Motortrend COTY Vs Limbaugh: ZING!

[ColdCamaroSS]

[QUOTE=2010-1SS-IBM;2578431]You'd be wrong. Limbaugh's pay is considered income, and so are his perks. He's paying at as high a rate as we have, and way more than you or anybody you know does.

Edit - You're probably thinking of Warren Buffett, who's income is all capital gains due to him being an investor. He might be paying below middle class income tax levels, but his investments can also be lost.[/]

Good point, on the taxes. I was just stirring the pot.

[The_Blur]

I want to suggest that we keep any discussion on taxes and policy very civil.

On the topic, having the ability to speak to the public does not make you any smarter or more entitled to your opinion than anyone else. In the case of this story, a radio show host demonstrated his detachment from reality by criticizing a well-reviewed product that has been embraced by the mainstream press and those who plan to buy it.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Oh....what's this?

Sanity?

Facts?

Logical...coherent thoughts voiced in opposition to ignorance and general stupidity and in support of an American product?

I'm melting!!!! Oh, what a world....what a world....



I can't express how unbelievably happy this little retort makes me feel.

WAY TO GO MOTORTREND!!!
WAY TO GO CHEVY!!


AND 'RUSH'....GO.....well....I'd like to tell you to do a lot of things, but it would be un-moderator-ly of me.....

Todd Lassa, you're my hero for the day.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Let's keep politics and all this tax talk out of this thread, please.

It's not the place, nor is it relevant.

[a_Username]

Did the Prius get this much hate when it was revealed?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Did the Prius get this much hate when it was revealed?

I think the Volt is experiencing what's known as a "loud minority".

Most people who experience the car by and large LOVE it. The only stepping stone is the price, yet if a buyer is comfortable with leasing, it can be had for the same $$$ as a Leaf...yet offers far far far more car.

Anyways...that would be an interesting question to research an answer to. I'm betting...'no'. Just a hunch...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

What??

The Volt needs electricity to run. And 49% of US electricity is generated in coal burning plants. The more Volts we sell, the more electricity we will need. And the more electricity we need, the more coal we burn. I myself think global warming is a hoax, but even those who believe in it can't say with a straight face that the above formula is progress.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...pa/figes1.html

Whats better, burning Virginia coal or Saudi oil?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Whats better, burning Virginia coal or Saudi oil?

Considering there are so many tariffs and import quotas probably Virgina Coal.

[REEFBLUE93]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Whats better, burning Virginia coal or Saudi oil?

I, for one, think the advancement in automobile technology is great. Judging from the context of 1bad65's post regarding how fossil fuels are utilized in the production of electricity, I think he just meant there are strings attached.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Whats better, burning Virginia coal or Saudi oil?

Not only that...the argument against electricity is not very solid. It's much more efficient to burn a fuel in one central source than a million little engines. Easier to control emissions (research the output of a modern coal-fired generating station...you may be surprised), and cheaper per mile in terms of energy cost.

Also...where do you think gasoline comes from? A gas vein in the ground like gold? No, it's heated and separated out from all the other goodies found in crude oil. Which means nearly as much burning of nasty stuff as electrical generation.

Finally...the future holds promise in the way of electrical generation. Solar, wind, biomass, and even nuclear if our leaders can get a clue...all of these can help contribute to our total energy production. In concert with simple conservation to help balance the load of these new cars and trim our electrical requirements across the country, it's not as impossible as some would believe.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Not only that...the argument against electricity is not very solid. It's much more efficient to burn a fuel in one central source than a million little engines. Easier to control emissions (research the output of a modern coal-fired generating station...you may be surprised), and cheaper per mile in terms of energy cost.

Also...where do you think gasoline comes from? A gas vein in the ground like gold? No, it's heated and separated out from all the other goodies found in crude oil. Which means nearly as much burning of nasty stuff as electrical generation.

Finally...the future holds promise in the way of electrical generation. Solar, wind, biomass, and even nuclear if our leaders can get a clue...all of these can help contribute to our total energy production. In concert with simple conservation to help balance the load of these new cars and trim our electrical requirements across the country, it's not as impossible as some would believe.

This is all assuming that global warming is even real; if anything, the premise for global warming is unfounded and contradictory. Even if it was real, you'll find that government guidance would be less inefficient at preventing/slowing global warming than market arrangements. Here's a good excerpt from the SIRC on the "precautionary principle" being so obviously used in GW: "[t]he precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely because it prevents scientific debate. The burden of evidence and proof is taken away from those who make unjustified and often whimsical claims and placed on the scientific community which, because it proceeds logically and rationally, is often powerless to respond. This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history should have has [sic] taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable."

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

This is all assuming that global warming is even real; if anything, the premise for global warming is unfounded and contradictory. Even if it was real, you'll find that government guidance would be less inefficient at preventing/slowing global warming than market arrangements.

No, my statements assume nothing and were made completely independent from the global warming theory. I completely believe after tons of on-the-side research that conserving and alternative fuels are the way to go as we progress and demand more electricity.

It really boils down to the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. And even if that terminal date is 200 years out, it's still there. Better to shift our sources now, while we can, than to be caught with our pants down later.

That's the main reason why I like algae-based oils and fuels so much. I don't care about the emissions or the fact that it creates a semi-closed loop cycle for CO2. That's a 'bonus'. I love the concept because we can make it, as opposed to digging and searching for it.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

No, my statements assume nothing and were made completely independent from the global warming theory. I completely believe after tons of on-the-side research that conserving and alternative fuels are the way to go as we progress and demand more electricity.

It really boils down to the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. And even if that terminal date is 200 years out, it's still there. Better to shift our sources now, while we can, than to be caught with our pants down later.

That's the main reason why I like algae-based oils and fuels so much. I don't care about the emissions or the fact that it creates a semi-closed loop cycle for CO2. That's a 'bonus'. I love the concept because we can make it, as opposed to digging and searching for it.

My apologies, it seemed you did believe in GWT. However, if it is as productive as you make it out to be, then you should not be surprised when entrepreneurs (such as GM with the Volt) begin to utilize it.

[ViperTomcat]

Wind and Solar power simply are not reliable enough to sufficiently supply a fleet of plug in hybrids. To fully charge a plug in car could potentially draw as much power as a small house.

Ideally what should be done is advance clean coal technology and nuclear power to beef up the power grid so that it doesnt crumble beneath the burden of the plug in hybrid group. California and other large urban centers are already having problems with the power grid, it will only get worse unless something is done to dramatically increase power output. Until then cars like the Leaf and others will only cause problems for the current situation, not solutions.

The US has enough domestic oil reserves (off shore, Alaska, etc) to be nearly 100% self sufficient for the next 75 to 100 years, but politics are standing in the way.