Volvo says it will no longer make gas cars after 2019

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by chs1971

Electric vehicles, as they exist now, do not have the range of vehicles with an internal combustion engine and cost more to purchase. I don't want one.

Cell phones when first introduced were huge and cumbersome, they also came in a bag and were unreliable. Same with home computers. You should really educate yourself on how technology advances technology. Some people have the inability to think outside the box(you and cabe).

Don't buy one. I don't want one right now either, but it's the wave of the future and some company has to start at some point.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

You should really educate yourself on how technology advances technology. Some people have the inability to think outside the box(you and cabe).

yawn

[eastside_purple]

[cabezadecaballo]

Originally Posted by eastside_purple

If it cuts emissions and improves public health, it may be smart for government to subsidize.

Or it may be a money-grab perpetrated on some naive, brainwashed dopes.

Is your air not clean enough ? How and where is public health compromised by non-electric cars in America ? 90% of the pollution from vehicles comes from 5% of them - you know, the whoopdee cars with their 4th temp tag in a row that you see in the hood and some crappy old commercial trucks.

Electric cars are not without drawbacks "environmentally", either. Some pretty nasty wastes are created in large quantities by the production of a large battery. If we are going to call CO2 pollution, just making the battery for a Tesla S has an equal carbon footprint to 3 or 4 years of operation of a comparably priced Audi or Mercedes or Acura. Where is all this electricity going to come from ? Solar panels are filthy to produce, the tree huggers won't let us dam another river for hydroelectric.....wind farms, or fossil fuels ?

Until we have a super-conductor that works at near-normal temperatures, forcing electric vehicles is insanity. These people are just shifting money around to get a better skim off of it. All fake.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo

Or it may be a money-grab perpetrated on some naive, brainwashed dopes.

Is your air not clean enough ? How and where is public health compromised by non-electric cars in America ? 90% of the pollution from vehicles comes from 5% of them - you know, the whoopdee cars with their 4th temp tag in a row that you see in the hood and some crappy old commercial trucks.

Electric cars are not without drawbacks "environmentally", either. Some pretty nasty wastes are created in large quantities by the production of a large battery. If we are going to call CO2 pollution, just making the battery for a Tesla S has an equal carbon footprint to 3 or 4 years of operation of a comparably priced Audi or Mercedes or Acura. Where is all this electricity going to come from ? Solar panels are filthy to produce, the tree huggers won't let us dam another river for hydroelectric.....wind farms, or fossil fuels ?

Until we have a super-conductor that works at near-normal temperatures, forcing electric vehicles is insanity. These people are just shifting money around to get a better skim off of it. All fake.

You should just call oxygen pollution also. Who is forcing electric vehicles? Volvo can't make you buy one.

[Neopolitan]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

You should probably leave the thinking to others anyway, you seemed to be cerebrally challenged when it comes to looking beyond what's in front of you.

Cabe has been sucking up to Ted for years on here and this is how he gets treated

[Uncle Ted]

Cabe and I can have a decent debate without taking it personal. Lol

[cabezadecaballo]

Originally Posted by Sig Hansen

So dumb that everyone is abandoning diesel. Europe is in the process of basically outlawing them.

^

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

You should just call oxygen pollution also. Who is forcing electric vehicles? Volvo can't make you buy one.

The gubmint essentially is paying for 20% of a Tesla 3. They wouldn't even sell a third as many without that manipulation of the market. For no legit, demonstrable reason.

Every time you see a 3 on the road, that means the US has gone an extra $7,500 in debt for our kids to pay off.

[Neopolitan]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

Cabe and I can have a decent debate without taking it personal. Lol

idk, he's basically your battered wife at this point.

[Uncle Ted]

How many inventions do you enjoy cabe thanks to our govt subsiding a project? Think NASA.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo

^




Don't be Tedtarded. The gubmint essentially is paying for 20% of a Tesla 3. They wouldn't even sell a third as many without that manipulation of the market. For no legit, demonstrable reason.

Every time you see a 3 on the road, that means the US has gone an extra $7,500 in debt for our kids to pay off. Don't be a dumbazz.

Same thing with high efficiency furnaces with your tax credits.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

How many inventions do you enjoy cabe thanks to our govt subsiding a project? Think NASA.

The government did not subsidize NASA. I mean, that's like saying the government subsidizes the US Army.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by chs1971

The government did not subsidize NASA. I mean, that's like saying the government subsidizes the US Army.

I think you need to learn the meaning of subsidize.

To support financially.

But ok the govt didn't pay for just part of the inventions we enjoy today from NASA, they paid for all of it.

[Uncle Ted]

Lol
Elon Musk is begging the govt to do away with subsidies for US auto makers. Why? Because the the big three auto makers need the subsidies more than tesla. If the subsidies are gone it will put tesla at a competitive advantage.

Google it btches.

[eastisbest]

Originally Posted by chs1971

No.

Fair enough. You were ignorant. Tried to give you the benefit of the common sense and knowing some very basic history but if you don't want it.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by eastisbest

Tried to give you the benefit of the common sense and knowing some very basic history but if you don't want it.

From you?

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha

gasp gasp

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

I think you need to learn the meaning of subsidize.

To support financially.

See, there you go. The government did not "support" NASA.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by chs1971

See, there you go. The government did not "support" NASA.

Support as in financial, they sure in the heck did. Lol. It was a federal agency.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

Support as in financial, they sure in the heck did. Lol. It was a federal agency.

Yeah, they paid for all of it. They didn't "subsidize" it.

[eastside_purple]

Originally Posted by chs1971

Yeah, they paid for all of it. They didn't "subsidize" it.

NASA and the government certainly did subsidize the R&D for many products that have come to market based off NASA research. Seems pretty dumb to argue otherwise, although I'm sure you'll continue.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by eastside_purple

Seems pretty dumb to argue otherwise,

Nobody is, you've changed the subject.

[eastside_purple]

Originally Posted by chs1971

Nobody is, you've changed the subject.

So you now believe the government did subsidize the products based on technology developed at NASA that have been brought to market, as Ted originally suggested? Great.

[chs1971]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

If the subsidies are gone it will put tesla at a competitive advantage. Google it btches.

Tesla loses about $30,000 dollars on each car they sell. How much longer can they stay in business?

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by chs1971

Tesla loses about $30,000 dollars on each car they sell. How much longer can they stay in business?

Link?

They posted a profit of $2.5 billion in 2013,14,15 combined.

[Neopolitan]

Originally Posted by chs1971

The government did not subsidize NASA. I mean, that's like saying the government subsidizes the US Army.

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

I think you need to learn the meaning of subsidize.

Originally Posted by chs1971

See, there you go. The government did not "support" NASA.

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

Support as in financial, they sure in the heck did. Lol. It was a federal agency.

Originally Posted by chs1971

Yeah, they paid for all of it. They didn't "subsidize" it.

Pretty impressive face-plant by chs here.

[cabezadecaballo]

Originally Posted by Neopolitan

Pretty impressive face-plant by chs here.

If you were unable to follow he meant, then you are even more stupid than I thought you were.

[eastside_purple]

Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo

If you were unable to follow he meant, then you are even more stupid than I thought you were.

What he meant was meaningless. The point Ted made, which you haven't responded to, is the government absolutely subsidized R&D on products brought to market that were initially researched by NASA.

You also ignored the auto bailout in 2009, in your angst against Telsa, but whatever.

[Neopolitan]

Cabe really doesn't want to address the auto bailout point, that much is clear.

You know he was in favor of it too. As 2009 was the height of his Obama fandom.

[Michael Bluth]

Ted killing it