Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[Pogo]

Again... if the reader has read this thread, they should have recognized by now that the key to defeating a Leftist in debate is found in two key points. For those that may have come in late, I'll provide those keys for you now:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

And that's IT!

Everything they do is a lie. Even what they call themselves, "progressives". Since they are attempting to undo the progress represented by our liberal Constitutional republic, they are the opposite. You might as well say "get them to lie" because speaking and lying are concomitant for them.

Eliminationist poison-the-well fallacy abject horseshit dismissed.

 

[bripat9643]

Plenty of cars are not around now that were great success. The Pinto, the Cougar, the Chevy Bel Aire, the Chevy Monty Carlo, the Cadillac Seville, the Ford Fairlane, the Galaxy.

Car models get phased out for one reason or another.

yes, they do. but the ones I listed failed because no one wanted to buy them. on your list the PInto is another failure

Not true. As I noted earlier, GM sold 200,000/yr. That's a big selling car by any standard. Ford also sold millions of Pintos.

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car produced by the Ford Motor Company for the model years 1971–1980. Initially offered as a two-door sedan, the Pinto added hatchback and wagon models the following year. With over 3 million sold over a 10-year production run, the Pinto competed in the U.S. market against the AMC Gremlin and Chevrolet Vega — outproducing both by total production as well as by highest model year production. The Pinto also competed against imported cars from Volkswagen, Datsun, and Toyota.​

the Pinto was a death trap because of the way the gas tank was mounted near the rear bumper. They stopped making it when the lawsuits started piling up. Yes, they sold a lot of them, but I don't think thats the only test of success.

Again, in this case all that would have been needed for the product would have been a redesign. Corvairs suffered from similar bad design in atrocious understeer. Saturn hooked up with a bad A/T supplier. These were discontinued for legal ramifications, not for failures of design that couldn't have been fixed.

OK, not surviving is failing, there are many reasons why products fail. The redesigns you mention would have been so costly that the products could not be profitable.

If not surviving is failing, then all cars are failures. The all go out of production at some point. Furthermore, I didn't mention any redesigns.

 

[bripat9643]

You people and your commie paranoia crack me up.

For sure, because they just scream it in your face yet you accuse other of being paranoid . easier I guess than having to accept the truth.

Word bound right wing pea brains infest the right...

The very core of conservatism is FEAR...words have always been used to create fear and monsters to control you pea brains.

I don't care what John Bachtell calls himself. I agree with most of what he says. The core of liberalism is caring about people, especially hard working middle class people, and folks who need extra help and/or protection due to circumstances beyond their control, like the young and the elderly.

President Kennedy quoting Harry Truman gave a perfect definition of a liberal President...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

And President Kennedy's Special Counsel, Adviser, and primary speechwriter concisely nailed the difference between conservatives and liberals...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

That's a giant load of horseshit. That's how liberals like to think of themselves. However, the reality is remarkably different. Liberals care so much about the middle class that they want to drive up the price they pay for energy to three times the current level. They have already double or even tripled the cost of health insurance. They're also importing millions of illegal aliens to compete for middle class jobs.

What a bunch of lying good-for-nothing hosebags.

 

[Redfish]

yes, they do. but the ones I listed failed because no one wanted to buy them. on your list the PInto is another failure

Not true. As I noted earlier, GM sold 200,000/yr. That's a big selling car by any standard. Ford also sold millions of Pintos.

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car produced by the Ford Motor Company for the model years 1971–1980. Initially offered as a two-door sedan, the Pinto added hatchback and wagon models the following year. With over 3 million sold over a 10-year production run, the Pinto competed in the U.S. market against the AMC Gremlin and Chevrolet Vega — outproducing both by total production as well as by highest model year production. The Pinto also competed against imported cars from Volkswagen, Datsun, and Toyota.​

the Pinto was a death trap because of the way the gas tank was mounted near the rear bumper. They stopped making it when the lawsuits started piling up. Yes, they sold a lot of them, but I don't think thats the only test of success.

Again, in this case all that would have been needed for the product would have been a redesign. Corvairs suffered from similar bad design in atrocious understeer. Saturn hooked up with a bad A/T supplier. These were discontinued for legal ramifications, not for failures of design that couldn't have been fixed.

OK, not surviving is failing, there are many reasons why products fail. The redesigns you mention would have been so costly that the products could not be profitable.

If not surviving is failing, then all cars are failures. The all go out of production at some point. Furthermore, I didn't mention any redesigns.

I was not replying to you. get your anger in check.

 

[Pogo]

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Mercury Comet, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

 

[Redfish]

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

 

[Redfish]

how did a thread about democrats and communists evolve to a discussion of corvairs and VWs?

 

[Pogo]

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

 

[Redfish]

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

oh come on, are you that dumb, stick? GM saw how many americans were buying VWs and wanted to cash in on that market. they tried to copy the VW and failed. End of story.

 

[Pogo]

how did a thread about democrats and communists evolve to a discussion of corvairs and VWs?

Dunno, I was away for a while. But I'm guessing you were getting too beat up with the bullshit pseudo-topic as it was and took a detour. Didn't work out real well.

 

[Pogo]

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

oh come on, are you that dumb, stick? GM saw how many americans were buying VWs and wanted to cash in on that market. they tried to copy the VW and failed. End of story.

Everybody saw how VW was selling in that market. That's why they ALL (read: "all") came out with what they myopically called "compact" cars in the same year, 1960. The fact that you can find one commonality between one of those CCs and the VW in no way makes the former a "copy" of the latter, any more than a Comet or Lancer was. It simply makes them rivals for the same market for a smaller more fuel-efficient car.

Apparently your automotive knowledge is right up there with your political science background...

 

[Redfish]

how did a thread about democrats and communists evolve to a discussion of corvairs and VWs?

Dunno, I was away for a while. But I'm guessing you were getting too beat up with the bullshit pseudo-topic as it was and took a detour. Didn't work out real well.

nope, not me. But I really don't care enough to go back and see who got it off track.

 

[Redfish]

so did the millions of air cooled VWs. The Corvair was a GM attempt to copy the VW, and it failed miserably

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

oh come on, are you that dumb, stick? GM saw how many americans were buying VWs and wanted to cash in on that market. they tried to copy the VW and failed. End of story.

Everybody saw how VW was selling in that market. That's why they ALL (read: "all") came out with what they myopically called "compact" cars in the same year, 1960. The fact that you can find one commonality between one of those CCs and the VW in no way makes the former a "copy" of the latter, any more than a Comet or Lancer was. It simply makes them rivals for the same market for a smaller more fuel-efficient car.

Apparently your automotive knowledge is right up there with your political science background...

besides the corvair, which US compact cars had air cooled rear engines? Answer--------none.

 

[Preacher]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

 

[Redfish]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

 

[Pogo]

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

oh come on, are you that dumb, stick? GM saw how many americans were buying VWs and wanted to cash in on that market. they tried to copy the VW and failed. End of story.

Everybody saw how VW was selling in that market. That's why they ALL (read: "all") came out with what they myopically called "compact" cars in the same year, 1960. The fact that you can find one commonality between one of those CCs and the VW in no way makes the former a "copy" of the latter, any more than a Comet or Lancer was. It simply makes them rivals for the same market for a smaller more fuel-efficient car.

Apparently your automotive knowledge is right up there with your political science background...

besides the corvair, which US compact cars had air cooled rear engines? Answer--------none.

So you're confirming again that you're trying to claim Corvair was a "copy" of VW based on its engine cooling system.

That's no different from claiming the Falcon was a "copy" of the Studebaker Lark because it was water-cooled.

As noted --

 

[Bfgrn]

You people and your commie paranoia crack me up.

For sure, because they just scream it in your face yet you accuse other of being paranoid . easier I guess than having to accept the truth.

Word bound right wing pea brains infest the right...

The very core of conservatism is FEAR...words have always been used to create fear and monsters to control you pea brains.

I don't care what John Bachtell calls himself. I agree with most of what he says. The core of liberalism is caring about people, especially hard working middle class people, and folks who need extra help and/or protection due to circumstances beyond their control, like the young and the elderly.

President Kennedy quoting Harry Truman gave a perfect definition of a liberal President...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

And President Kennedy's Special Counsel, Adviser, and primary speechwriter concisely nailed the difference between conservatives and liberals...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

That's a giant load of horseshit. That's how liberals like to think of themselves. However, the reality is remarkably different. Liberals care so much about the middle class that they want to drive up the price they pay for energy to three times the current level. They have already double or even tripled the cost of health insurance. They're also importing millions of illegal aliens to compete for middle class jobs.

What a bunch of lying good-for-nothing hosebags.

You're so full of shit your breath smells like someone farted.

Liberals want energy independence and CLEAN, affordable and renewable energy. You are so dense that you don't know that the MOST expensive energy source is coal. The EXTERNALIZED cost of coal is something beyond your cognitive ability. Coal cost ALL Americans lost wages, medical costs and it costs coal states MORE than the coal industry brings in as revenue.

Externalization

Kentucky...a prime example of how polluters and cartels have so subverted the political landscape that taxpayers are paying them. In return, they get destroyed communities, destroyed roads and their kids have respiratory problems, high incidents of cancer and chronic asthma.

But right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

 

[Redfish]

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me in the last line and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

So Corvair went for a novelty within the context of the "compact" car craze -- though only insofar as generally used drivetrains in popular behemoths of the time. That doesn't make it a copy of a VW just by virtue of using a similar engine placement design that had been used in various cars unrelated to VW for decades and is only one of three possible places to put the engine anyway.

oh come on, are you that dumb, stick? GM saw how many americans were buying VWs and wanted to cash in on that market. they tried to copy the VW and failed. End of story.

Everybody saw how VW was selling in that market. That's why they ALL (read: "all") came out with what they myopically called "compact" cars in the same year, 1960. The fact that you can find one commonality between one of those CCs and the VW in no way makes the former a "copy" of the latter, any more than a Comet or Lancer was. It simply makes them rivals for the same market for a smaller more fuel-efficient car.

Apparently your automotive knowledge is right up there with your political science background...

besides the corvair, which US compact cars had air cooled rear engines? Answer--------none.

So you're confirming again that you're trying to claim Corvair was a "copy" of VW based on its engine cooling system.

That's no different from claiming the Falcon was a "copy" of the Studebaker Lark because it was water-cooled.

As noted --

Yes, the corvair was an attempt to put a VW-like car on the market from a US car company.

I don't know how many times it takes for you to get it. But you are a liberal so I guess that defective gene in play