Forbes Administers a Slap and a Tickle to Fans of EVs

[zapta]

No - not what I was saying at all! Not sure how you got that from what I wrote but perhaps it was my bad.

What I read was let's limit the liberty of people so we can get more of the 1%'s money.

I hope you don't equate liberty with personal wealth accumulation - IMO that would be the mentality of a slave. 

Personal wealth accumulation is one of the possible outcomes of liberty.

This is way, way OT so I'll keep it short.  IMO -anyone falling for the Red(Libertarian or Republican) vs Blue(Democrat) fake game and who think that defines "us versus them" is lost in the matrix.  Step outside of it!  Politicians (on both sides) need someone to demonize to motivate the masses. Most of what you see in the national media is Kabuki theater.

The metrics I care about is weather person x promotes more liberty or promotes restrictions on liberty. Government mandated socialism in its nature restricts liberty, just like government mandated theocracy. The fact that some politicians agree with me doesn't mean that I need to change my opinion just to disagree with them.

Cheers.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Now wonder GM was counting on the Volt to make the company viable.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20090409/ANE02/304099981/u.s.-funding-for-volt-on-hold-pending-bailout

"WASHINGTON -- General Motors said it won’t get federal funding for its Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid car until the company is certified as financially viable by the Obama administration."

"The automaker has applied for $10.3 billion in U.S. Energy Department loans for development of fuel-efficient vehicles. Included is a request to help develop the Volt’s powertrain components, GM spokesman Kerry Christopher said in an interview today. He wouldn’t say how much money GM sought for this purpose. As part of the $10.3 billion application, GM also has requested $2.6 billion for development of two Volt derivatives, a third hybrid model and components"

"President Barack Obama rejected GM’s and Chrysler’s business plans on March 30, giving GM 60 days and Chrysler 30 days to come up with more viable turnaround programs. If the companies fail to do so, Obama held out the possibility of bankruptcy." [unsubtle threat]

--After fuel efficient vehicles, the Volt and its derivatives were added, President Obama approved federal funding. Allowing him to continue touting "a million electric cars on the road by 2015", as he had done since he was a Senator.

"The language of experiment is more authoritative than any reasoning: facts can destroy our ratiocination—not vice versa."
Alessandro  Volta 1745 1827

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

Wow sgt Rock - you really keep trying to sell the same lies don't you. As I pointed out in post #76 the Volt was developed and the productions facilities being put in place before they even asked for money. Eventually President Bush gave them a loan. Later they asked for more money and that request was rejected by Obama. Eventually they were forced into bankruptcy. I even provided some of the same quotes you use here. They prove the point.

Let's see, company X develops a product, builds prototypes, tests them successfully. Then it signs contracts with suppliers and starts building production facilites for mass production.  Meanwhile their main business - selling many different products -is failing and they're running out of money.  Surprise! - they need loans to complete the planned production of their new product.   

Your contention that the government induced GM to produce the Volt is still a lie. (see post 76 for referenced facts) 

You've created a straw man in your latest post - since no one has been arguing about whether GM thought the Volt would help them return to profitability.  I suspect it was and is one of their hopes - that is why they are building it! . So far the Volt and the technology they developed with it is turning out to be on track to be a major part of their business.  Is it as successful, as early as they hoped?  duh -no - most new products a company produces aren't.  Still that has nothing to do with the political points you keep trying to score.

[mtdoc]

The fact that some politicians agree with me doesn't mean that I need to change my opinion just to disagree with them.

No of course not.  But when they say they agree with you (while their actions- who they take money from and how they vote on a few select pieces of legislation - prove otherwise) to get your vote and get you to repeat their propaganda, waving the red flag of "socialism" in front of you, so that you assist in furthering their political goals, they are playing you. The real enemies of liberty may not be who you think they are. By my accounting, the only national Libertarian political figure who has been intellectually honest and whose actions do not betray the values you proclaim, is Ron Paul. I do not agree with all his positions (though I do with many) but I respect his integrity. The current ones, including his son - no.

BTW - the same dynamic occurs across the political spectrum -it's just that in recent years the right has proved to be better at it.

Anyways, I'm going to let this way off topic political discussion go.