Patterico's Pontifications

3/1/2011

Great News About That New Government Motors Car, The Volt…

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:39 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

According to Consumer Reports, it doesn’t make very much sense:

“When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn’t particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it’s not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy,” said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. “This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer.”

The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.

GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it’s been an extremely harsh winter — and as a Volt driver he said he’s getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles on electric range or higher.

Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips.

Oh, and as if that didn’t make you want to run out and buy it enough, there is also this.

Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.

So it’s not very good, but it is very expensive.  Okay, show of hands, who was surprised by this?  This is what happens when government tries to get involved in business.  You get business decisions driven by politics rather than good business.

And when this car fails, will GM need a bailout to pay for this boondoggle?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

137 Responses to “Great News About That New Government Motors Car, The Volt…”

  1. Obama should have to ride in one.

    Beldar (d162eb)

  2. I can’t really believe that a crack team of engineers – if you’ve ever been involved in a serious engineering project literally top engineers, designers, marketing people are involved in a process to bring a design to market

    and this is what they have – a car that doesn’t fit anyone, go anywhere, go fast, and is cheap

    And they still rolled it out…

    EricPWJohnson (06f365)

  3. Beldar

    No, he should give one to his wife and let her try to get the kids back and forth in it

    then we might see some action

    EricPWJohnson (06f365)

  4. Obama has already committed to buying a few boatloads of these Rube Goldbergs. This vehicle will not be allowed to die so long as BHO is our president.

    Ed from SFV (7af9a6)

  5. “will GM need a bailout to pay for this boondoggle?”

    Is this question sarcasm, comedy or tragedy?

    The answer is OF COURSE THEY WILL GET A BAILOUT.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  6. The Volt isn’t particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it’s not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy

    Well, at least you can’t say that it wasn’t designed and built to GM standards.

    GM – We make cars that only sound good until you start getting details…

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  7. So, you can buy a Volt for around the same price as a Lexus Hybrid SUV. Brilliant.

    JD (6e25b4)

  8. I’ll you all what I told my stepson who asked if my wife and I could buy him a Volt for a graduation gift:

    * after recovering from laughing * “Listen son, if I’m dropping $41k for a new car it’s going to be a new G37 for me!”

    EC (ac8463)

  9. This is what happens when government tries to get involved in business. You get business decisions driven by politics rather than good business.

    This is just typical anti-government propaganda, borne of ignorance rather than actual fact.

    The Volt was greenlighted long before there was any government bailout of GM.

    Anyway, the Volt represents an entire new technology — an entire new car. It’s technological innovation — something American prides itself on. Yes, it may be an Apple IIe, but I wouldn’t scoff at the new technology just yet.

    Kman (5576bf)

  10. This is just typical anti-government propaganda, borne of ignorance rather than actual fact.

    The Volt was greenlighted long before there was any government bailout of GM

    And everyone knew it would be crap even back then. Any bailout run by sane people would have required the car either be scrapped, or re-worked so that it didn’t suck out loud.

    Anyway, the Volt represents an entire new technology — an entire new car. It’s technological innovation — something American prides itself on. Yes, it may be an Apple IIe, but I wouldn’t scoff at the new technology just yet.

    If by “new” you mean “existing in technology that has existed and been evolving for the past decade”, then you wold be correct.

    The Volt uses not one single bit of tech that isn’t used in some fashion by another manufacturer.

    Not surprisingly, they all manage to do it both better and cheaper (and in the one or two cases where the other car isn’t cheaper, it has far more options standard).

    If you think they are so great, Kman, answer me this – what color is the one you are buying?

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  11. If you think they are so great, Kman, answer me this – what color is the one you are buying?

    I’m happy with my hybrid.

    Kman (5576bf)

  12. I’m pretty sure that most technology is expensive and doesn’t work perfectly when it debuts. But that’s me, Mr. Betamax talking.

    carlitos (01d172)

  13. Kman

    you never answered my question from the other day.

    http://patterico.com/2011/02/25/liberals-suddenly-notice-that-regulation-can-strangle-otherwise-legitimate-business/#comment-758368

    [see comment 72, 75, specifically. it’s not a threat, it’s a question.]

    Btw, companies start projects all the time and kill them when they see they are a boondoggle. saying it was started a long time ago, therefore, is no defense. the decision to start it is not the sin, but the decision to bring it all the way to market. sound business principles would have led them to realize the tech just wasn’t there, yet, and scrap the project, or put more time in development until they got something worth buying. But i don’t expect you to understand that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. I’m happy with my hybrid.

    If the Volt is so awesome and full of potential, why won’t you be trading in?

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  15. I’m still hoping to be able to afford a Tesla Roadster one day.

    carlitos (01d172)

  16. Kman

    > I’m happy with my hybrid

    Ah, so no wonder you smell like smug pollution.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783418/

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  17. It comes with the Obama sticker already applied to the bumper.

    Arizona Bob (911aa5)

  18. Also, I’d like to re-iterate this point:

    Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.

    For the cost of one Volt, you could own TWO Priuses (Priusi? Whatever – two cars), both of which get better preformance, better fuel economy, more standard features, and don’t look like a drunk mon[k]ey designed the body.

    I defy anyone to explain to me why anyone who isn’t a complete and total moron would buy a Volt before getting a Priuss.

    [Ftfy, Aaron]

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  19. I apparently need to turn up the volume on my iPod – the sound of stupid around me at McD’s is starting to damage my already limited English skills…

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  20. Anyway, the Volt represents an entire new technology — an entire new car. It’s technological innovation — something American prides itself on. Yes, it may be an Apple IIe, but I wouldn’t scoff at the new technology just yet.

    New technology like the 286 or 386 processors in the world that has passed the pentium processors good bye.

    joe (6120a4)

  21. scott

    for a moment i wondered… “what exactly is a drunk money?” lol np, we all make mistakes.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  22. It is worth noting that Consumer reports has come out with an honest appraisal of a car. Hopefully, CU will attempt to get some of its credibility back. While CU enjoys a good reputation among the general public, individuals in the automotive industry consider CU’s reporting to be biased. Just remember the suzuki samari rollover. During test drives of the suzuki, the director of automotive testing with CU told the test driver that if he could make the car rollover, he would find a driver that could.

    joe (6120a4)

  23. Aaron:

    The truth is, there was a time when I felt that, despite our deep differences politically, you could be counted on to have a certain degree of integrity. I would like to think that is still possible, but given what I see as:

    (a) your slanderous and false claim that I once wrote you asserting that I was gay;

    (b) your well-publicized disdain, as a matter of policy, for the privacy of others; and

    (c) your scorched earth debating style, as exemplified by both your posts and comments, in which you think the way to make a point is to attempt to destroy people’s characters rather than making substantive arguments

    … I cannot say that trusting you with my real name was a good idea.

    That said, the answer to your question is “yes, I believe you are under a moral obligation to continue keeping that information to yourself”. I say that for many reasons, but mostly because you have failed to convince me what the relevance that my true identity has to do with anything, or what purpose would be served by revealing my true identity.

    After all, you blog and comment here under a pseudonym as well.

    Kman (5576bf)

  24. The truth is, there was a time when I felt that, despite our deep differences politically, you could be counted on to have a certain degree of integrity.

    Really? Because I have never – not once – seen you display this.

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  25. (a) your slanderous and false claim that I once wrote you asserting that I was gay;

    Calling someone gay is slanderous? Interesting.

    carlitos (01d172)

  26. yeah, I found that odd too, carlitos… I mean, if someone called me gay, I wouldn’t be offended…

    They would be wrong, but I wouldn’t be offended…

    Scott Jacobs (9bafa1)

  27. They would be wrong, but I wouldn’t be offended…

    I didn’t say I was offended, did I?

    Nice reading comprehension.

    Kman (5576bf)

  28. Not that there’s anything wrong with that :)

    carlitos (01d172)

  29. You wouldn’t be offended if someone slandered you? OK.

    carlitos (01d172)

  30. Kman

    > I cannot say that trusting you with my real name was a good idea

    Lol, no, it is never wise to trust a person on the internet with your personal information and then BE A COMPLETE LYING, STALKING JERK FOR NINE YEARS TOWARD THAT PERSON. No as a general rule, you should not “trust” a person with anything valuable and then proceed to spit on him.

    I have long ago shared with my wife all the information about you and if anything should ever happen to me, she even has a picture from your crappy little firm’s site to go with your name (you REALLY shouldn’t have emailed me from your firm website, but clearly you were trying to get around the block i put on your address).

    But its cute to watch you play the victim, here, Kman. No, I won’t reveal your name.

    But you ask a lot of a man, to stalk him for f—ing 9 years and then expect him to keep your secrets.

    To come to his blog and make comments without even reading the post. To criticize his analysis of a case without reading the case even enough to know which constitution we are talking about. To constantly lie about what I say, make false personal attacks and so on. And after all of that, you expect that person you treated this way to keep your secrets. Out of their sense of integrity.

    But the most galling thing is this. I checked out your crappy little blog. And you are lying on it. But in order to prove that, I would have to reveal that this person is the same person as “kman.”

    So why should that be secret? Why should all of your readers at your crappy blog be deprived of the truth?

    In other words by keeping your secret, I am aiding and abetting your deception.

    And don’t bother to scrub your site. I already have the screenshots.

    Still, as Dustin said, I don’t need that much drama.

    But I would ask you this. what are you afraid of? That your bosses would find out that you are liberal? Its all over your blog. And as for questioning your sexuality, anyone familiar with your extra-curricular activities would already be wondering. (Never anger a man with serious google skillz.)

    As for your other points:

    > you could be counted on to have a certain degree of integrity

    Wow, talk about unintentional irony. When have you ever shown integrity? Was it a sign of integrity when you comment when you clearly haven’t read the post? When you lied about what I said? Or when you lied about what you said?

    > your slanderous and false claim that I once wrote you asserting that I was gay;

    I told that obvious joke how many months ago? It’s the gift that keeps giving.

    > your well-publicized disdain, as a matter of policy, for the privacy of others

    When have you respected anyone’s privacy? If you respected mine, you would stop stalking me.

    > your scorched earth debating style, as exemplified by both your posts and comments, in which you think the way to make a point is to attempt to destroy people’s characters rather than making substantive arguments

    Bwahahahahaha

    Yeah, you have never attacked anyone’s integrity. Not even at your blog, right?

    > After all, you blog and comment here under a pseudonym as well.

    Lol, in which you assume that I was as dumb as you…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  31. About the Volt being “New Technology”; electric cars have existed as far back as the 1920’s. They weren’t very useful then, either.

    If we were going to be rational about electrical power generation (i.e. build lots of nuclear power plants), I would be in favor of continuing to develop battery powered cars, as it seems to me that the technology is ripe for improvement. But until we have a lot more generator capacity, I see no reason move from gasoline to electricity.

    C. S. P. Schofield (71781e)

  32. Kmart should stick to buggering goats.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  33. I don’t know about the Volt, other than giving it the benefit of the doubt for being a first cut at a new technology.

    But I do know that I’d be rich if I had a nickel for each idiot who told me that I’d never get back the money I spent for my hybrid Escape. D’oh! Like that was the point. It is no more sensible than suggesting a Mercedes driver could have saved money buying a Corolla. I bought it because that is what I wanted to buy.

    And, you know, if gas does go to $6/gallon, I probably will get my money back anyway.

    Kevin M (298030)

  34. I defy anyone to explain to me why anyone who isn’t a complete and total moron would buy a Volt before getting a Prius.

    Because they want a Volt and don’t want a Prius.

    Q: Why do people buy $100,000 cars? A: Because the decision is largely non-economic.

    Kevin M (298030)

  35. Kman

    Here’s a practical example of the dishonesty at your site.

    At your blog, you wrote a post asserting that a proposed South Dakota law would make it legal to kill abortion doctors.

    To support your claim, you uncritically quote this TPM article.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/south-dakota-bill-would-legalize-murder-of-abortion-providers.php?ref=fpi

    On the same day I had a post talking about the same law, here:

    http://patterico.com/2011/02/15/a-reasonable-apprehension-of-danger-two-stories-involving-when-self-defense-is-justified/

    I acknowledge that it could be read that way, but I also linked to a Greg Sargeant post indicating that this was not the intent of the lawmaker. Later Greg Sargeant’s post is updated to reflect that the same lawmaker proposed a fix to clearly exempt abortions from his law. And you not only knew about it, you actually alerted me to that update, yourself, in comment 16:

    http://patterico.com/2011/02/15/a-reasonable-apprehension-of-danger-two-stories-involving-when-self-defense-is-justified/#comment-755566

    which in turn led to an update of my post.

    But you never once corrected the record on your post. So anyone reading your blog would be left with the impression that this lawmaker was deliberately trying to make it legal to get doctors killed, despite the fact that you were aware of evidence that clearly contradicted that narrative.

    So much for your integrity.

    And all I would have to do to prove your site is dishonest is to tell the world who Kman is.

    I won’t. But you have a lot of nerve to behave like that and then impugn my integrity.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  36. No as a general rule, you should not “trust” a person with anything valuable and then proceed to spit on him.

    “Spit on you”? By disagreeing with the positions you take? Seriously?

    To come to his blog and make comments without even reading the post.

    That’s your characterization of what I did (once) on “your” blog. Obviously, I don’t agree with that characterization. So, we disagree. Why is that such a problem for you?

    To criticize his analysis of a case without reading the case even enough to know which constitution we are talking about.

    Again, that’s your characterization. Obviously, I don’t agree with that characterization. So, we disagree. Again, why is that such a problem for you?

    To constantly lie about what I say, make false personal attacks and so on.

    Yes, I make false personal attacks . I think if anyone wants to do a study of who throws the ad hom bomb first (and more often) in any given post or comment thread, it might be an eye-opener for you.

    But the most galling thing is this. I checked out your crappy little blog.

    ***

    And don’t bother to scrub your site. I already have the screenshots.

    ***

    Interesting, and not a little ironic given the “stalker” comments you hurl at me.

    And as for questioning your sexuality, anyone familiar with your extra-curricular activities would already be wondering. (Never anger a man with serious google skillz.)

    For the curious, Aaron is probably talking about the fact that I serve on the board of various arts organizations — as well as direct and perform in theatrical productions — in my community. (Apparently, in Aaron’s world, this has something to with my sexuality.)

    And I’m curious, Aaron — just how often do you use your “serious google skillz” to find out things about me…. and how is that NOT stalking?

    your slanderous and false claim that I once wrote you asserting that I was gay;

    I told that obvious joke how many months ago? It’s the gift that keeps giving.

    It wasn’t obvious. Some actually believed it. It was a lie, Aaron. And isn’t this the first time in months you’ve admitted it was a lie?

    > After all, you blog and comment here under a pseudonym as well.

    Lol, in which you assume that I was as dumb as you…

    Wait…. are you saying you DON’T blog and comment here under a pseudonym? Let me rephrase that and ask you bluntly: Is Aaron Worthing a pseudonym?

    Kman (5576bf)

  37. The perennial giggle with Kman is to follow his own links and see how much he’s misrepresented them.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  38. kevin

    but if you are going to spend too much money on a car, why not get something with luxury? a hybrid lexus for example.

    i don’t think anyone is going to consider a volt a status symbol. so the only purpose is to pretend you care about the environment. except you can get that same frisson in buying a prius or a hybrid accord.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  39. It’s almost as if he were being intellectually dishonest in reflexively disagreeing with everything Aaron writes. Almost.

    carlitos (01d172)

  40. Here’s a practical example of the dishonesty at your site…

    To support your claim, you uncritically quote this TPM article….

    I acknowledge that it could be read that way, but I also linked to a Greg Sargeant post indicating that this was not the intent of the lawmaker….

    Okay, so your point is that my blog is “dishonest” because I haven’t included all points of view regarding a selected topic.

    Fine, but how is that any different than posting one negative review of the Volt, but failing to take note of the positive ones? I mean, isn’t it just as “dishonest” to fail to point out all the acclaim that the Volt has received, before declaring it a “boondoggle”?

    If that’s your definition of “dishonest”, then I suggest you look in the mirror.

    Kman (5576bf)

  41. This car is a worthless piece of crap that no one other than a handful of leftist fools would want. It doesn’t even come up to the low level of other junkers from days of yore like the Fiat, the Yugo, the pathetic Renault Dauphin or that Triumph of Socialist Automotive Engineering, the Russian Lada.
    What people really want is a big, powerful, safe & reliable vehicle. And there are plenty of them to choose from. A pox upon the liberal wannabe social engineers!

    Douglas Leaon (392f36)

  42. How about explaining why incorrectly calling someone gay is slanderous, but not offensive? In the name of honesty and all.

    carlitos (01d172)

  43. You know looking at it with my “irony glasses” on, it is obvious that Obama’s ‘folks car’ would be a total failure.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  44. Kman

    Notice first you skip over the accusation that you lie at your own blog. Do you care to dispute that? Why don’t you link to your blog and less us decide for ourselves?

    Anyway, you can lie about what you have done here all you want. You and I both know the truth.

    > Again, that’s your characterization

    Which you admitted to. Just before you took it back. Are you going to stick by that? Because if that is the case, then clearly you are an incompetent lawyer. I mean seriously you are going to claim you read the Iowa gay marriage case and didn’t realize once they were talking about the Iowa constitution?

    > Apparently, in Aaron’s world, this has something to with my sexuality.

    I know the community you live in. I used to live there. You can bet they wondered. That’s my only point.

    And notice the partial description. You don’t mention the recent role you had where you played a man getting a sex change. You have a link at your blog to a positive review where they say that you were very good in the male and female roles (congrats, by the way). And you don’t mention that you live in a smallish town in the south. You are telling me no one once wondered if you were gay after that? come on. we live in reality not some utopia you imagine.

    > just how often do you use your “serious google skillz” to find out things about me…. and how is that NOT stalking?

    After 9 years of being stalked by someone, you bet your a– I looked you up. Any sane person would.

    > It wasn’t obvious.

    Yes, it was. You are just slow. And no one believed it.

    > Is Aaron Worthing a pseudonym?

    No.

    > Okay, so your point is that my blog is “dishonest” because I haven’t included all points of view regarding a selected topic.

    That you yourself considered relevant and pointed out to me. why was it important enough for Patterico’s comments, but not for your blog?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. Kman relevant?

    Ahahahahahahahahahaha

    DohBiden (984d23)

  46. The entire emissions-elsewhere electric car concept is really at best another 3 decades away from success and more likely perennially a failure or at least joke toy status.

    Hybrids are marginal improvements at best and with the burdens their battery packs create, I think a net disadvantage over pure gasoline engines.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. Notice first you skip over the accusation that you lie at your own blog. Do you care to dispute that?

    Your definition of “lie” seems to mean “failing to represent all points of view”. That’s your definition, not mine. If that’s the operative definition, then yes, I “lie”.

    Anyway, you can lie about what you have done here all you want. You and I both know the truth.

    Yeah, like “hijacking” the threads. Look up. It wasn’t me who made the subject of this thread about me.

    You don’t mention the recent role you had where you played a man getting a sex change. You have a link at your blog to a positive review where they say that you were very good in the male and female roles (congrats, by the way).

    You’re following me offline life as well. Pretty creepy.

    And you don’t mention that you live in a smallish town in the south. You are telling me no one once wondered if you were gay after that? come on. we live in reality not some utopia you imagine.

    No, nobody wondered. First of all, the play was about someone with gender dysphoria. The character wasn’t gay. There’s a difference. People — yes, even those in a small town — are able to make the distinction.

    why was it important enough for Patterico’s comments, but not for your blog?

    Because virtually nobody reads my blog.

    Kman (5576bf)

  48. Kmart is creepy. And projecting.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  49. Carlitos asked you an excellent question above, kmart.

    Nobody questions your right to disagree, imbecile. They question your contrarian nature, and reflexive disagreement. Oh, and your serial dishonesty.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  50. Advertising slogan for the Volt:

    “I could have had a V8″

    There’s a $7500 government rebate for buying one, since they’re pretending its an all electric vehicle rather than a hybrid. Its still twice the cost of a Chevy Cobalt.

    Callawyn (bab74a)

  51. They question your contrarian nature, and reflexive disagreement.

    Well, that goes to something I asked a while back. Do you want comments that are all cut from the same cloth? Is this a place that cannot tolerate views outside the insular bubble?

    It doesn’t strike me that way. But if so, fine. But someone needs to tell me that.

    Kman (5576bf)

  52. > Is Aaron Worthing a pseudonym?

    No.

    It’s the name you were born with? Went through school with?

    Kman (5576bf)

  53. if gas does go to $6/gallon

    IF???

    I defy anyone to explain to me why anyone who isn’t a complete and total moron would buy a Volt before getting a Prius.

    Because they want a Volt

    Dude… I said “who isn’t a complete and total moron… 8)

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  54. Kman

    > Your definition of “lie” seems to mean “failing to represent all points of view”.

    No, failing to provide relevant information that contradicts your smear. In fact, I could go as far as to say that this SD legislator has a cause of action against you for libel—yes, with malice, even. You clearly had a reckless disregard for the truth.

    > You’re following me offline life as well.

    Lol, good reading comp. its in the review that you posted proudly ON YOUR BLOG.

    > No, nobody wondered.

    Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

    > Because virtually nobody reads my blog.

    But I didn’t realize it was okay to lie and mislead people… as long as its only a few people. So I guess according to you, if man lies in the forest but no one is around to hear, it didn’t make a sound.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  55. Is this a place that cannot tolerate views outside the insular bubble?

    There’s a huge difference between how this site welcomes thoughtful disagreement and how most of its commenters find your dishonest and uninformed reflexive disagreement annoying.

    You set up a dichotomy where if we find you annoying or worthless, we must be an echo chamber. You want to pretend you’re being oppressed by ‘insular’ conservatives because you are a coward and want to avoid the actual criticism of your honesty and intelligence.

    Your lame trollish and lying behavior would and has gotten conservatives a lot of criticism by these same commenters who criticize you. And these same commenters show appreciation for liberals who aren’t dishonest.

    There is no way an honest and informed commenter who spends as much time here as you do could say this is about ensuring the comments all agree with eachother. But then, you’re Kman, and you love lying and ignoring what people are saying.

    No, I don’t want everyone to agree. I don’t want an echo chamber. But you lie all the time. I proved it a few days ago and you fled the thread,but it’s happened many times. I think when you summarize a post or a link and it’s proven you never read it, that undermines your credibility or value. It does no matter what your politics are. There is no point having a discussion with someone who simply insists Aaron’s wrong no matter what he said. That’s exactly what you do, proven concretely by how you’ve been proven to say Aaron’s wrong before you ever even read Aaron’s post. You’ve even said Aaron’s wrong and shameful about posts he didn’t write at all.

    BTW, I understand you have a blog. Would you link it? You said you come here to keep Aaron honest and prove his dishonesty, and give him a tremendous amount of flack and scrutiny. Are you afraid to put your blog up to my scrutiny? Can you take it as well as you dish it out?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  56. kman at 9 – The Volt is “new technology” the same way replacing my hexa core, hyperthreading, dual GPU, 24 gigbytes of ram, 5 terabytes of storage (including a 2 terabyte RAID array) computer with a “Government Computers” TRS-80 with cassette tape drive because it runs on power generated by a hamster in a wheel and is “better for the enviroment” would be “new technology.”

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  57. Kman

    > It’s the name you were born with? Went through school with?

    do you want to see the birth certificate? (don’t say yes. i am making fun of you.)

    And wow, you just dipped into full on paranoid conspiracy theory territory.

    But then again, you did out yourself as a Trig truther a while back.

    http://patterico.com/2010/11/30/keith-olbermann-shows-us-who-is-the-worst-person-in-the-world/#comment-726499

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  58. The Volt would be a cool car to drive if you wanted a coal powered vehicle and didn’t want to drag around a tender full of dusty coal.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  59. > It’s the name you were born with? Went through school with?

    do you want to see the birth certificate? (don’t say yes. i am making fun of you.)

    A yes or no would suffice.

    Kman (5576bf)

  60. Have Blue

    so what was comment 56, in english?

    just kidding. i think i get the gist.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  61. I heard the oil companies are trying to sabotage the Volt just like they did the EV1. Or whatever it was. Also… I heard there was an invention that made cars run on water, but the oil companies stole it and arranged for the inventor, whose name no one knows, to die in a car accident.

    It MUST be true because otherwise we would surely have all these inventions by now!!!!!!!!!!

    Gesundheit (d7ea47)

  62. Scott

    Obama has a plan to give us $2.00 gas. He’ll have it sold by the quart.

    That’s sort of a I don’t know whether to laugh or cry kind of joke.

    (shamelessly ripped off from instapundit.)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  63. Kwhatever, seek help! You’re obviously struggling with a personality disorder that a blog comment section is unable to address. While you may present a challenge to any mental health professional, I’m sure there are those willing to accept a patient of your considerable psychological imbalance.

    I hope you get the treatment that you need.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  64. kman

    yes, kman, i actually changed my name legally… to avoid you. *rolls eyes at your stupidity/paranoia*

    btw, what is the address of your blog. don’t you want it promoted?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. yes, kman, i actually changed my name legally… to avoid you. *rolls eyes at your stupidity/paranoia*

    So if I linked to something showing that your last name isn’t actually Worthing, you wouldn’t mind being “outed”, since (according to you) Aaron Worthing is your actual name?

    btw, what is the address of your blog. don’t you want it promoted?

    OMG, I definitely don’t want it promoted. The writing is horrible! Mostly it’s “look at this interesting thing”. I don’t put in half the effort there that I used to — certainly not like I used to years ago. At this point, it’s mainly there for a few friends.

    Kman (5576bf)

  66. Have Blue and C. S. P. Schofield have great points about the big picture. Unless electricity is generated by non-fossil fuels, fossil fuel emissions are just coming from the power plant not the car exhaust. Which just goes to show how irrational this all is (and they say repubs are the ones who are anti-science, anti-intellect).

    If the Prius and other hybrids, which have a gasoline engine and an electronic motor and batteries, cost 1/2 the Volt, does that mean the extra battery capacity of the Volt costs 1/2 of the car’s total price?

    (Shhhhh… Get really close to the computer and I’ll tell you something….
    Maybe it’s still a good time to buy Ford stock- I wish I had when it was at it’s low, already would have made multiple times profit.)

    Should we be buying rare earth metals or stock in companies that mine them, or whatever it is used in the batteries? You engineers, help us out here.

    If cost was not an issue we would have just bought an Escape hybrid. Even if it would have been a long time (if ever) to completely make-up the extra cost, with the amount of city stop and go we do it makes sense- I think it even performs better in stop and go traffic, right? Zero to 60 may not be the best, but zero to 35 in traffic is better than gas, unless you have a Lamborghini, yes?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  67. 62. that was funny, i’ll pass it on.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. GM tried to cancel the Volt at least twice that I know of for these reasons among several others (it required premium gasoline too because it has a very high compression ratio for one). As a concept it sounded great, but the devil is always in the details and once the engineers got into it, they realized that it was never going to work in the marketplace. But once Obama took over GM, it was thought to be the thing that made the greenies love him.

    Rorschach (c5574d)

  69. If cost was not an issue we would have just bought an Escape hybrid. Even if it would have been a long time (if ever) to completely make-up the extra cost, with the amount of city stop and go we do it makes sense- I think it even performs better in stop and go traffic, right?

    That’s what I have (a ’05 model) and it made a lot of sense for me since 80% of my driving is “city stop and go”. Although I’m aware of the arguments that I didn’t really “save money”, I still love it when I see gas prices inching up.

    Kman (5576bf)

  70. Kman

    > So if I linked to something…

    I told you already. i wasn’t as stupid as you. you gave me your real name. And i lied to you about mine. i only revealed my real name last year.

    moron.

    But if you do this, I will not hold back your identity one second longer. You will not come here and lie about who I am, and then expect me to keep your secrets. got it?

    Btw, if your blog is just for a few friends, why is it written as though for a general audience? you clearly want the world to read it. but not us.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  71. Buying into anything related to the gathering/refining of lithium (which is used for heat-resistant glasses and ceramics, as well as batteries and in aluminum processing) would, I suspect, be very wise.

    Which it won’t be worth what gold is, the rate at which we switch over from lead or NiCd batteries to ones based around lithium means it’s value will only increase.

    Or so is my non-engineer opinion.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  72. ror

    i would love a link about them trying to cancel the volt. who stopped it, btw?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  73. You will not come here and lie about who I am, and then expect me to keep your secrets. got it?

    No, I’ll respect your secrets. I just wasn’t aware that it WAS a secret. Thanks for (finally) clarifying that.

    Btw, if your blog is just for a few friends, why is it written as though for a general audience? you clearly want the world to read it. but not us.

    No, AW. If I “clearly wanted the world to read it”, I would link to it every chance I could — kind of like you did (and still do from time to time) with your other blog.

    That’s what I find so amusing about your claims that I am a “stalker”. For years, I would go onto popular well-read law-related blogs and every so often, you would be there in the comments section. And nine times out of ten, you would be shamelessly pimping your blog.

    So occasionally I follow your links THAT YOU PROMOTED in order to put yourself in the spotlight, and somehow — now — that makes me a “stalker”.

    By contrast, I choose to be anonymous, and I don’t self-promote my life or my blog here or anywhere. But despite that, you’ve remembered my name from years ago, recorded it with your wife (in case something should happen, whatever that means), and used your mad “Google skillz” to determine who I am, where I work, and my other activities. And that’s not creepy/stalking?

    Kman (5576bf)

  74. For Kman’s convenience, I am reposting so that he can bring his views from outside the insular bubble:

    How about explaining why incorrectly calling someone gay is slanderous, but not offensive? In the name of honesty and all.

    Comment by carlitos — 3/1/2011 @ 9:05 am

    Or he could continue his knee-jerk contrarianism, which is intellectually dishonest.

    carlitos (01d172)

  75. How about explaining why incorrectly calling someone gay is slanderous, but not offensive? In the name of honesty and all.

    I’m afraid you lost the thread there. I’m not offended by being called “gay”. As insults go, I think it’s rather “playground” if you know what I mean.

    I am, however, offended by being mis-characterized and lied about. Does that help satisfy your curiosity?

    Kman (5576bf)

  76. Somebody the other day left a comment that disputes like with Kman here are a distraction and a deterrent to people reading.

    If something of importance comes out of the dialogue between Kman and AW I hope somebody else points it out, because I’m ignoring them both.

    Thank you.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  77. I’m not offended by being called “gay”. As insults go, I think it’s rather “playground” if you know what I mean.

    I am, however, offended by being mis-characterized and lied about. Does that help satisfy your curiosity?

    See, since you are offended about the lie, then the subject of the lie most concern you in some regard.

    Your taking offense suggests your issue with being called gay.

    That you don’t get that is… Well, it sure isn’t surprising.

    I mean, you are really f**king stupid, after all…

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  78. narciso-

    Any odds that he “pulled a Kirk” and hacked the computer? (Joking)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  79. How about explaining why incorrectly calling someone gay is slanderous, but not offensive? In the name of honesty and all.

    I’m afraid you lost the thread there. I’m not offended by being called “gay”. As insults go, I think it’s rather “playground” if you know what I mean.

    I am, however, offended by being mis-characterized and lied about. Does that help satisfy your curiosity?

    Comment by Kman — 3/1/2011 @ 11:21 am

    No. You characterized your being mistakenly called gay as “slanderous.” I asked you why. It’s a pretty simple question.

    carlitos (01d172)

  80. No surprise that Kman is too cowardly to let his blog come under any scrutiny. From what I understand, he’s blogging about current political events, too. He came here saying he wants to keep Aaron honest, and does his best to dominate threads by actively lying about what people said.

    He even whines that we aren’t sufficiently interested in welcoming different POVs. And at the same time, Kman does all he can to keep any critical POV from scrutinizing his own blog.

    What a hypocrite.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. Kman

    > your secrets

    Liar. But its cute to watch you attempt to turn the tables. The problem is you have no credibility, here. You squandered it ages ago.

    > I would link to [my blog] every chance I could.

    Gee, unless what you wrote over there was contradicted by what you wrote over here. When you are a liar, it is awfully hard to keep your stories straight.

    > But despite that, you’ve remembered my name from years ago, recorded it with your wife (in case something should happen, whatever that means),

    Years ago?! Did you forget when you emailed me, from your work, on January 20 OF THIS YEAR? Or how about on January 10th? You probably used your work email because you knew I blocked your gmail address for stalking and you were too lazy just to create a new gmail account.

    I mean try this simple experiment. Email your own google email address using your work email. Okay now go to your google account. Open the email you just sent. Then click on the link that says “show details.”

    And you will see all the information you just handed to me on a silver platter. I don’t normally look or even care. Normally I don’t click on that “show details” link. But you made me care, BY STALKING ME FOR 9 YEARS. And the moment you motivated me to find out about my stalker, I found it was easy as hell to find this information.

    You wish I was as interested in you as you are in me. Your heart flutters at the thought. But all you really did was hand that info to me, and I finally cared enough to notice because you had me sufficiently creeped out.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  82. The problem is you have no credibility, here. You squandered it ages ago.

    Imagine my disappointment. Of course, you were attacking my credibility from day one. I suspected it would succeed with some, but didn’t care. Why not? Because there are others out there who are objective enough to agree or disagree with me, on a post-by-post basis, based on my arguments (or lack thereof), and who are not influenced by the “liar liar pants on fire” ad hominems. They know who they are.

    You wish I was as interested in you as you are in me.

    The funny thing about you saying that is that, with increasing regularity, when I comment on this website, you (and some others) make the comment thread about me. Frankly, I find such attention a little embarrassing. If you weren’t so interested in me, if I was an ineffectual little gnat, etc…. then you would ignore me, as MD in Philly and others seem quite capable of doing.

    As it is, you and some of your colleagues spend a rather inordinate amount of time discussing me, doing amateur psychoanalysis, telling me my “true” motivations, expounding theories of what my goals and intentions are, etc. — all of which *I* find rather boring, so I can imagine it must be death for others who aren’t me and who truly could care less about me.

    So why don’t you stop obsessing about me (my identity, my sexuality, my blog, why I’m here, etc.) and respond to the POINTS I make, as I make them? And if you can’t do that, then ignore me. How does that sound?

    Kman (5576bf)

  83. Kman

    > Of course, you were attacking my credibility from day one.

    Your credibility died of suicide.

    > If you weren’t so interested in me

    Wow, its wild to watch rationalization in real time.

    > respond to the POINTS I make

    You first. For instance, remember this takedown?

    http://patterico.com/2011/02/25/liberals-suddenly-notice-that-regulation-can-strangle-otherwise-legitimate-business/#comment-758530

    And that comment illustrates exactly why we hate you. Because you made an argument that I had already refuted as though you had no idea I had done so. And before that you claimed that the VA legislature was only interested in forcing first trimester abortions into hospital settings, without the minimal effort needed to find out that VA law already addressed second and third trimester abortions.

    Or you write responses to posts that criticize court decisions without having any idea what the court said. You say that the Iowa Sup. Court interpreted the federal constitution, when they in fact interpreted the state constitution.

    The points you made are a f—king waste of time and space. So yes, we make it about you, because you irritate everyone here with your stupid, uninformed, lazy anklebiting, sucking the oxygen away from people who might have a legitimate point to bring up.

    > And if you can’t do that, then ignore me. How does that sound?

    How about you ignore us, instead?

    Just go back to your little blog and lie to your friends in peace.

    You are mentally ill.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  84. So yes, we make it about you, because you irritate everyone here with your stupid, uninformed, lazy anklebiting, sucking the oxygen away from people who might have a legitimate point to bring up.

    “We” make it about me???

    I don’t think you speak for everyone, A.W. I suspect that others here, while they may not like my opinions, don’t get quite as bent out of shape by them as you seem to, and even my worst critics here, I suspect, are open to the possibility that occasionally I might have a point that merits consideration.

    At worst, some may dismiss me, as is their right. That’s fine. But even by their dismissal, they don’t make it about me. You seem to be relatively alone on that one.

    Kman (5576bf)

  85. Kman, okay in this thread:

    http://patterico.com/2011/02/25/liberals-suddenly-notice-that-regulation-can-strangle-otherwise-legitimate-business/

    should we have taken this comment seriously?

    > My concern here is that many of these clinics which will be forced to close provide others services to woman besides abortions — things like breast cancer examinations, or just plain non-abortion-related pregnancy services.

    Even though I already wrote:

    > And you have to love that bit about birth control, cancer screenings and so on. Regular doctors and/or Ob/gyns do all of those services all the time. There is literally no need for them to be done by someone who also carries out abortions on site.

    i mean you can disagree with what i wrote, but you pretend like as if i didn’t even say it. you made an argument that i already refuted. how does that contribute to a fruitful discussion?

    wouldn’t a more appropriate response have been:

    > Sure, regular doctors and Ob/Gyns perform many of the same services, but it will still be a problem because…

    …and then make whatever your point is.

    Or maybe even this:

    > You are wrong, Aaron, to assert that regular doctors and Ob/Gyns perform many of the same services, because…

    …and then make your case.

    How does it contribute to the discussion to force good people like Icy Texan to repeat an argument i already made?

    what benefit is provided to anyone? Did you provide insight? Did you bring an unexpected view? did you contribute information? what did you do to contribute when you wrote that stupid comment?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  86. ror

    i suspect your source was right. this makes no sense and i tell people, when for-profit businesses start making bizarre decisions that cannot be explained by a profit motive, 9 times out of 10, the government is involved somehow.

    But sadly that rumor can’t be used to prove anything. interesting, though. obama has made it the subject of a SOTU address. we knew there was no way Government motors could cancel it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  87. Kman, no I’m not “open” to the possibility that you might have a contribution. I’ve discounted that long ago.

    SPQR (94a0ec)

  88. True, Aaron, but it made far too much sense at the time. And yes as soon as Numbnutz started talking it up at the SOTU and elsewhere I knew it was being used for political purposes. Like many other projects it was never intended to become a real product, it was a propaganda tool to garner goodwill from the greenies. Nobody actually involved with the product actually believed it would ever see the light of day, at least not as envisioned. The original concept was an all electric version with NO engine at all. But that would have severely limited it’s range, but who cared? it was a pie in the sky project anyway. But then the Government took over GM and started talking up the Volt so then they added a small high compression engine to increase range. but they knew it would never make sense from an economic standpoint. I think the original program prior to the volt was called the Spark, and it died and was resurrected as the Volt, then the Volt almost died before Numbnutz gave it a life of it’s own. Every company has these sorts of “feel good” projects which garner attention but are never really intended to become real products.

    Rorschach (c5574d)

  89. you made an argument that i already refuted. how does that contribute to a fruitful discussion?

    Well, you didn’t refute it completely. That “regular doctors and/or Ob/gyns do all of those services all the time” doesn’t address the concern I expressed if certain patients can’t afford those doctors and/or don’t have the easy access to them (as in rural areas).

    Now, here is a clear example of a time where you didn’t consider those arguments in your original post, and apparently haven’t considered it since then, thus belying your assertion that I don’t contribute information and insight.

    But I don’t want to go back over old posts and comments. It doesn’t particularly interest me. And in fact, you should be thankful that I let you get in “the last word”. But don’t read that as concluding that I haven’t contributed at all.

    Kman (5576bf)

  90. BTW, there is a new vehicle called the Spark but the only resemblance is the name. it got recycled.

    Rorschach (c5574d)

  91. And if it weren’t for the government Tax Credit, it would cost even more than $41K, and even at that price, GM is losing it’s shirt on them.

    Rorschach (c5574d)

  92. Kman, no I’m not “open” to the possibility that you might have a contribution. I’ve discounted that long ago.

    Then I don’t expect you to be reading what I write nor responding to it. Suits me fine; suits you fine.

    Kman (5576bf)

  93. “See, since you are offended about the lie, then the subject of the lie most concern you in some regard.

    Your taking offense suggests your issue with being called gay.

    That you don’t get that is… Well, it sure isn’t surprising.

    I mean, you are really f**king stupid, after all…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/1/2011 @ 11:27 am”

    Scott – Exactly.

    Slander:Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

    Kman is too stupid to even get the offense right.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  94. Kman

    > doesn’t address the concern I expressed if certain patients can’t afford those doctors and/or don’t have the easy access to them (as in rural areas).

    Except you DIDN’T make that point.

    Again how did your comment contribute to the discussion? Note, i mean what you actually said, not what you are pretending now to have said.

    > But I don’t want to go back over old posts and comments.

    Of course not! Because you know that if we talk about your past behavior we will expose you to be a complete liar and a useless, lazy troll.

    You comment on my case analysis without having the slightest idea what the case said. You comment without the slightest idea what I said. You lie about what I say, and you even lie about what you yourself say (for instance, just now you pretended to make a point that you did not).

    Shape up. Stop lying. Start reading what you are responding to before responding. Or leave.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  95. Daley

    Oral, written… federal constitution, state constitution… details, details… what do you think he is? Some kind of lawyer?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  96. “But I don’t want to go back over old posts and comments.”

    Kman – I would not if I were you either. They prove Aaron’s points and expose you as a complete azzhat.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  97. Except you DIDN’T make that point.

    Well, it struck me as a fairly obvious point to anyone actually thinking about the issue.

    But had I read your comment, that’s what I would have said.

    Shape up. Stop lying. Start reading what you are responding to before responding. Or leave.

    And perhaps you should stop obsessing.

    And if nothing else, calm down! I’m beginning to think your skin may not be thick enough for this Internet thing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  98. Kman

    > But had I read your comment

    which is your problem. you respond without reading.

    > And perhaps you should stop obsessing.

    Says my stalker.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  99. Kman

    and let me repeat the part you dodged:

    > Again how did your comment contribute to the discussion? Note, i mean what you actually said, not what you are pretending now to have said.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  100. which is your problem. you respond without reading.

    I didn’t respond to your comment, if you go back and actually look at the thread.

    Kman (5576bf)

  101. (a) your slanderous and false claim that I once wrote you asserting that I was gay;

    Also, since it was on a blog, it would be “libel”, you great, thundering moron.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  102. and let me repeat the part you dodged:

    Now you’re just boring me, AW.

    I think, for starters, that I contributed by pointing out the hypocrisy of having wide hallways in these family services clinics and NOT have wide hallways in other medical facilities where surgery is also done on an outpatient basis.

    Kman (5576bf)

  103. A

    lso, since it was on a blog, it would be “libel”

    Agreed. It is libel.

    Kman (5576bf)

  104. Kman

    > Now you’re just boring me, AW.

    And you are still dodging. if you made an argument i already refuted, how did it advance the discussion?

    > Agreed. It is libel.

    Agreed, you are clueless on even the most basic legal subjects.

    i mean you once again dodged another question. you say you read the iowa gay marriage case. so, are you lying about having read it? or are you so stupid that you didn’t know which constitution they were applying?

    And either way, how did you contribute to that discussion?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  105. AW, Did not Patterico several weeks ago not only give you permission to, but actually request that you police this blog when occasion warrants? Unless you are collecting information or data for some sort of lawsuit or action as relates to Kman PLEASE do us all a favor and block his posts that do not specifically relate to the subject of the current thread. Creepy does not even begin to describe what is going on here.

    elissa (447ac7)

  106. PLEASE do us all a favor and block his posts that do not specifically relate to the subject of the current thread

    Actually, Elissa, I would be all for that. Of course, if you look back, I’m not the one who took this off-thread (see comment #13)

    Kman (5576bf)

  107. AW, I’m only speaking for myself, but if you allow this idiot to keep posting the blog will eventually lose readers, if it hasn’t already. Please discuss a ban with the host, this kind of conversation is not productive, IMHO. I fail to see any difference with this commenter and others who were warned and eventually kicked out.

    Dmac (b9fd74)

  108. As usual, elissa beat me to it – and I agree completely with those thoughts on the matter.

    And just for the record, go get your bottle of Jergens and go down to your mother’s basement and do what you do best, k – whatever the hell you are.

    Dmac (b9fd74)

  109. Dmac, I’ll do you one better. I won’t respond to anything off-thread. Ever. Including ad hominems or “please respond to some earlier comment from another post”.

    And AW, please stay on topic (see #13, #84, #87). And in doing so, please remember that I am not the topic.

    Kman (5576bf)

  110. “I contributed by pointing out the hypocrisy of having wide hallways in these family services clinics and NOT have wide hallways in other medical facilities where surgery is also done on an outpatient basis.”

    Kman – Except yours was a completely hypothetical point. You supplied no evidence that outpatient surgery centers were not required to have wide corridors or that abortion clinics will be required to have them under regulations which have yet to be promulgated.

    Unsupported imaginings are not really a contribution.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  111. How about this, kmart? Stop being a serially dishonest reflexive mendoucheous contrarian. I bet that would win you some Brownie points.

    JD (d48c3b)

  112. I am more than happy to vote Kman off the island.

    His presence adds no value.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  113. Add me to the list of folks who would love to see Kman p[er]ma-banned.

    And as long as you’re at it…

    [ftfy. You’ve been struck by the typo fairy. –Aaron]

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  114. It continually amazes me when commenters who are so clearly disliked and have nothing of worth to contribute continue to post here – it definitely indicates some kind of maladjusted tendencies, or a mania of some sort. But then again, we are in fact dealing with an actual stalker, so I’m repeating myself.

    Dmac (b9fd74)

  115. daley

    btw, aren’t you supposed to be rahmrocks by now? :-)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  116. It continually amazes me when commenters who are so clearly disliked and have nothing of worth to contribute continue to post here

    Pfft. I can think of at least one regular who’s postings are 99% idiocy, and I see few people calling him out for that…

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  117. Also, please imagine for yourself a string of profanities flowing from my mouth as I rage over “TypoFest 2011″.

    I’d type them out, but my asterisk key would likely break…

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  118. Dmac – they are creepy, no?

    JD (306f5d)

  119. Ban the troll? And ruin my fun.

    Well, fine. Be that way.

    SPQR (94a0ec)

  120. Ban the stupid asshat, I don’t read what he writes anyway. The first dishonest words he types clues me in to who the posting poseur is, and I scroll down to the next commenter. But I am becoming very annoyed with having to do this, and may quit reading the site whatsoever. There are sometimes days reaching into weeks that I will not open PP, because of K-douche’s misrepresentations, lies, and woe is me BS.

    peedoffamerican (bcf094)

  121. Ban the stupid asshat, I don’t read what he writes anyway. The first dishonest words he types clues me in to who the posting poseur is, and I scroll down to the next commenter. But I am becoming very annoyed with having to do this, and may quit reading the site whatsoever. There are sometimes days reaching into weeks that I will not open PP, because of K-douche’s misrepresentations, lies, and woe is me BS.

    peedoffamerican (bcf094)

  122. Damn, it posted me twice, but I only hit the button once.

    peedoffamerican (bcf094)

  123. For Dog Trainer and Tim Rutten fans I just posted a link on the old Rutten thread about a new Rutten fail.

    elissa (447ac7)

  124. So did SPQR, Elissa…

    Only he did it first. :p

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  125. Thanks for the deserved smackdown, Scott J. Refreshing prior to posting is always a good policy that I should try to remember.

    elissa (447ac7)

  126. Not a smackdown. Just teasing. I actually had sent it to Aaron in a message around the same time you both posted the link on the blog… :)

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  127. So not only do you have to concern yourself with the fact that you think like SPQR, but you also have the fact that you think like ME to deal with…

    All I can say is, “I’m so very sorry…”

    :)

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  128. Scott, I’m just glad it was not somebody like, oh, maybe Kman who posted it first!

    elissa (447ac7)

  129. Kman ‘is the weakest link’ so I concur with the others, fwiw.

    narciso (bf58f6)

  130. But when will this crack team of government engineers/businessmen/politicians bring out the 100 mpg vehicles that “Everyone” knows are possible, but the technology is hidden away by the Evil Car Company Executives?

    Bill G. (81d252)

  131. I have always been suspiscious of these reports. They seem to always favor Japanese cars. If the Prius was American made the car critics would be calling it the ugliest vehicle ever made.

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  132. Elissa

    i saw that about rutten. one of our fine readers emailed me about about.

    I used to work at a minor law review (yes, to my shame, i could never blue book well enough for the Yale Law Journal), but when we sourcecited an author, we checked every f—ing quote.

    Wasn’t anyone checking this guy?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  133. “btw, aren’t you supposed to be rahmrocks by now? :-)”

    A.W. – I suppose it would be emanuelrocks for consistency. Just does not flow over the tongue the same way. Thanks for remembering.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  134. I’ve followed the development of the Volt since it began, which, contrary to this piece, was LONG before GM and the Feds got intertwined. Of course, the company went bankrupt and stole a few tens of billions from shareholders and stockholders. The UAW salaries (averaging $140K)
    were not adversely affected, thanks to their paid help, Mr.Obama. The Volt was originally described by GM as a sub $30K vehicle. Unfortunately, GM estimators forgot to ask what the batteries would cost, or how many would be needed (hey, GM’s not an electric car company) – that ignorance was corrected after they hired LG Electronics, resulting in a new estimate of “around $40K,” which ended up, naturally, being over $40K. Originally the Volt would supposedly obtain 50 MPG while using the gasoline range extender engine. That’s now gone by the wayside. The biggest blunder with respect to the Volt is that it was practically obsolete the day it rolled
    onto the market. GM had created a design that assumed that batteries would remain very expensive (over $1000 per kWhr), very heavy and
    very hard to recharge. That’s all changed, as Tesla, with its laptop $200 per kWhr batteries and 45 minute recharges demonstrates – their all-electric Model S (out next year) will runs circles around the Volt, and actually have a driving range option of 300 plus miles (longer than the Volt,batteries gas tank and all).
    It will retail for only 30% more than the Volt. It is worth four times more than the Volt and will be the first competitive electric car in over 100 years (actually ever). It is everything the Volt is not – attractive, very fast, tons of interior space, superb handling, solid as a rock construction, ultra low maintenance (performed by Tesla Rangers, at the owner’s home or workplace
    once a year), and using NON-PROPRITARY batteries that anyone can buy from a variety of manufacturers (the Volt’s batteries will only be available as a dealer part, and we all know how expensive dealer parts are, don’t we?). And who’s styling Tesla’s vehicles? Why it’s the same bloke (von Holzhausen) who did the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky, the only GM cars worth giving a second glance in the past 40 years, whom GM allowed to be hired away from them (they needed the cash to keep their UAW members happy). The Tesla team has far more talent than GM, as should be obvious from looking at their respective
    products. I assume that GM will copy the Model S
    but their UAW membership will ensure that they
    can’t beat Tesla’s price.

    kent beuchert (f867d2)

  135. [For the sake of focusing on the original thread subject]
    Comment by Kman — 3/1/2011 @ 6:50 am
    This is just typical anti-government propaganda, borne of ignorance rather than actual fact.
    — Otherwise known as a proper response to typical government malfeasance.
    The Volt was greenlighted long before there was any government bailout of GM.
    — And the “green president” (a pretty good description of his complexion, btw) was right on board with making it their marquee product.
    Anyway, the Volt represents an entire new technology — an entire new car.
    — So was the Edsel. Anyway, your point is what? give them time to work out the kinks? Good luck to any suckers that plop down their hard-earned clams in the meantime!
    It’s technological innovation — something American prides itself on.
    — Pride goeth before a fall, especially when your “innovation” results in the creation of a new kind of crap.
    Yes, it may be an Apple IIe, but I wouldn’t scoff at the new technology just yet.
    — As someone that has used Apple products since the beginning, I would take the time to school you on some things . . . but YOU are definitely not worth it. Suffice it to say that the “it’s new, give it time to improve” line of ‘support’ is basically a thumbs-down review. Only the rich & trendy (Hollywood liberals?) should bother with purchasing this koolnewthing (rhymes with “know nothing”).

    Icy Texan (b4bda0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.5870 secs.