Are there really that many haters?

[ERG4ALL]

When I think of all the businesses that could be affected by EVs, I suspect that if EVs were adopted widespread and quickly that there would not be time enough for migration of the workforce and we could see worsening of the recession.

Imagine, foundry workers (ICE blocks heads and transmissions), machinists or machine tool makers (much less machining with an EV), Purolator or Fram employees, Circle K or 7-11 employees (if they sell gas), gas station employees, fan belt manufacturers, antifreeze providers, tune up shops, and of course oil companies all can feel threatened if EVs become widespread. I imagine that many on the blog can think of even more businesses that might be affected or the ripple effect from these businesses.

Yes, the EV can create jobs, most notably the battery plant that Nissan is building in Tennessee, but I believe that the jobs created will be far fewer than the jobs affected adversely by EVs. The migration to new jobs and technologies may be very difficult. The most disappointing aspect of EV bashing is that we should be embracing EVs so as to become the world's supplier of many of the items and technologies that the EV uses. Instead we will let countries like China (e.g. Coda and BYD) and yes, Japan, take the lead while we stick our head in the sand and pretend that EVs are a poor choice of transportation.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

USAF? Is that not providing for the common defence? (sic)

Now you show me where it empowers the federal govt to force me to buy health care, or take my money and give it to others.

The dangerous thing about libs these days is they are so busy sticking it to the man they haven't noticed that the man is leaving, and taking his business elsewhere compliments of globalization. The problem just keeps getting worse, and nobody understands that it's the medication that's killing the patient.

even a blind pig occasionally finds a chestnut. You make my point and you dont even know it.
Your original post was that we get ouselves in trouble when we stray from the Constitution.
that is an originalist statement. You are fine to stray from the literal word to add powers you like, but when it is something you don't like, you are against it; then you go all Constitutional on us.
You pick and choose the places you think the Constitution can be stretched to suit your politics.
As anyone who watches the current court knows, these GOP justices -- claiming to be strict constructionists and not an activist court -- have declared unconstitutional more laws than any other court in our history.

Ditto with the class warfare protests, it is fine when you are laying it on, but the GOP screeches like a stuck blind pig, when someone says tax the rich.
In all the discussion these past two years about the growing debt, have you heard anyone say raise estate taxes once for every 100 times some GOPer says cut social security, eliminate Medicare. I dont think so. And a google search would support me.
And estate taxes are at their lowest level ever. you can substitute the top to marginal tax rates for estate taxes and identify a similar trend, though raising income taxes on the wealthy at least gets mentioned. and all this screeching goes on over trying to go back to the tax rates in place when the Clinton administration cut the debt, produced a surplus and saw it given away by Bush Cheney, who famously said those rate cuts were needed to give the surplus back.
well, guess what? That surplus is gone and that rational is dead along with it.
Pay your share, and acknowledge that our society and all its trappings, creates the environment in which you have prospered.

as to the original topic, that was a stroke of genius in comparing the EV haters to the homophobes.

Are you are calling me a blind pig? Just checking...

If your brother in law fell on hard times and came to you hat in hand saying he needs $5k to make ends meet, I'm guessing you'd help him out. But how would you feel if, after helping him out, he buys a new big screen TV and takes a vacation? Maybe taxes do have to go up, but not until the wasteful spending is stopped. For example, why are we spending $20B a year on farm subsidies? Until that number and a bunch of others like it go to zero I oppose *any* tax increase for *anyone*.

Medicare? What gives gov't the right to take my $$$ for future medical costs? Maybe I don't want to buy those services. The reason health care costs are out of control is that there is no consumerism in the process. When something is "free" people will consume it without regard for cost.

If the gov't has a surplus it means they collected too much tax and taxes should be reduced. It should be obvious with progressive tax rates that such a reduction would result in a larger tax cut for those who pay the higher amounts.

 

[Herm]

The dangerous thing about libs these days is they are so busy sticking it to the man they haven't noticed that the man is leaving, and taking his business elsewhere compliments of globalization.

Look at California, other states are benefiting.

 

[AndyH]

We are not going back to the day of the country doctor being paid in chickens.

Unless chickens are the agreed-upon form of exchange between the doc and patient.

Nicely said overall, BTW.

 

[Herm]

I was trying to put myself in the mind set of people that I know that are haters of the EV, then it came to me.. to hate on an EV is very similar to some of the reasoning behind homophobia.

Since no one has mentioned Hitler yet, it reminds me of some of you conspiracy aficionados:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hie7R16Mr_s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Medicare? What gives gov't the right to take my $$$ for future medical costs? Maybe I don't want to buy those services.

Then do what you need to do to have the right to opt-out. Keep in mind, though, that you need to bring a check book and a pen that works whenever you get care - because by opting out you also forfeit any rights to the system.

Texans aren't required to buy car insurance, but they are required to provide proof of the ability to pay should the need arise. Maybe you'd rather provide the Federal and State governments with certified statements of net worth on an annual basis?

Anyone can complain. What's your plan?

 

[thankyouOB]

Medicare? What gives gov't the right to take my $$$ for future medical costs? Maybe I don't want to buy those services.

Then do what you need to do to have the right to opt-out. Keep in mind, though, that you need to bring a check book and a pen that works whenever you get care - because by opting out you also forfeit any rights to the system.

Texans aren't required to buy car insurance, but they are required to provide proof of the ability to pay should the need arise. Maybe you'd rather provide the Federal and State governments with certified statements of net worth on an annual basis?

Anyone can complain. What's your plan?

By the way, there is a plan out there that turns Medicare into a wealth-and-estate-taxing system. I don't have all the details as I read about it a few months ago, but it provides you with all the care you need, and when you die, the bill gets taken off your estate, perhaps up to the last million.

 

[thankyouOB]

We are not going back to the day of the country doctor being paid in chickens.

Unless chickens are the agreed-upon form of exchange between the doc and patient.

Nicely said overall, BTW.

thanks much. nice to have your support.

 

[Herm]

By the way, there is a plan out there that turns Medicare into a wealth-and-estate-taxing system. I don't have all the details as I read about it a few months ago, but it provides you with all the care you need, and when you die, the bill gets taken off your estate, perhaps up to the last million.

I like that plan, it should also be applied to Medicaid, for those that own a house yet qualify for Medicaid. The kids may not appreciate that the house they thought they were getting now belongs to the welfare agency.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Then do what you need to do to have the right to opt-out. Keep in mind, though, that you need to bring a check book and a pen that works whenever you get care - because by opting out you also forfeit any rights to the system.

Texans aren't required to buy car insurance, but they are required to provide proof of the ability to pay should the need arise. Maybe you'd rather provide the Federal and State governments with certified statements of net worth on an annual basis?

Anyone can complain. What's your plan?

Has it occurred to anyone that health care services would be a lot more affordable if they weren't free? Take an MRI... sticker price, $2000... insurance pays $250, medicare pays $180. I knew a guy with an MRI clinic, two people on staff just to deal with medicare and insurance, said he would take a hundred bucks cash all day long if he could get it.

Wait until you have a loved one go into the hospital in what turns out to be an end of life situation. There will be a nonstop parade of providers through that hospital room, each billing their little visit to medicare. And why not, who complains? Maybe that next person who comes will be able to save your loved one, and after all, it's all paid for (with the costs increasing 7% a year). Well guess what, they can't.

I'll say it again, and everyone except Herm will again fail to understand it, government intervention in markets has gone on for so long for so many things it has completely distorted reality.

 

[abasile]

If your brother in law fell on hard times and came to you hat in hand saying he needs $5k to make ends meet, I'm guessing you'd help him out. But how would you feel if, after helping him out, he buys a new big screen TV and takes a vacation?

Thankfully, most of us would have the sense to not "help" (enable) our brother-in-law the next time around. Unfortunately, government handouts tend to just keep flowing.

If the gov't has a surplus it means they collected too much tax and taxes should be reduced. It should be obvious with progressive tax rates that such a reduction would result in a larger tax cut for those who pay the higher amounts.

Yes, that is so true. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts were ill-timed since government spending did nothing but go up.

Personally, I would like to see our income tax system completely replaced with the FairTax, a national consumption tax championed by 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Such a tax system would incentivize work and saving, stimulate investment, and help to level the playing field between US and foreign companies selling goods here. Certain essential goods would be exempted from the tax. Overall, it would sure make accounting a great deal simpler. There would be no need for individuals to file tax returns!

 

[Herm]

I'm all for a fair tax, just dont tax beer, nachos or tobaccy.. just to be fair to the poor people.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

One of the odd things I've noticed over the last year is that anytime a major news outlet runs a story that is related to EVs of any kind, the comments section is just filled with negative comments. You've all heard them, "My hummer is cleaner than your coal-powered Leaf" or "What a useless vehicle, nobody will ever buy these." I don't think I need to list all of it, you get the point. It seems worse on FoxNews, but even on more liberal news sites such as CNN or MSNBC the same is true. In fact, I have taken it upon myself to count the messages and determine a percentage of positive vs. negative. It appears that somewhere around 70% or more of the comments are negative. On FoxNews it can sometimes be close to 100%.

Okay.. I'm familiar with controversial topics. For example, I have a Texas concealed carry permit and I carry a gun everywhere I go (yes, in my Leaf for that matter). I always try to encourage people who qualify (IE: have no criminal record) to get licensed. End even though Texas is a gun-friendly state, I do encounter people in real life on a regular basis that have different beliefs on that. These are real-life people, not just on the internet.

Okay.. Here's the strange part. I live in a very right-leaning state and in person I have only encountered a total of 1 person who was against EV's. And I think he had the IQ of a doorknob and also was a prime candidate for wearing a tinfoil hat. Otherwise, 99.9% of the people I encounter every day in real life are fascinated by my Leaf and ask lots of questions. Sure, many people say that the vehicle wouldn't work for them because they drive a bazillion miles every day. But just because it doesn't work for them doesn't mean they are against the technology. In fact, most of those people are saddened that the vehicle won't work for their commute.

So explain to me why it is that in real life I don't encounter the EV haters despite living in very right-leaning area filled with large pickups and Hummers, yet on the internet it appears the haters outnumber everyone else? I don't want to be a conspiracy nut wearing a tin-foil hat myself, but I have to wonder if somebody who stands to lose from EV adoption is spewing anti-EV propaganda. Have the moderators of the news sites been paid off by somebody to only approve messages that are mostly anti-EV? Or is somebody paying a group of people to go trolling around the internet with 500 different aliases and post anti-EV comments on websites?

Or is somebody paying a group of people to go trolling around the internet with 500 different aliases and post anti-EV comments on websites?

While I am generally not big on conspiracy theories, I wouldn't be all that surprised if your suspicion turns out to be well founded. In response to some articles, the volume of anti-EV comments is quite astounding. Like you, I live in a right-leaning area, and have encountered no shortage of open-mindedness toward the LEAF. Something indeed smells fishy to me.

So, how about some of you conservative leaning pro-EV folks organize to counter some of the FUDsters by commenting on the web sites you've identified. You know their language better, I would think you would be able to form a bridge. It's a matter of national security and a lot is at stake, please do what you can. Even if you can't get through to them, there will be a voice of reason there for readers to see who stumble upon the articles and the comments. Whatever groups are organizing against EV's, they are not counting on conservatives chiming in, in defense of EV's.

I truly believe that the faster Ev's are adopted the better for so many reasons, but it really does have to come from consumer demand and not government force. It's up to you guys to get the word out to the haters because they simply polarize even more staunchly against just about anything a liberal has to say. The haters are playing into fears and slowing the natural market trends that true conservatives cherish, whether it's organized or not, it's doing a lot of damage and only you can do something about it in those circles.

Kind Regards,
George

 

[abasile]

So, how about some of you conservative leaning pro-EV folks organize to counter some of the FUDsters by commenting on the web sites you've identified. You know their language better, I would think you would be able to form a bridge. It's a matter of national security and a lot is at stake, please do what you can. Even if you can't get through to them, there will be a voice of reason there for readers to see who stumble upon the articles and the comments. Whatever groups are organizing against EV's, they are not counting on conservatives chiming in, in defense of EV's.

I truly believe that the faster Ev's are adopted the better for so many reasons, but it really does have to come from consumer demand and not government force. It's up to you guys to get the word out to the haters because they simply polarize even more staunchly against just about anything a liberal has to say. The haters are playing into fears and slowing the natural market trends that true conservatives cherish, whether it's organized or not, it's doing a lot of damage and only you can do something about it in those circles.

I agree with this. I think the "haters" are underestimating the level of support for EVs among conservatives. While I'm not inclined to "organize" anything at this time, perhaps I should spend more time commenting on EV-related mainstream news articles, and less time on this site. :lol:

In general, the level of polarization in this country is truly sad. While I am not saying that anyone should water down their views, we certainly could do better at working together for the good of the nation. Promoting EVs is an opportunity to do that. It is unfortunate to see politics being driven by fear and emotions, and there's certainly plenty of this on both sides of the aisle. Add to this powerful corporations and unions that seek their own interests above those of the nation, and you have the sad state of affairs that exists today. Rational voices are needed!

 

[downeykp]

In general, the level of polarization in this country is truly sad. While I am not saying that anyone should water down their views, we certainly could do better at working together for the good of the nation. Promoting EVs is an opportunity to do that. It is unfortunate to see politics being driven by fear and emotions, and there's certainly plenty of this on both sides of the aisle. Add to this powerful corporations and unions that seek their own interests above those of the nation, and you have the sad state of affairs that exists today. Rational voices are needed!

I could not agree with the above statement more. While I agree that democrats and republics should not have to agree on everything, but they should have to agree on something for the betterment of the country. Just saying no is not good government.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

So, how about some of you conservative leaning pro-EV folks organize to counter some of the FUDsters by commenting on the web sites you've identified. You know their language better, I would think you would be able to form a bridge. It's a matter of national security and a lot is at stake, please do what you can. Even if you can't get through to them, there will be a voice of reason there for readers to see who stumble upon the articles and the comments. Whatever groups are organizing against EV's, they are not counting on conservatives chiming in, in defense of EV's.

I truly believe that the faster Ev's are adopted the better for so many reasons, but it really does have to come from consumer demand and not government force. It's up to you guys to get the word out to the haters because they simply polarize even more staunchly against just about anything a liberal has to say. The haters are playing into fears and slowing the natural market trends that true conservatives cherish, whether it's organized or not, it's doing a lot of damage and only you can do something about it in those circles.

I agree with this. I think the "haters" are underestimating the level of support for EVs among conservatives. While I'm not inclined to "organize" anything at this time, perhaps I should spend more time commenting on EV-related mainstream news articles, and less time on this site. :lol:

In general, the level of polarization in this country is truly sad. While I am not saying that anyone should water down their views, we certainly could do better at working together for the good of the nation. Promoting EVs is an opportunity to do that. It is unfortunate to see politics being driven by fear and emotions, and there's certainly plenty of this on both sides of the aisle. Add to this powerful corporations and unions that seek their own interests above those of the nation, and you have the sad state of affairs that exists today. Rational voices are needed!

I truly do hope you and others like you take the time to reply to some of these articles, I think you could make a difference.
thanks,
george

 

[SteveInSeattle]

The leaf IS a USELESS VEHICLE... one that I have enjoyed and driven 2500 flawless miles. My point is that I don't feel I have to convince anyone else.. it works for me and they can think what they want. The truth will come out as more and more are on the road and we talk to our friends and neighbors and they learn from owners and not from pundits.

 

[AndyH]

By the way, there is a plan out there that turns Medicare into a wealth-and-estate-taxing system. I don't have all the details as I read about it a few months ago, but it provides you with all the care you need, and when you die, the bill gets taken off your estate, perhaps up to the last million.

I like that plan, it should also be applied to Medicaid, for those that own a house yet qualify for Medicaid. The kids may not appreciate that the house they thought they were getting now belongs to the welfare agency.

And the plan for the folks that don't have a house? Or for the ~60% of Americans that can't put their hands on $1000 in an emergency?

 

[planet4ever]

If the gov't has a surplus it means they collected too much tax and taxes should be reduced. It should be obvious with progressive tax rates that such a reduction would result in a larger tax cut for those who pay the higher amounts.

Now there is a neat theory, too neat, I fear, because there is an obvious corollary:

If the gov't has a deficit it means they collected too little tax and taxes should be increased. It should be obvious with progressive tax rates that such a increase would result in a larger tax hike for those who pay the higher amounts.

Ray

 

[Herm]

And the plan for the folks that don't have a house? Or for the ~60% of Americans that can't put their hands on $1000 in an emergency?

The plan wont apply to them since they will die without an estate.