Many on the right see him as the second coming...and apparently people on the left think he is a 'right winger'.

It always amazes me how short people's memories are, in the political arena.

Krauthammer worked Carter, was a speechwriter for Mondale, pro-choice, opposes the death penalty, believes in evolution, supports stem cell research, and favors high energy taxes.

...and he supported the invasion of Iraq.

He can't be put into either category...for the life of me, I don't understand why he has become the darling of the RW.

I understand he's a critic of the Volt...but that doesn't make him a right winger. Remember, this is a guy who favors higher energy taxes - something which would set up an environment that makes the Volt more competitive. He just doesn't think it makes economic sense, for most people, to buy a Volt...not an inaccurate statement, if sales are any indication.

I've watched his ascendency from afar, since I haven't had cable for a decade. I really don't know much about him (but apparently more than most)...and don't care about him left/right or sideways...but he's not a classic 'rightwinger'.

Did he not call environmentalism "the new socialism" and a way for the Federal Government to control "all aspects" of life? http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912070035

1) Are you to the right or left of Krauthammer regarding environmentalism? 2) Why did you only include some of Krauthammer's views in your analysis of his ideology?

1. I'm a conservationist...but I don't hitch my wagon to every technology de jure, with promises to break the shackles of our carbon reliance. I'm a realistic person, with scientific training, an engineering degree, is LEED Accredited, and works on real life environmental projects - from treating sewage, to reclaiming gas at landfills...but I want no part of the 'dump money into this technology' crowd. So, I'm hard to define (oddly, I drive a compact car, while the 'green' screamers I know drive SUV's...and I'm supposed to be the cynic). Krauthammer's comments approached it from a political point of view. I approach environmentalism from an engineering point of view. We don't even speak the same langauage.

2. I was refuting the notion that he is the prototypical right winger...listing his right wing attributes would only be redundant to your original ascertion. Here's a hint on Krauthammer: He sticks his finger in the wind, and forms an opinion after that....for 40 years now!

Be honest - prior to your comment that he was a right winger, did you know he was a part of the Carter Administration? A speechwriter for Mondale? Pro-choice?!? (that kid of gets your RW ID card revoked right there).

He makes a bad 'bad guy'. My perfect 'bad guy' would have a long history of action in one direction, and preferably hold elected office. There are plenty of those around.

In this thread about the safety of the Chevy Volt, you changed the topic to "cost," by telling us that Krauthammer thinks the Volt is expensive, and not telling us that Krauthammer called the Volt "flammable," which is a falsehood.

If you ask me, the Volt is costly. But is it flammable like Krauthammer said? That's an issue you have not tackled because you don't want to confess he is spreading misinformation.

As for Krauthammer's ideology, of course we have to weigh every single position on every issue, because that's the only way to find out whether he's a right-winger, a left-winger or a centrist. His column on the Volt was right-wing, and his general ideology is right-wing. For the first claim we need to read his article mentioning the Volt, and for the second claim we need to review his views (not just the views on cherrypicked issues that you cited. That's why you want me to stop citing his views on everything; because our readers will weigh his left-wing views vs. his right-wing views and you know what the outcome will be.

You also pretend that we are discussing his ideology 30 years ago, when he worked for Carter and Mondale. Unfortunately, we are discussing Krauthammer's views in the present. I would be glad to hop onto your time machine, go back to 1980 and let you be the victor; but sadly, that would be impractical.

Analogy: Arianna Huffington is not a conservative today because she was a conservative over a decade ago; Charles Krauthammer is a right-winger despite the fact that he was not 31 years ago.

The Chevy Volt is not "flammable." Please discuss.

GM stated that they are making modifications, to ensure they aren't....implying they might have been.

It doesn't mean that some didn't catch on fire though....two did.

As a consumer, would you want to know that? Are you glad that attention to this problem made the Volt safer? I am.

I've looked at the Volt...alot. I frequent the Volt owner boards alot, to see how it is going. One thing that stuck out to me, real big, was an admonition against parking it in direct sunlight, without being plugged in. Right there, my Smokey the Bear alarm bells went off. Now that is different than the two which caught fire, days after crash testing, but that note in the manual set of my smoke alarms.

There have also been at least two fires, where the Volt, or its charging system, is suspected.

Personally, I'm not worried about the crash test fires, which Krauthammer references. But, honestly, I would not store one in an attached garage. I would store and charge it in a detached garage, away from my house. That's just me. I've seen one too many hair dryers keep their heating element on, even when in the 'off' position, one too many space heaters go out in a blue ball of glory, one too many oven fires, and way too many transformer explosions. The same goes for any all electric or hybrid, where you would plug it in and charge a battery....to include the Tesla.

Its not even the car I might be worried about...as much as my fear that some other electrical component in the house would fail, due to the constant large load.

I'd still feel perfectly safe driving it. But I know too much about how heat is a factor in electrical design, to be perfectly comfortable with the charging. It might be fine now, with a brand new car. But what about 5 years from now. If an electric fan in my conventional car fails (a very common problem), my engine overheats. If an electric fan in a Volt fails during charging in hot weather...you're gonna get, well, fire.

The Volt is definitely an amazing technology...but so is the space shuttle. The space shuttle can push the limits of speed, thrust, etc....totally amazing. But they needed a team of people to practically rebuild it between missions, precisely because it did push limits. No team is going to be dismantling my Volt battery every year. And, quite frankly, it should be. And, just like I toss my CO detector in the trash every year, replace my dryer cord every 5 years, and replace my washer hoses ever two years, the charging cord should probably be replaced every few years. They won't get replaced though....and we'll get...fire.

I'm going to state some brutal realities: In electric mode, the Volt's carbon footprint is equivalent to that of around 36 mpg (per my calculations, I didn't just read that somewhere). In gas mode, several other cars outperform it, from a mileage standpoint. The additional cost of owning a Volt includes up front costs, higher comprehensive insurance costs, a demonstrated higher cost to repair, a higher personal property tax bill, and (I predict) a low end re-sale value. The Volt is not going to be around in 5 years - you can count on that. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

Now Krauthammer went for the dramatic (remember what I said about his finger in the wind?), but that's how he makes the big bucks. BTW, he still, to this day, favors high energy taxes, stem cell research, and is pro-choice...so I'm still not going to categorize him as a right winger. He's an opportunist, who has alot of people fooled.

There is nothing mechanically necessary to keep the gasoline from igniting. Its just sitting in a tank.

Not so with an electric.

The more appropriate question would be "Would you park a gasoline powered car in your attached garage, and slowly fill the tank, with no supervision, over a 4-6 hour period?"

The answer to that would be 'no'.

And I may not have been clear - I suppose I would park an electric in my garage...but I wouldn't charge it.

You said, "There have also been at least two fires, where the Volt, or its charging system, is suspected."

Which fires are you talking about? I'm pretty sure you are talking about a fire in Connecticut and a fire in North Caroline, in garages where Volts were present.

In the case of the Connecticut fire,

"the fire marshal's report concluded the Volt that was parked in the garage had nothing to do with the cause of the fire. It was sitting next to a Suzuki converted by the home's owner to a battery electric vehicle." Link

"Preliminary conclusions from the investigation into a Mooresville, North Carolina, house fire that destroyed a Chevrolet Volt indicate the fire did not start in the vehicle, but elsewhere, and progressed to engulf the electric car." Link

In your first link, it

1) Implies (while not explicitly stating it) that the homemade conversion vehicle started the Connecticut fire....doesn't exactly refute my fears of plugging in any electric vehicle in my garage.

2) States that the utility company in North Caroline advised car owners to not plug in...and that fire officials had not established a cause of the blaze. Hmmm....I'm gonna stick with 'suspected' on that one.

In you second link, he hedges his bets, by calling his preliminary observations "pure unscientific observation" based on his professional experience, and then there is a quick blurb about getting info from the charging stations....hmmm, methinks maybe the charging stations may yield some valuable information as to the cause of the fire...unless they think the charging stations are going to tell them a toaster started it, 'Suspected' still fits.

But wait, there's more. This link repeats the fact that the utility company had maintained its advice that electric car owners STOP using their charging stations. Hmmm...that is odd, if they are so sure the electric car didn't start it, but what the heck would the utility company know.

Its almost as if you cherry picked favorable information, from a fairly even handed article, and left the other information out. Huh.

Also, you continue to fail to explain how a pro-choice, pro energy tax Krauthammer is a Right Winger....and that's today, not 31 years ago.

Also since you never addressed it, I suspect you had no idea that he had a very liberal past - you are welcome for the education.

And you never answered - are you glad or sad that consumers now know about the crash test fires (ie - were told they were flammable)? And GM made modifications to fix the problem (said problem being that they were flammable)? Would it have been better to sweep that under the rug, and pretend they weren't...errr..flammable?

Did you know that Fisker recalled over 200 cars...uhhh...because of fire fears? They said some hose clamps on a weren't put on right! Consider how many times you or somebody you know had a radiator hose leak...on an electric vehicle, that type of leak will equal fire...but no biggie.

You do understand that GM issued a recall for 8,000 Vots (practically the entire fleet)...you guessed it, to fix a fire hazard. Is GM some BS filled, right wing spewing, Volt hating entity? They must be, if they're worried about fires in the Volt.

Ever hear of a GEM electric truck? Here's one burning to the ground:

When you find out what a spokesman for the utility company in question (Duke Energy) said, you will learn yet another lesson:

"Duke Energy initially advised homeowners enrolled in the program to consider halting the use of their charging stations.

But a spokeswoman said it is clear now that the Siemens-brand charging station was not the cause. She said Duke reassured participants in its program shortly before Thanksgiving.

I just pointed out that YOUR link refuted your own argument.

I'm not going to do your research for you - you want to make a point, don't give me a link that refutes your own argument...you're right, it is embarassing.

You should also be embarrassed about this statement "...Krauthammer's false claim that the Volt was flammable..". Let me slow walk you through this. If ANY other car in this country had a COMPLETE recall...of the ENTIRE fleet, to fix a FIRE problem, I think we would see endless news coverage of it...and Dateline would be rigging a test to repeat it. But, when a two bit hack on Fox News says ONE WORD about it, you get upset. Riddle me this - why did the right wingers at GM recall the fleet? Were the cupholders defective? Here's where I spell it out real slow - safety issues with a car are not a political issue, no matter who points them out (He said with Red Fox voices in his head).

Now riddle me this - Krauthammer is critical of the Volt, which gets a tax credit...originally signed into law by George Bush...but he's a Right Winger?

And Krauthammer is critical of the Volt, produced by GM, after getting a bailout from...drumroll please...George Bush...and he's a Right Winger?

Back to the Volt fire (the only one you were able to question in any way). The energy company and fire marshall are choosing their words very carefully, to avoid a lawsuit:

1. Oh no, the GM Volt did not start the fire (whew, GM won't sue us)
2. Oh no, the Siemens charger did not start it (check them off)
3. ....crickets. Gee, I wonder if the electrical panel would be the next thing to look at? I predict some Siemens installing electrician (who doesn't have a large legal team) is going to be on the business end of a lawsuit. Translation - it could be the electrical panel, overloaded due to the charging....odd they haven't ruled that out, isn't it. Until they announce what caused the fire, everything in the house is STILL SUSPECT (Lamont...)

I'm not going to convince you of anything, obviously. But put this in your memory hole. In 2016, you won't be able to buy a new Volt. They will have been discontinued, for a variety of reasons. GM will have offered a complete buyback option by then. The left and the right will be pointing fingers at each other, about whose stupid idea it was in the first place (and the little factoids that Bush started this will come back to the forefront). The bickering will go on for years, the Volt will be the next Yugo, and Krauthammer will become a skid mark on history.

Since they defend the Volt, which was signed into law by George Bush Sr. LOL. Some logic there. The truth is that those criticizing the Volt are right-wing journalists and bloggers. On what side of the issue are ThinkProgress and Media Matters and DU? Those left-wing websites defend the Volt and electric cars in general. Your view of the world is simplistic. You claim that if someone was 31 years ago speechwriter for a Democrat, that person gets stuck with his decades-old view. Krauthammer doesn't go around telling his reader how awesome the pro-choice view of the world is. Show me how many of his columns focused on abortion issues (where he is to the left) as opposed to columns in which he spits right-wing propaganda and misinformation. In your world, Arianna Huffington is still a conservative, and you have said nothing about Huffington by the way, who changed her ideology. Your time-machine is also stuck in the past regarding the Duke Energy company, and in your world, Progress Energy doesn't exist. From North Carolina's second largest newspaper:

""Once it became clear that it was not the electric vehicle or the charging station, then we continued at full speed," said Scott Sutton, a Progress Energy spokesman.

Projection anyone?

I'm a little more advanced than the cavemanesque "Volt good, right wing not like it". Sorry if you can't understand that.

Its ok to say a product is no good...even if I happen to agree with a fallen liberal/emerging right wing hack like Krauthammer.

Your reflexive dash to the opposite side of the issue, based on his politics, and not your own beliefs, is simplistic.

I'm sorry you had no idea Krauthammer was a little more complex than Rush Limbaugh. I tried to politely point it out, so other people would quit carrying that torch...but I admit it simultaneously pointed out your ignorance. Whoops.

Huffington - I missed the part where she was still anti-abortion, and for low taxes. Find that for me, and your analogy has a chance of making sense. Good grief. Do you hear what you are writing - 'Sure this guy is pro-choice and for higher energy taxes, but since he doesn't mention it much (on Fox news!), he's really a prototypical right winger'. Guess I'm too simplistic to understand that.

Therefore she's not a liberal. it's the same game you're playing with Krauthammer, who does not have right-wing views on 100% of the issues, and still is a hard-core right-winger. What you're doing is raising the bar on the definition of right-winger. You do not care about the fact that Krauthammer's pro-choice views are rarely seen in his column. He almost alway spews right-wing diatribes against Obama, Obamacare, the Stimulus package, etc. If we place both the number of issues and the time he spends propagating them in his Fox job and his WAPO job, we come up with a right-wing nut. Unless you can show me the numerous times that Krauthammer presumably tells his readers that the death penalty is wrong. How often is that the central issue in any of his articles? Again, you won't say. You have not said what Krauthammer's views on Obama's economic stimulus are. The economy is the #1 issue in America, but you won't address Krauthammer's views on it. No, he's not a complex character. Look at his last 3 columns, for example:

Obama vs.SCOTUS
The "flexibility doctrine."Hasn’t reset been failure enough for Obama?"
Obamacare: the reckoning
Obama's oil flimflam
Priority No. 1? Stop Israel (this one is rant against Obama. Shocker!)

How long should we keep searching for his columns in order to find a "death-penalty-sucks" or "pro-choice is good" or "energy-taxes are awesome" pieces?
Did your non-right-wing Fox buddy attack George W. Bush in this manner?

Sorry you couldn't comprehend (...but I'm the simple one, right). Re-read, slowly this time, and re-comprehend. I'm sure you'll get it. (hint: she is 100% liberal)

Krauthammer - you're almost there....he seems to dislike, almost exclusively...Obama. Wowey zowey, you've almost got him figured out.

Now you have failed to answer a few simple questions. I'll list them, with what I believe to be the correct response. And you can simply mark up the answers, without changing the subject:

1. Did you know Krauthammer served in the Carter administration? ______________(obviously no).
2. Did you know he was in the Mondale Administration?______________(of course not).
3. Did you know he was still pro-choice?___________(heck no).
4. Should NHTSA have told the public that two Volts caught on fire?___________(nope).
5. Did you know that two Volts had undisputedly caught fire?___________(I don't recall).
6. Did you know GM recalled 8,000 Volts for fire safety reasons?______________(of course not).
7. Is it a good or bad thing they fixed the fire problem?_____________(...have to wait for Kraut's answer, to be contrarian)
8. Did you know Fiskar recalled their vehicles?_____________(no, I don't know about these things).

Extra Credit (Please read carefully and show all work):

1. With the exception of the fact that the Right Wing hates the Volt, list one logical reason one should purchase one, versus at least a dozen other superior vehicles, with mathmatical evidence to back it up. The options are:

a) Initial Cost_________________(I have no idea)
b) Operating Cost_______________(GM told me it was cheap)
c) Re-sale value________________(whut?)
d) CO2 footprint_______________(somebody told me it wuz good)
e) Mileage________________(gazillion)
f) Safety_______________(do Pintos count?)

Honest answers please, and fill in all the blanks. There is no penalty for guessing.

Can't answer these simple questions, after repeated inquiries, don't talk to me.

Even after being told that we are discussing Krauthammer's views as a whole today, you continue to ask me the question about what his views were when he was a speech writer for Democrats. If Krauthammer attempted to educate his readers on his "liberal" issues, you would have a point. But we are discussing his views in the present, now that he is a contributor for Fox News, which he became much later than 1980, and a right-wing writer for the Washington Post, which he started much later than the late 70's/1980 period in which your time machine got stuck.

A man's ideology is determined by weighing his liberal views vs. his right-wing views. A liberal does not attack Obama from the right (union-bashing, electric-car hating and lying, stimulus-was-too-big arguments, etc.). A liberal would attack Obama on the basis that he is not liberal enough. Krauthammer would never attack Obama on that basis. Paul Krugman explained that the stimulus helped the economy but was too small. A much bigger stimulus would have helped even more. Krauthammer is a wingnut who would never in his life say such a thing. On the contrary, Charles says the stimulus was an unnecessary spending monstrosity; and you expect DU'ers to believe you that he's no right-winger. You do not want to put Krauthammer's liberal views on one side and his right-wing views on the other side, and weigh them against each other, because it would prove my point that Krauthammer is a hard-core right-winger. You only mention his left-wing views, of which he writes little to nothing about. And you are ignoring this key point (the fact that he rarely if ever mentions those liberal issues), despite the fact that time spent on each issue is an important factor in determining what kind of content Krauthammer's readers are fed every week.

Now back to real question that you ignore (unlike your irrelevant quest to know at what time in history I learned about his liberal views, which would not contribute to our ideology discussion): What does Krauthammer think about the stimulus? What does he say about Obamacare? Does he attack those from the left or the right? What does Krauthammer think about labor unions?

I keep piling up issues one at a time, which bury his your pro-choice, energy-tax liberal views of which he does not write about in the WAPO or discuss in Fox.

Our readers are taking note. "pro-choice, pro-energy-tax, anti-death-penalty" vs. anti-stimulus, anti-Obamacare, anti-union, anti-electric-cars, anti-environmentalist, etc. You will continue to type "pro-choice, anti-death-penalty, pro-energy-tax" and I will continue to point out the fact that he doesn't write about those things, in contrast to his obsession with the Obama-bashing right-wing disinformation mentioned above.

And you tell us that it's obvious he likes to trash Obama, as if that doesn't rip apart your argument, since he attacks Obama from the right, not the left.

Your argument is a very strong one.....if your audience were Freerepublic.com

Wanna know your grade on Krauthammer's views on the stimulus, Obamacare, labor unions, and other issues he actually writes about?

2005 column - calls to tax gas, with a floor limit of $3 a gallon

2005 column - "I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion"

2005 column - heckles believers in Intelligent Design, and affirms belief in Evolution

2007 column - 'Tax gas to $4 a gallon'

2007 column - another call for gas tax

2007 column - re-affirms is pro-choice belief

2007 column - "I don't believe that life -- meaning the attributes and protections of personhood -- begins at conception"

2007 column - supports using discarded embryos for stem cell research

2008 column - calls for $4 a gallon again

2011 column - supported Romney decision not to sign pro-life pledge.


This is a very important thing, which you should learn sooner, rather than later. It will help you in life:

Just because you don't know something, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

....remember, it was only two minutes searching on Google.

And before you ask about Obamacare et al, remember - I'm the one who said he put his finger in the wind. I'm not trying to prove he's a progressive...but you are twisting into a pretzel trying to back up your initial farcical and simplistic claim that he's a Right Winger. I am reminded of a saying about digging holes....

Dude, I can extract more right-wing items from three (only three) of Krauthammer's columns than the 10 instances of liberal talking points you cited in his entire career! and that's without even touching his appearances in Fox. The material you sought was so rare, that you had to classify it by year (on X year, Krauthammer said this or that). I, on the other hand, classify his right-wing BS by column.

At least you finally published a weak, short list of krauthammer's liberal views. It took you 2 minutes...it's taking me hours (!) to compile a partial list of Krauthammer's right-wing BS, which DU readers can weigh against his liberal views. By the way, can you please tell me if Krauthammer made the issues you mentioned the focus of his articles? Or did he just make a comment in passing, as in "Bill Clinton sucks, Govt. Regulation sucks, Hillary sucks and by the way, I'm pro-choice"? Next time, be like me and cite either the date of the columns you are referring to, or a link. I have a feeling the scant liberal content you cite will be embedded in a sea of right-wing propaganda. In fact, I think that's why you didn't give dates or links. Now sit back, relax and see how I do it:


Jan 27, 2012
-trashes the economic stimulus
-criticizes Obama's support for Buffet rule (30% minimum tax for the rich)
-Trashes Obama's suppoort for "Little watchdog agencies to round up Wall Street miscreants)
-criticizes Obama's view that the 1 percenters screw the 99 percenters.


January 20, 2012
-criticizes Obama's "oppressive regulation"
-criticizes Occupy Wall Street
-mocks Obama for creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
-Criticizes Newt Gingrich as liberal-like for criticizing Romney's fishy Bain Capital adventures. Compares Newt to Michael Moore (lol)

Dec. 9, 2011:
-Angry at Obama's and Ocuppy Wall Street for criticizing the 1-percenters.
-calls the stimulus a payoff to Democratic interest groups (teachers, unions)
-criticizes Obama's "high-handed regulation
-criticizes "Obamacare"
Dec. 2, 2011
-Says " If Obama wins (2nd term) he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return. -Roots for a Repubican victory.

Oct. 17, 2011
-Says Democrats have "Tea Party Envy"
-Criticizes notion that plutocrats and their Republican protectors have ruined the economy.
-criticizes Obama's proposed tax breaks for oil-drilling
-criticizes Occupy Wall Street for their "eat-the-rich" platform.
-criticized Obama for scheduling an unwinding of the Afghan troop surge Sept. 2012.

September 23, 2011
-criticizes Obama for trying to raise taxes on $250,000 and above earners.
-criticizes Obama's "anti-millionaire populism"


August 19, 2011
-criticizes the economic stimulus
-criticizes the "economic and moral unraveling of Europe's social-democratic experiment"

Oct. 24, 2008
-says he'll vote for John McCain, against Obama
-calls Iran an "apocalyptic, soon too be nuclear state (typical right wingnut)
-trashes Obama's "multilateralism"
May 30, 2000:
-Bashes Al Gore for his "relentless charges that Bush would take the country down dangerous new roads" (lmao! How did that turn out?) Such a liberal thing to say, lacrew, isn't it.
Sept. 11, 2000:
-Praises Conservatives' religious views and says liberals "for almost a half-century have waged a relentless war on religion in public and political life." (Because you know liberals go around saying that, lol
Nov. 12, 1999:
-trashes Chris Dodd praising Ronald Reagan
12/03/1999:
-Tells Bill Clinton to keep his mouth shut because he "has an opinion-lofty, moralistic, blissfully disinterested on everything."
Jan. 1999:
-Says Elian Gonzalez should stay with his right-wing Cuban-exile non-parents instead of going back to his father in Communist Cuba. (the issue was polarized between liberals (go to Cuba) and conservatives (stay in Florida).
March 27, 2000:
-Attacks the United Nations (typical right wingnut), where "we get denounced in six languages and shell out a disproportionate share for translators' fees, as well as for everything else."

Did I ever say he was a left wing progressive?

Are you too simplistic to understand that he doesn't have to be one or the other?

That the road to establishing he is not a right winger does not have to pass through left winger town? That there are a whole spectrum of political ideologies in between?

I pointed out your ignorance, for the good of the group (so they wouldn't repeat it), and I can see an ego is bruised...how does that even happen on an anonymous chat board?

Sorry, geeze.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
...and sorry, I can't resist, but you just leave stuff hanging out there:

"Attacks the United Nations (typical right wingnut),"....ahem, did you know that a certain typical right wing wingnut ex-president from Georgia famously criticized the UN, over its action in Somalia?

"mocks Obama for creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"...that agency would have been created by congress. Sorry.

"criticizes Obama's proposed tax breaks for oil-drilling"....Comprehension is not a strong suit, I see. Sorry about that.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Slow down. Swallow your pride. Take a little care in what you peck out on the keyboard...and understand the universe of what you don't know is much bigger than what you do know...the magic thing about the internet is other people can help you change that imbalance.



http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120411/CARNEWS/120419982

If Krauthammer dedicates a similar amount of time spreading right-wing and left-wing views, then we would call him a moderate. If his left-wing views outweigh his right-wing ones, then he would be a liberal; but you are not even attempting to argue that there's some sort of balance between your puny undated list and the overwhelming number of items I gave you in my last post. You never compare one set to the other, because you know better than that.

Now are you ready for the second round? You now have to tell me which specific articles you found those pro-choice views and pro-energy-tax views, so that I can extract his right-wing views from those same articles. Then you will have spend 2 more minutes in Google to expand your list; and finally, you will have to wait several hours until I go through the long process of finding even more right-wing BS written by Krauthammer. At the end, our readers will decide if your list and my list have similar weight. If they do, then he's the moderate you pretend he is. Good luck!

For around the fourth time now, you have referenced the 'readers'.

Sorry, there are no spectators here. We're just having a purse fight, all alone.

Nobody else cares about this thread.

Don't you understand that?

You don't have to prove yourself to anybody.

I've been arguing with you...trying to give you an education. You've been putting on a display for a non-existent crowd?

BTW, you've constructed an argument which you cannot win...repeatedly...with failed arguments (its been ages since you brought up Arrianna, right?). Yet, you've never answered my original question, about yourprior knowledge of Krauthammer's history. You just keep dancing around, throwing soft jabs that never land. Answer the question. Honestly. Its ok - nobody else is watching. If you do, I might yield a few more minutes of my time to your studies.

If I were you, I'd hope nobody were reading this either, because this is the Democratic Underground, not Freerepublic. Right-wingers there love to move everyone to the left. In their world, Obama is a Communist, Romney is a liberal, lol, etc. Maybe they would welcome your bizarre theory that Krauthammer is a centrist/moderate. I gave you many, many instances in which Krauthammer spread right-wing talking points, and you, the one who cited just 10 of his undated left-wing views, say I am the one "dancing around" the issue. I tell you to expand your list, you don't do it, and I'm the one "dancing around."

Again, don't run. Please analyze Krauthammer's history. I am going to go ahead and add many more items to the list several hours from now (because it takes much more than 2 minutes), even if you don't add any to your puny list. You claim Krauthammer is a moderate, or "centrist". I presume. I wonder why independent website Editor and Publisher once said that 8 "conservative" journalists met with George W. Bush, including (Charles Krauthammer!). link
Silly Editor and Publisher...don't they know he's in the center? lol. But we don't have to believe E&P. Let's put their views on the scale. Left? Right? Center? Don't run away from my challenge.

And you're bringing up Arianna? Do you seriously love pain that much? Do you want to weigh her left-wing views vs. her right-wing ones? This is what independent website ontheissues.org describes Arianna's ideology, by weighing her left-wing vs. her right-wing views:



Link

Ouch! I enjoy debating you.

And did I mention that the right-wing website "rightwingnews.com" places Krauthammer one of the top 25 conservative columnists in the nation? But...but...he's a centrist...or a moderate...or something! http://rightwingnews.com/lists/the-25-best-conservative-columnists-of-2010-version-4-0/

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's a hint on Arianna: We both agree that she currently holds almost exclusive left wing views....not the same with Charles. Get it? Lamont....


Back to the original question about knowledge of Krauthammer's history and views.

Answer the question. Honestly. Its ok - nobody else is watching. If you do, I might yield a few more minutes of my time to your studies

1) Since you admit that Arianna is a liberal (100%), despite her not being a liberal in the past, then you admit that a person's past views and their present views are separate issues; unless you're going to re-write history by stating that Arianna's ideology was the same over a decade ago as it was today.

Washington Post (1998): Besides being a national conservative columnist

Real slow...breath slowly when you read this.

Huffington is an unabashed left wing progressive, who checks all the blocks, and meets all the pre-requisites.

Krauthammer is pro-choice. This gets your right wing card revoked.

Krauthammer believes in evolution. Once again, they tear your card up for that one.

It doesn't matter how often he mentions these things. These are his beliefs. Whether or not he choses to profess them, or how often, does not change this. You could find a thousand links...it changes nothing. Throughout 4 decades of hackdom, the only beliefs which have never changed are his progressive views. In his heart of hearts, he is not a right winger.

And, it doesn't matter that he has some on the right fooled, and has collected some awards. I was trying to keep people on this board from being fooled...to make you a little smarter than the average bear. Your ego got it the way of that, didn't it....although, I suspect you will not make the Krauthammer mistake again...because, in fact, as reluctant as you have been, and even though you will not admit it out loud, you have been educated.

Serious question: Would you rather that I had never told you about Krauthammer's other side, and let you continue to make a fool out of yourself? Really, is ignorance really bliss?

Let me know the first time you use this to turn around the conversation on a right winger, who quotes Krauthammer as gospel. You're welcome.

Ignoring his right-wing views don't make them disappear, lacrew.
Being Pro-choice and evolution cannot trump Krauthammer's right-wing views, since his right-wing views are many many more than his liberal views, and expressed much more frequently, too. Oh, and you pretend the economy doesn't exist. You did not analyze Krauthammer's views on the economy, due to your simplistic approach. Do not forget my lesson: See the whole. Don't cherrypick. There are lots of issues. Don't hide from things that make you uncomfortable. Say them.

How ya doin?

So, I have driven a Volt and would prefer that it had been more Prius-like in character, lighter and more utilitarian, but one thing for sure is that I love the principle of "series hybrid", or having a fully electric car that uses an onboard gas generator to extend range.

Glad you're here!

Bringing the thread back around and on-topic!

Pardon me for not getting stuck on your cherry-picked issues of which Krauthammer writes little-to-nothing about. Here's some material to help you answer this question. "The union-owned Democrats By Charles Krauthammer" Link

Don't be discouraged by the fact that the article was not written in 1980. Read on.

1) You do not say how often Krauthammer writes about how awesome it is to be pro-choice. How much does he try to influence his readers on that respect? Does he mainly write about how much Obama sucks or about pro-choice issues?

2) You pretend that being right-wing means being right-wing in 100% of issues. Care to talk about Krauthammer's views on Obamacare? How often does he talk about his "liberal" position on energy as compared to Obamacare? My prediciton is that you won't say.

1. my fear that some other electrical component in the house would fail, due to the constant large load


Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how much of a load a central ac system places on your house? On and by the wa, it's not putting a load on your house. Your electricity comes through a very large breaker panel somewhere in the house with lots of little switches on each circuit to protect YOU from electrical overload or Gd forbid total failure of your electrical system.


2. the Volt's carbon footprint is equivalent to that of around 36 mpg (per my calculations, I didn't just read that somewhere). In gas mode, several other cars outperform it, from a mileage standpoint

Really


I'd suggest you go here

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-reasons-for-use-and-cost-of-operation/


real engineers have figured out the real carbon footprint of the Volt, oh and by the way, it's CLEARLY listed on the window sticker, Maybe you should hop on down to a Chevy dealer and read it yourself.

3. I know too much about how heat is a factor in electrical design

Guess what, heat is ALWAYS PRESENT in electrical devices. Are you seriously kidding me?

You really need to worry less about how your life would be if YOU owned a Volt (not, we already figured it out) and think about how you're trying to convience others here NOT to buy one. I'm a UAW member and a GM employee, and maybe you don't even own anything American to speak of. We build the Volt HERE. God forbid you should choose to keep the profit home. And God forbid you should nit pick a foreign car.


Oh and btw, The safety agency opened its investigation on November 25 after a Volt it had been testing caught fire several weeks after a severe rollover, side-impact crash test. GM, which helped with the investigation, found that a minor intrusion in the battery pack combined with a small amount of coolant leaking onto the battery’s electronic circuit board could enable a fire, funny you don't know about that. And the probe into the fires has ended, funny you didn't know about that also.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/01/20/government-ends-probe-into-chevy-volt-fires/


“Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.”


'Nuff said, thanks for playing, next time, try to post some facts instead of bloviating about what you think is factual.

Do you have an inside scoop on the battery fire?

yup

I am very happy with how well these are selling. I know they are working to improve battery technology and build the batteries here. This is all kinds of awesome for the environment and for the economy.

Go Detroit!

Julie

Consumers have spoken up loud and clear -
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

And you know it. Is the Volt flammable? No.

Has nothing to do with safety - in this stupid economy of ours - who's gonna pay that $42K price of admission? The reason the Prius and Camry hybrids have been selling well is because they're priced competitively. Even with the Volt's $7500 tax credit you still don't break even.

I know a lot of the initial cost has to do with the high cost of the regenerative battery but if the Volt were priced at or below $30K - you can bet your ass it would outsell the Prius.

The Volt does cost more to purchase, but it's cheaper to operate. You'll save a few hundred a month on gasoline alone. Plus, when you go to sell the car, it will probably have a higher resale value than a Camry, so you'll get more back.

Because of that, I suspect that if you compare total cost of ownership over a 3-5 year span, the Volt would be surprisingly close to a Camry.

It will take 27 years to get your money back -- and that is with the federal subsidy! It would take 45 years without the bailout.

“The Volt, which costs nearly $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, could take up to 27 years to pay off versus a Chevrolet Cruze, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows. The payback time could drop to about eight years if gas cost $5 a gallon and the driver remained exclusively on battery power.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/04/the-exorbitant-cost-of-savings-dont-buy-a-volt-if-you-value-your-money/

one day, when the oil is gone, most of you wil get why the Volt and Leaf are being made NOW.You HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.


It it that hard to understand?

And you will be gone too. They are finding oil now deeper than they ever imagined only a decade or two ago. I'm not saying it will go on forever but forever is a long time.

absolutely drill baby drill......

You compare to similar type,size, type vehicles. A person who wants to buy the Volt is likely to buy a Cruze type vehicle if the Volt was not there.

The Cruze ain't it.

The chart in the article you cite only lists the initial purchase price of the vehicles, it says nothing about resale price. In order to do a full cost comparison, you have to factor in how much you get back when you sell the car.

Yes, a Civic Hybrid costs $5000 more to purchase than a base model Civic, but it also resells for $3000 more 3-5 years later when you sell it. This makes the cost difference over the life of the vehicle only $2000, not $5000. Any financial planner would tell you that $2000 is the number you should be using to calculate cost savings.

I'm always amazed how basic financial planning escapes most people.

The Camry was one of the cars that was getting the stuck throttle, right? I hoped better for the Volt. Not that a 9 out of 10 is bad, but associating the Volt with a car that recently had such bad recent PR specifically because of safety isn't necessarily a plus.

I'm not sure.

If they hear "a Camry" has a specific issue, it can hurt the reputation of the whole line.

Toyota sold fewer Camry's in 2011 than in 2010. Camry has been a top seller for a while now, but lost some ground to competitors last year.

Apparently I touched a nerve here, so I'll just say that there is hope. People have short memories and it's only a matter of time until another significant issue is found in another type of car.

Perhaps you will even downgrade the "some" when you learn that "The March earthquake and tsunami hampered Toyota's supply of critical parts for several months, reducing the number of vehicles it could stock at dealers." Link

with a specific model, you probably knew that, but that weakens the straw man too much.

Okay, how about this, Toyota Camry's US sales...
2007 - 473,000
2008 - 436,000
2009 - 356,000
2010 - 327,000
2011 - 308,000

Now the stuck accelerator stuff started in 2009 (the year their sales dropped by 80K) and Camry sales are off significantly since then. I'm not saying it's the sole cause of the decline, but to dismiss this as a factor and then to blame it on the March 2011 earthquake is just willful ignorance.

2008 was the worst year for car sales in general since 1992. Wanna drop it from your list then, since a drop wasn't unexpected? And why do you include the 2011, are you or news analysts correct about the earthquake's effect on its car sales?

Since 2009 Toyota has been losing market share. Regardless of the overall sales, Toyota is losing market share. this occurred PRIOR to the earthquake but after the accelerator pedal issue. They're not JUST selling fewer cars, they're losing market share, and they were losing market share BEFORE the earthquake, so lay the blame for this because "it was a bad year for car sales in general" or because of an earthquake that exacerbated an ALREADY EXISTING ISSUE doesn't make sense when you have another factor (the bad PR from the stuck accelerator) that came out just as sales began to significantly drop AND they began to lose market share.


Carmaker 2011 2010 2009 2008
GM 19.4% 18.8% 19.7% 22.1%
FORD 16.5% 16.4% 15.3% 14.2%
TOYOTA 12.6% 15.2% 17.0% 16.7%
CHRYSLER 10.5% 9.2% 8.8% 10.8%
HONDA 9.7% 10.6% 11.1% 10.8%

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2011/1202_u_s_markets_share_for_the_top_five_automakers/

YOU seem to be assuming that the public didn't care about the safety issue, that most people understood that it was a decade-plus old model, that it had no affect on sales, and that the reason sales and market share began to decline in 2009-2010 was because of a 2011 earthquake, and I'm the one who needs my assumptions fixing?

Again, instead of news analysts being the source behind the 2011 analysis you mention the DU guy, becuause you know it will not look good if people pit hughee99 vs. news analysts. As of 2009 and later decline. Why did you being the table in 2007 previously?

I brought the other table in to show the market share trend. Both are in decline and have been since about the time that the accelerator pedal problem became public knowledge. Both were in decline PRIOR to the earthquake and while the production problems certainly didn't help, you can't say with any credibility that it's the CAUSE of these trends.

And who the hell are "news analysts" anyway, and what exactly have I said that's in disagreement with them?

I've given you links to the articles explaining why 2011 sales were down, and even your Motortrends, your beloved analysts, said it. So there. Boom.

Those sales that occurred after the safety issue (the one that caused them to suspend sales of 8 models), but before the earthquake. I've argued that the 2011 sales were down for more than 1 reason. I haven't denied that the earthquake was a factor but have suggested that the lingers effects of the 2009 safety issue are still being felt. As evidence of this, I cite the sales and market share drop in 2010.

And you have not even said if you personally think that the people's safety fears that you cite are founded or not; and if they are, what does this say about the Ford Focus which gets only 8 out of 10? Any Ford recalls there?

Yes they're up compared to last year's earthquake-impacted sales, but still down compared to the pre-pedal issue. I personally don't think people's fears are founded, but that doesn't matter at ALL since it's not about what's true, it's about how public perception affects sales. I believe bad publicity, accurate or not, affects sales, and even if there is a problem and you fix it, all is not necessarily forgiven. I've seen no numbers about whether they've reclaimed any market share or not.

And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't actually address ANY of the questions I asked.

That you think the 9 out of 10 for the Volt has nothing to do with the 9 out of 10 for the 2012 Camry, which has nothing to do with the 1996 Camry.

And you know very well that a lot of cars other than the Camry get 9 out of 10 in safety, but you believe people are too dumb to realize that...in your view, people will associate the Camry and the Volt because a DU guy (me) said that both get 9 out of 10.

Because you have finally asked the only relevant question (Does the 9 out of 10 for the Volt have any connection to the Camry's? No, it does not) this sub-thread is over. Thanks for getting to the point. Thanks for being on my side, and thanks for defending the Chevy Volt.

Unlike you, who has STILL not answered the questions I've asked. If found that answering questions and addressing the issues that are brought up usually moves a conversation along quicker, and arguing with someone who won't answer your questions usually results in a big waste of time.

From your link: "Toyota might have bounced back in '11 if not for the earthquake and tsunami."

lmao!

Darn Motortrends to whom you link.

Wait..I think Motortrends call me over the phone, because according to you I am the source of this analysis..and then....then I told them the earthquake lie, and they spread it around....and then you borrowed the link without reading it.

You're hanging your hat on a one line "might have" speculation with no analysis from the article to back it up, or any follow up as to what factors "might have" lead to this comeback?

I've never accused you of being any source, not once. You can lmao all you want, as you swing and miss at "gotcha" attempts, it doesn't make you any less wrong.

You still have yet to address the issue that I've brought up several times. Toyota was losing sales and market share before the earthquake, if the safety issue wasn't a factor in this, as you have claimed, what did cause it?

lol. You have no analysis either.

Since this proves nothing of the sort.

It's a reaction to your bad argument. You pretend that I claimed lmao is proof, which is another bad argument. Lmao. It's all about the maybe and the double standard surrounding it.

the one that claimed "safety concerns" was a factor in the sales and market decline? Those same "safety concerns" that were apparently significant enough to cause Toyota to address consumer concerns by SUSPENDING SALES of 8 models in January 2010 while they investigated the problem. Yes, it's clearly a "bad argument" to suggest they played a factor in Toyota's lost sales over the last two years. I yield to your wisdom.

and Honda last year. Your assumption that the public wanting to disown Toyota for safety concerns is false. Honda even stated they would have a HUGE shortfall of vehicle inventory through the first three quarters of this year. And now the insane yen value is hurting their comparative pricing badly. Toyota is planning on moving Corolla production back to the US to compensate for the rising yen.


Additionally, GREAT new cars from GM and Ford have taken sales back from the transplants.


Your argument is hollow, sorry. Facts are facts. Google what I wrote about for yourself.

It's useless to explain to people how devastating an earthquake (and Tsunami) can be to factories and the economy of a country.

And God forbid hugh mentioned the fact that US Sales are up in 2012 for Toyota for every month (Jan. Feb. and March).
We are comparing, after all, the 2012 Volt vs. the 2012 Camry. His argument is so bizarre. I will summarize it here:

"The Volt getting a 9 out of 10 in safety is bad, because the 1996 Camry had throttle problems, and the 2012 Camry also got a 9 out of 10 , and sales of the Camry dropped from 2009 to 2010, and also in 2011 if you don't mind me pretending there was no earthquake, and if you don't mind me disappearing the 2012 stats so far."

Lol.

I'd love to have a logician analyze the invalidity of that so-called argument.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON


not worth the expended brain cells.

Getting a 9 out of 10 is great, but being associated with the Camry on safety isn't necessarily a good thing (despite the high score), as the Camry had significant public relations issues regarding safety in recent memory that people have not forgotten. Sales from Camry dropped from 2009 to 2010 and also in 2011, but you can't blame the earthquake for the sales drop from 2009 to 2010 since it hadn't occurred yet. You can however blame "safety concerns". Concerns that were significant enough to cause Toyota to suspend the sale of 8 models in January 2010. While the 1996 Camry had throttle problems, it was the NEW models they suspended sales for, leaving consumers with the impression that the new models had the same issue. After Toyota resumed sales, people didn't forget about the issue, especially given there were reports that Toyota knew about the issue months before they suspended sales, so there was a level of trust that was lost among consumers that continues to the current day.


If you're going to have a logician analyze the argument, please have them look at my argument and not the straw-man "summary" you posted.

You used market-share statistics against Toyota, and I see that the Ford's market share improved; yet I won't hold my breath waiting for you to trash the Ford Fusion (Ford's top selling car last year) for having a....8 out of 10 rating in safety! in the website used previously to compare the Volt and the Camry: http://www.thecarconnection.com/review/1067753_2012-ford-fusion_safety_5

So allow me to use your favorite strategy. Let me associate the Ford Fusion to the 1996 Camry, or something. Say what! 8 out of 10? Even lower than the car company that designed the 1996 Camry which despite not being the 2012 Camry had a lot of recalls? The Ford Fusion sucks!

In this thread about the safety of the Volt, you could have simply told us what you think about the....safety of the Volt! But no, you had to use a bizarre story of apples vs. oranges. Now I will wait for your Ford-Fusion-sucks thread so we can continue this discussion.

but hey, why address the argument when you think you can score points by going after something you wrongly think I care about. Look over here! Look over here!

The bottom line, bad PR and perception can cause serious damage in the auto industry. That damage lasts well after the the actual problem is fixed. Getting a 9 out of 10 is good. Being associated with a car/manufacturer that just had recent safety issues is not so good, even though they also got 9 out of 10.

I've asked this several times, and yet to see anything that even closely resembles you addressing the question. Sales and market share declined significantly BEFORE the earthquake but after the safety concern. If not the safety issue, as I have suggested and you have ridiculed, why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose whatever those factor(s) is/are continue to this day or are they all gone? Do you think people have the same level of trust in Toyota as they did BEFORE the pedal issue and that no longer plays any factor in their buying decisions?

In a thread I started. You're lucky I meandered towards your bizarre connection beetween the 1996 Camry and the 2012 Volt. Your only objection was that people have (admittedly unfounded) fears, and you brought up the secondary question of when and to what extent they held those fears, which you cannot point with confidence. And since the question is whether the Volt deserves that 9 out of 10 and you have no objections, (and no objections for the Camry's 9 out of 10 either), then the question is answered: Yes.

You COULD have asked me right off if I thought both cars deserved a 9 out of 10 and I'd have answered "I have no idea, but I don't see any reason why not". You could have told me that people have forgotten all about the Toyota safety issue from 2+ years ago (I wouldn't have believed you, but you could have said it), or that it was off-topic. Instead, you wasted my time (and likely your own) musing about how Toyota's downward sales trend that started (I guess, completely coincidentally) just after the safety issue came up in late 2009 were caused by a 2011 earthquake, and how it's ridiculous to think people would consider the highly publicized accelerator pedal issue that happened only a few years ago when buying a car. Companies have recalls all the time, but almost none of them are publicized to nearly the extent that Toyota's was. The last time I got tires, last year, there was a guy upset that the salesman was showing him Bridgestone tires because they were "Death Wheels" (his words, not mine) and that scandal was a decade ago.

gets a bad reputation in consumers minds, that it would continue even after the underlying issues were fixed. After all, a long time ago, US manufacturers made cars with a lot of problems. To their credit, they fixed those issues, and there has been no lingering (and unwarranted, based on quality and safety studies) perception that the US makes inferior cars, right?

Toyota is dealing with the same issue that other car companies have had to deal with, bad PR, which started more than a year BEFORE the earthquake right after the accelerator pedal issue. This happens to have coincided with a slowdown in both total US sales and market share for Toyota, which began as I have said many times, more than a year BEFORE the earthquake. Is it a "hollow argument" to suggest that this issue (which resulted in Toyota's decision to suspend sales of NEW cars in Jan 2010), played a significant role in that downturn, which was exacerbated by but not caused by the earthquake?

but you are entitled to think what ever your little heart desires about publicity, perception, market share, whatever you'd like.


have a great Friday the 13th. Don't let the ghost get into your machine.

Two workers were injured at lab testing batteries for the Volt.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/04/11/2_injured_in_battery_explosion_at_gm_tech_center_1334180338/

" The battery being tested had no connection with the Chevrolet Volt or any other GM production vehicle"

""And while this incident deserves some scrutiny -- especially since workers were hurt -- the fact is that this is the reason why new car technology undergoes rigorous testing, to try to ensure that episodes like this don't happen on the road," Krebs said."

(from your article)

All batteries give off gases. It stands to reason that a car that operates solely on multiple batteries would give off a lot. I'll keep my gas powered vehicle.

Lithium sealed cells DON'T F'N GIVE OFF ANY GASES. You'd better throw your laptop outside quick before it explodes.


Jesus help us.

The amount of gas given off by a normal car battery is miniscule. An electric car is a far different animal. BTW tell your story about lithium sealed cells giving off no gases to the two workers who were injured in the GM lab. The explosion was from GASES from the battery not the battery itself.

OMG we're all going to esploodeded!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you were part of the survivalists staying in DU2. Or did they finally shut that down?

or my membership, NO right. 10+ years, I think I earned the right to post on 2 or 3.


I find it interesting you are following my postings.

I was just curious. Put me on ignore so you won't be offended by me anymore.

but, according to the rules, you got to say it and it stays. I'm not offended by you, you don't have the capacity to offend me.


Have a nice Progressive Democrat day.

Now I will try. What is your problem,exactly?

If some give and take on a political discussion board gives someone "a hard time" then they should do something else. I would like to answer your question about the "parent poster" directly but to do so would probably violate a rule so I will just let it go at that.

We (UAW) make shit cars, even though we've won countless awards, the new Malibu's, Equinox and Cruise (and their Buick and GMC variants) aren't coming back for warranty repairs at anywhere near the rate of just 10 years ago of the same GM product. The days of junk are long gone, but you wouldn't know it on DU. And this thread is a perfect example.


Never owned Foreign iron in my life, all but one car been GM, mostly Chevy's. Loyalty, severely lacking in America these days.

Its Cruze...not Cruise.

Good Grief.

And it hasn't been sold in this country for anything close to ten years.

Nor has the Equinox

Seriously?

And GMC doesn't make a variant of any of these vehicles.

Are you sure?

Equinox

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Equinox

And the "The Chevrolet Cruze was the best-selling compact car in the US in July, with 24,648 deliveries". http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/08/chevrolet-cruze-tops-us-compact-car.html

Let me get my calculator out....carry the one, get the decimal in the right place, ok, I've got it. The Equinox has only been sold for 8 years.

Let me get my chart out - yep, thats less than 10.

Seriously, do you even know what year it is? Or are your subtraction skills that bad?

Hi again, are you ready to try for more? Your links are nice; but, they do nothing to address my post....which was fairly narrowly directed at somebody else. But since you've interjected...TELL ME WHERE I'm WRONG...

Its Cruze...not Cruise.

And it hasn't been sold in this country for anything close to ten years.

Nor has the Equinox

And GMC doesn't make a variant of any of these vehicles

Find a link which shows where any part of that is wrong, or go away. I know the Cruze (not Cruise, geeze) is selling like crazy - I never said it wasn't, so you certainly don't need to puff up your chest and tell me it is. What I said is - IT HASN'T BEEN SOLD IN THIS COUNTRY FOR TEN YEARS. Find a link for THAT!

And when you find a link about the Equinox that VALIDATES WHAT I SAID, have the comprehension abilities to understand that.

Antoine Dodson is stuck in my head.

The Equinox/Terrain replaced the Blazer, the Cruze/Buick Verano replaces the Cobalt which replaced the Cavalier


His comprehension and understanding of family trees in the auto industry s sorely lacking, and simply pathetic.

...it doesn't make it true.

The Equinox didn't replace anything - GM bills it as their first crossover....a first in class vehicle.

The Cruze (glad you know how to spell it now) is a completely different platform than the Cobalt.

Please point me to the GMC variant of the Malibu and Cruze

Seriously, I don't think you are a UAW member, working for GM at all...I think you're just making crap up on the interwebs....how could somebody who worked for GM think that GMC made compact cars like the Cruze/Cruise? Seriously...can you understand why you have no credibility as a 'GM Employee'? That would be...well, pathetic.

But since I'm wasting my time, lets look at your statement:

the new Malibu's, Equinox and Cruise (and their Buick and GMC variants) aren't coming back for warranty repairs at anywhere near the rate of just 10 years ago of the same GM product

I guess my understanding of automotive family trees is too pathetic to know that when you say 'the same', you really mean Chevy Blazer! Chevy Blazer - where the heck did that come from? BTW, have you ever even heard of what they really replaced the Blazer with? Its called the Chevy Trailblazer. I hear GM makes them.

From Edmunds:

As a unique model, the Chevrolet TrailBlazer debuted for 2002, though the name "TrailBlazer" was actually in use previously as an upscale trim level for the regular four-door Blazer SUV. After the TrailBlazer's debut, Chevy slowly phased out the Blazer and let the TrailBlazer become its main truck-based midsize SUV.