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

[Redfish]

Worker safety is better but people still die. Learn not to be such a child.

OSHA had no effect on worker safety.

lol.

I posted the graph that proves it, numskull. For the intellectually challenged, here it is again:

That proves only that the trend continued, essentially unchanged, even after OSHA, nothing more. Without OSHA it might have gone flat, or even risen, and there is no way for anyone to ever know.

ROFL! Yeah, right. If the trend continues in the same exact direction, that means OSHA had no discernible effect on it. You can make up excuses, like Obama's claim about how his legislation "saved jobs," but only the terminally gullible are swallowing that.

Sorry Bri, but I have to disagree on OSHA. Having worked in and around shipyards I have seen many lives saved by OSHA regs.

 

[Redfish]

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.

But wait... you and your butt-buddy distick-whatherface claimed that government had solved WORKER SAFETY, when you claimed that 'capitalism had not'.

Yet here you are telling us, 50 years after OSHA was started for no other purpose that 'People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.'


So which is it?


(Reader it appears that yet another Leftist has screwed themselves YET AGAIN! So if you were operating under the impression that Liberals had done something that Capitalism had NOT... you've been misinformed by the usual suspects.)

Worker safety is better but people still die. Learn not to be such a child.

OSHA had no effect on worker safety.

lol.

I find agreeing with you very painful

 

[bripat9643]

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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

 

[bripat9643]

OSHA had no effect on worker safety.

lol.

I posted the graph that proves it, numskull. For the intellectually challenged, here it is again:

That proves only that the trend continued, essentially unchanged, even after OSHA, nothing more. Without OSHA it might have gone flat, or even risen, and there is no way for anyone to ever know.

ROFL! Yeah, right. If the trend continues in the same exact direction, that means OSHA had no discernible effect on it. You can make up excuses, like Obama's claim about how his legislation "saved jobs," but only the terminally gullible are swallowing that.

Sorry Bri, but I have to disagree on OSHA. Having worked in and around shipyards I have seen many lives saved by OSHA regs.

I doubt OSHA had anything to do with it. When I worked construction, company insurance companies had more to do with insuring safety that OSHA. Besides, the graph doesn't lie.

 

[Redfish]

lol.

I posted the graph that proves it, numskull. For the intellectually challenged, here it is again:

That proves only that the trend continued, essentially unchanged, even after OSHA, nothing more. Without OSHA it might have gone flat, or even risen, and there is no way for anyone to ever know.

ROFL! Yeah, right. If the trend continues in the same exact direction, that means OSHA had no discernible effect on it. You can make up excuses, like Obama's claim about how his legislation "saved jobs," but only the terminally gullible are swallowing that.

Sorry Bri, but I have to disagree on OSHA. Having worked in and around shipyards I have seen many lives saved by OSHA regs.

I doubt OSHA had anything to do with it. When I worked construction, company insurance companies had more to do with insuring safety that OSHA. Besides, the graph doesn't lie.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this

 

[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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

But wait... you and your butt-buddy distick-whatherface claimed that government had solved WORKER SAFETY, when you claimed that 'capitalism had not'.

Yet here you are telling us, 50 years after OSHA was started for no other purpose that 'People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.'


So which is it?


(Reader it appears that yet another Leftist has screwed themselves YET AGAIN! So if you were operating under the impression that Liberals had done something that Capitalism had NOT... you've been misinformed by the usual suspects.)

Worker safety is better but people still die. Learn not to be such a child.

OSHA had no effect on worker safety.

lol.

I find agreeing with you very painful

Rub some dirt on it.

 

[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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

 

[Redfish]

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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

The Edsel, The Kaiser, The Henry J, Studebaker, Corvair--- cars and car companies that did not survive.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

The Edsel, The Kaiser, The Henry J, Studebaker, Corvair--- cars and car companies that did not survive.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

Would we be safer without traffic lights? Speed limits? Drunk driving laws?

 

[Redfish]

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

The Edsel, The Kaiser, The Henry J, Studebaker, Corvair--- cars and car companies that did not survive.

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

 

[Redfish]

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

Would we be safer without traffic lights? Speed limits? Drunk driving laws?

no, but we would be safer if all liberals moved to cuba or north korea.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. For a while they were selling 200,000/yr. Sales didn't drop off until Nadar's book came out. The problem with the Corvair, according to Wiki, is that the car was expensive to produce, so the margin on it was low. GM didn't make any money off of it.

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

Would we be safer without traffic lights? Speed limits? Drunk driving laws?

What does any of that have to do with the Corvair?

 

[bripat9643]

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

The Edsel, The Kaiser, The Henry J, Studebaker, Corvair--- cars and car companies that did not survive.

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.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

not really what? an attempt to copy VW or a failure? I had one, it was both.

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

Would we be safer without traffic lights? Speed limits? Drunk driving laws?

What does any of that have to do with the Corvair?

It has to do with your prior claim that the Government is 100% wrong in what it does.

 

[bripat9643]

Selling 200,000/yr is not a failure.

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

Would we be safer without traffic lights? Speed limits? Drunk driving laws?

What does any of that have to do with the Corvair?

It has to do with your prior claim that the Government is 100% wrong in what it does.

Whoever owns the roads has to make rules for their use. Amusement parks have rules, golf courses have rules, night clubs have rules and marinas have rules. Why shouldn't roads have rules, no matter who owns them?

The issue here is who should own the roads. They would be managed better and private hands and they would still have rules.

 

[Redfish]

it was a failure as a product. As you said, GM did not make money on it, it was a crappy copy of the VW that did not deliver.

I don't know how you define "failure."

The Edsel, The Kaiser, The Henry J, Studebaker, Corvair--- cars and car companies that did not survive.

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.