california Mandating 1.4 million electric cars by 2025 VOL. we tell you what to drive

[0cks]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by 0cks

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Umm you havent heard? Canada is HELL BENT on developing their oil Rich sands land & become a energy superpower..to think da USISN'T gonna benefit immensely is to be humpin one too many trees..

If they ramp up their production to presumably offset us not consuming any more Middle Eastern Oil they would need to tear up their entire countryside which the public over there would not exactly 100% co-sign... 
Also money is a very fluid concept and the government really does control your behavior through fiscal policy... like K2 already said the cash4clunker program got a bunch of gas guzzling cars off the road (cars that were eventually destroyed), and when they hike up the vehicle registration fees for your GTO and tax the !+$# out of gas like in Europe they don't have to confiscate your car, you will just either have to step your $ game up or sell it...

The GOP does a great job to sell their constituents the dreams of the rich and famous... You live in NYC, the Iron horse is all you need but you rather talk about Lambos on behalf of the select few (elite) that can afford them... that's not American at all

YES!
I love this...but it goes over their heads so often.

They got dudes on here DEFENDING Lambo's like he owns several generations of them...the closest many americans will get to exotic cars are their tumblr pages...or episodes of whatever reality show is popular at the time.

These dudes are nothing but pawns doing the bidding of people who really could care less about you because...you don't even OWN  Lease RENT... a lambo.

 

I heard a quote and I forget who said it but it basically says that all middle-class republicans are people who act like they're millionaires that are just temporarily down on their luck...they're always "one hit away" 

They want to preserve the system so that "when they make it..." 

...

Stop living in hypotheticals and wake up.

You're NOT in their tax bracket...you can't even eat the same STEAK CUTS they do.

You can't get into the same clubs. You can't meet the same people. You can't wear the same clothes, get the same haircuts, or shop in the same grocery stores.

Thats IT.

Dudes stay trying to act like they're on another level...YOURE NOT. 

But you know what we all DO share in common?

The environment.

When the economy fails and we're back to trading rocks for bread, then all that will matter is how we use the natural resources we have available to us. 

True story... the McCain's, Romney's don't care about middle class America... Joe the plumber types think they're down though

 

[Sir San Diego]

Makes sense for a few reasons, one being that in the near future gas will be way overpriced in the US. Just wait and see...

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Brolic Scholar

Makes sense for a few reasons, one being that in the near future gas will be way overpriced in the US. Just wait and see...

YEP



Yet ANOTHER thing some don't realize is that oil companies are NOT limited to operate in the US...they only sell their product here and are influenced by our "mighty stick"...but on paper, they don't have to do anything they don't want to do, regardless of what our government says.




I dont know if anyone remembers this but during the oil-spill fiasco and fall-out BP was threatening to straight up close HQ's in the US and move abroad to escape any sort of legal liability. 




These are corporations. They don't NEED countries to survive, they just need their product...and that product is OIL.




They don't care about Americans...or Canadians...or anyone. 




They care about profit.




Thats why when dictators (hate them or love them) try to nationalize oil fields, they are met with smear campaigns from corporations who want to have that access that foreign governments are barring them from. Look at Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, etc...Hell, the 1950's coup by the CIA in Iran (outlined as OPERATION AJAX and unveiled many years later) was BECAUSE of oil and Iran wanting to nationalize oil fields against the influence of corporations like British Petroleum.




Don't let the name fool you.




The "Federal Reserve" is as government related as FedEx is.




Thats the same with these oil companies. The names are just that. 


They operate outside of the law and have no official loyalty to anyone or anything besides their own interests.




They will up and screw us over at the drop of a dime.




The moment we can learn to ween ourselves off of the nipple of "black gold" the better we all will be.




EDIT:




However, nothing will change when we have dudes like NinjaHood (no diss, just making a point) who do the bidding of people who really don't give a damn about him outside of how much money he makes them buy purchasing  "da hemi" 




Now, I don't mean to sound like an elitist or anything as some have accused me in the past of doing so, but these are the facts. Everyone can look this stuff up and come to their own conclusion, but the message being sent be the behavior of these entities is loud and clear.

Colbert might have a point...the truth really might have a liberal bias... 

 

 

[nawlinsjunkie]

'

As long as they make them look more like this, I'm all for it

 

[k2theablam]

double post 

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Brolic Scholar

Makes sense for a few reasons, one being that in the near future gas will be way overpriced in the US. Just wait and see...

YEP
Yet ANOTHER thing people don't realize is that oil companies are NOT limited to operate in the US...they only sell their product here and are influenced by our "mighty stick"...

I dont know if anyone remembers this but during the oil-spill fiasco and fall-out BP was threatening to straight up close HQ's in the US and move abroad to escape any sort of legal liability. 

These are corporations. They don't NEED countries to survive, they just need their product...and that product is OIL.

They don't care about Americans...or Canadians...or anyone. 

They care about profit.

Thats why when dictators (hate them or love them) try to nationalize oil fields, they are met with smear campaigns from corporations who want to have that access that foreign governments are barring them from. Look at Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, etc...Hell, the 1950's coup by the CIA in Iran (outlined as OPERATION AJAX and unveiled many years later) was BECAUSE of oil and Iran wanting to nationalize oil fields against the influence of corporations like British Petroleum.

Don't let the name fool you.

The "Federal Reserve" is as government related as FedEx is.

Thats the same with these oil companies. The names are just that. 

They operate outside of the law and have no official loyalty to anyone or anything besides their own interests.

They will up and screw us over at the drop of a dime.

The moment we can learn to ween ourselves off of the nipple of "black gold" the better we all will be.

respect

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM


You're a victim of Mental Slavery. In the future, EV's and hybrids ARE going to be the easy choice, simply because we're not going to have enough oil to power the conventional combustion engine for everyone. In the future, it WON'T be cheaper for "99%" (a made up statistic, I'm sure) of the population. Things change....
....Things will change....

...seriously, everything cannot stay the same forever.

..

And yes, government CAN create artificial demand.

Trade in a gas guzzler and get government cash

Coincidentally, my example is actually the government giving incentives for fuel efficient cars. The program was a huge success. 

1. There's enough oil in Canada alone to supply da US alone for 300+ years..Gas ain't gonna skyrocket in price ANYTIME soon

2. Your answer to create artificial demand is to reference a program that used tax payerAnd BORROWED dollars from China to subsidize people buying newer cars thatMore often then not just ended up coppin a better/newer SUV..yea good job

There's a REASON keystone is such a line in da sand...da environmental nuts on da left KNOWWhen that oil supply gets cultivated from our Besties up North Da USA will have hoards moreOf cheap gas for da foreseeable future...good luck tryin to implement a Gas Tax that's recessive to da poor..

So SCREW everyone who was unfortunate to be born 300 years from now right?! That's your argument?! we have enough oil to last 300 years, so I'M good....for the forseeable future.

There's our fundamental difference. I see things long term... waaaayyy down the line and know that there's a FINITE amount of oil on earth. You don't because apparently, we're good for at least 300 years... let's worry about that bridge when we get to it. There's no reason for things to change now.

There's really nothing left to argue. 

I think we're done here.

like I said... mental slavery. classic case. 

(sorry to bust the smileys, no curb, but your arguments are utterly ridiculous)

So borrowing trillions from China riskying our solvency to prop up incompetent electric cars that can't stand on its own merit is BETTER then CHEAP accessible abundant fuel that will NOT RUN OUT anytime soon thanks to our Canadian friends?

Yea, try to make that case on a national level...

With our deficit? Lol

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by ninjahood



1. There's enough oil in Canada alone to supply da US alone for 300+ years..Gas ain't gonna skyrocket in price ANYTIME soon

2. Your answer to create artificial demand is to reference a program that used tax payerAnd BORROWED dollars from China to subsidize people buying newer cars thatMore often then not just ended up coppin a better/newer SUV..yea good job

There's a REASON keystone is such a line in da sand...da environmental nuts on da left KNOWWhen that oil supply gets cultivated from our Besties up North Da USA will have hoards moreOf cheap gas for da foreseeable future...good luck tryin to implement a Gas Tax that's recessive to da poor..

So SCREW everyone who was unfortunate to be born 300 years from now right?! That's your argument?! we have enough oil to last 300 years, so I'M good....for the forseeable future.

There's our fundamental difference. I see things long term... waaaayyy down the line and know that there's a FINITE amount of oil on earth. You don't because apparently, we're good for at least 300 years... let's worry about that bridge when we get to it. There's no reason for things to change now.

There's really nothing left to argue. 

I think we're done here.

like I said... mental slavery. classic case. 

(sorry to bust the smileys, no curb, but your arguments are utterly ridiculous)

So borrowing trillions from China riskying our solvency to prop up incompetent electric cars that can't stand on its own merit is BETTER then CHEAP accessible abundant fuel that will NOT RUN OUT anytime soon thanks to our Canadian friends?

Yea, try to make that case on a national level...

With our deficit? Lol

You still don't get it. 

edit: and please, PLEASE direct me to where you heard that we're borrowing trillions from China to prop Electric Vehicles and hybrids. I want to read that article. I want to see a empirical evidence that the money we're borrowing from China is directly funneled into this little Californian operation to make low/zero emissions vehicles more popular. 

You're not even counter arguing anymore. You're recycling THE SAME EXACT points over and over and over and over again. We get it, Canada has a lot of oil. What good does that do us AFTER WE USE IT ALL UP!? (IF we even GET the chance to use it all up) 

 

[k2theablam]

Survey: Car owners want better fuel-economy, support increased standards

Nov 14, 2011 6:00 AM

An overwhelming majority (93 percent) of adult car owners want to see stricter fuel-economy standards, according to a new survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center. More than 90 percent want automakers to offer a larger variety of fuel-efficient vehicles, and about two-thirds say they expect to purchase a vehicle with better fuel economy.

Other key survey findings:

• Eighty-three percent of survey respondents say they’d be willing to pay more for a fuel-efficient car.
  
• A majority (56 percent) say they will consider an electric or hybrid for their next car, but only 16 percent are thinking about a diesel. 
  
• Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) would consider buying some type of hybrid or electric car if they become more widely available over the next 15 years.

Committing to going green
Survey respondents want to improve fuel economy and benefit the nation, but to achieve these goals, they want government leadership. Eighty-six percent of the interviewed car owners want to see automakers’ fleet average rise to 35 mpg by 2016 and 80 percent would like to see fuel economy standards rise to 55 mpg by 2025—a current proposal that Consumer Reports supports.
To get the job done, most people (83 percent) said they would be willing to pay extra for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, if they could recover that extra outlay within five years.

While 64 percent of respondents say their next car will be one with better fuel economy, a sizeable 40 percent expect to purchase a vehicle with much better gas mileage. Almost 90 percent of those seeking better fuel economy cite cost savings as a key motivator, but environmental friendliness is a strong second place at 72 percent.

Green concerns vary by miles driven
For respondents who drive less than 20 miles per day, environmental friendliness is a stronger motivator for saving gas than for those driving longer distances daily. Seventy-nine percent of those owners consider “greenness

 

[jordanxi45]

california > _______

& ninjahood you lost a couple pages ago.

mods can lock da thread up.

sillyputty dropping da knowledge.

& as for the article ninjahood posted, a mandated 1.4 million cars in Cali by 2025? 1.4 million is not that much & it's a step in the right direction. We need to stop our dependence for oil.

 

[rashi]

Yes, we're going to go into a depression again because the government is offering its CITIZENS a cash incentive to buy better emissions vehicles.
Didn't say that. You said the government can create a demand, they do and the pictures are a result of what happened when the government created a DEMAND over a period of time. I never said that particular program did, but it did inflate prices (due to artificially lowering the supply) of used cars due to the fact that they were destroying perfectly good cars.

Depressions that were both caused by 1. Bank Failure 2. Stock Market Crash 3. corporate greed. 


Depressions are due to malinvestment, which causes 1 and 2, and 3 + government policy causes the latter.

You cannot be serious. You want to someone to blame, blame the corporations that sold subprime mortgages to people that should have them. Blame corporate greed, and blame your neighbor for buying something they couldn't afford.

Yeah, repeal of Glass-Steagall and Sarbanes-Oxly had NOTHING to due to the fact the banks were able to make those loans.

Besides, we're talking about saving the environment, which also includes your issue with bio engineered agriculture. Those two subjects aren't mutually exclusive, man. You can fight them both at the same time.


Nobody wants to safe the agriculture, nobody cares about that.

What is their incentive to care about agriculture and food when people in government are invested into destroying it?

 

[k2theablam]

rashi wrote:

Whatever, dude. There are tens of thousands of scientists that are against "man made Global Warming" and have come out publicly against it but not reported due to it "not fitting the script". 

The biggest environmental hazard in history is Genetically Modified Foods that nobody ever seems to talk about or even care. How it destroys the soil and agriculture, how it destroys peoples DNA, ect. Until this is addressed on a wider scale, the debate over Global Warming is trivial in my opinion. 

Edit: but YOU brought that topic up....
Either way you're not even arguing the issue anymore. Even if it were true, I fail to see how the government causing the great depression (lol) is in any way related to increasing emission standards on vehicles for the future. 

Artificial demand? Demand already exists for the products... Hybrid vehicles are the FASTEST GROWING SEGMENT of all automobiles. All this is doing is providing a benchmark that we would like to reach by the year 2025. What's there not to like?

 

[ninjahood]

We're 4 TRILLION IN DA HOLE..we ARENT SPENDING MONEY WE HAVE

WE ARE BORROWING MONEY WE DONT HAVE to prop up crap like EVs for states

Like California that is SELLING government public property and letting criminals

Outta prison because they can't keep a budget

So instead of using our natural resources to climb out of this funk we're in

Ya wanna outlaw oil & coal and run EVs (that run on coal powered electricity

)

And have us acting like Europe.... sky rocketing prices on everything...

&

@ silly putty saying da only reason lambos SELL OUT

at a MSRP of 300k meanwhile I haven't seen a gallardo ad EVER

And yet da Chevy volts failure @ retail thus far is bad marketing & not

Cuz people DO NOT WANT TO OWN IT even with all those government gimmes...

 

[ooiron manoo]

They want to dictate what I buy, they can buy it for me...

That being said, it's getting tough to pass these smog test...

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Cuz people DO NOT WANT TO OWN IT even with all those government gimmes...

back this claim up.



And please don't quote that stupid chevy volt. it's not selling because it sucks... periord. 

meanwhile Hybrids sales are the fastest growing car segment on the market.

oh and..... I think you missed this. 

Survey: Car owners want better fuel-economy, support increased standards

Nov 14, 2011 6:00 AM

An overwhelming majority (93 percent) of adult car owners want to see stricter fuel-economy standards, according to a new survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center. More than 90 percent want automakers to offer a larger variety of fuel-efficient vehicles, and about two-thirds say they expect to purchase a vehicle with better fuel economy.

Other key survey findings:

• Eighty-three percent of survey respondents say they’d be willing to pay more for a fuel-efficient car.
  
• A majority (56 percent) say they will consider an electric or hybrid for their next car, but only 16 percent are thinking about a diesel. 
  
• Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) would consider buying some type of hybrid or electric car if they become more widely available over the next 15 years.

Committing to going green
Survey respondents want to improve fuel economy and benefit the nation, but to achieve these goals, they want government leadership. Eighty-six percent of the interviewed car owners want to see automakers’ fleet average rise to 35 mpg by 2016 and 80 percent would like to see fuel economy standards rise to 55 mpg by 2025—a current proposal that Consumer Reports supports.
To get the job done, most people (83 percent) said they would be willing to pay extra for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, if they could recover that extra outlay within five years.

While 64 percent of respondents say their next car will be one with better fuel economy, a sizeable 40 percent expect to purchase a vehicle with much better gas mileage. Almost 90 percent of those seeking better fuel economy cite cost savings as a key motivator, but environmental friendliness is a strong second place at 72 percent.

Green concerns vary by miles driven
For respondents who drive less than 20 miles per day, environmental friendliness is a stronger motivator for saving gas than for those driving longer distances daily. Seventy-nine percent of those owners consider “greenness

 

[6 Rings G.O.A.T.]

Driving muscle cars 4 life..

 

[ninjahood]

Surveys dont mean !@#% when what really matters is how consumers

Vote...with their wallet.

If there was such A MONSTER DEMAND for electric vehicles Da public would've

Propped that industry up with their OWN profits..

Gas is gonna be cheaper then having to cop a electric vehicle for a LONG time..

Silly putty swears that people dream to own a econobox, EFF THAT, I'm in America..

My mother left Da Dominican Republic to make sure she and her future kids could live

Da American dream of making it big, da hell imma care about people 300 years from now?

I gotta drive what da government wants me to drive? Nah $@$* that imma make sure I always

Make enough money tp drive w/e I wanna drive. That's how we ALL should think, alot of ya be on

That complacent !@#% talkin bout *sigh* "ill never have that Porsche.. " da utter lack of a self made

Attitude in this thread is disgusting.

No wonder cali is broke... bunch of magicians over there thinking they can wave a wand and institute

Wacky regulations that just contribute to more deficit spending

 

[kiendienn]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by ninjahood



Lol1. Cars all da way from da 30s & up can forever run on da roads thanks to da boomingAftermarket technology (like CNC machines) that can keep these vehicles running for practicallyForever...2. There's WAY MORE cars on da road that use traditional technology, if you think aftermarketCompanies will just STOP support of these vehicles anytime soon especially when gas prices still beingLow and government mandatory regulations on for econoboxes then u got another thing coming

Still don't get it. 
1. Exception. Definitely not the norm. Irrelevant as far as a discussion of the entire auto industry is concerned. We're not talking about enthusiasts fixing up their beater 69 chevy. We're talking about industry trends as a whole and your antique cars don't make a dent in the overall picture.

2. You fail to realize that change is inevitable. Whether it's lack of foresight, stubbornness or you're just plain dumb (honest observation) .... you fail to see that nothing in the world stays the same. WHEN Electric vehicles become more popular, your precious aftermarket industry WILL conform or risk of losing their share of the market. This is how it works. Like I've already said, the aftermarket industry is DEPENDENT upon the auto industry to survive. Without big auto, the aftermarket industry is NOTHING. They are a non factor in this discussion since they don't call the shots... get that through your head. 

Sounds like YOU'RE da one not getting it...what part Gas still being way more practical and cheaper for 99% of consumers is gonna make it a EASYCHOICE for soccer moms & dads of da worlds to just keep their SUVs & CUVs instead of being cattled by da government to buy what they want em to buy? Answer that one

government cannot create a artificial demand for these cars kust buy buying em themselves

There is a cheaper alternative, the US government just completely blocked it from being imported.  Our current gas, ethanol, is far from being practical and cheaper, butanol completely trumps that.

Sadly, in America, it did not work out like that. First, the fuel was not petrol. Instead, it wasethanol, which stores less energy per litre, tends to absorb water and is corrosive; people willuse it only if it is cheap or if you force them to through mandatory blending. In Brazil, whichturned to biofuels after the 1970s oil shocks, the price of ethanol eventually became lowenough for the fuel to find a market, thanks to highly productive sugar plantations anddistilleries powered by the pulp left when that sugar was extracted from its cane. As a resultBrazil is now a biofuels superpower. North American ethanol is mostly made from corn(maize), which is less efficient, and often produced in distilleries powered by coal; it is thusneither as cheap nor as environmentally benign. But American agribusiness, which knows agood thing when it sees one, used its political clout to arrange subsidies and tariffs that madecorn-ethanol profitable and that kept out the alternative from Brazil. 

http://www.economist.com/node/17358802/print   

 

[kiendienn]

Originally Posted by 0cks

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by 0cks

Extracting oil from that Canadian slurry is very expensive and you are making the assumption they will be willing to tear up their picturesque scenery for our oil consumption...

Umm you havent heard? Canada is HELL BENT on developing their oil Rich sands land & become a energy superpower..to think da USISN'T gonna benefit immensely is to be humpin one too many trees..

If they ramp up their production to presumably offset us not consuming any more Middle Eastern Oil they would need to tear up their entire countryside which the public over there would not exactly 100% co-sign... 
Also money is a very fluid concept and the government really does control your behavior through fiscal policy... like K2 already said the cash4clunker program got a bunch of gas guzzling cars off the road (cars that were eventually destroyed), and when they hike up the vehicle registration fees for your GTO and tax the !+$# out of gas like in Europe they don't have to confiscate your car, you will just either have to step your $ game up or sell it...

The GOP does a great job to sell their constituents the dreams of the rich and famous... You live in NYC, the Iron horse is all you need but you rather talk about Lambos on behalf of the select few (elite) that can afford them... that's not American at all

/thread

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Surveys dont mean !@#% when what really matters is how consumers

Vote...with their wallet.

If there was such A MONSTER DEMAND for electric vehicles Da public would've

Propped that industry up with their OWN profits..

Gas is gonna be cheaper then having to cop a electric vehicle for a LONG time..

Silly putty swears that people dream to own a econobox, EFF THAT, I'm in America..

My mother left Da Dominican Republic to make sure she and her future kids could live

Da American dream of making it big, da hell imma care about people 300 years from now?

I gotta drive what da government wants me to drive? Nah $@$* that imma make sure I always

Make enough money tp drive w/e I wanna drive. That's how we ALL should think, alot of ya be on

That complacent !@#% talkin bout *sigh* "ill never have that Porsche.. " da utter lack of a self made

Attitude in this thread is disgusting.

No wonder cali is broke... bunch of magicians over there thinking they can wave a wand and institute

Wacky regulations that just contribute to more deficit spending

Just admit that you're selfish, and set in your ways. You don't believe in helping your neighbor, let alone the future generations of your own kin. Own it.
There's no wrong in that..

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

We're 4 TRILLION IN DA HOLE..we ARENT SPENDING MONEY WE HAVE

What does this have to do with automobiles, fuel efficiency, or environmental conservation?

WE ARE BORROWING MONEY WE DONT HAVE to prop up crap like EVs for states

Like how the government subsidized the building of rail roads? highways? Power lines? 



Hell, even farmers were struggling before the government stepped in...and now they're making TOO MUCH money. 




Your recollection of selective events is working against you.

Like California that is SELLING government public property and letting criminals

Outta prison because they can't keep a budget 

If california wasn't a state, it'd be in the top 10-15 economies in the world.



THE WORLD.




They're not perfect but they have a MASSIVE impact on the status of this country.




Just like Texas used to have a strong hold on the selection of textbooks in this country, big states that adopt energy policies that are forward thinking will lead to farther reaching impacts.




But hey, this is EXACTLY what you want.




This is STATES RIGHTS...not the federal government...so before you start popping off at the mouth that the feds are shoving things down your throat, at least try to be consistent. 




This what republicans should be jumping for joy over. 


States are doing what states want to do...and you're STILL not satisfied...Mr. New York resident. 

So instead of using our natural resources to climb out of this funk we're in

Because using Hydrogen fuel cells aren't natural resources....news to me...

Ya wanna outlaw oil & coal and run EVs (that run on coal powered electricity 

 )
EVs don't run on coal powered electricity.



What type of stone age thinking is that?




The production that goes into make sculpting the metal or powering the lights at those factories might ultimately be powered by coal, but there is no need for their products to add to that demand on fossil fuels.




Two wrongs, dont make a right. 

And have us acting like Europe.... sky rocketing prices on everything...

Which part of Europe?

Because last time I checked, Germany and other countries were literally propping up entire countries on their backs with EASE.



Focus on the negative and thats all you're certain to find. 

& 

 @ silly putty saying da only reason lambos SELL OUT

at a MSRP of 300k meanwhile I haven't seen a gallardo ad EVER

There is no need to advertise cars that cost 1.5+ times as much as the avg homes of americans. Don't be ridiculous. Its like saying why you don't see commercials for private jets instead of commercial airlines. 



The sheer profit from millions flying outweights that of a few people who can afford "luxury" travel.




Also, there is no need to market italian sportscars (not even american...

) when you have men from the age they're in diapers to when they start having mid-life crisises salivating over forged metal and carbon fiber accents. 




Its all marketing.




You won't see a rolex ad in The Source magazine, but you will in the Robb Report, or Fianancial Times. 




Most consumers can't relate so they aren't targeted. Its a waste of money to market to people who can't afford lambos...if you need a lambo, you'll buy one. Its that simple. If you need financing, you don't need a lambo. Those who need to know, will know. 




Thats why you're not on their level. Keep reaching. 

And yet da Chevy volts failure @ retail thus far is bad marketing & not

it IS bad marketing.



While these companies develop these cars, oil interests and conflicts of interest prevent them from embracing shift away from currently proven profit margins to unstable, but ultimately more useful waters. 




There is only one alternative fuel method design PER COMPANY...there isn't even competition within the companies themselves. Thats the problem


You're comparing multiple offerings of oil using products to one version of a new technology...yeah, totally fair comparison. 

Cuz people DO NOT WANT TO OWN IT even with all those government gimmes...

Sometimes you have to take your medicine no matter how bitter it tastes. 

---

---

---

---

Originally Posted by rashi

Yes, we're going to go into a depression again because the government is offering its CITIZENS a cash incentive to buy better emissions vehicles.

Didn't say that. You said the government can create a demand, they do and the pictures are a result of what happened when the government created a DEMAND over a period of time. I never said that particular program did, but it did inflate prices (due to artificially lowering the supply) of used cars due to the fact that they were destroying perfectly good cars.

Depressions that were both caused by 1. Bank Failure 2. Stock Market Crash 3. corporate greed. 

Depressions are due to malinvestment, which causes 1 and 2, and 3 + government policy causes the latter.

You cannot be serious. You want to someone to blame, blame the corporations that sold subprime mortgages to people that should have them. Blame corporate greed, and blame your neighbor for buying something they couldn't afford.

Yeah, repeal of Glass-Steagall and Sarbanes-Oxly had NOTHING to due to the fact the banks were able to make those loans. 

Besides, we're talking about saving the environment, which also includes your issue with bio engineered agriculture. Those two subjects aren't mutually exclusive, man. You can fight them both at the same time.


Nobody wants to safe the agriculture, nobody cares about that. 

What is their incentive to care about agriculture and food when people in government are invested into destroying it?



Could you post a more irrelevant argument? Agriculture? 

I challenge you to do so.




I almost expect you to start talking about abortion next. 




Whats funny is that I agree with you on some aspects of this rather TANGENTIAL argument, but it has no basis in this discussion. 




BTW, the government didn't destroy perfectly good cars.




They destroyed CLUNKERS...eyesores...waste... unnecessary pollutants....AND THEY PAID PEOPLE TO DO IT TO REVITALIZE THE ECONOMY.




Its about playing the LONG GAME...you dudes are too focused on taking a couple hits to come out victorious...no understanding of strategy what so ever. 




Would you call the Hoover Dam a misplaced investment? provided innumerable amounts of energy to entire states

NASA? that has indirectly developed more patents and encouraged ground breaking research instruments that we use ON EARTH than most companies combined, not even in space?  

Public Works that put millions to work and revamped the nations infrastructure to such a degree that we're still using instances of this currently?

---

---

---

---

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Surveys dont mean !@#% when what really matters is how consumers

Vote...with their wallet.

Scumbag Ninjahood




Asks for Evidence...




...




Deny evidence. 

If there was such A MONSTER DEMAND for electric vehicles Da public would've

Propped that industry up with their OWN profits..

The only people that know about alternative energy are people who are personally concerned with it.



The average american doesn't even know about the technology.




You forget that the internet is not real life. There are people who don't use anything other than Facebook and you expect them to educate themselves on energy sustainability?

They're focused on feeding their families and getting to their second job on time and you want them to be concerned about something they don't even understand?




People just walk onto car lots and point out whatever was branded into their heads. 




I've seen it happen and so have you.




Don't overlook the impact of positive and consistent advertising.




There is simply not enough emphasis on promoting consumer alternatives.

Gas is gonna be cheaper then having to cop a electric vehicle for a LONG time..

Just like (adjusting for inflation) paying for electricity used to be a miracle for many rural americans...or running water. 



Innovation is merely a process that has to take place, not a barrier to progress. 

Silly putty swears that people dream to own a econobox, EFF THAT, I'm in America..

If you don't like how it looks, build your own.



I bet if Rolls Royce commissioned you to design a new car for them in 1999 you wouldn't have come out with the radical design that is the Phantom.

My mother left Da Dominican Republic to make sure she and her future kids could live

OK...and?



Cars are first and foremost for getting around.




If you're looking for an argument that substantiates the ability for you to "flex" on other people then you'll have to look elsewhere. 




Cars are a privilege. Not a right. 

Da American dream of making it big, da hell imma care about people 300 years from now?

YOUR OWN MOTHER LEFT HER HOMELAND AND HER FAMILY BEHIND BECAUSE SHE CARED ABOUT HER FUTURE AND YOUR ROLE IN IT...



AND YOU CAN'T EVEN RETURN THE DAMN FAVOR.




...SELFISH AIN'T THE WORD... Despicable.

 

I gotta drive what da government wants me to drive? Nah $@$* that imma make sure I always

Make enough money tp drive w/e I wanna drive.

You're neglecting the key point here...




You will drive...WHAT IS AVAILABLE for you to drive. 




If lexus or MB or BMW goes out of business tomorrow, you won't have any other choices, now will you?




If you really want to flex the power of your dollar...YOU WILL MAKE YOUR OWN CAR.

That's how we ALL should think, alot of ya be on

That complacent !@#% talkin bout *sigh* "ill never have that Porsche.. " da utter lack of a self made
The way my life is going, i hope to own several porsches, but thats besides the point.



If it wasn't there for you to buy...YOU COULDNT BUY IT.




I understand that as much as I love expensive gas guzzling cars, that they aren't good for the benefit of society so its irresponsible for me to place an additional burden on society with my materialistic needs.




No one is saying that we shouldn't strive for success...but success is not equivalent to the car you drive. The car you drive is merely how flashy you want to look getting between point A and point B.




Ever wonder why its the new money "millionaires" who only ball out and cop the latest and greatest? But dudes with REAL money in the billions are super low-key with it?




Wealth is of the mind, not the pocket. 




Spend your money on what you want...but you can only spend that money...on what exists in the market.




If there was no porsche brand that even existed then you wouldn't have an argument in the first place.

Attitude in this thread is disgusting.

Ironic.

No wonder cali is broke... bunch of magicians over there thinking they can wave a wand and institute

Wacky regulations that just contribute to more deficit spending 

 

You know what?




You're right, I love the taste of mercury in my salmon.




I should just go lick a piece of scrap metal instead.

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by finnns2003

There's a line between and practical and luxury, and I just don't see anything above 175HP as practical. I just have something with 160HP and a turbocharger, and I'm very content.

I wish we had a rolling eyes emoticon so I could post 100 of them. Oh brother, YOU don't see anything above 175hp as practical so YOU are content.

If that wasn't the case, I couldn't enjoy my EVO or own a car like a GT-R or IS-F. Performance enthusiasts would be out of luck because of ridiculous hippies like yourself that have no clue or idea about anything but "saving the world".

You forgot the part where I said "luxury".  I speak for practicality in terms of a daily driver, while I'm also all for luxury cars if its within one's budget.  I know damn well I'd get a GTR for a weekend driver if I had the funds.
I thought my statement is pretty realistic, but I guess if you want to drive your R8 to work everyday in bumper to bumper traffic then by all means, but you have to question the practicality of it.

but I'm a "hippie" that doesn't know anything 

Well what about a Porsche 911? Maybe sterile enough, and Porsche is developing hybrids, but let's take baby steps and perfect technology before jumping to conclusions and eliminating luxury cars with over 175hp as you implied. Nothing wrong with daily driving a GT-R.

 

[ninjahood]

"BTW, the government didn't destroy perfectly good cars."



Damn how good does that moonbat kool-aid taste like?


1. You asked what does cali being 4 trillion in da hole have to do with

Electric cars? Gee wizz lets start with da fact that this cost MONEY that ya don't

Have to build infrastructure for these cars that NO ONE IS BUYING AT ALL according

:Lol @ da slander throwing at da chevy volt talkin bout it sucks..it doesn't suck, it just isn't wanted.

Its like a girl that does everything "right" and u still don't like her because w/e reason.

Plus add da fact that da *$!%% is overpriced for common usage especially when u can get a similarly sized

Internal combustion engine for ½ da price.

Im willing to bet NO ONE adopts these without da government basically section 8in'

To da maximum and we'll all have to foot da bill... and these companies are Still going

Bankrupt except its with tax payer funds & not private funds..

Yea silly putty, you keep thinking that people are gonna flock to these

Cars when da Cheap price of gas will always make this niche hippie

Pipe dream impractical for mainstream use...hell does California understand

That this country is broke?

 

[eebs7eez]

demanding electric cars in 2025 after contributing to their destruction years ago

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by rashi

Cycle 25 Garbage

?




http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...ile-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

And we’re not done. A big part of Rose’s Mail article talks about the Sun’s influence on climate. However, the solar activity cycle is something which has been shownover and again to have very little to do with climate, andis certainly not anywhere near the main driver of climate change.

The Mail article bases its argument on some research that may indicate the Sun will enter a quiet period after this next peak, and that will cool the Earth. First, the research is by no means anywhere near verified, and in factat least one well-respected solar physicist doesn’t agree with the findings(I think he’s right; the work is interesting but very, very preliminary). Second, even if it’s true, there’s no reason to think it will cause an ice age as the Mail article attests; that takes many factors occurring all at once. Also, the Little Ice Age — a cold period during the 17th and 18th centuries — was not a global effect; it only affected Europe. It also coincided with several large volcanic events that helped drive it. I explain all that in the link above.

So where does Rose get this idea that the Sun will cool us down? FromanotherMet Office release. And guess what? Again, that release states in the first paragraphthe exact opposite of what Rose claims:

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Another one debunking the WSJ article from a few days back:http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...t-climate-change-is-not-something-to-worry-ab
Here's a video and chart ( fromhttp://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html)

Keep trying to deny global warming. It fits your ideology perfectly.Humans left to their own devicesare infallible!!! If only the gubermint got out of the way!!! We'd be saved!!!

What's truly bizarre about your denial is that global warming could be the very issue that finally keeps the government from murdering Muslim babies, something you have repeatedly railed against. But no, ideology first.