blame. You really need to grow.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Look YOU brought up the housing collapse specifically. SOMEONE caused it. I showed you pretty damn concrete proof (and can show more) that it was Democrats who created the bubble that eventually burst. Then you just blow it off without even taking it seriously.

You gotta give me something. Throw me some kind of bone. If you can do that, then I can say "okay, it's not ALL their fault".

Sheesh, where did you learn to negotiate?

quote:
reps were in control and cant be totally free of guilt in this mess


Wtf did I say they were? Stop projecting!

Dude back when Bush railroaded Congress to rammed home the first $16b bailout I sat right on here and publicly denounced that move in vivid, passionate, detail. You act like I'm above doing this, that's just not fair.

In this thread, however, you've moved the goalposts. The original discussion was about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. You're turned it into Dems vs Rep's! It was a discussion about general principles, not specific policy.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/1/2012 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
"In this thread, however, you've moved the goalposts"

that's becasue you are afraid to admit that Jimmy Carter is the greatest president ever!. ;)


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2012 9:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
LOL Retro. Any guy with a sense of humor like that is alright with me.

Sorry things got a bit out of hand yesterday. Said some things I would like to take back. I guess we had a bit of a misunderstanding as well. I mean, you DID call us out by saying we used "grade school" reasoning or whatever. Sort of inflammatory. But still, I would buy you a beer and talk it out like men any day.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By retrospooty on 2/2/2012 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
No worries man, its all good. I get as inflammatory as you, if not more so at times... The grade school thing was really more of a stab at Palin's childlike religious right supporters. You gotta admit she isn't a very bright bulb, as much as I gotta admit if you give a dem a dollar he will spend 4 and leave it for his children to figure out WTF happened.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Dr of crap on 2/1/2012 10:06:23 AM , Rating: 3
Republican or Democrat they are ALL THE SAME!

Why do you need to point at the opposite group, and I assume you are a Democrat, and single them out as being wrong and (insert any other failure you think they have)?

WHY DO the two parties ALWAYS have to point the finger at the other side and tell us how they are wrong or what ever?!!?

So tired of it!


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Samus on 2/1/2012 10:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul 2012


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 12:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks to the Supreme Court only another corporatist will ever obtain the office.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 12:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
A wise man once said;
"Politics is war without bloodshed"

It's human nature to conflict against others. It's what's made us stronger, better, and has lead to the advanced civilization we have today.

Just relax. It upsets me too man, it really does sometimes. But imagine the alternative.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By TSS on 2/1/2012 3:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not offending the person but actually debating on the merits of their arguements?

That's the alternative.

Honestly the culture difference between europe and america never ceases to amaze me. You should see the dutch political debates in election time. They all include statistics and arguements, and if somebody offends anybody it's usually at the end of a long, long sentance with tons of relevant info. To be fair, that's been on the decline now for a good decade (as in with the LPF and PVV debates have become more polarized) but it's still there.

Since it's basically a slow news time we've been getting lots of info about the american (pre)elections here. The most frightening to me are the commercials. None of them contain any usefull information, only how bad the other guy is and what outright disaster it would be if they where elected. In ours, every commercial of every party (we have around 10-11) Is about the merits of that party, and what that party will do for you. And the people know each party will have to compromise to rule (though to which extent is often debated).

And political debates... yours aren't debates. Those are tournaments for the title of best question dodger. More direct insults. And honestly, completly insane ideas (newt wants to build a permanent moon base by 2020?! lol!). All in the name of scoring "points", whatever the hell those might elude to.

It is NOT human nature to conflict. It's human nature to compete. There's a HUGE difference. An Analogy: If there are 2 slices of pie and each of us want one, I am going to compete for the biggest, but i won't deny you pie even if i can take both, nor will i object if you win the biggest. To conflict is to take both for yourself and let the other starve if you can and otherwise find ways to do so.

Beliving it's human nature to conflict is exactly what your media is trying to achieve. I know because our media is doing exactly the same, polarizing left and right. And why do they try? Because of the oldest trick in the book.

Divide And Conquer. I've got no idea who'd be behind it, but it's a classic textbook example of divide and conquer.

I'd worry reclaimer. If you're willing to say "just relax, imagine the alternative", then they've got you. There's no such thing as "the" alternative. There are alternatives to alternatives yknow.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 5:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly the culture difference between europe and america never ceases to amaze me.


I'm sort of a history buff, so maybe using Europe as an example isn't the way to go on this. If you really think about it. :)

Cultural differences aside, Europeans don't seem to have very diametrically apposed parties to choose from. They have Socialism Lite, Socialism, and downright Communism to choose from. People who get called "Far Right" in Europe would be viewed as Liberals in America. True Conservatism just does NOT exist in Europe. Hell it's barely existing here, but hopefully will make a comeback.

quote:
The most frightening to me are the commercials. None of them contain any usefull information, only how bad the other guy is and what outright disaster it would be if they where elected.


NOBODY runs negative adds in Europe? Hmmm..interesting.

Well get ready, cause you guys are about to see the most negative campaign in history. Obama has nearly a billion dollars saved up to slander whoever his opponent is. His record on things he's done has been so bad, he's going to HAVE to go negative on the Republican candidate. He can't really say "I've done this, don't you want more?"

quote:
I'd worry reclaimer. If you're willing to say "just relax, imagine the alternative", then they've got you. There's no such thing as "the" alternative. There are alternatives to alternatives yknow.


I was just being glib. Nobody's "got me". We're just a very angry country right now. I would love to come together, just not under 4 more years of this guy.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 11:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To conflict is to take both for yourself and let the other starve if you can and otherwise find ways to do so.

And of the people who stated in public in the last 6 months "let them die" which party do they belong to?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ro...

quote:
If you're willing to say "just relax, imagine the alternative", then they've got you.

quote:
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Albert Einstein


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 2:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for all the comments. I do lean Democrat.

My question to anyone that votes Republican is why? This question really bothers Democrats as we cannot understand why anyone would do so. I know I am may be asking for much, but could you please give an answer without mentioning the other side?

For instance, I vote Democrat because they tend to look after the poor, middle class, and the lower upper class by trying to provide us with health care and attempt to rebalance the tax burden so those that work for their money pay a lower percentage than those that do not. They also tend to believe in global warming, not going alone during a war if possible, and compassion.

The above is just a few examples of why I would vote for them. The above examples also, for the most part, affect me directly and not in a vague way (the wars part would be the exception probably).

Whenever I have asked the question in the past, I could not get a Republican to tell me the reasons why they would vote for their party in terms of what their party is doing instead of what they don't like about the other party. I really think it is disgusting when a Republican says "Obamacare" or "out of control spending." Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?

Folks, this is not football. We cannot have blind favoratism for our "teams" just because we grew up with them or whatnot. We need to have reasons when we vote. And those reasons cannot be for revenge or just because we don't want the other party in power.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Dr of crap on 2/1/2012 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
YOU REALLY think there are those that have a REASON to be on one side or the other?
That is exactly my point as to hy do we need to point and make jokes at the "other side of the aisle".
It's so booring and I hate to watch it.

I for one do not vote anymore, because of
1 - politicans lie
2 - they take bribs - call it waht you want it's a bribe!
3 - all they do in office is "vote along party lines", Try and keep their job, not vote as the ones that voted them in want - WHY? because they vote along part lines or as the money given to them tells them to vote
4 - I hate the Dems vs Reps system that we have and will not "label" myself as either, and don't all me indepenta either!
5- our govt could get so much more done if ther wasn't this infighting against the "other side".

To bad you feel the need to be linked to one of these crazy groups.

Do you also sho up at rallys and wave flgs with poeples names on them?
These flag wavers are all fools that think the person can do something about anything!
Their politicans they can't think for themselves, let alone run this country.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 4:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's far better to vote than not to. Don't get me wrong, I think that plenty of Democrats are horrible legislators/leaders.

One thing you won't see is Democrats trying to spit on Republican Congress members and use racial slurs like they did during one of the health care protests that was held a few days prior to the final vote. That is a start.

No I don't go to rallies.

I do find it beyond hilarious that not one Republican can tell me why they vote Republican without being negative. So there are no reasons to vote Republican but only reasons to vote against Democrats?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 3:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?


Sigh..typical Democrat. That's why we're in this mess. You vote for the party that promises YOU the most stuff, at the expense of someone else. But it's okay because that other guy is (insert rich, evil, different) so he deserves it for keeping you down.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

? Alexis de Tocqueville


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 3:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, Republicans don't vote because we want a party to help us out. We vote so the Government stays out of our lives and defends our freedoms. We can help ourselves out, thank you!


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 4:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
So you have no reason to vote for Republicans? So you vote for the party that will do the least for you and hurt you the most?

I see the Democrats keeping government out of my business way more than Republicans. Republicans try to limit health care, how I use my health care, they refuse to give equal rights to homosexuals, and the whole time they spit on the Bible (through their actions) while claiming they follow it more than others.

Dude, just give me a reason on how the Republicans will help YOU out. It's really not that hard. Don't "Republican" the answer and talk about something else.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By ekv on 2/1/2012 10:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you vote for the party that will do the least for you and hurt you the most?
Why would you contort what he quoted from Alexis de Tocqueville? Where is the disconnect?

You would have to assume the gov't is here to help you. Because the gov't cares about you and only you. That gov't creates and gives you a job, but only asks for its "fair share" of taxes in return. That the gov't is protecting you from the meanies -- you know, those who decided they wanted to make a profit even though BHO told them it wasn't time yet. If that's how you see, then you see incorrectly.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Dr of crap on 2/3/2012 12:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
And all the comments after my post answering why vote republican is what our problem is.
ONE side poking at the other.
Can't even anser the question with out slipping down to the 5 year old level and telling us how bad the other side is!!!

It's very 5 year old stuff, and yet the educated of our country just keep doing it!

WHY PICK A SIDE???? That is the real question.

Both of them are lying money taking scum, only out to keep their office so that they can live the good life and get the "free" benefits that they voted for themsleves!

The fact that there can't be an election without the two sides telling us how the other can't do any right.

I WOULD vote for the person that didn't have a commercial on evey other other one, TV or radio, that didn't tell me how bad his opponent is, that WAN'T REP or DEM, and just "hoped" to get elected by what he stands for and how, without lying, he'll help the people - but that is a just a dream that will never happen


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By ekv on 2/4/2012 2:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And all the comments after my post answering why vote republican is what our problem is. ONE side poking at the other.
What ARE you getting on about? Is there a reason your Engrish [yes, deliberately mis-spelled] is so abominable?

And yet you babble about 5 year olds and the uneducated? Their English is better than yours. So you complain?

Beyond that, you start by saying how bad those meanies are, the Republicans, but then conclude that the problem is "ONE side poking at the other." What the sam-hell do you think you're doing? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Do you seriously expect to carry on an intelligible conversation? Or do you simply want to regurgitate the Kool-Aid you've obviously been hooked up to (via IV drip, no less).

Bugs Bunny is more believable than you. No? [Btw, when the time comes ... take "the red pill". No need to thank me.]


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Kurz on 2/4/2012 10:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't a formal stage.
I don't have time to go back and reread for comprehension typically. I do it on the fly... Sometimes my Engrish does come out quite poorly, because I am distracted because of work. Regardless, the message while muddled is quite understandable, so why don't you stop wasting time and actually respond to the parts you do understand.

He odviously sees both sides are scum... so he isn't poking at one side or another. He seems to equally dispise both sides.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By ekv on 2/4/2012 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sometimes my Engrish does come out quite poorly
Not to that level.
quote:
respond to the parts you do understand.
... would that be a jibe at me? Are you seriously questioning whether I understand the conversation?
quote:
He odviously sees both sides are scum...
Which while obvious, does beg the question: "If that is the case, why bother?" Hence my line of reasoning. What's your line?


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Keeir on 2/1/2012 3:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Folks, this is not football. We cannot have blind favoratism for our "teams" just because we grew up with them or whatnot.


That is very funny comment coming in the same post as:

quote:
My question to anyone that votes Republican is why? This question really bothers Democrats as we cannot understand why anyone would do so. I know I am may be asking for much, but could you please give an answer without mentioning the other side?


and following this:

quote:
A Republican will take an idea and look at it from a grade school point of view and ask why this and that but never care to get an answer or clarify their opinion with real facts.


I'll take a stab here

quote:
Can you guys just give some good examples of what your party is doing to help YOU out?


Many people don't really think its the purpose of government to explicitly help themselves as much as possible. Or even the role of Government to step in whenever it might be helpful.

Some people think government should only be involved whenever it must be involved... when all other reasonable avenues are unfeasible.

For example, you talk about the Democratic party wanting to provide "healthcare" to people. The majority of proposals seem to center around removing middle earners choice about purchasing healthcare and stealing from high earners to pay for additional healthcare for individuals.

Left out of this discussion is that the federal government spent more than 25% of its budget in 2010 on healthcare! Yes that's right, the Federal Government alone spent more than 1 billion dollars on healthcare related items (Medicare, Medicade, VA, Health and Human Services, Medical Research Grants, etc, etc, etc). This of course ignores the additional money forgone in taxes for private spending on healthcare and charity healthcare. Yet we should spend -more- on healthcare?

Personally, I'm going to vote for the Candidate that reflects my personal values the most. The US Government's current tax system takes in approx 3 billion each year. (Up to 4 billion could be collected, but tax breaks mostly to middle and lower income individuals in the form of mortgage interests, personal deductions, etc amount to hundreds of millions each year. Maybe people ought to remember this when they talk about "helping" the middle class) Current spending levels of ~4 billion clearly can not be maintained. I would never take a LOAN to provide for my neighbor. (Consider this, if you make 75,000 dollars a year, spend 100,000 dollars a year, and have debt of 300,000 dollars... would you take additional loans?)

The first candidate that promises to RAISE taxes and LOWER spending will get my full support. In the mean time, if it was me in the position of the Federal Government, I would LOWER spending first. Given that all candidates are going to RAISE spending, I will have to vote for the candidates I feel will RAISE spending the least.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 4:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
So you vote for those that will hurt you the most too?

I'm still waiting for one freaking reason to vote Republican. Is it so hard? And your assessment is way off. Republicans are for way more intrusion than Democrats. This is another talking point from Fox News.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus Christ you really are that stupid aren't you? The guy answered your question politely, comprehensively, and eloquently. And when it gets to you, it's like it hit a brick wall of stupid.

Please go back to 4Chan or wherever you got here from. You just do not have the intelligence or maturity to be talking about this topic. You seriously cannot grasp that voting isn't about what politicians can "do" for us!?

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"


John F Kennedy (a goddamn Democrat!)


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 5:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You usually throw the first low blow,


Really?

quote:
Jesus Christ you really are that stupid aren't you?


And that's just 1 today. If I knew I had to count them I would have brought along my 4 digit clicker.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
No idiot, he did not. Try again. If you guys can't give me one reason to vote for Republicans, then you are being just as stupid as when they try to evade questions like 2 year olds.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By cmdrdredd on 2/1/2012 6:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you need a reason to vote for someone you're too stupid to do any research on their beliefs and history.

You're just looking for the next handout. Admit it and move on. If I told you Mitt Romney would give you a personal check for $2,000 because you're a nice guy and you had reason to believe it you'd vote for him. If I told you he had moral values or that he will be able to turn the economy around by doing x, y, or z...you'd ignore it and say "you didn't give me a reason to vote republican". Enjoy the hope and change...it sure did well for everyone before. *roll eyes*


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 8:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you are the epitome of stupid since that is your candidate and you have no reason that you can give (without looking stupid) for voting for them.

Wow, I just found the paradox that kills Republican robots. I will make sure to use this in the future. So people that vote for Republicans are actually not voting for a candidate but maybe against the other one just for spite or some uneducated reason? I'm guessing because I can't tell at the moment.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Keeir on 2/1/2012 6:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sigmatau, if you can't see that voting for a candidate that most closely repersents your personal value system as a reason to vote "Republician", I don't think your in the position to be insulting others mental capacities.

While I vote neither Republician or Democratic per se, I can at least admit that some people in this world will find the social "conservatism" esponsed by many members of the Republician party as aligning closely with thier personal values. (This is an example of why someone would vote for the "Republician" stereotype you hold)

Your consistent denial of this self-evident truth of the world, well frankly, makes you seem little more than a selfish thief who wonders why people would see some of "preferences" of the Democratic party as negative.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 8:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
So no reason huh? Republicans are not conservatives. I'm not sure who came up with that idea.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how exactly Republicans "represents your personal value system". That was my original question. So you are for taking other people's rights away that you don't agree with, increasing taxes for the working class but lowering taxes for the upper class, and trying their hardest to pollute the world is your reason?

I really would rather you tell me, but whatever bro.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2012 9:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So no reason huh? Republicans are not conservatives. I'm not sure who came up with that idea.


They're a lot more Conservative than Democrats. I can actually name Conservative Republicans. Can you give me even ONE example of a Democrat who isn't a Liberal? Okay maybe Evan Bayh, but that's pretty much it.

There was once a term used for a sensible blue-blooded Democrat; "Reagan Democrat". Sadly, those don't exist anymore. The radical far-left movement has taken over the Democrat party. And that's not just me saying it, everyone is.

Anyway you sound like a 12 year old who asks questions about things he can't possibly understand the answers to. People have told you 10 times why they vote Republican, and you keep saying "but why tell me tell me bro" like an idiot.

quote:
So you are for taking other people's rights away that you don't agree with, increasing taxes for the working class but lowering taxes for the upper class


That's an absolute absurd attack. You aren't even TRYING now. Even Liberals are probably reading your posts with some embarrassment.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 8:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and let me tell you how insane your reason is to vote for Republicans. You and another more flamboyant poster stated basically for "smaller government."

The Republicans are part of the government. So that is a nice paradox you wove yourself into. Also, the Republicans love big government when it comes to what they want. They want a bigger military, larger boarder patrol (even though Obama has increased it dramatically), and as much welfare for corporations. If that is not big government, then I don't know what is.

The Democrats have been passing consumer protection laws that prevent corporations from unfairly feeding of the poor and/or uneducated. If that is too intrusive for you then I can't help you.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 10:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
You just straight up hate Republicans and can't accept that any vote for one could possibly be legitimate.

You're a bigot, sir. And are embarrassing yourself.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 10:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Pot, meet keetle, kettle this is pot.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 5:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uninformation

Actually Picard got it correct when he called it disinformation. Just a formality you understand.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 5:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
:}

I know it is not a word. It just sounds better, lol.


RE: Typical Fox Uninformation
By sigmatau on 2/1/2012 5:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and Mr. Stewart (sp?) needs to be in way more movies.


Don't balme Fox - do the math
By JimboK29 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Don't balme Fox - do the math
By Denigrate on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
By homebredcorgi on 2/1/2012 4:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
Well if the talking heads would have used facts in the first place, this "lib" wouldn't be upset - a lot like your comment.


RE: Don't balme Fox - do the math
By Flunk on 2/1/2012 10:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's not "liberal" or "conservative" to use facts to make a reasonable point. A compact gasoline car is much more cost effective than even a less expensive hybrid because of the lower cost of maintenance and the relatively low cost of gasoline coupled with the different in fuel economy between a hybrid and a compact gas car.

A $7,500 subsidy doesn't really make sense because the only people it benefits are those rich enough to decide that they can afford to by a less cost effective vehicle. That money would be better spent in public transit or reducing the overwhelming deficit that the current and previous administrations have racked up.


RE: Don't balme Fox - do the math
By theapparition on 2/1/2012 4:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Stop spreading misinformation.

The cost of battery replacement is included in the Volt purchase price, with a new battery scheduled for replacement in it's 8 year/100,000 mile warranty period.


RE: Don't balme Fox - do the math
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 10:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
No they don't include it in the price sufficiently.
The Warranty is offered to give consumers some ease of mind and to cover the infrequent failures that may happen.

The Battery is meant to last a long time probably more than 8 years, so it will not fail in the 8 year timeframe. Though its still up in the air how long they will last.


RE: Don't balme Fox - do the math
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 11:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
Replace Honda Civic with mazda 3 or Ford Focus and you might have something there. Civic is no longer reviewed at the top of the small car market. That being said it is always going to cost a lot to have to power trains you have a massive increase in parts. For prices to come down you need all electric(which is actually mechanically super simple) and a drop in battery prices. If you used something like the new Ford Focus electric for 10 years as a commuter car it is probably already cost effective at today's battery prices. But the sticker shock will keep most people away. Long term you look at gas savings and maintenance cost savings and the total 10 year picture will look different.


By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 11:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
Myself I would probably rather buy myself a nice BMW 3 series for the sticker price of the volt and pay the extra cost of ownership that it comes with.


FOX NEWS HITS 10 YEARS ON TOP
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Three's Company was on the air for 7 years. PT Barnum got rich. Clearly there's an audience.


He has a lot of great points
By Dan Banana on 2/28/2012 8:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
Do any of the folks here actually discuss the articles or do they just go off on wild unrelated tangents?

quote:
Lutz, writing in a column for Forbes, went straight after those that have been most critical of the Volt. He rattled off six “truths” about the vehicle including the fact that the Volt was conceived before GM's federal bailout and that no Volt has caught fire on public roads during an accident. Lutz also asserted that 278,000 gasoline-engined vehicles caught fire between 2003 and 2007, but no one seemed to launch an attack campaign against those vehicles.


Where's the outrage about all these hundreds of thousands of real gasoline fires in non-hybrid cars while there have been ZERO Volt fires under actual driving use?




By Arsynic on 2/1/2012 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 1
Wasn't it the left-wing government that released the information about Volts catching on fire? Where was Mr. Klutz when the media sensationalized the Toyota issues?




By alpha754293 on 2/1/2012 12:51:29 PM , Rating: 1
Considering this is the very same guy that said in 2007 that the NINE brand new trucks and SUV was going to save GM.

Two years later, it almost SANK/TANKED the whole company.

Yea. Way to go Bob.

[tosses it over the shoulder along with a few grains of salt...]

And while he bitches about how no one is raising a stink about the number of gasoline-powered cars that caught fire - well...first off - if they DID, GM would be SOL'd because GM doesn't have much of anything else. In fact, they'd pretty much all be screwed except for BMW, VW, and MB. (Since at least those have diesels).

Second, of those, how many was because it burst into flames after the NHTSA/FMVSS side impact test like it was with the Volt?

Third, out of all the EVs out there that uses lithium batteries, why it is that the Volt is the ONLY one that bursts into flames or has problems of that sort when they're ALL subjected to the same test??? What's next Bob? You're going to start attacking and calling the NHTSA/FMVSS test unfair and crying (more like bitching) foul? Wahhhh....cry me a f-ing river.

(In fact, of all companies, GM should be EXPERTS in crash protection based on time alone.)




Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Big Surprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 7:51:07 PM , Rating: 5
Hmm... I don't actually see you attacking the points he made in the article...


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Big Surprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 8:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
If you think it's just those two on Fox News that are after the Volt, you're sorely mistaken.

Fox News/Fox Business has been after the Volt for quite a while:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkaOo4RxXNE&feature...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8o8p1jYPY&feature...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxOUkw-x5MU&feature...

I could find more examples, but Big Bang Theory is on TBS ;)


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Big Surprise
By Amedean on 1/31/2012 10:47:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And how stupid it is to try and blame such an insignificant percentage of media for the Volt's poor showing. Which was selling poorly, I might add, before ANY stories of exploding cars came out.


PR is everything. So many people criticize the Volt and never driven one - now thats bias!

quote:
Anyway nobody is "after" the Volt.


Speak for yourself, I really want one! I love it, test driven it was silent, comfortable and guess what - more domestic energy is used!

quote:
The American people, by an absolute MASSIVE majority, was against the GM/Chrysler bailouts.


It depends from what angle your talking about. The bailouts (loans which are paid back) were certainly bitter sweet for me but I feel we made the right decision to do so reflecting. The big banks are the only industries that actually received a bailout (not paid back).

quote:
If you want dissenting opinions to be silent and support a biased mainstream media who wants to cheer-lead tax money being used for these kinds of things, I don't know what kind of journalist supports that.


This is a rant...... "biased mainstream media" I assume you mean anything but Fox News. Its like their pot kettle slogan and rarely any other network uses this term.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Big Surprise
By Amedean on 1/31/2012 11:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
That article is misleading (naturally). The Treasury forcast included AIG and other banks - not specifically GM.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702047...


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Big Surprise
By Amedean on 1/31/2012 11:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
I need to clarify my messy message, I meant it was a loan and the banks received grants. I imagine there may be some of the GM loan that is not paid back, but it clearly is nowhere near what you described. Keep in mind there are still payments the government will receive.

I don't think you understand that the government owns shares of these TARP companies (banks included). The Treasury is calculating loss from money when the shares lose value. So when they sell their shares back to these companies they get money back.

Your homework assignment for tonight is to do a little more research and at least read the first paragraph instead of reading just headlines and posting bad information.


RE: Big Surprise
By FredEx on 1/31/2012 11:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, there is nothing in the calculation on the long line of jobs it saved and what that meant to the economy. Several of my family, where they work, are down the line from the car companies and who they work for would have been devastated if any of them would have shut down.


RE: Big Surprise
By Amedean on 1/31/2012 11:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree which is why it was bitter sweet.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Big Surprise
By Amedean on 2/1/2012 1:48:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And there goes your objectivity and thus credibility on this topic. Lots of people have lost their jobs. But as long as your family members kept theirs through a bailout, hey, it's all good!


Don't pull a Gingrich and dodge my points by attacking someone elses credibility. You made too many failed accusations to be attacking someone on credibility - with credibility.

If you ask what points, reread this thread because there are several dead-end tangents.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 4:15:53 AM , Rating: 1
You're arguing about points on an action that was fundamentally wrong in the first place. Even if I'm wrong on all the points, that doesn't matter. What happened with GM was a travesty and is something that the Federal Government simply was never granted the power to do. How can it sit right with you that the Federal Government owns 25% of our largest auto-maker? Please tell me.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that position. I'm taking a shellacking on this one, as expected. But even I can't believe that many people are supporting what happened. I suspect it's more about GM's new "green" outlook, than the actual bailout. Even though they sell just as many trucks and SUV's as before, public perception is everything.

Telling me that I must support crony capitalism and a massive miss-use of treasury funds because the ends justified the means, while making comments about MY credibility, just doesn't wash.


RE: Big Surprise
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 4:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes your specific family would be devastated, however the inflation, debt, and the consquences of the Federal Government having more power would have caused more issues. Such as debt, miss-allocation of resources, many things you can't directly see.

It would be less devesatating to the economy if they would have entered bankruptsy and shedded their debt, restructered and came out a stronger leaner company.

Many companies enter bankruptsy and come out better than ever. Short term gains usually hurt long term outcomes.


RE: Big Surprise
By theapparition on 2/1/2012 9:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
Your lack of knowledge on the situation hurts your understanding.

If GM had tried to go into bankruptcy court without the governments backing, they would have been liquidated......not emerge as a stronger company. There was no restructuring option. In the end, they did go into bankruptcy, just with the governments backing.

I'm not attempting to take sides on the issue, just clarifying what would have happened.


RE: Big Surprise
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 10:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
They most likely wouldn't have been liquidated (Chrysler was more likely though there was a significant chance they wouldn't have been liquidated).

They spent their time and efforts appealing to the Federal Government instead of trying to write up their Bankruptcy Papers. They were not willing to give up anything on the issue so they lobbied. They were given loans and grants only to be backed by the Federal Government again though bankruptsy.

I read up significantly on the issue and there was a way out for these companies through the normal means and still maintain independence without being liquidated.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
True but that would have allowed GM to get out from under the UAW, so of course, that wasn't an option anyone in Washington wanted to face.


RE: Big Surprise
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 4:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
Though you are forgetting the amount of inflation incurred to bail out these companies. Money that never existed before created for the specific purpose to bailout these companies. This inflation which devalues all of the rest of the money currently in circulation.


RE: Big Surprise
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 4:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
This was pointed towards Amedean


RE: Big Surprise
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly the real judge of a car is customer satisfaction and volt does seem to have that. Of course from the companies point of view its how profitable the car is.


RE: Big Surprise
By Just Tom on 1/31/2012 8:14:51 PM , Rating: 5
His points are silly. O'Rielly =/= the right wing media, plenty of left and mainstream media has written stories critical of the Volt. When the car was getting accolades it did not really deserve Lutz had no problem basking in the limelight. The fact that Bush signed the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008? You know what would have been a real point: An explanation of why that despite initially glowing press and an enormously supportive federal no one wants a Volt? Or maybe an explanation that the Volt was seen as a strategic product whose final sales are of lesser concern than finding a way to produce an EV that people want.

Yeah, the press went overboard with the fire thing. But they also went overboard in their initial gushing over the vehicle. For whatever reason the Volt is a rock star, and rock stars get overly glowing praise when they are going well and ridicule when they are not. Deal with it Lutz.


RE: Big Surprise
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/31/2012 8:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, the press went overboard with the fire thing. But they also went overboard in their initial gushing over the vehicle. For whatever reason the Volt is a rock star, and rock stars get overly glowing praise when they are going well and ridicule when they are not. Deal with it Lutz.

I think that's a reasonably analogy.

Love or hate the Volt, you have to give GM credit for going big. It could have tried to make the next sh1tty Prius clone, but instead it pulled off something that is truly world-class.

Sure the Volt has had its problems, but the car is THE first PHEV. PHEVs are much more promising that BEVs like the Leaf as they aren't as range confined. But they're also technically much more challenging due to the hybrid drivetrain, coupled with the fact that you've gone in HEV from asking for a bit of an electric boost to asking for full-on highway speed all-electric performance and gas performance.

I think the unfortunate thing is that the media didn't really frame the vehicle properly when posting about its potential problems.

Ultimately, you can cry bias, but the thing ended up being no more flammable than your average car, based on what I've read.

But I would agree it was not just FOX News who was ragging on the Volt -- CNN, MSNBC and other liberal outlets chimed in... a la:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46078220

I do think FOX News got a little MORE over the top in their commentary than most, but it was a problem beyond just FOX and conservative media


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 9:02:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Love or hate the Volt, you have to give GM credit for going big.


GM was handed billions of dollars, damn right they can "go big"! You act like they were taking a big risk and we should give them a medal.

quote:
It could have tried to make the next sh1tty Prius clone


I agree. Instead they did something even smarter. The Cruz and Cruz Eco. The Cruz is the REAL saving grace of GM, yet gets completely overshadowed by Volt hype. Without the Cruz, GM would be in serious trouble.

Seriously if I was GM I would be riding the Cruz like my old lady. This is a car that people are actually BUYING. There's demand! It's everything the Volt isn't.

Instead Lutz, proving he's anything but forward thinking, devotes national press time to ignore his top seller and promote more ill-will between GM and the public. Attacking the "media" and defending a car that people are NOT buying. The LAST thing he should be focusing on is the bailout and the Volt. Why remind people of GM's sorted past when he could be talking about what a hit the Cruz is!?

p.s. Check your mail! :P


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 9:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
ARGH! Edit. Cruze, not Cruz. *slaps forehead*


RE: Big Surprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 9:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't it time to put a ring on that old lady's finger? :)


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 9:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hey get off of my old lady and back onto the Cruze!

Oh wait...:P


RE: Big Surprise
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/31/2012 11:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey get off of my old lady and back onto the Cruze!

Oh wait...:P


Wow your comment puts this in a whole new light...
quote:
I would be riding the Cruz like my old lady

Methinks my brain wants to unthink what it just thought. :)


RE: Big Surprise
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/31/2012 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
GM was handed billions of dollars, damn right they can "go big"! You act like they were taking a big risk and we should give them a medal.


Why are we in the GM mess in the first place?

True, the government intervention with GM was an extreme action, which has had deep economic effects both negative and positive. Extremists will emphasize either the negative or positive and mix the gray that is this complex issue.

As much as I appreciate opinions like:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-successful-ipo-do...

Historical scenarios like post-WWI Germany show the aftermath of the collapse of a nation's mega-corporations.

But if corporate collapse necessitates federal intervention, does that mean it's the best case scenario? Absolutely not.

It's kind of like if you've been getting poisoned for years and your kidneys are destroyed, it may be better to live the rest of your life on dialysis than to die. But both choices are undesirable.

The poison to the U.S. economy that has created "too big to fail" is tax favoritism.

Tax favoritism is perhaps the one single biggest factor that has created the "too big to fail" issue, although other factors like lax antitrust enforcement have also played a role.

Tax favoritism is defined by an ambiguous corporate tax system, massive and blatant federal campaign finance corruption, and a societal sentiment in which corporations feel entitled to abuse and exploit the system as far as they can.

Again, I believe that if you examine the fundamental economics of this, it gets back to the fact that privileged corporations are taxed on profits anywhere from 0-20 percent (or even a negative rate) via the combined effects of tax holidays, loopholes, etc.

At the same time SMBs are taxed at a much higher rate 30-40 percent. So they have an almost insurmountable challenge to become a competitor in a high capital industry, because there's not only the investment barrier, there's the barrier of tax favoritism.

A study indicates of 280 of the top Fortune 500 corporations, they only paid on average 18.5% in federal taxes on profits.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/...

Another good read:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/263982-why-ge-appl...

WRT to GM specifically:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_...

It is estimated for every $1 paid in political lobbying, a company gets $220 in federal tax breaks :
http://www.business.ku.edu/news/releases/20090501-...

The problem is this:
As a SMB (say a Tesla-like firm without the DOE backing Tesla had) you have a Herculean task ahead of you. Let's say you've gone to Harvard Business School and can smooze with the best of them and score a cool $100M USD in venture capital. Great. But now you must compete paying a tax rate of ~35% on any profits you make, versus big guy one and two who are paying ~10%.

It's as if you're on the playground and you're the skinny computer geek and you've boldly decided to pick a fight with Bruno the burly football player. You might stand a chance, as fortune favors the bold. But all of the sudden your teacher tells you that while you can fight Bruno, you must fight with one arm and tied behind your back.

It's a fight SMBs cannot win in many cases.

And hence the corporations become too big to fail.

The issue is that no party is looking to change this as they all have their hands in the cookie jar (yes, even "Tea Party" members, in many cases). Bush did it. Obama did it.

The problem is that government is touching big business, and big business, in its perverted state likes how it feels. It wants to be government's special beloved. But it's not so subtly looking to manipulate the government to squelch competition and boost profits.

... but I digress...

On Why I think you can dislike GM's tax favoritism, but still like some of what GM is doing

GM's favoritism is one issue while the Volt is another.

You can appreciate the Volt without bemoaning the increasingly awkward situation that has evolved between GM and the U.S. gov't not overnight, but over the century (via tax favoritism fueling "too big to fail" expansion).

GM could have released a dozen sh1tty prius clones, as I said. Instead it went for a big shot. Regardless of all the federal handouts, it was still in no better shape than Ford.

But it had a bold vision with the Volt, much as Ford did with SYNC.

At the end of the day this may be somewhat correlated to its "funding", but ultimately has merits independent of the funding.

quote:
I agree. Instead they did something even smarter. The Cruz and Cruz Eco. The Cruz is the REAL saving grace of GM, yet gets completely overshadowed by Volt hype. Without the Cruz, GM would be in serious trouble.

True, absolutely. The thing is very impressive.

But I think the same sentiment (high risk, high reward) that bred the Cruz bred the Volt. The Volt was just a little TOO futurist to succeed in the current market.
quote:
Instead Lutz, proving he's anything but forward thinking, devotes national press time to ignore his top seller and promote more ill-will between GM and the public. Attacking the "media" and defending a car that people are NOT buying. The LAST thing he should be focusing on is the bailout and the Volt. Why remind people of GM's sorted past when he could be talking about what a hit the Cruz is!?

Well this is General Lutz we're talking about. Politically correctness and Lutz are about as foreign concepts as they come.

And yes, you shall be receiving a response shortly... long day!


RE: Big Surprise
By theapparition on 2/1/2012 10:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I think the same sentiment (high risk, high reward) that bred the Cruz bred the Volt. The Volt was just a little TOO futurist to succeed in the current market.

I think this is a great point.

GM has always been too far ahead in some tech, and if they'd have continued the tech, they'd reap a lot of rewards. Instead, the cancelled or killed a lot of products that were way ahead of their time.

GM had a lot of turbocharged engines, but the tech was immature and they canceled most things with a turbo. Even now, much of the culture has favored superchargers rather than turbos, and that's only recently.

GM was first with a EV. Imagine if they'd continued a lot of that tech instead of scrapping the idea.

GM had the best small eco-car line at the time. Cars like the Geo Metro were getting 50mpg in the 90s. Imagine GMs fortunes if they would have had the Geo line when gas prices soared.

Here's just three examples of technology and products that is taking off. GM was just too far ahead of it's time, and missed the market window.


RE: Big Surprise
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2012 11:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
Longer range but also much more complicated and more expensive to produce. Nope I would rather go with something like the Ford Focus electric, I couldn't stomach driving something that looks like the leaf.


RE: Big Surprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 7:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
And another thing, Lutz wasn't the CEO of any of those car companies, so I don't see how you could pin any blame on him...

However, his most prominent leadership role was at Chrysler during its most booming period, the 90s. He left in '98.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 8:03:23 PM , Rating: 3
Oh please Brandon. Have some credibility on this. Did you even Wiki the man? He had very high level executive positions. Hell he ran Chrysler's Global Product Development department. You can't claim he's blameless either way.

quote:
However, his most prominent leadership role was at Chrysler during its most booming period, the 90s. He left in '98.


/facepalm

Yeah after their FIRST federal bailout in 1975. Forgot about that one?

Speaking of credibility..

"On February 9, 2009, GM announced that Lutz would step down on April 1, 2009, from his position as Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, to take an advisory role. He was to 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. Lutz has expressed skepticism on the issue of global warming."

Talk about a colossal flip-flop...


RE: Big Surprise
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/31/2012 8:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So after running 50% of the companies he worked for into the ground to the point that they needed federal bailouts

quote:
Yeah after their FIRST federal bailout in 1975. Forgot about that one?


So Lutz was at Chrysler in the late 70s and early 80s...?


RE: Big Surprise
By Shig on 1/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 8:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right wing media have made claims that the Chevy Volt's batteries catch fire and 'explode' while driving. This is blatantly false.


Show me proof that they said specifically "while driving". And if they did, that is totally false of course. I'm not going to defend lies or misinformation. You act as if you expect me to.

quote:
Right wing media have made claims that the Chevy Volt was completely funded using taxpayer 'bailout' money. This is blatantly false.


Splitting hairs are we? Without the bailout, there most likely wouldn't BE a Chevy Volt on the road. So is this really a mis-statement? Or just a different point a view?

quote:
Right wing media have made claims that the Chevy Volt is already a failure due to sales numbers. This is blatantly false. The Toyota Prius sold ~5500 units its first year, and it cost half as much. A completely brand new and expensive technology selling 8500+ units it's first year is a success in my book.


You are blatantly wrong here. GM deliberately inflated Volt sales by using thousands of Government fleet purchases. Do you think counting those as "sales" is a legitimate and honest way of reporting the facts? Hell no.

quote:
Right win media have claimed the Volt was 'recalled' due to horrible fire issues.


ALL MEDIA was reporting this. Not "right-wing". Nice try.

You got nothing Shig. Just another leftist moron. Thanks for playing.


RE: Big Surprise
By Shig on 1/31/2012 8:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well in the long run numbers will tell the tale, lets see how things go in 2012. Thank you for proving my point about you though.


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 8:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
What point? What did I say that wasn't completely true or rational?


RE: Big Surprise
By Shig on 1/31/2012 9:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Truth and rationality are things you will never understand sir.


RE: Big Surprise
By Kurz on 2/1/2012 4:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
He owned you here.
I think you should just shutup and learn something.


RE: Big Surprise
By tanjali on 1/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Big Surprise
By YashBudini on 2/1/2012 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's paying him. Generating hatred is just the current drug of choice.


RE: Big Surprise
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 11:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You got nothing Shig. Just another leftist moron. Thanks for playing.
LMAO!!! Can I use this as my forum sig?


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 11:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
With my blessing Spuke :)


RE: Big Surprise
By Masospaghetti on 2/1/2012 12:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Splitting hairs are we? Without the bailout, there most likely wouldn't BE a Chevy Volt on the road. So is this really a mis-statement? Or just a different point a view?

The right wing media like to portray the Volt as Obama's golden child and directly funded by his administration when the Volt itself was conceived and developed independently of the government, before the bailout even occured. It's not splitting hairs - this is a major bashing point the media uses, and its completely incorrect.
quote:
You are blatantly wrong here. GM deliberately inflated Volt sales by using thousands of Government fleet purchases.

The federal government bought 131 Volts in May 2011. Do you have any data showing they bought "thousands"?


RE: Big Surprise
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 1
Obama made the Volt his "golden child" you idiot. He was on TV with the damn thing! He's overflowing the praise on the Volt. It's practically all he's been talking about. Hello?

I said "Government" fleet purchases. That means states too.

You can dick around with the numbers all you want. The fact is consumers, people spending their own money, are simply not buying the Volt.


RE: Big Surprise
By Masospaghetti on 2/1/2012 10:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama made the Volt his "golden child" you idiot. He was on TV with the damn thing! He's overflowing the praise on the Volt. It's practically all he's been talking about. Hello?...I said "Government" fleet purchases. That means states too.

I asked for a facts, any reference to your claim and you cannot provide one. Instead you insult me. Great way to earn credibility.

The car and the president have very little to do with each other. You're right, Obama "endorsed" the Volt. That doesn't mean it was his idea - because it simply wasn't. Tax dollars were not used to develop the car, nor was the car conceived by some evil Democrats in a back room to force EVs onto the general public.


RE: Big Surprise
By Samus on 2/1/2012 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
That is true, Lutz is responsible for the God-awful Neon and PT Cruiser.

As crappy as they were, they did sell quite well.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki