backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by pickleman2000.. on Jul 4 at 3:19 AM


Tesla's Model S

The Tesla Roadster
Uncle Sam stands a better chance of getting its money back from Tesla than from GM or Chrysler

Tesla Motors has received approval from the United States Department of Energy for up to $465 million in low-interest loans. The electric car manufacturer had faced significant financing difficulties due to the global credit crunch and resulting recession, despite having an order backlog of over 1,500 vehicles. This forced a delay in the acquisition of a Californian production facility and the subsequent plans for several models.

The loans are part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which provides incentives to new and established automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrid and electric vehicles. The ATVMP was created in 2007 and appropriated funding in September 2008. The $25 billion program is supposed to reduce America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil and create “green collar” jobs.

The program is not related to any economic stimulus package or bailout funding that General Motors and Chrysler have received.

“Tesla will use the ATVM loan precisely the way that Congress intended -- as the capital needed to build sustainable transport,” said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. “We are honored that the US government selected Tesla to be among the first companies to participate in this progressive program.”

Tesla Motors plans to draw $365 million for production engineering and assembly of the Model S, an all-electric family sports sedan that carries up to seven people and travels up to 300 miles per charge. The company expects to start production of the Model S in late 2011 in a new assembly plant employing approximately 1,000 workers.

Tesla will use the remaining $100 million for a powertrain manufacturing plant that will supply all-electric powertrain solutions to other automakers, greatly accelerating the availability of mass market electric vehicles.  The new factory is expected to employ about 650 people in California. Tesla is currently in the final stages of negotiation for both facilities.

The firm recently signed a deal with Daimler, which will provide engineering and financial support in exchange for a ten percent equity stake. Daimler will use Tesla's powertrains in its second generation electric Smart cars starting in 2012.

Tesla remains privately owned, with several hundred million dollars in funding coming from Elon Musk (former President of Paypal) and several venture capital funds. Google co-founders Sergey Brin & Larry Page are significant investors, as is former eBay President Jeff Skoll.

The company plans to reach a breakeven point by the end of this year, as it increases sales by opening half a dozen new stores throughout North America and Europe. Its new London store will open on June 25.

If all goes well with production and sales of Model S vehicles, Tesla intends to produce an affordable third model, codenamed BlueStar. This electric vehicle for the masses is targeted to cost around $30,000, with development being  funded by profits from the Model S sedan.


Comments     Threshold


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

It's Good to be in DC
By captainpierce on 6/23/2009 12:58:03 PM , Rating: -1
Welcome to the new economy. Washington D.C. is now the financial capital of the U.S.




RE: It's Good to be in DC
By invidious on 6/23/2009 1:07:11 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be too hasty to lump this in with the bailouts. This company actually has a good business model and demand for its products. It just happened to have a hard time getting financed.

I think that most of the people who were opposed to the bailout (including myself) would agree that this is the kind of spending the government should be doing.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Tsuwamono on 6/23/2009 1:11:22 PM , Rating: 4
and the fact that its a loan. so there will be interest, which means the government gets something out of it. I see a win win personally.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By captainpierce on 6/23/2009 1:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't be too hasty to lump this in with the bailouts.


I agree it's not a bailout. The government is engaging in industrial policy and displacing private capital. This is hardly an efficient way to run an economy. Should an entity that is trillions in debt be making loans in the first place?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By TomZ on 6/23/2009 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 1
If the government wants to pick winning technology in the market, then sure, displacing private capital is a good way to do that. After all, two wrongs make a right, don't they?

</sarcasm>

If the business case was sound and it was a good investment, there would be plenty of private capital available to invest in Tesla.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 3:59:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the business case was sound and it was a good investment, there would be plenty of private capital available to invest in Tesla.


In normal times, that would be the case. The problem is that investment companies were so burned by CDOs and other "investment vehicles" that they are being overly cautious to the point of hibernation. And the banks aren't lending b/c they're expecting to have to cover huge investment and foreclosure losses.

The government has a history of successfully investing in technology (Apollo project, Manhattan project) and investing in things too large for investors to tackle. Given the timing, I think this is the right thing to do. Oil won't be around forever and a transition off of oil will take 20 or 30 years. It's in all of our interest to have that technology in place, both from an economic standpoint and a national security one.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By lco45 on 6/23/2009 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
This investment is more appealing to the government that to private investors, because the government can achieve two goals:
1. Get a modest return on investment.
2. Encourage the market to make the infrastructure changes that would otherwise require more direct government cost.

The private investors don't need to worry about the nation's infrastructure, so the "modest return" side of the equation isn't valuable enough for them to part with their funds.

Cheers,

Luke


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By aftlizard on 6/23/2009 3:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sure and they can pay the loan back with already generous tax incentives they and their customers receive.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ku on 6/23/2009 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I wouldn't consider it a bailout. It's actually kinda counter-productive if you think about it: trying to get GM and Chrysler back on track while directly funding their competitors.

Not quite sure how wise of an investment this is. I don't know too much about the company, but I do believe that their hyped up model is $100,000. Not quite sure what the demand in that would be. Better hope that they can bring that cost down by half while still producing quality vehicles.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By teflonbilly on 6/23/2009 1:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well the article state a back log of 1500 vehicles. The $100000 roadster is very popular. I know that isn't a huge number, but it shows an interest in a vehicle not yet common on the streets. And it could be argued that is the exact reaon people will buy it. Exclusivity.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By MozeeToby on 6/23/2009 2:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Roadster was only ever about building capital and generating PR and is pretty successfully doing both. Selling the cars to enthusiasts at such a high price point means a much higher profit margin than would otherwise be possible.

The plan is, I believe, to come out next with a mass production luxury sedan at a more reasonable price point of $50000, saving money on R&D by re-purposing the technology from the roadster. This would be the first real introduction that many people will have to the company, right now few people outside of tech/car circles have even heard of them.

I imagine, if they can find more ways to trim the costs, a $30000 model would be next. Something that performs in-line with an Evolution or WRX; trying to capture the young professional crowd. Or possibly an SUV/crossover at $40000, though I personally hope they stay away from that market it might make more sense just because it is so large.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By theapparition on 6/23/2009 3:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I wouldn't consider it a bailout. It's actually kinda counter-productive if you think about it: trying to get GM and Chrysler back on track while directly funding their competitors.

So let me get this strait.

Fist off, you actually think of Tesla motors as a competitor to GM and Chrysler. When did selling a total of 500 cars per year equate to putting pressure on a company (GM) that sells 12+ million cars per year?

Second, don't you think it's ironc that the government would fund a competitor.....that you consider Tesla, and then mention Washington funding GM and Chrysler, who truely are direct competitors.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
Also, do GM or Chrysler sell any $100,000 sports cars?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Spuke on 6/23/2009 4:09:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, do GM or Chrysler sell any $100,000 sports cars?
Corvette ZR1 and Dodge Viper but your question is irrelevant.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected:

Corvette ZR1 MSRP: $102K
Dodge Viper MSRP: $90K

I still wonder though if people who are interested in a Tesla are the same ones interested in a ZR1, and vice versa.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By theapparition on 6/23/2009 5:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
No.

I am buying a 2010 ZR1. I'd have to consider, for a moment, an ACR Viper. But ergonomics and other factors sway the decision decidedly in favor of the ZR1.

Tesla was never, and never will be, on my radar. An electric, as they stand now, will never stand up to full track use. Maybe if they ever perfect 10min charging, but now it's of no use to me.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Jeffk464 on 6/24/2009 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
Your buying a $100,000 car just to run on race track?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Spuke on 6/24/2009 12:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your buying a $100,000 car just to run on race track?
A lot of those owners do. Remember, these people own many cars usually.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By theapparition on 6/24/2009 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This will be my 4th Corvette.

I plan to drive it in the rotation with my other cars, but you can be certain that it will also see some track use.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By grant2 on 6/25/2009 6:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
An electric, as they stand now, will never stand up to full track use.

Curious about just how much mileage do you put on your car in a track day??

As a motorcycle racer, i've never gone through more than a tank of gas (~120 miles) in a single practice day, let alone race day which is of course much less distance. (btw, the best racers at our track can do an average speed of 50-60mph and the best practice day will give you about 2 hours of track time)

The tesla supposedly has about 300 miles range on a single charge. I guess if you drive to the track you'd chew up a lot of that though.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By theapparition on 6/29/2009 6:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
300 miles on a single charge is under ideal circumstances. It will be much less under under high stress situations where other factors such as wind resistance start to play a big factor.

I'm shocked that you say they average only 60mph during a track event. Depending on the track, I've averaged well over 100mph.....for the whole event!
Remember that power requirements increase with the cube of speed, so for evey doubling of speed requires 8X more power. That will drain the battery real fast.

However, my biggest issue was that of refilling, hence my quip about 5 minute recharging. The car may hold up for a single session (which I seriously doubt), but what do I do after that? I can't wait until the next morning to drive again.

In the end, though, the Tesla is just not a good track car. Show me one instance where it's worked well at a track event. Or any Lotus (which this is really based on). The Elise I had was a horrible car for anything other than autocrossing. The Tesla's top speed is a mere fraction of my other cars, at 125mph, that's just not going to cut it. I've managed to peg over 200mph in some straitaways.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Hakuryu on 6/23/2009 1:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that this is a good use of funds. A low interest loan to a growing company with back-orders in order to help them get established is much better than huge bailouts to established failures.

I can think of two other reasons this is a good idea. First, the investors mentioned in the article are smart people who wouldn't likely invest in Tesla if there wasn't a good chance they would succeed. Second, Tesla didn't throw billions into the development of these cars like the bailout companies, and seem to have a better grip on the tech nonetheless.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Solandri on 6/23/2009 5:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, Tesla didn't throw billions into the development of these cars like the bailout companies, and seem to have a better grip on the tech nonetheless.

It's not that they have a better grip on the tech. It's that they're aiming to sell to the only market where the tech is currently profitable. The $100k+ enthusiast sports car market is much smaller, but much less price-sensitive. The big auto companies weren't interested in volume that small for an R&D investment this large. They were focusing on an electric car which would have sales ~3 orders of magnitude greater than what Tesla is hoping for.

I would even argue the big automakers are still on the right track. Hybrids (which use nearly all the same components as all-electric vehicles) are close to reaching the 1 million cars/yr milestone. I think an investment into improving their battery tech would be vastly safer and much more likely to yield a positive return, than an investment into Tesla considering its limited market appeal. That's just my opinion though - who knows what the future will bring.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By bdewong on 6/23/2009 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was opposed to the bailouts and do not agree that this is the kind of spending the government should be doing. This is just a pre-bailout bailout (wonderfully marketed but horribly run company). I really have to wonder who makes the decisions on who the government should fund, especially when they are able to get private funding.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By kellehair on 6/23/2009 1:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

How many cars are they going to have to sell to pay back that $465M by the way?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By captainpierce on 6/23/2009 1:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the business case was sound and it was a good investment, there would be plenty of private capital available to invest in Tesla.


I was wondering the same thing. Sounds like another government-financed boondoggle.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By MozeeToby on 6/23/2009 2:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to get 465M in revenue they would have to sell 4650 Roadsters, that doesn't seem impossible given their back order of 1500 cars. Of course, all that revenue isn't available to pay back a loan, there are costs involved in building each Roadster.

However, the great thing about selling a high end, highly engineered product, the engineering is already done. I would imagine that the costs of production for a Roadster are < $50000, so I'll just double the number and say ~9000 Roadsters or ~20000 of their luxury sedans they hope to have out soon. Over the life of the loan, none of those numbers seem unrealistic to me.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By kattanna on 6/23/2009 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
$465,000,000

lets keep it simple and not take interest into this.

lets say they can payback $5,000 for every car sold

so with 93,000 cars they can pay this back. considering they have made what a whole 500 cars so far..

im doubting the ability to repay.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By hduser on 6/23/2009 4:25:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many cars are they going to have to sell to pay back that $465M by the way?


Just one car, if they can find someone who'll pay $465 million for it.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many cars are they going to have to sell to pay back that $465M by the way?


Well, at $100K a shot they only have to sell 4650 to make $465,000,000 in revenue. They already have a waiting list of 1500. I realize that revenue != profit, but if they use the loan to build factories, they'll have very low amortization costs, and be able to pay it back much quicker. At any rate, we're talking having to produce 1000s of cars to pay back the loan, not millions. It's fairly easily achievable.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By bdewong on 6/23/2009 4:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Revenue isn't even close to equal to revenue. Remember we are dealing with full electric cars where the battery packs alone costing more than ten thousand dollars by itself. Then tack on all the other parts of the car, labor, cost of expansion and building new showrooms and factories, you get a lot closer to that $5,000 profit per car that the previous poster had mentioned.

Okay, let's say that they make $10,000 pure profit for each one sold, it will only take 4,650,000 cars sold before they can pay of only the government's loan.

So with 4 million electric cars out there, maybe we'll have a problem with our infrastructure as well. Good thing we have the government, it can pay for that too.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By bdewong on 6/23/2009 4:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Revenue isn't even close to equal to profit

-edit


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By noirsoft on 6/23/2009 5:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your math is way off. You calculated as if the profit per car were only $100.00 not $10,000.00

It takes only 46,000 cars to pay back the money with a $10,000 profit. A factor of 100x less than you said, and much easier to do.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 5:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, two things.

1. Profit margins are usually 30% or more on sports cars. I don't know if that's the case with Tesla or not, but usually sexiness, low production numbers, and cache come at a premium.

2. Their profit margins are better for this deal, since the fixed amortized costs are lower with this loan that they otherwise would have been.

Even so, a $10K profit means they only have to sell 46,500 cars to pay the load back. That's not really that many.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Spuke on 6/23/2009 6:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, at $100K a shot they only have to sell 4650 to make $465,000,000 in revenue.
Niche car sales aren't linear, it's a curve. Usually hits its peak early then trails off after a while (usually after initial demand is met). If they go another year without fulfilling a decent amount of those orders, expect a good portion of those to drop off. I expect at least 2000 cars to be bought.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 1:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. The likelihood of that company even having $465 million dollars in revenue in the next 5 years much less being able to pay off that loan back is about as much as me getting to bang Amanda Tapping.

I don't mind a few million here and there for research into an area. But half a billion dollars as a loan in a time of financial hardship? To a company that already had to lay off a huge portion of its staff? And when we don't even have $465 million to lend them?

This is another chunk of money the taxpayer will likely never see again.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By walk2k on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's Good to be in DC
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're viewing war as an investment? What price do you put on people's freedom?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By walk2k on 6/23/2009 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
What freedom are those, the ones they took away with the Patriot Act?

ANYway your idiotic neo-con ramblings are for naught (as usual) since this was money set aside in 2007 by the Bush admin.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Ringold on 6/23/2009 5:26:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ANYway your idiotic neo-con ramblings are for naught (as usual)


You mean, pointing out what any economic textbook could tell you, that government setting industrial policy and being involved with financing private companies (which fuels corruption too) has a spotty history at best, is idiotic neo-con rambling?

I guess a balanced education that in any way includes basic economics or economic history is idiotic to Democrats these days? Sounds like you just felt like lashing out on the interweb there.

About the only argument that makes sense is national security, most economists will admit that while its a tough point to argue with that its often still not the best choice from an economic viewpoint. Given that so much of our oil comes from the hostile foreign nations of Canada and Mexico, hard to even make the national security argument.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Spuke on 6/23/2009 6:39:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Given that so much of our oil comes from the hostile foreign nations of Canada and Mexico, hard to even make the national security argument.
Friggin Canadians.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By lco45 on 6/23/2009 10:11:32 PM , Rating: 3
LOL, freedom. Yeah, that's the real reason...

There's only about a trillion other countries whose people could benefit from a little outside assistance that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

No one could care less about the folks in Darfur, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Chad.

Why choose to save those poor Iraqis instead of these other folks? Why? Such a mystery...

Luke


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By captainpierce on 6/23/2009 4:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like the 3 Trillion spent in Iraq.


Not to burst your bubble but the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan both is somewhere around 900 billion. Still a lot but not 3 trillion...yet.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Solandri on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: It's Good to be in DC
By walk2k on 6/23/2009 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Or the $5.9 BILLION to Ford.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090623/BUSINESS01/9...$5.9+billion+in+loans+for+fuel+efficient+vehicles+


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By theapparition on 6/23/2009 3:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't be too hasty to lump this in with the bailouts. This company actually has a good business model and demand for its products. It just happened to have a hard time getting financed.

They have a good business model? They were just laying off most of thier staff recently to stay afloat. Plus demand, a 1500 car backlog may sound nice, but compare that to the 12 million cars GM sells per year and it gets pretty unimpressive quick.

So yes, a company like GM was loaned 100 times more money, but they also sell 25000 times the number of cars. On a per car basis, that's Tesla asking for 250x more money than GM. Factor in the number of jobs that were saved by keeping the automakers afloat (which whould have devistated local economy and state unemployment coffers).

Sorry, but if you're going to compare, I view the automotive bailouts far more favorable than this one.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By IcePickFreak on 6/23/2009 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This company actually has a good business model....


Really? Really???

Have you already forgot some of their previous business decisions? Or their previously stated ideologies?

Really??!?


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By TSS on 6/23/2009 7:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
actually i started jumping back through DT articles to come up with a "flawed business model" idea. after all, if their business model works, why are they having a hard time financing?

http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motors+Begins+Produ...

"The company is slowly churning out Roadsters and hopes to build as many as 100 units per month by early 2009."

lofty goals.

http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motors+Begins+Roads...

"Tesla currently has a backlog of over a thousand orders at a base price of $109,000 US dollars. Production is ten roadsters per week, although the company plans to increase its rate."

a year after production started, their production is 40% of their estimates. their backlog has nigh doubled. and this is with a 109,000 dollar car.

if im an investor and tesla right now would ask me for a huge pile of cash for the next car, which'll be half as expensive so sold twice as much (mjeh, you know what i mean), i wouldn't take the risk. if they'd be able to show me to actually sufficiently produce this model against demand, well, i'd finance them right away, sounds like a gold mine to me. but the proof, their current car, speaks to the contrary.

yes this facility will be for beeing able to produce that model but if their estimates for their current car where wrong (both demand or supply wise), why won't their next estimates be wrong?

http://www.dailytech.com/Teslas+Plans+for+San+Jose...

not to mention here it's: "Tesla says it is seeking $250 million USD to build its Model S facility and $150 million USD for an advanced powertrain facility." which now has become, $365 million and $100 million. that doesn't make sense at all.

good thing the government doesn't care about anything like that. so i'd still say this is a bailout, no matter what the funds is named of which the money comes. because you and i both know, if tesla didn't get this money and had to return to the financial markets they'd never get it (because you don't turn to the government if you can).


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By encryptkeeper on 6/23/2009 9:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think that most of the people who were opposed to the bailout (including myself) would agree that this is the kind of spending the government should be doing.

They were going to liquify all of Chrysler's assets and take the money, but as it stands they'll be allowed to survive. I really can't understand why they allowed that to happen. I guess it probably was UAW and their lobbyists. And if you don't like it, don't bother complaining here, it won't do any good. And before you complain about THAT, remember that the airlines have been bailed out several times in their history, and billions went to them with no strings attached. This isn't something right, but stop complaining like Obama is the only president to oversee these bailouts. This is only another bailout in a LONG history of bailouts.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Boze on 6/23/2009 10:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
The is absolutely not the kind of spending our government needs to be doing, and this company doesn't have a good business model, nor do they have a 'demand' for their products.

Even if there were 10,000 back orders for the Roadster, that's hardly a 'demand' compared to the automotive industry as a whole. Furthermore, if their business model was so exceptional, they'd have had no problem securing funding from outsider forward-looking and thinking investors. New business ventures are being funded all the time, around the world.

This is a dog and pony show that's a win-win for Obama's administration. I like Obama quite a bit because he seems to me to be a futurist. He's setting precedents that all future American presidents will be forced to follow (Twitter posts, weekly YouTube addresses, etc.) and that's a good thing. But make no mistake, if Tesla fails while he's in office, he can simply point to the company and wag his finger. If they become a household name, then he gets all the recognition, and its a campaign issue for next term's election.

My money shouldn't be being used to fund a business that can't find outside investment. I see a lot of posts here talking about it being an interest-based loan. Apparently some of you have never considered what will happen to that 'loan' if for some reason Tesla defaults on it.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By FITCamaro on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's Good to be in DC
By 67STANG on 6/23/2009 2:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
They could just try Cash4Gold.Com. After all, if you're selling-- they're buying!


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By quiksilvr on 6/23/2009 2:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
...and racist. But its ok! Obama's president! That makes it okay!


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 3:08:18 PM , Rating: 1
Dude it was a joke.

But it's not like all those people who voted for Obama solely because he was black and the other guy was the "evil" white man was racist or anything. Or that giving jobs to blacks and minorities because of their race is racist.

Liberals are always the ones to bring up race in politics while claiming its the other side that cares.

Forgive me if I'm not politically correct and not afraid to make an off color joke.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Spuke on 6/23/2009 6:42:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Forgive me if I'm not politically correct and not afraid to make an off color joke.
I didn't take offense. Sane people wouldn't.


RE: It's Good to be in DC
By Jeffk464 on 6/24/2009 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
you say racist, I say potato.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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