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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You have yet to define what you mean by "success." Apparently you define it differently than the stock holders of the company.

Again, the fuel tank controversy was probably just a liberal scam:

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[5] and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[5] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel. A lawsuit was won in 1978 over the matter and the car was recalled the same year. The decision remains controversial, with one study concluding that the Pinto was as safe as or safer than other cars in its class.[6]​

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

When does government ever allow private companies to own roads? The fact is we had plenty of private toll roads in this country before the auto manufacturers bribed all the state and county level politicians to get government to build them. Public roads are just another example of crony capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

No, who owns them is always a big issue. Government ownership means mismanagement, inefficiency and decisions made for political considerations rather than economic considerations.

 

[Siete]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

fine, every barrel of oil that flows across a landowners property gets a 1 cent toll ... to be paid by Canada.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

fine, every barrel of oil that flows across a landowners property gets a 1 cent toll ... to be paid by Canada.

Why not let the landowners make their own deals with the pipeline company? I know: that would resemble freedom too closely.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

fine, every barrel of oil that flows across a landowners property gets a 1 cent toll ... to be paid by Canada.

I have no objection to that.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

So you could never even leave the house without X amount of money in your pocket. And if you did, or somehow lost it on the way you'd be fucked.

This is the state-the-obvious point where armchair Randbot-ism falls to the ground like the house of cards it is. Thanks for playin' and good luck living in a comic book where the vagaries of reality simply don't apply.

 

[Redfish]

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.

You have yet to define what you mean by "success." Apparently you define it differently than the stock holders of the company.

Again, the fuel tank controversy was probably just a liberal scam:

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[5] and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[5] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel. A lawsuit was won in 1978 over the matter and the car was recalled the same year. The decision remains controversial, with one study concluding that the Pinto was as safe as or safer than other cars in its class.[6]​

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.

You have yet to define what you mean by "success." Apparently you define it differently than the stock holders of the company.

Again, the fuel tank controversy was probably just a liberal scam:

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[5] and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[5] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel. A lawsuit was won in 1978 over the matter and the car was recalled the same year. The decision remains controversial, with one study concluding that the Pinto was as safe as or safer than other cars in its class.[6]​

you and I are usually on the same side. but on this it seems that you just want to argue for the sake or arguing---------sorry, I am not interested in doing that.

 

[Siete]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

fine, every barrel of oil that flows across a landowners property gets a 1 cent toll ... to be paid by Canada.

Why not let the landowners make their own deals with the pipeline company? I know: that would resemble freedom too closely.

business isn't 'your strong suit is it?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

So you could never even leave the house without X amount of money in your pocket. And if you did, or somehow lost it on the way you'd be fucked.

This is the state-the-obvious point where armchair Randbot-ism falls to the ground like the house of cards it is. Thanks for playin' and good luck living in a comic book where the vagaries of reality simply don't apply.

you are not getting it. I never said that all roads should be privately owned and have toll booths on them. My point was that it would be more FAIR (the favorite word of you libs) if those using the roads paid for them. I pay a toll every time I cross the lake pontchartrain causeway, those tolls pay for the original construction and maintenance of the bridge. The Florida turnpike works the same way. So does the NY thruway.

 

[Pogo]

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.

These were discontinued for various reasons that can't be lumped into a single grab bag including simple bad management of a decent product. Studebaker was an entire company (and existed longer than most having been in the horse carriage business before cars).

Saturn is defunct but can in no way be described as a "failure". Oldsmobile and Plymouth, also defunct. Funny how these "failures" flourished for up to a century or more.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

No, who owns them is always a big issue. Government ownership means mismanagement, inefficiency and decisions made for political considerations rather than economic considerations.

who would own the interstate highway system in your model? Each state? A group of rich guys? a corporation?

 

[Agit8r]

Obviously, between Commies and Teabaggers, only one is a viable threat to Western Civilization as we know it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

 

[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.

These were discontinued for various reasons that can't be lumped into a single grab bag including simple bad management of a decent product. Studebaker was an entire company (and existed longer than most having been in the horse carriage business before cars).

Saturn is defunct but can in no way be described as a "failure". Oldsmobile and Plymouth, also defunct. Funny how these "failures" existed for up to a century or more.

Studebaker went out of business because they did not keep up with market desires. I did not list the others as failures.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where on Earth is there a better system of roads that is privately owned?

the criteria should be who pays for them not who owns them. should all taxpayers pay for all roads or should those who use the roads and bridges pay for them via tolls? I think the point is that paying via tolls is more efficient and fair.

So you could never even leave the house without X amount of money in your pocket. And if you did, or somehow lost it on the way you'd be fucked.

This is the state-the-obvious point where armchair Randbot-ism falls to the ground like the house of cards it is. Thanks for playin' and good luck living in a comic book where the vagaries of reality simply don't apply.

You're only displaying your ignorance. Nowadays they have electronic metering. You install a device in your car. You put money in your toll account and then a meter will deduct the appropriate amount when you drive by. They can also charge you a toll by reading your license plate electronically. They have roads like this all over Dallas and Houston, and there's one in South Florida I've been on.

One problem with liberals is they think everyone is as limited by their imaginations as liberals are. Also, it's fascinating how liberals have so much faith in technology to solve all the problems with "green energy," but they can't imagine technology solving a simple problem like charging a toll without inconveniencing you.