Ecofascist Disasters

[Andy]

No you post your opinion which you are entitled to do. The world is moving away from your position and you are wrong about most things... but you're still entitled to an opinion.

No... lol I have proven them with facts, research, and science. You validate your theories with talk shows and youtube videos by no-names with a camera.

WHAT!!! I truly don't think a mere car could make you attractive to anyone let alone women... you have a bad temper and your only resort is to name call. Maybe the Lottery but not just a brand new car... LoL!!!

From this, I assume the only women that like you are the ones interested in your car? Clearly they don't like you for your mind...

WOW... you'd think one of the two Political Parties would bust that secret out right away! They'd be sure to win every election with proof of that! The over side was boondoggling the entire nation that way. You'd better get your paperwork together jump start the Buick and drive on over to Washington and show somebody this right NOW!

Of course not. Either one would be committing political suicide. First both parties have been complacent in this issue, thus neither would be able to place the entire blame on the other. Second, both parties are being inflenced by anti-corp-oil lobbiest who support the 'fossil fuel' theory, as a method to justify dumb legislation. And Third, both parties have many Socialists in them who believe more government is better. Admitting oil isn't going to run out, would eliminate government controls and hand outs to political friends like 'the freedom car legislation'.

I am a bit surprised you couldn't figure that out on your own.

Now I will grant you they're no 82 Buick... but not everyone is as fortunate as you to have such a prized piece.

I agree.

 

[top gun]

Andy;38258]No... lol I have proven them with facts, research, and science. You validate your theories with talk shows and youtube videos by no-names with a camera.

No ANDY you haven't. You've given your opinion. You've cited some minority sources and you've put up "everyone in government is out to get us" conspiracy theories.

Had your "only let the market decide" convoluted logic been in play all along we'd not even have seatbelts and airbags in our motor vehicles. We'd still be using regular leaded gas... because if you want to pollute that's your business. Heck lead base paint would still be on the market if it were cheaper to the consumer and businesses could make more money on it.

I'll admit I've been playing with you a little bit after you let it slip that you drive an 1982 Buick and believe it is a better automobile than a Camry or Accord or any number of new cars on the road today. However it is fair to bring up your mindset as it relates to good & bad to highlight stagnant backward thinking.

I'm certainly not against older cars (remember I've restored cars back as far as 1955 models). Driven most every brand in between that and today's cars.

But it would be disingenuous of me to agree that a 1982 Buick is in any way as good... environmentally, fuel efficiency wise, safety wise, available equipment wise, capability in the snow compared to front wheel drive vehicles... any way at all... except possibly boat size interior room. And there are still Luxury brands, SUV's and Crossovers that equal even that.

From this, I assume the only women that like you are the ones interested in your car? Clearly they don't like you for your mind...

My car has nothing to do with it. I think it's reasonable that if people (not just women) hear me singing the praises of a typewriter over a computer eyebrows would be raised and a little distance put.

That's all I'm saying about your situation. I'm not attacking your Buick... calm down.

Of course not. Either one would be committing political suicide. First both parties have been complacent in this issue, thus neither would be able to place the entire blame on the other. Second, both parties are being inflenced by anti-corp-oil lobbiest who support the 'fossil fuel' theory, as a method to justify dumb legislation. And Third, both parties have many Socialists in them who believe more government is better. Admitting oil isn't going to run out, would eliminate government controls and hand outs to political friends like 'the freedom car legislation'.

I am a bit surprised you couldn't figure that out on your own.

ANDY ANDY ANDY... I look forward to your posts on little green men and how we bombed our own World Trade Center Towers. Good luck to you my friend.

 

[Andy]

No ANDY you haven't. You've given your opinion. You've cited some minority sources and you've put up "everyone in government is out to get us" conspiracy theories.

Yes I have. My sources are from scientist known world wide. The science they detail has been test and demonstrated, and has been peer reviewed with no sign of dissension. In other words it is provably demonstrable. There are thousand of people in this field that agree.

"The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are prim ordial materials which have been erupted from great depths."

And again, I have science, what do you have? Another Youtube video? A talking head on a 3 minute news spot?

Had your "only let the market decide" convoluted logic been in play all along we'd not even have seatbelts and airbags in our motor vehicles. We'd still be using regular leaded gas... because if you want to pollute that's your business. Heck lead base paint would still be on the market if it were cheaper to the consumer and businesses could make more money on it.

Who came up with the seat belt? A free market. Who came up with an Air bag? Free market. In fact, who warned the government not to make them mandatory before testing could be completed and resulted in children being killed by their cars air bag? Free market. People like you indirectly killed those kids.

I'll admit I've been playing with you a little bit after you let it slip that you drive an 1982 Buick and believe it is a better automobile than a Camry or Accord or any number of new cars on the road today. However it is fair to bring up your mindset as it relates to good & bad to highlight stagnant backward thinking.

You can't insult me about my 82 Buick Riviera Convertible, white with red interior. Although that one is in much better condition, mine is exactly like it.

 

[top gun]

Andy;38303]Yes I have.

Have What? We don't have oil cheap. We're not going to get oil cheap. Gas is $4 per gallon and rising. Both sides of the political spectrum agree for once and they have tons of the best experts in the world listing multiple reasons to move away from oil. We need more fuel efficient cars and new technology or a lot of people are going to be priced right off the street and onto the sidewalk. You're not helping anybody by stomping your foot and screaming... but I don't like it!

Friday, March 7, 2008
We've Got to Get Off Oil

President Bush addressed attendees at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008 (WIREC) and his message was simple and direct:

"...America has got to change its habits. We've got to get off oil."

The president went on to explain some of the reasons why he believes this:


"...dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy. "

"The dependency upon oil also puts us at the mercy of terrorists. If there's tight supply and demand, all it requires is one terrorist disruption of oil and that price goes even higher. It's in our interests to end our dependency on oil because it -- that dependency presents a challenge to our national security. "

"In 1985, 20 percent of America's oil came from abroad. Today that number is nearly 60 percent."

"...some countries we get oil from don't particularly like us. They don't like the form of government that we embrace. They don't believe in the same freedoms we believe in, and that's a problem from a national security perspective, for the United States and any other nation that values its economic sovereignty and national sovereignty.

"And finally, our dependence on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to our environment. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially. "

The message that our dependence upon oil is a clear and present danger --- economic blackmail, terrorist disruptions, environmental disaster --- has been coming from politicians, environmentalists, businessmen and national security experts.
Source: WhiteHouse.gov

READ MORE

Oil Imports Fuel Trade Deficit

Amazing Oil Brings Higher Costs to Many Things
Oil Squeezes the Less Affluent
US Spy Chief Warns of Oil Threat from Russia, China and OPEC
Inflation Surges Due to High Fuel Prices
Oil Prices Expected to Ripple Through Economy

Who came up with the seat belt? A free market. Who came up with an Air bag? Free market. In fact, who warned the government not to make them mandatory before testing could be completed and resulted in children being killed by their cars air bag? Free market. People like you indirectly killed those kids.

Your comments are insane. If you had your way we'd still be driving the Corvair. Ralph Nader had to go in kicking and screaming and basically force the government to get involved with his report "Unsafe at any speed" to get GM and the other car companies to move. You have no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about.

Unsafe at Any Speed

Exhibit featuring the book at Henry Ford Museum, Detroit

Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book detailing his claims of resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of consumer advocacy, openly polemical but containing substantial references and material from industry insiders. It made Nader a household name and the style is often imitated.

Furthermore in your convoluted "just let them do whatever they want world" there would be no safety standard across the board. Car companies would just pick & chose what car got what safety devises. It's quite possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.

You can't insult me about my 82 Buick Riviera Convertible, white with red interior. Although that one is in much better condition, mine is exactly like it.

ANDY I know you love your car. If it's a totally restored show car like the one in the video you may want to hang on to it for car shows and such. Realize though it still isn't anything close to a new Camry or Accord.

And if it's not a fully restored show car but more of a daily driver do this. Go out in the garage and shoot it in that big gas hog smog spewing antique 4 barrel carburetter and just put it out of its misery. Sometimes you just have to put 'em down. Just kidding... I don't really care about your car. Just don't complain that you can't afford the gas. It's your "free market" choice to keep it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There was nothing wrong with the Corvair that didn't also apply to EVERY rear-engine car at the time...and applied to the legendary Porsche 911 until about 1990. Their knife-in-the-back snap oversteer was well known. Nader was and is a sensationalist.

Ford tried to "sell safety" a few years earlier (late 50's), offering seat belts, a padded dash, and other features. It bombed spectacularly and was dropped the next year.
GM had airbags in the 1970's. They were dropped due to low sales. As has been said, when they came back, they were killers due to government-mandated excessive power.

 

[Andy]

Have What? We don't have oil cheap. We're not going to get oil cheap. Gas is $4 per gallon and rising. Both sides of the political spectrum agree for once and they have tons of the best experts in the world listing multiple reasons to move away from oil. We need more fuel efficient cars and new technology or a lot of people are going to be priced right off the street and onto the sidewalk. You're not helping anybody by stomping your foot and screaming... but I don't like it!

None of that answered my points. I assume you give up. Further, your non-responsive posts seem to be more like stomping your feet and screaming. Once again, I gave you science... you gave me a politicians press release? That's your idea of truth? Something Bush said? Perhaps you think I'm a Bush supporter and what he said means something to me? Sorry to burst your bubble, I don't like Bush.

Maybe instead of SAYING you have world experts... you could actually find some real science to show, like I have FROM world experts.

Your comments are insane. If you had your way we'd still be driving the Corvair. Ralph Nader had to go in kicking and screaming and basically force the government to get involved with his report "Unsafe at any speed" to get GM and the other car companies to move. You have no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about.

Yeah, um the GM kept producing the Corvair 5 years specifically to snub the book. And it sold well too. Now, let's see if YOU know what YOU'RE talking about:

The American motoring journalist David E. Davis, in an article in Automobile Magazine, draws attention to the fact that although Nader claimed that the use of a swing-axle rear suspension was dangerous, that Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era.

Nader blamed not the swing-axle design per se but the combination of weight distribution, swing axle with a single, inboard, constant velocity joint, and unusually critical tire pressures. The idea that the Corvair was inherently unsafe is neither universally accepted nor applicable to all model years.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ran a series of comparative tests, in 1971, studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair against four contemporary cars, a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine and also a later 1967 Corvair (with a revised suspension design) was included for comparison. The account goes on to describe some of the test details, which included a review of national accident data, and a review of GM internal files and documents, and quotes parts of the original NHTSA report[9] conclusion thus:

The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests

The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic.

Science gets you every time, doesn't it? Time to pull your head out of your politics and see the real world. I'll be waiting for another youtube video, or press core briefing, both equally irrelevant.

I might add for the record that the Corvair was the inspiration and design forerunner to the Camaro. If you had your way during the 60s, one of the greatest American cars of all time would never had existed. Thankfully they ignore Nader and people who supported that idiot.

 

[top gun]

Andy;38444]None of that answered my points. I assume you give up. Further, your non-responsive posts seem to be more like stomping your feet and screaming. Once again, I gave you science... you gave me a politicians press release? That's your idea of truth? Something Bush said? Perhaps you think I'm a Bush supporter and what he said means something to me? Sorry to burst your bubble, I don't like Bush.

Actually I've been overly responsive. When I posted clips from Motor Trend and such these are established authorities. I thought maybe looking right at the difference in design and technology and hearing the testers official comparisons & opinions might get you off stuck on stupid about loving old 1982 drum brake Buick technology. But if you're happy being stuck back in time somewhere then I'm fine with leaving you there.

I don't like Bush either. That's the point. BOTH sides are in agreement after reviewing the evidence brought before them by hundreds of people in the field. It was clearly stated in that March 08 Presidential statement what the situation is and why we must start reducing our dependence on oil. I could cut and paste all day on each & every point the President made. I'll post just one more for you. But I'll not just go back and forth with cut & paste because that gets us no where. The decision has been made at the top. Both political Parties agree. They have the direct testimony which trumps a Goggle search every time.

And if that weren't enough as I said before the bottom line remains the same. Oil prices are going to remain high. America will adjust just like we did when we moved away from leaded gas. Your insistence at peeing in the wind will only get your pants wet... and I hate to see that.

Bigger problem looms

Many scientists warn that there will come a day when rising oil prices will not be due to political or economic pressures, but because a natural peak in global oil production will have been reached. Once we reach this tipping point, known as “Hubbert’s Peak,” global oil production will begin an irreversible decline and less oil will be available with every passing year, scientists say.

Energy experts no longer debate about whether Hubbert’s peak will occur, but when. On this point, estimates vary wildly. Kenneth Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, believes it has already happened—in late 2005. Others figure we still have another 20-30 years.

"It was a pocketbook issue," Larry Nation, a spokesperson for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), told LiveScience.
Amos Nur, the Wayne Loel Professor of Earth Sciences at Stanford University, expressed a similar sentiment.

The 10-year warning

In February 2005, Robert Hirsch, a Senior Energy Program Advisor at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and colleagues submitted a report to the U.S. Department of Energy that examined the likely consequences of the impending global oil peak.

The researchers used the peaks of individual oil producing nations and regions around the world to predict what will happen on a global scale. In all of the historical cases they examined, it was not obvious that peaking was going to occur until about a year before the event. Also, the peaks were followed by sharp declines in oil production that did not gently slope or flatten out as some forecasters have predicted.

The authors also stressed that steps must be taken to identify and deploy alternatives fuels at least 10 years before peaking occurs. And even then, there will be some dire economic consequences.

If steps are taken 20 years before peaking, there may be a chance that serious economic harm will be averted, the researchers concluded.

In addition to economic consequences, scientists also warn that oil deficits could trigger a global recession, lead to food shortages and incite conflict between nations—the United States and China in particular—over dwindling oil supplies.

In testimony given before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality last December, Hirsch said "The era of plentiful, low-cost petroleum is approaching an end ... We would like to believe that the optimists are right about peak oil being a distant problem, but the risks of error are beyond imagination."

The costs of acting too late

Hirsch and colleagues also noted that because scientists can't be sure when peaking will occur, there is a chance that action taken now will be premature. However, they point out, the costs of acting too early are not the same as acting too late.

"Mitigation initiated prematurely would result in a relatively modest misallocation of resources," but "failure to initiate timely mitigation ... is certain to result in very severe economic consequences."

Nur agrees that immediate actions should be taken and believes the actions taken so far are inadequate.

"I think that we have avoided taking the steps we should've taken in the 1970s to seriously invest in alternative energy technologies," Nur said in a telephone interview. "We haven't done anything for 30 years basically, and now it's catching up with us. We are burning 31 billion barrels of oil a year worldwide, and to find that many barrels a year has just become impossible."

Yeah, um the GM kept producing the Corvair 5 years specifically to snub the book. And it sold well too. Now, let's see if YOU know what YOU'RE talking about:

You're reasoning is just ridiculous and I really think you know that. How long it took GM to stop producing the Corvair helps confirm my point (and Nader's point) the the auto industry did not want to address safety concerns... which is exactly what I said. And just like I also said seatbelts themselves were even cited and proven as something the auto industry did not want to voluntarily take the lead on. Hence uniform safety standards... fuel requirements etc. had to be imposed.

I might add for the record that the Corvair was the inspiration and design forerunner to the Camaro. If you had your way during the 60s, one of the greatest American cars of all time would never had existed. Thankfully they ignore Nader and people who supported that idiot.

ANDY ANDY ANDY... My way is to try not to have unsafe untested, highly polluting, gas guzzling cars but have safer tested cars that are less polluting and include gas saving technology.

Oh and so you know... the Corvair and the Camero share nothing but a C at the start of their names and they were both attempts at a sporty type car. The Corvair was a small rear engine air cooled design completely opposite of the Camero.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I might add for the record that the Corvair was the inspiration and design forerunner to the Camaro.

Uhh, not even close. The Camaro was based on the Nova, and shared essentially nothing with the Corvair.

Yet again: there was nothing wrong with the Corvair that wasn't shared by ANY contemporary rear-engine car, and by the Porsche 911 until the 1990's. It was actually a very good handler.

 

[Andy]

Actually I've been overly responsive. When I posted clips from Motor Trend and such these are established authorities. I thought maybe looking right at the difference in design and technology and hearing the testers official comparisons & opinions might get you off stuck on stupid about loving old 1982 drum brake Buick technology. But if you're happy being stuck back in time somewhere then I'm fine with leaving you there.

Good job. Pointless... stupid... irrelevant. You qualify for running as a democrat in congress.

I don't like Bush either. That's the point. BOTH sides are in agreement after reviewing the evidence brought before them by hundreds of people in the field. It was clearly stated in that March 08 Presidential statement what the situation is and why we must start reducing our dependence on oil. I could cut and paste all day on each & every point the President made. I'll post just one more for you. But I'll not just go back and forth with cut & paste because that gets us no where. The decision has been made at the top. Both political Parties agree. They have the direct testimony which trumps a Goggle search every time.

That is the most foolish statement I have ever heard. You think the word of a lawyer and a politician is of greater value than science? That is plain stupid.

And if that weren't enough as I said before the bottom line remains the same. Oil prices are going to remain high. America will adjust just like we did when we moved away from leaded gas. Your insistence at peeing in the wind will only get your pants wet... and I hate to see that.

I hate to see willfully ignorant 50 year olds. The ones who are a model for their children's utter stupidity. It's no wonder America is as screwed up as it is.

Many scientists warn that there will come a day when rising oil prices will not be due to political or economic pressures, but because a natural peak in global oil production will have been reached.

The 10-year warning

In February 2005, Robert Hirsch, a Senior Energy Program Advisor at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and colleagues submitted a report to the U.S. Department of Energy that examined the likely consequences of the impending global oil peak.

The researchers used the peaks of individual oil producing nations and regions around the world to predict what will happen on a global scale. In all of the historical cases they examined, it was not obvious that peaking was going to occur until about a year before the event. Also, the peaks were followed by sharp declines in oil production that did not gently slope or flatten out as some forecasters have predicted.

Since all the rest of your 'evidence' was repeating the same, I will just respond to these.

"Many scientists believe..." Many.. not all, or most, or vast majority... many. That is because most do not say this.

"peak in global oil production" You are 50 years old and you still believe the chicken little "the sky is falling!" mantra? You realize that this 'peak oil' theory (that we only have 10 more years to go) was made in the 50s? Squealed about in the 60s, blasted through the nation in 70s, worried over during the 80s, taught throughout schools in the 90s, and now in 2008 we are still worried that we only have 10 more years before 'peak oil' just like in the 50s?! Will you PLEASE GET A CLUE! Grow up you 50 year old stuck in a time warp!

The only peak in oil production is due to US NOT GETTING THE OIL. Mainly because of idiots like you. "Run! The sky is falling! Oil will peak in the (50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s)!!"

Here is some evidence: (real evidence)

Canadian oil sands is believed to contain one trillion barrels of oil. (Canadians are being stupid too)

A Trillion barrels are also said to be trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. (Nope, can't touch it)

The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates 102 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion cubic feet of gas beneath federal lands and coastal waters. (can we get it?)
Yet almost 90 percent of the OCS acreage is off-limits to production - on essentailly spurious environmental grounds. (nope! Thanks man. Your children will love you for it)

Geologists estimate that another 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil are waiting, yet to be discovered, off the "Lower 48" states. The American Petroleum Institute (API) notes that this is enough oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 59 years. (But thanks to you and your ignorant politicians that are so truthful, we can't get it)

Oh but what about your 'source'? Note: none of your quotes provided real hard evidence, just what they said 'would happen' because the sky is falling for sure.

Did you know that the "Science Applications International Corporation" is the 6th largest contractor to the government? That most of their money comes from grants and government contracts? Did you know that they have done nothing in the field of oil production?

Question... why would they get up and tell congress that oil was running out and we need to get an alternative fuel?

Hint: Congress gets more power to control our economy (because of foolish citizens) due to this "oil is running out" theory. Do you bite the hand that feeds you by saying the theory is wrong?

Hint: I wonder which major science firm would get awarded grants and contracts to research and develop these alternative fuels? Maybe a firm that is already the 6th largest contractor? Can you say: "Conflict of Interest"?

You're reasoning is just ridiculous and I really think you know that. How long it took GM to stop producing the Corvair helps confirm my point (and Nader's point) the the auto industry did not want to address safety concerns... which is exactly what I said. And just like I also said seatbelts themselves were even cited and proven as something the auto industry did not want to voluntarily take the lead on. Hence uniform safety standards... fuel requirements etc. had to be imposed. [/COLOR]

The handling on the Corvair was fine. Nader made it up to gain political power from ignorant citizens (psst: that's you). Even Jarlaxle agrees. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agreed. The auto industry, which includes GM, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen agreed. Nearly everyone that isn't completely ignorant and doesn't assume that a lawyer/politician is infallibly truthful... agrees.

You still have your head shoved so far up your politics, that you can't see the real world. Since you are unable, or unwilling to understand science, maybe you should give up this debate. You'll never win over science with uneducated opinion based on, of all things, what a politician says. "Gee golly, if a congressman says it, it MUST BE TRUE!" That's humorous on it's face.

ANDY ANDY ANDY... My way is to try not to have unsafe untested, highly polluting, gas guzzling cars but have safer tested cars that are less polluting and include gas saving technology.

We've already been over this. Other than polluting... higher milage cars, safer cars, both were already being developed prior to government intervention. As for untested... air bags were mandated by government without enough testing which led to children dying. Smaller, mandated by government, cars are less protective than larger thicker metal cars, which has led to more people dying. It's an established fact. You can't argue with scientific evidence, by using youtube videos, and press core releases, and personal opinion. You, and those like you, are responsible for those deaths.

Oh and so you know... the Corvair and the Camero share nothing but a C at the start of their names and they were both attempts at a sporty type car. The Corvair was a small rear engine air cooled design completely opposite of the Camero.

"Its [Corvair] final design evoked the later Camaro" -GM

I'll let you inform GM that you disagree with them.

 

[top gun]

Andy;38825]Good job. Pointless... stupid... irrelevant. You qualify for running as a democrat in congress.

It seems that only name calling an childish babble is all you have. Let it go. The world & Motor Trend Magazine & Automaker ads themselves are moving on without you. So am I.

That is the most foolish statement I have ever heard. You think the word of a lawyer and a politician is of greater value than science? That is plain stupid.

No Andy I'm now a full fledged believer in your conspiracy theory's. Little green men... The government lying because oil is really everywhere and dirt cheap... We bombed our own World Trade Center Towers... I now believe any ludicrous thing just because you believe it.

I hate to see willfully ignorant 50 year olds. The ones who are a model for their children's utter stupidity. It's no wonder America is as screwed up as it is.

Well that's all good I guess. But let's face it. You're the one with pee on his pants. The world is moving on whether you agree or not.

The handling on the Corvair was fine. Nader made it up to gain political power from ignorant citizens (psst: that's you). Even Jarlaxle agrees. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agreed. The auto industry, which includes GM, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen agreed. Nearly everyone that isn't completely ignorant and doesn't assume that a lawyer/politician is infallibly truthful... agrees.

I never argued anything about the Corvairs handling. I had a friend that had one. Nader brought to light the fact that the major car companies were in fact holding back what they knew would be huge safety innovations for the sake of their bottom line. That's just plain recognized historical fact.

Oh... and on your leap over the hill that the Camero was so technically similar to the Corvair I believe Jarlaxle said...

quote: Uhh, not even close. The Camaro was based on the Nova, and shared essentially nothing with the Corvair.

We've already been over this. Other than polluting... higher milage cars, safer cars, both were already being developed prior to government intervention. As for untested... air bags were mandated by government without enough testing which led to children dying. Smaller, mandated by government, cars are less protective than larger thicker metal cars, which has led to more people dying. It's an established fact. You can't argue with scientific evidence, by using youtube videos, and press core releases, and personal opinion. You, and those like you, are responsible for those deaths.

Well ANDY you're just a very misinformed person I guess. Hate to say worse about you.

If you TRUELY believe that your 1982 Buick would pass today's modern crash tests then you go right on believing it. It's your noggin'!

"Its [Corvair] final design evoked the later Camaro" -GM
I'll let you inform GM that you disagree with them.

ANDY ANDY ANDY... every sporty car ever built somewhat "inspires" all others in some way. Doesn't mean they were related in any way. The CAMERO and CORVAIR shared nothing. Creating something to compete with the the Ford Mustang was what the Camero was about. Had there never been a Corvair GM would have still came up with the Camero to battle the Mustang.

1962 and 1963 Chevrolet Corvair Concept Cars
by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide

Unwrapped in 1962, the Super Spyder concept car was a more radical version of 1961's Corvair-based Sebring Spyder concept car. See more concept car pictures.

General Motors's decision to continue the car beyond 1965, but only until development and tooling costs were amortized, reflected the success of Ford's Mustang "ponycar," which overwhelmed Corvair in the sporty-car market the way Ford's Falcon had swamped it in the economy field.

It was Mustang that forced GM to rethink its ideas about bucket-seat sportsters, which eventually led to the Chevy Camaro as its proper Mustang-fighter.

 

[Andy]

It seems that only name calling an childish babble is all you have. Let it go. The world & Motor Trend Magazine & Automaker ads themselves are moving on without you. So am I.

Not an answer. If you are not going to answer the points made, then you should move on, and stop spamming the forum with this stupidity.

No Andy I'm now a full fledged believer in your conspiracy theory's. Little green men... The government lying because oil is really everywhere and dirt cheap... We bombed our own World Trade Center Towers... I now believe any ludicrous thing just because you believe it.

Straw-man argument. Again pointless and stupid. Feel free to defeat your own made up arguments. You certainly can't answer the points I've made.

Well that's all good I guess. But let's face it. You're the one with pee on his pants. The world is moving on whether you agree or not.

Ad hominem, not pertaining to the subject, opinion based on unsupportable claims. I cite this as proof of my prior statements that your post are pointless and stupid.

I never argued anything about the Corvairs handling. I had a friend that had one. Nader brought to light the fact that the major car companies were in fact holding back what they knew would be huge safety innovations for the sake of their bottom line. That's just plain recognized historical fact.

You claimed we'd all be driving Corvairs if not for Nader. The primary issue Nader claimed about Corvairs was that they were horribly dangerous due to handling. The facts, the scientifically demonstrable facts... disprove Naders claims. That's just plain documented information regardless of conventional wisdom, which 'conventional wisdom' is really just plain ignorance on a broad scale.

Oh... and on your leap over the hill that the Camero was so technically similar to the Corvair I believe Jarlaxle said...

Inability to read prior quotes. Lack of response to points made. Try again:

"Its [Corvair] final design evoked the later Camaro" -GM

GM said this. Not Jarlaxle, or even myself. Feel free to inform GM they are wrong about their claim, about what they did, because some body shop owner in Ohio said so.

Well ANDY you're just a very misinformed person I guess. Hate to say worse about you.

Coming from you, that's not saying much. Especially since you post youtube videos and I post scientific research.

If you TRUELY believe that your 1982 Buick would pass today's modern crash tests then you go right on believing it. It's your noggin'! [/COLOR]

Straw-man argument. Feel free to defeat every argument you invent, since you can't answer points I've made.

(deleted non-responses)

Yes I know all that. That still doesn't disprove or recant the statement made by GM themselves. Again... if you disagree with GM, feel free to write them a letter. I'm sure they are waiting patiently for you to tell them, why they did, what they did, since you know more than them.

Somehow I am getting the feeling that if your politics required the theory of relativity to be false, you'd try and discredit Albert Einstein.

 

[top gun]

Andy;38960]Not an answer. If you are not going to answer the points made, then you should move on, and stop spamming the forum with this stupidity.

I answered it in full. I cited reputable people. Reputable organizations. I can't help it you don't agree... or you're wrong.

Straw-man argument. Again pointless and stupid. Feel free to defeat your own made up arguments. You certainly can't answer the points I've made.

ANDY... you're a Conspiracy Theorist plain and simple. Nothing "straw" about that. You're a... the governments just out to get ya guy. So you hide in your 1982 Buick and complain and harking back to the good old days. In fact you kinda sound like my grandpa with Alzheimer's right before he passed away.

Ad hominem, not pertaining to the subject, opinion based on unsupportable claims. I cite this as proof of my prior statements that your post are pointless and stupid.

I'm saying that you are not going to change a single thing that you are complain about. The world is moving on without you it appears. That's fine I'm good.

You claimed we'd all be driving Corvairs if not for Nader. The primary issue Nader claimed about Corvairs was that they were horribly dangerous due to handling. The facts, the scientifically demonstrable facts... disprove Naders claims. That's just plain documented information regardless of conventional wisdom, which 'conventional wisdom' is really just plain ignorance on a broad scale.

My point with Nader was in regard to him bringing to light a wide range of safety issues i.e. SEATBELTS that the automakers had dragged their feat on. This he did. This is well known. If I wasn't clear before... I am now. I don't care what the "primary" reason was Nader didn't like the Corvair for.

"Its [Corvair] final design evoked the later Camaro" -GM

GM said this. Not Jarlaxle, or even myself. Feel free to inform GM they are wrong about their claim, about what they did, because some body shop owner in Ohio said so.

Well I've read and quoted other outside sources. I'll be glad to read the GM claim... post the link. But again REGARDLESS of that the CORVAIR & CAMERO SHARED NOTHING but that they were both sporty GM cars. They were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CARS! If not show me what they shared. It certainly wasn't drive-train and they looked nothing alike.

Straw-man argument. Feel free to defeat every argument you invent, since you can't answer points I've made.

NO! I'll make this a direct question. You've raved (ranted actually) over & over again about how safe older heavier cars are.

Do you believe that your cherished 1982 Buick would pass today's crash test standards? And I'm not saying wouldn't pass because it doesn't have certain equipment that is now required. I'm saying just how would the dummies come out of the crash. Would it be passable by today's standards?

That's a simple YES or NO.

If you say YES then you know nothing about crash tests.

If you say NO then you're admitting that cars with today's improvements and technology that do pass are indeed safer.

Or... (and I kinda expect this). It's all a government conspiracy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually...it might. My 79 Caddy would pass 1996 crash standards easily, and quite likely 2008 standards. How do I know? It DID pass 1996 standards (the B-body platform ran 1977-1996). The only major change was airbags for 1991.

 

[Andy]

I answered it in full. I cited reputable people. Reputable organizations. I can't help it you don't agree... or you're wrong.

Nor can you help being completely ignorant apparently, since I'm not wrong. I have science, you have... well youtube videos and politicians. There was no scientific tests shown. Nor did anything deal with the origins of oil. Nor did it deal with any of the points I made. In fact you really answered nothing... as you have for every post in this thread.

ANDY... you're a Conspiracy Theorist plain and simple. Nothing "straw" about that. You're a... the governments just out to get ya guy. So you hide in your 1982 Buick and complain and harking back to the good old days. In fact you kinda sound like my grandpa with Alzheimer's right before he passed away.

See? What scientific information is here? Just whiny opinion based on nothing. You erected a straw man, and killed it. Gee I can make up stuff, claim you said it, and then defeat the made up point too. But then, I'd be on your level.

I'm saying that you are not going to change a single thing that you are complain about. The world is moving on without you it appears. That's fine I'm good.

More opinion. In fact, obviously false opinion. The choice we have made were based on the political thinkers of the past. If we can choose to do X, we can choose to undo X. I intend to keep getting the word out about these bad policies. The more people hear the truth, the more will talk about it. The more policy is based on science, the less people will follow the ignorance of the left, like this thread. And perhaps in the future, we will enact intelligent legislation, instead of the stupidity that we see supported here.

My point with Nader was in regard to him bringing to light a wide range of safety issues i.e. SEATBELTS that the automakers had dragged their feat on. This he did. This is well known. If I wasn't clear before... I am now. I don't care what the "primary" reason was Nader didn't like the Corvair for.

Nice shifting of the argument.

(snipped broken record)
IF you have nothing new to add, I assume you accept you are wrong. I don't have time for a Forest Gump re-saying the same thing over and over. If you can't get it the first 3 times, you never will.

NO! I'll make this a direct question. You've raved (ranted actually) over & over again about how safe older heavier cars are.

Do you believe that your cherished 1982 Buick would pass today's crash test standards? And I'm not saying wouldn't pass because it doesn't have certain equipment that is now required. I'm saying just how would the dummies come out of the crash. Would it be passable by today's standards?

That's a simple YES or NO.

If you say YES then you know nothing about crash tests.

If you say NO then you're admitting that cars with today's improvements and technology that do pass are indeed safer.

Or... (and I kinda expect this). It's all a government conspiracy.

Actually it might. My car is an E-body, which was used in the Caddy Eldorado until 2002. So it's possible. Of course, I loved the Caddy Eldorado too. I would have no problem driving one of those. Solid car. No plastic panels. Very tough. I was lucky to get to drive one back to the dealership one day. About a 2.5 hour drive. OH that was fun. Of course I'd never pay so much for a car.

As I've said over and over. I'm not against 'new' or so much in favor of 'old'. I'm against small cheap and unsafely thin skinned. Which is how auto manufactures meet unreasonable CAFE standards. Which is also why popular imports completely ignore CAFE standards. But of course, you can't argue on that basis, so feel free to invent that I'm for old cars, and hate all things new. You made up every other point you've 'won', so go on making up stuff.

 

[Andy]

Actually...it might. My 79 Caddy would pass 1996 crash standards easily, and quite likely 2008 standards. How do I know? It DID pass 1996 standards (the B-body platform ran 1977-1996). The only major change was airbags for 1991.

Oh nice. A 79 Caddy. That's back when they made real Caddies. I had a 76 Lincoln Continental, and oh that was such a nice car. But the 7.6 Liter engine was killing me, and it needed some major repairs and investment. The inside was absolutely perfect show room shine and finish. Ah... if only I hadn't been earning a mere 8/hr and been in College at the time...