Anyone watching the GOP debate?

[barfo]

Right. Make the assumption that no safe, quality cars would be built if the government wasn't there to wipe your ass and hold your hand! It's simple.

If you wanted to assert that safe, quality cars would be built w/o any regulations, you should have asserted that, instead of "no one forced you to buy a car".

So, why would safe, quality cars be built without regulations, given that back when we didn't have regulations, the automakers didn't build safe cars? Has something changed?

barfo

 

[julius]

If you wanted to assert that safe, quality cars would be built w/o any regulations, you should have asserted that, instead of "no one forced you to buy a car".

So, why would safe, quality cars be built without regulations, given that back when we didn't have regulations, the automakers didn't build safe cars? Has something changed?

barfo

hell, even when a car company back in the day HAD built their cars with safety in mind (Volvos of the 50's and 60's), American cars didn't change their product at all. Saab and Volvo were one of the earliest cars to have seat belts mandatory, but the US didn't make it law until 68.

Damn those regulations! (ooh, I know..seat belts bad!)

When Japanese cars came over to the US and got better gas mileage, outside of a few cars, Americas response was MORE HORSE POWER!!!!!!

just imagine how awesome our cars would've been had the government not put the regulations on them back then! They would've been getting 40 MPG and been as safe as they are now!

 

[blazerboy30]

If you wanted to assert that safe, quality cars would be built w/o any regulations, you should have asserted that, instead of "no one forced you to buy a car".

So, why would safe, quality cars be built without regulations, given that back when we didn't have regulations, the automakers didn't build safe cars? Has something changed?

barfo

It's this thing called "technology". Heard of it? Semi conductors? Integrated circuits? Ring a bell?

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare the safety of cars of today to the 60's and making the assumption that regulations are the reason things have gotten better? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?

 

[blazerboy30]

I tend to dodge stupid questions.

What does it matter if someone 'forced' me to buy a car? Does that somehow bear any weight on the issue?

It doesn't prove that they'd do whats best for the safety of people who buy cars. It's just a weird way of saying you don't HAVE to buy a car as if that's a valid point.

Well, I guess I don't HAVE to breath clean air, or use paint without lead in it, or have my insulation contain asbestos. After all, no one is forcing me to breath clean air, not suffer from brain damage or get lesions on my lungs.

Terrible, pointless post. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[julius]

It's this thing called "technology". Heard of it? Semi conductors? Integrated circuits? Ring a bell?

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare the safety of cars of today to the 60's and making the assumption that regulations are the reason things have gotten better? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?

the technology that was used to help to deal with the safety regulations.....

 

[barfo]

It's this thing called "technology". Heard of it? Semi conductors? Integrated circuits? Ring a bell?

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare the safety of cars of today to the 60's and making the assumption that regulations are the reason things have gotten better? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?

Yeah, seriously. Do you really think seat belts require semiconductors?

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

too bad all of them are worthless fucks who cant even beat a silly old obama, 4 more years i guess

 

[julius]

Terrible, pointless post. I'll just leave it at that.

you are right, your points are terrible.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yeah, seriously. Do you really think seat belts require semiconductors?

barfo

Do you think anti-lock breaks, or traction control do?

And actually, yes, the seatbelts of today do require semiconductors. Nice example.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Yeah, seriously. Do you really think seat belts require semiconductors?

barfo

i heard some countries still use lead paint, must be the overwhelming consumer demand for it

 

[MickZagger]

too bad all of them are worthless fucks who cant even beat a silly old obama, 4 more years i guess

Essentially.

 

[julius]

Do you think anti-lock breaks, or traction control do?

And actually, yes, the seatbelts of today do require semiconductors. Nice example.

you seem to be missing a point here. All these new technologies and what not..WHY THE FUCK DID THEY NEED THEM?

because of regulations.

It wasn't like GM thought "hm...our trucks blow up when you hit them on the side..lets fix them all on our own!"

or Ford went "you know, the Pinto blows up when you are hit in the back. It's a shame all these technologies we have sitting around aren't being used"

You seem to be arguing that it's the advancements in production (that apparently manifested on their own) that have improved cars, and not the car companies having to improve their cars to meet standards and regulations.

 

[blazerboy30]

you seem to be missing a point here. All these new technologies and what not..WHY THE FUCK DID THEY NEED THEM?

because of regulations.

Really? People don't want to buy the safer car of various options?

That seems like a pretty ridiculous argument to start, but be my guest.

Clearly, it is actually you, that is missing the point.

 

[barfo]

Really? The public didn't want them?

Ford knew the Pinto gas tank was subject to rupture, but they didn't want to spend the $100 or whatever it was to make it safer.
You'd have us believe that customers liked it that way? No, customers just didn't know about it.

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

You're totally right. Toyota would never recall 4 million vehicles to fix an accelerator problem as sales were going down since their safety had become suspect. Good point.

its an equation

if (estimated number of failures) x (estimated monetary settlement per failure) < (total cost of a recall) , then they dont do one

thank you chuck palahniuk

 

[blazerboy30]

Ford knew the Pinto gas tank was subject to rupture, but they didn't want to spend the $100 or whatever it was to make it safer.
You'd have us believe that customers liked it that way? No, customers just didn't know about it.

barfo

So the government knew about it before the owners of the vehicles did? Good logic.

 

[barfo]

So the government knew about it before the owners of the vehicles did? Good logic.

The owners found out about it the hard way, by blowing up. I'm not sure when or how the government found out. Only later was it revealed that Ford knew it all along.

The point being that the car company did not just 'do the right thing', as you'd like to believe. They just 'did the wrong thing', because they could make a little more profit that way.

barfo

 

[julius]

Really? People don't want to buy the safer car of various options?

That seems like a pretty ridiculous argument to start, but be my guest.

Clearly, it is actually you, that is missing the point.

people wanted to buy the chevrolet pickup, and chevrolet knew it was dangerous. people wanted to buy the mustang yet it wasn't safe.

If people aren't TOLD about it, how will they know about it? And if car companies didn't have to tell us or make their cars safe, they wouldn't.

I could understand if you thought FROM THIS POINT FORWARD cars could self regulate. I just disagree. They'd be making cars w/more HP, more gaudy and not safer.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

bb is in a fantasy world where giant corporations care about people more than money

 

[julius]

So the government knew about it before the owners of the vehicles did? Good logic.

That doesn't make the point you think it does.

maybe the government found out, and thought "if you're going to use our highways, you need to have certain safety regulations".

If the government didn't have a set of regulations out there (for car safety lets say), the car companies figured out how much it would cost them to shut people up. Obviously the pinto (and mustang for a year or two) having gas tank issues didn't kill the company.

Just as having regulations (or standards) that they have to meet doesn't kill the company either.

 

[bluefrog]

From what I've read Rick Perry got crabby after Paul called him out on the HPV shot executive order and his letter on Hillarycare. He was caught on camera confronting Paul with Paul's bodyguard behind Perry. He waves his finger at Paul while grabbing surprised Paul's wrist. Then Huntsman gets between the 2 as Perry argues with Paul. I guess Perry was hoping the secret topic of Gardasil wouldn't be brought up.

 

[Denny Crane]

From what I read, the interaction between the two was cordial.

 

[bluefrog]

From what I read, the interaction between the two was cordial.

Then you're reading the wrong sources. Seriously though, the postures and facial expressions of the two men don't look very "cordial". Neither is smiling, Perry is all up in Paul's bubble, grasping Paul's arm, Perry's hand is in Paul's face. Supposedly that is Paul's body guard in the foreground.

Granted, it could be taken out of context. The picture could have been snapped at a point which appears like a confrontation.

 

[PapaG]

Then you're reading the wrong sources. Seriously though, the postures and facial expressions of the two men don't look very "cordial". Neither is smiling, Perry is all up in Paul's bubble, grasping Paul's arm, Perry's hand is in Paul's face. Supposedly that is Paul's body guard in the foreground.

Granted, it could be taken out of context. The picture could have been snapped at a point which appears like a confrontation.

Well, I'm reading Ron Paul's words. What have you been reading?

But at a campaign event on Thursday Paul lightheartedly dismissed the exchange as an inconsequential moment that has been blown out of proportion.

........

"He didn't have any cross words," Paul said. "The most challenging words were said on the stage" during the debate. The two Texans traded barbs throughout the night, with Perry questioning Paul's Republican credentials and Paul slamming an executive order, issed by Perry, that mandated 12-year-old girls be vaccinated against HPV.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211...-debate-ron-paul-confrontation-ron-paul-2.htm

 

[bluefrog]

Well, I'm reading Ron Paul's words. What have you been reading?

I read it at radicalsocialistmuslimliberal.net. That's where I get all my news.

It definitely looks like Perry is pissed off.

 

[PapaG]

I read it at radicalsocialistmuslimliberal.net. That's where I get all my news.

It definitely looks like Perry is pissed off.

And Obama looks like a deranged nutball in this photo. It must mean he was being a deranged nutball at that moment.

What a non-story.

 

[bluefrog]

And in this picture it looks like Perry is trying to deep-throat a hot dog. It must mean he is suppressing homosexuality and his only outlet for his sexual frustration is simulating sexual acts on food

Seriously, look how forlorn he looks

 

[PapaG]

And in this picture it looks like Perry is trying to deep-throat a hot dog. It must mean he is suppressing homosexuality and his only outlet for his sexual frustration is simulating sexual acts on food

In this picture, Nancy Pelosi looks like a suicide cult leader. She must have been trying to get people to kill themselves at that moment as a comet was passing by the earth.

 

[bluefrog]

In this picture, Nancy Pelosi looks like a suicide cult leader. She must have been trying to get people to kill themselves at that moment as a comet was passing by the earth.

You win. That picture is hilarious! I can't stop laughing.

 

[PapaG]

You win. That picture is hilarious! I can't stop laughing.

Damn it! I didn't even get to post the Bush/chimp collage!