Corruption in Plain Sight (2)

The first article in this series (scroll down or click here) described as “corruption” a $529 loan from the government to Fisker Automotive, company in which Al Gore is an investor. al+gore

We reported that the loan was to fund development and production of a plug-in hybrid sports car that will cost $89,000, will travel only 50 miles on a charge, and be assembled in Finland.

A comment added to the first article begins with “Some corrections to your misstatements:”  and goes on to assert:

The loan was for a more modest priced [sic] next generation car that would be closer to $39,000. The production of the Karma is in Finland as you say, but it wasn’t stated where the next generation car would be produced.

Accuracy is extremely important to us at Liberty Works so we did some checking.  We found a press release from the Department of Energy, the agency that made the loan,  announcing that it would fund development of two cars:

  • $169 Million to develop the $89,000 Karma, the plug-in hybrid luxury sports car, and
  • $359 Million to develop another plug-in hybrid car.  The press release does not describe the other car, or project a price.

So our commenter is partially correct and we were partially incorrect.

Our purpose in reporting on this loan from the government to Fisker was to call attention to Unconstitutional interference in the market place by government.  It is immoral and unproductive and Unconstitutional for government to use tax revenue to fund development of a selected product, because the product is favored by the political-media establishment and/or because an establishment good-old-boy (Gore) is an investor.

If plug-in cars become cost effective and desired by customers then the private sector can and will produce them without any help from government.  Investors putting their own money at risk are far better at due diligence than bureaucrats tasked with promoting a political agenda.

That taxpayer funds will be sunk into foreign manufacture of this absurdly expensive and useless vehicle that will never sell enough units to recover the initial investment only supports our charge of de facto corruption.

This kind of thing used to be done secretly in back rooms, out of public view.  Those involved feared public exposure because it would lead to prosecution.  But in 2009 the political establishment is so arrogant it writes legislation empowering the bureaucracy to do a deal like this right out in the open, and to even put out a press release bragging about it!

27 Comments so far

  1. […] Go here to read the rest: Corruption in Plain Sight (2) […]

  2. Paul Scott on September 29th, 2009

    The success of plug-in vehicles is guaranteed by their superior performance characteristics and their ability to be driven with very little pollution generated. Also, the electric vehicle requires almost no maintenance, so the cost of operation is low compared to internal combustion.

    The price of gas will be the primary driver of demand for these vehicles. Batteries have come down in price considerably in the past several years, and with worldwide battery production on the verge of explosive growth, the prices are expected to drop by at least 50% in the next 5-10 years.

    The burning of gas and diesel causes pollution that degrades our environment and sickens or kills thousands of Americans, costs that are not borne in the price of gas at the pump. Additionally, the war in Iraq would not have happened if Iraq had no oil. The cost for the war is over $800 billion and climbing, yet, when you buy gas, not one dime goes to pay for the war.

    Once these external costs are internalized in the price of gas and diesel, then there will no longer be any need to subsidize the price of a plug-in vehicle since both technologies will be playing on a level field.

  3. Drew on September 30th, 2009

    I graduated from engineering school in 1980. One of my room mates had a summer job at GM working on electric cars. He thought he was going to save the world. All the issues cited by Paul were invoked at the time.

    Here we are, 29 years later.

    I won’t be trading in my 911 for a Tonka toy just yet.

  4. Paul Scott on September 30th, 2009

    Please see the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?”.

    What’s different is the demand for oil has now equalled or exceeded the production level. This is known as peak oil. With millions of Indian and Chinese internal combustion vehicles entering the market along with the millions of Euro, Asian and American cars, the demand for oil will be increasing significantly once the recession ends. The oil industry is incapable of expanding production to meet demand as evidenced by Saudi King Abdullah refusing George Bush’s multiple entreaties to increase production early last year so that the run up in price wouldn’t hurt the Republican’s presidential chances.

    We all know how that worked out. After sending first Cheney, then Condi Rice, and then making the trip himself, Bush was rebuffed each time and gas topped out at over $4/gallon.

    In times of record prices for oil, record demand and personal pleading by Bush for increased production, the Saudis would not increase production. This is the strongest evidence yet that the Saudis have reached peak in their country. As Matthew Simmons said in his important book, Twilight in the Desert”, “If the Saudis have peaked, then the world has peaked.”

    We need to use domestic energy to power our cars and trucks. Electric vehicles allow us to do this. Anyone who values our national security should be on the side of those who are trying to make this work. Fighting a technology that enables one to drive a car that emits zero pollution while using 100% domestic energy is not patriotic!

  5. Paul Scott on September 30th, 2009

    One more thing, Drew, your Porche wouldn’t stand a chance against a Tesla Roadster. The base model Roadster accelerates 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, much faster than any Porche or Ferarri, Lamborghini or other exotic sports cars on the planet. And they run on sunlight, need no tune ups (it costs $8K to tune up a Ferarri!) no oil changes, nothing.

    Electric cars can be made to be very quick. Mine is a lowly Toyota RAV4 EV and I’ve been running it on kilowatt hours generated from the sunlight falling on my roof. I’ve got over 74,000 miles on it and have had virtually no maintenance in 7 years!

    Because I have solar to generate my electricity, my electric bill averages about $100 PER YEAR! That’s for both the house and car. None of my money goes to the oil companies, and by extension, the Saudis. When you buy gas for your 911, over 60% of your money goes out of the country, with some of that money going to the terrorists who buy bombs and bullets to kill our soldiers. You should consider that before maligning electric vehicles.

  6. Drew on September 30th, 2009

    Nice try, Paul, but no sale. Point by point.

    The American public has spoken, and spoken in an unmistakeable way for years. The vast majority like their cars the way they are. For safety, convenience and fun. Yes, some will move to alternatives in times of high oil prices. Some with stars in their eyes. But they are a decided minority, and not the basis for a major American electric car buy.

    Your argument hinges on permanent high gas prices. We’ve been hearing about peak oil for years now….just like population armegeddon. Never happens. Things adjust:

    The only reason we don’t have more plentiful oil is that we won’t drill. Angry voters will change that at $4 a gallon. Further, deep wells, oil shale and tar sands are all economical at more than $80 a barrel. We’ll have affordable gas, Paul.

    Electric cars still require energy, its just masked to the consumer because its generated at the coal fired power plant. And with the enviro-whackos, that’s doomed to become more expensive.

    Further, energy is fungible. Just because we make some here doesn’t mean we don’t have to rely on imported energy resources. To become fully independant means a massive, Manhattan Project style full court press on nuclear energy. I’m not hearing any support for that. So without full, unmitigated support of that option, you can stick your simple minded Patriotic argument straight up your ass.

    Switching to the Tesla. My 911 is a 4S, and is almost as fast, although I’m not sure drag racing is the correct comparison. The reason the Tesla is faster is that its a lightweight death box. It has limited range, requiring hours of recharge. Oh, and it has a butt-ugly, spartan interior. Other than that, its great. And by the way, its 10’s of thousands more. I’m not holding my breath for Tesla dealerships sprouting all around….

    Off for a drive, now. I can because I drive on gas. Pity me and my solar car in a Chicago winter…………………

  7. Paul Scott on September 30th, 2009

    Drew says: “The American public has spoken, and spoken in an unmistakeable way for years.”

    Not true. When EVs were available in California 7-12 years ago, 100% of the cars made available were snapped up, even at high prices and with virtually no marketing. Lines several thousand strong formed for more, but the car companies took the existing cars back and destroyed them instead of selling them to willing buyers – not a very capitalistic thing to do.

    Once the new crop of plug-in cars are available starting next fall, you’ll see how much pent up demand there is for a car that uses domestic energy, does not pollute and is quiet and quick.

    You’re banking on low gas prices forever. That’s a bet I won’t take, and by the looks of the markets, the monied class won’t either. They all know that oil is finite, and ever more expensive to obtain, so billions of both public and private money is going into building battery manufacturing capacity. The numbers will be small at first, maybe 20-30 thousand units at the end of 2010, 50-100K units in 2011 and we won’t see one million cars sold till about 2015. But the growth will be steady and fast after that.

    You’ll still be able to buy a gas burner, but the good people and the smart people will be buying cars that have a plug on them.

    Charging and electric car on the national grid (about 50% coal) is 2-3 times cleaner than a Prius – and the money stay domestic. If you don’t like the pollution from coal, then you shouldn’t be running your house on that dirty energy. Buying a solar PV system is very cost effective in California and some other progressive states.

    Most people waste more kWh than they would use in an EV, so just getting efficient will negate any need for additional nuke plants. Tiered rates and Time of Use pricing will move people to be more efficient and to shift their heavy electrical use to night time when there is plenty of electricity going begging for a market. This is when most folks will charge their cars.

    Your snide remarks are not an argument. They merely show ignorance of the facts. EVs are coming whether you like them or not. And your tax money is going to support them, something that makes me smile. :~)

  8. Drew on October 1st, 2009

    Paul says:

    “Not true. When EVs were available in California 7-12 years ago, 100% of the cars made available were snapped up, even at high prices and with virtually no marketing. Lines several thousand strong formed for more, but the car companies took the existing cars back and destroyed them instead of selling them to willing buyers – not a very capitalistic thing to do.

    You are obviously right, Paul, the car companies clearly are idiots who fail to see the vast volume and profits available to them through the sale of electic cars. Rather, they watch as some of their brethren go out of business for lack of sales. Who knew? Build a few more EV’s and GM would have waves and waves of marauding customers scaling the walls to buy.

    “Once the new crop of plug-in cars are available starting next fall, you’ll see how much pent up demand there is for a car that uses domestic energy, does not pollute and is quiet and quick.”

    Be honest, Paul. It does pollute. The socket in the wall doesn’t magically produce electricity. Look, there is always a market for niche products for a variety of reasons. That’s fine. Those buyers are free to choose as they wish. But the EV has been around in concept and in fact for decades. We have not reached the magic moment for EV’s.

    “You’re banking on low gas prices forever. That’s a bet I won’t take, and by the looks of the markets, the monied class won’t either. They all know that oil is finite, and ever more expensive to obtain, so billions of both public and private money is going into building battery manufacturing capacity. The numbers will be small at first, maybe 20-30 thousand units at the end of 2010, 50-100K units in 2011 and we won’t see one million cars sold till about 2015. But the growth will be steady and fast after that.”

    I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate. You said “forever,” not me. You will be lucky to hit a million by 2025. Do you sell those bogus projections to your investors?

    “You’ll still be able to buy a gas burner, but the good people and the smart people will be buying cars that have a plug on them.”

    Ah, yes, buy my product, adopt my philosophy, or you are bad and dumb. Maybe that could be the basis of your marketing campaign.

    “Buying a solar PV system is very cost effective in California and some other progressive states.”

    Earth to Paul, there are parts of America that have winter. Snow, cloudy…..stuff like that.

    “Your snide remarks are not an argument. They merely show ignorance of the facts.”

    By the way, you need to understand something, Paul. I fully understand that the net energy consumption of an EV is superior. I would absolutely love to see a large scale commercially viable EV vehicle. I really would. I hold no brief for the oil industry.

    But your pie in the sky assumptions and arguments are neither facts nor argument. They are wishful thinking. The empirical fact is that the EV has not taken hold for decades and will remain a niche product for the forseeable future.

    “And your tax money is going to support them, something that makes me smile. :~)”

    True colors always come out. Don’t have a product that can make it on its own? Resort to government control and subsidy. And become a common parasite on the collective population. And this reliance, of course, makes my case.

  9. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    Drew says: “Don’t have a product that can make it on its own? Resort to government control and subsidy. And become a common parasite on the collective population. And this reliance, of course, makes my case.”

    You speak of subsidies as though they are a bad thing, yet you drive a grossly inefficient vehicle that pollutes the air we all breathe. According to numerous studies, the pollution from internal combustion contributes to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. Hundreds of thousands more are seriously affected with lung and heart disease from this same pollution. Their lives, and the lives of their families are impacted by this pollution.

    Here in southern California, a USC Cancer study mapped out the cancer rates throughout the region and found that all along the freeways and downwind from the oil refineries, the cancer rates spiked.

    These are real costs that, when you buy gas for your Porsche, you don’t pay a dime for.

    The military costs for oil are significant. Our military is used to protect pipelines all over the world. The war in Iraq would not have been started by Bush if Iraq had no oil. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and many thousands more are seriously wounded and will be in need of expensive care for the rest of their lives.

    The financial costs for the war are around $800 billion and climbing. Taking care of our wounded soldiers for the rest of their lives is estimated to drive these costs to over two trillion dollars over the coming decades.

    When you buy gas for your Porsche, you don’t pay a dime of those costs.

    You seem to be comfortable letting the blood of our soldiers, the health of our citizens and the degradation of our environment subsidize the price of your gas, yet you whine about the government subsidizing the cost of batteries.

    This is where the oil apologists piss me off. You have no integrity. It’s like if your neighbor decided he didn’t want to pay for garbage service, so he threw his garbage in your yard for free. You do this with your Porsche’s effluent every time you drive.

    Add in some tax money to mitigate the health and environmental costs of burning gas, add in some more to pay for the military costs associated with the war and then you’ll be paying your fair share of the costs you cause by burning gas.

    Until and unless you are willing to do this, your argument has zero merit. It’s you who is the “common parasite”.

  10. Drew on October 1st, 2009

    Paul fails miserably:

    “You speak of subsidies as though they are a bad thing, yet you drive a grossly inefficient vehicle that pollutes the air we all breathe.”

    Subsidies for products that cannot match the challenges of market acceptance and human health and safety concerns are two different issues.

    If you really cared for the health and well being of humans above all else you would argue for banning all cars, EV or gasoline. After all, EV is only gasoline light. Further, you would argue for driving tanks at 5 mph to eliminate all vehicle related deaths. You would ban vacation trips on airlines; you would ban the Friday night trip to the ice cream store, you would ban all professional sports and the driving to stadiums they require; you would ban all visitation to national parks, because vistors to those parks are causing cancers through their driving. After all, you just told us that all drivers are murderous polluters. And on it goes. But reasonable people understand there are trade-offs. We “economize,” separating the reasonable and doable from the perfect. And my observation is simply that the market, that is the people, have spoken. You on the other hand, desire to dicatate the solution. I have to say your selective invocation of data and potential hazards in support of EV’s is a cheap high school debating tactic that might work in your sewing circle, but is completely unpersuasive to any serious person.

    “The military costs for oil are significant. Our military is used to protect pipelines all over the world. The war in Iraq would not have been started by Bush if Iraq had no oil. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and many thousands more are seriously wounded and will be in need of expensive care for the rest of their lives.”

    So drill here. End of story. Oh, that’s right, YOU oppose that.

    “You seem to be comfortable letting the blood of our soldiers, the health of our citizens and the degradation of our environment subsidize the price of your gas, yet you whine about the government subsidizing the cost of batteries.”

    I’ve seen more pathetic and disingenuous arguments in my time, I just can’t recall them right now.

    “This is where the oil apologists piss me off. You have no integrity. It’s like if your neighbor decided he didn’t want to pay for garbage service, so he threw his garbage in your yard for free. You do this with your Porsche’s effluent every time you drive.”

    I have plenty of integrity. I pay the market rate for gas and don’t bitch and moan about it like a petulant little brat who doesn’t like the way his marbles game went. And I don’t try to force my own views on the rest of the country through government fiat. I actually believe in liberty. If you are unhappy with the price of oil, or the incidence of its costs, then change those laws. Don’t give me your self serving BS about having to buy EV’s just because they are your particular preferred solution.

    “Until and unless you are willing to do this, your argument has zero merit. It’s you who is the “common parasite”.”

    Pure, self serving, poorly thought out and pathetically argued crap. See above.

  11. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    Drew says: “If you are unhappy with the price of oil, or the incidence of its costs, then change those laws.”

    That’s what we’re doing, now that the adults are in charge. Regardless of your protestations, EVs will be available in significant numbers starting next year, and your tax dollars will subsidize them. Thanks for that!

    :~)

    Goodbye

  12. Mannie Cruz on October 1st, 2009

    Paul,
    Several times you’ve referred to your personal opinion of Bush’s motives for invading Iraq to take out Saddam as if your opinion was objective data.

    You’re opinion that Bush had a hidden, unexpressed motive is not data and proves nothing.

    By the way, Most of the oil imported to the US comes from CANADA, not Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.

    You said:
    “Our military is used to protect pipelines all over the world.”

    I challenge you to produce any verification of this. If you were informed you would know our troops aren’t even guarding pipelines in Iraq, let alone “all over the world.”

    You admit your solar rig and your car are too expensive except that other people were forced by the oppressive state to help you pay for them. You even brag about living off the sweat of others.

    Aren’t you just a self-centered freeloader?

  13. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    Not at all. When I drive, I don’t pollute your air, or your kid’s air. When you drive, you do pollute our air. The electricity you use comes from polluting coal and natural gas plants that foul our air. My electricity comes from the sunlight falling on my roof.

    As for proof os Bush’s motives, he clearly lied about the WMD, manipulated the data create fear in the American populace and shut down the opposition by claiming anyone apposed to the war was unpatriotic.

    Documentation for the military costs of protecting oil are abundant. I’ll just give you one to start with:

    http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm

    Almost $49.1 billion in annual defense outlays to maintain the capability to defend the flow of Persian Gulf Oil – the equivalent of adding $1.17 to the price of a gallon of gasoline;
    The loss of 828,400 jobs in the U.S. economy;
    The loss of $159.9 billion in GNP annually;
    The loss of $13.4 billion in federal and state revenues annually;
    Total economic penalties of from $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually.
    If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28, a fill-up would be over $105.

    When Bush invaded Iraq, the first place they secured was the ministry of oil. They even left a weapons depot filled with high explosives go unprotected until after the enemy had absconded with the explosives, much of which were used to kill our soldiers in roadside bombs.

    As for Drew’s comment that we can drill enough oil domestically to satisfy our needs, that’s laughable. None of the oil companies agrees with him. We have much less than 10% of the world’s supply yet use over 25%.

    Your comment about most of our oil coming from Canada means nothing. Oil is a fungible commodity, so no matter where you purchase your oil, it drives the price up for all sellers. It’s no who we buy from, but that we buy so much.

    We should not be drilling our own oil now, while we’re blowing it out the ass end of hummers and the like, we should save our own oil for the near future when the price really starts going up. We’ll need to drill offshore, in ANWR and everywhere else eventually, but to do so now is just plain stupid.

  14. Drew on October 1st, 2009

    Mannie –

    Please do note Paul’s blatant dishonesty, or at least, childlike worldview.

    He says:

    “When I drive, I don’t pollute your air, or your kid’s air. When you drive, you do pollute our air. The electricity you use comes from polluting coal and natural gas plants that foul our air. My electricity comes from the sunlight falling on my roof.”

    Now, first off, Paul is an EV advocate. Those vehicles pollute, just as do gasoline driven cars. But then Paul attempts to innoculate himself, by noting that his personal solar source drives his car.

    So pity the fools who live in about 45 other states who have no hope of such a solar solution. So he positions himself as a superior moral being. (snicker) But he labels you, and as he labeled me, a stupid, blood thirsty soldier killer, and a blood thirsty cancer causer. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think he didn’t like me!!

    And one wonders what Paul has in mind for those in non-sunny climates. Mass suicide, maybe?? The plain facts are that the energy sources he advocates could support the economies of Vermont and Maine….maybe. The rest of you…..I guess its off with your heads!!!!!! Its ludicrous. Pathetically stupid, in fact.

    Also note his inability to keep the facts and the economics of EV’s seperate from his politics – Bush the lying, bloodthirsty killer. You see, Paul is a nut, cloaking his simple minded perfect world EV, solar utopia interests in geopolitical debate. Bad form, Pauly.

    I suppose this is an appropriate point to come clean. I am a private equity investor. Have been for 18 years. I see the Paul Scott’s of the world all the time.

    They come pitching their perpetual motion machines, their “coal is the solution,” “solar is the solution,” “wind is the solution,” “tar sands is the solution……..”EV is the solution.” blah, blah, blah.

    They all have their Paul Scott arguments, they all have their pie in the sky projections. Just look at the history.

    Here is reality: I have on my desk 6 solar projects generated in the last 10 years that went belly up. Bankrupt. Now, they want money, they need money. My money. It didn’t work. The market said “NO!” They are dead. This is my point to Paul – markets are not in your favor. His response: I’m a no good bloodthirsty fuck.

    Fine. These zeros exist.

    You may have noted he said in his last response to me “goodbye.”

    That’s a defeated yellow dog running away with his tail between his legs.

    I only wish I were surprised.

  15. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    I don’t run from fights, I relish them. Wish you guys played with facts, tho. Instead, you revert to name calling, something the Right is good at these days. If only you offered solutions based in reality. I guess that’s too much to ask.

    So, let’s take one thing at a time, and please “try” to refrain from name calling. Let’s just try to come to an agreement.

    Drew said: “Now, first off, Paul is an EV advocate. Those vehicles pollute, just as do gasoline driven cars.”

    Drew, show me how a car that emits no pollution pollutes. You’re equating the pollution from generating the electricity with the pollution from the tailpipe. Please show me any evidence that equates the two.

    You can’t.

    That’s because the amount of pollution that is generated to charge an EV is much less than that of the cleanest gas car. Oh, and the pollution is generated far from the population centers for the most part instead of right in our faces where we live.

    The national grid is about 50% coal. An EV charged from the national grid is about three times cleaner than a Prius, and about 8 times cleaner than your Porsche.

    And as I said before, if you don’t like the pollution from coal plants, buy a solar system for your house, or sign up for a renewable energy program from your utility.

    BTW, solar works in all 50 states last time I looked. It may not be as good in Maine as it is here in sunny southern California, but it still works. A 2 kW PV system will generate enough energy to drive an EV about 9,000 miles in Maine and about 12,000 miles in SoCal.

    That PV system will be guaranteed for 25 years, but since the PV installed in the 60’s is still working, your solar system will probably last for 40-50 years, plenty of time to have paid for itself, even without subsidies.

    Please just stick to the facts in your response.

  16. Mannie Cruz on October 1st, 2009

    Paul, you claim that “Almost $49.1 billion in annual defense outlays to maintain the capability to defend the flow of Persian Gulf Oil”

    Sorry, but that’s not how the military is set up. Lots of assets exist and all can be used for multiple purposes. Should there be a threat to the flow of oil, and should the President decide to do something about it, we can have several Carriers and other assets in place in a short time. But those assets aren’t just parked there in the Middle East just for oil. They can be sent anywhere for any purpose.

    But playing along with your perception of how the military is set up, what about our military bases in Europe and Japan and Korea? Should the cost of those military assets be added to the price of imported goods including your solar panels?

    Maybe the cost of food stamps should be added to the price of corn.

    You also cited the loss of jobs, tax revenue, etc. due to oil imports. Then let’s have the government allow oil drilling here, to hire all those people and generate all those taxes.

    Then you said:
    “When Bush invaded Iraq, the first place they secured was the ministry of oil.”

    What an idiotic statement. I have an advantage over you because I was there. We secured scores of roads, bridges and sites in Southern Iraq before the first troops arrived in Baghdad.

    We secured a whole bunch of buildings. Orders were to secure X, Y, Z in whatever order was possible. If there was little or no resistance at a given building it was secured before another where Iraqi troops refused to surrender.

    Its true more than one ammo dump was left unsecured too long. Big screw-up for sure. But screw ups happen in war. You’re trying to turn a screw-up into a Presidential directive.

    You’ve spent too long steeped in your little anti-military talking clubs, with no fresh air from the outside.

  17. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    Glad you got out alive, Manny. Too many of your fellow soldiers didn’t.

    Do you truly believe that Bush would have started that war if Iraq had no oil?

  18. Mannie Cruz on October 1st, 2009

    BTW Paul, even your biased “report” doesn’t say there are troops standing guard over pipelines “all over the world.”

  19. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    Please answer my question, Manny.

    Do you truly believe that Bush would have started that war if Iraq had no oil?

  20. Mannie Cruz on October 1st, 2009

    Paul…

    Would bush have invaded Iraq if there was no oil?

    If Iraq had no oil Saddam would not have been so much power and he would not have had the means to become a threat. Oil was his only source of money to pay for an army and his intelligence service that was screwing around all over Europe and the middle east.

    No, without the oil there would have been no invasion because Iraq would have been a worthless pit and Iraq’s dictator would have been as powerful as the mayor of searchlight nevada.

  21. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    So, one could argue (hey, I’ll be that one!) that at least some of the cost of the war should be paid for with taxes on gas.

  22. Mannie Cruz on October 1st, 2009

    “one” has the right to make any stupid argument one can think up.

    That’s as stupid as any I’ve ever heard.

  23. Drew on October 1st, 2009

    “Drew, show me how a car that emits no pollution pollutes. You’re equating the pollution from generating the electricity with the pollution from the tailpipe. Please show me any evidence that equates the two.”

    This is beyond the pale, and becoming boring. What a sophist and bald faced liar Paul is. Perhaps this works in California liberal circles, where intellect is rare.

    So here is where you are, readers: Paul tells us that an electic car emits no pollution, conveniently forgetting to advise that the battery that drives the electric car got its energy from somewhere, which is,uh, a polluting source. Ooopsy.

    Changing tunes, Paul says: “That’s because the amount of pollution that is generated to charge an EV is much less than that of the cleanest gas car.”

    A point I acknowledged and which he ignored. Let me repeat: I hold no brief for the oil companies or gasoline cars. When electric cars reach the point of commercial viability I wish them well. However, I pointed out from post number one that the notion that electric cars could replace gasoline cars in any material way is still a pipe dream. The safety, cost and convenience issues make this an alternative for far, far away.

    Paul’s reply: you bloodsucking bastard.

    “Oh, and the pollution is generated far from the population centers for the most part instead of right in our faces where we live.”

    Drivel.

    “BTW, solar works in all 50 states last time I looked.”

    Here we go again. That must be why people are signing up in droves……….not.

    “Please just stick to the facts in your response.”

    I am, Pauly. And the facts are that your proposed solutions have absolutely no material commercial traction……none.

    Keep whackin’ yer weenie with yer buds over solar if it makes you feel good. Back in the real world we have serious things to do.

  24. Paul Scott on October 1st, 2009

    I love this! You guys are truly brain dead. The arguments you pose are without documentation, you ignore facts at will. And you act like sophomoric bullies. Nothing but cowards when it comes down to it.

    This has been fun, but I’ve got work to do. I’m really going to leave this time, so please don’t plead for me to come back.

    ;~)

  25. Drew on October 2nd, 2009

    Uh, er, Paul.

    You have made no arguments other than that anyone who disagrees with you is a cancer causing, soldier killing schmuck.

    Meanwhile, EV sales are nowhere. That’s a fact.

    I remember when Bill Clinton went off in a huff claiming he had work to do. And we remember how that went!

    Good riddance to you and your charlatanism, Scotty. No pleading. Buy, Buy !!!!!

  26. Drew on October 2nd, 2009

    Ooops. B-bye!!!!!!!!

  27. Mannie Cruz on October 2nd, 2009

    Drew,

    He’s a typical environmental pinhead. Nothing matters but their enviro agenda. they’ll tell any lie and make up any crazy idea to try to sound like they know more than you.

    He never did say how much his solar roof cost. He probably got it free from some tax funded grant. Thats how liberals operate.

    He even said he was glad our tax money was paying for his car and his solar!

    What a self-indulgent pig

    Nice talking to you, by the way