Loosers Make Vanity Fair--As Does Screw Loose Change!
The article isn't available online yet, but the Loosers scanned it in. We're mentioned briefly here:
Unfortunately no mention of Gravy's superb debunking or Markyx's Screw Loose Change film.
posted by Pat @ 1:30 PM
44 comments
44 Comments:
Like, you know, hey man, I mean, I'm just a South Park -watching video game-writing, self described 'nerd' ya know?
Man, I hope like this article doesn't make anybody check the facts, or send stuff. I mean, like that CIA guy Gravy's to the editor of Vanity Fair at:
letters@vf.com
Oooooo, a mention in VF! Congrats, you guys!
I can't beleive they actualy wrote a positive article about the Loosers. I'm deffinitely e-mailing the editor. The words "are you fucking nuts???" will probably appear somewhere in that e-mail.
Congratulations, Gentlemen.
Like hey man, isn't it kewl that this chick, like stalked me, based on my great film, and like, we hooked up and everything.
I mean, like, you know that never happened at Red Lobster, you know.
Not everyone is as brainwased and oblviious to reality as you rabid rightwing puppets.
hahaha what of the commenters who don't like Bush (me included)?
Fucking moron.
You've been brainwashed, pal. you think the Cold War never happened. You haven't given me any reason to believe some conspiracy killed JFK. You want to believe some special information that no one else knows. Oh man, please let me in on the secrets!
You and nesnyc fucking love irony. "Oblivious to reality" hahahaha.
The Truff will set you Free!
Ok David Icke.
Favorite quote from the article:
Loose Change: 2nd Edition (which has additional footage Avery bought on eBay)...
But we didn't buy ALL the footage in the film now did we Dylan?
Hell, I didn't even know you could buy footage on ebay.
It's ok to be gay! Though I'm not sure where you're going with that...I'm not interested, if that's where you were going...
Wow, good one. (Note Bush was capitalized.)
I can't help it if you don't understand PsyOps and propaganda blended with capitalist oligarchy. Though I would have preferred Peaceful War, granted the minions might have seen through that.
I get why you say it never happened, there's just no basis for it but the fact there have been psyops. So were the Ruskies in on it, too? Building all those nukes and all and helping the Koreans out, arming the Arabs, and invading Afghanistan. Yup, just some shithole that didn't have the largest standing army in the world and an arsenal strong enough to destroy America several times over.
Alright, which Lee Harvey Oswald killed him then? There were two.
I bet there were more than two Lee Harvey Oswalds. Hell, I bet there are lot of people with my name. Since you're obviously not well-read on the subject (as is the case with pretty much everything you've commented on in this blog), the Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him was born October 18, 1939 and was killed by Jack Ruby.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know. I can't help it if you're not up to speed. Try reading something sometime that isn't wikipedia
I'm probably smarter than I think I am, but that's besides the point.
Strawman much? Unlike Loose Change, I don't use wikipedia as an authoritative source. I tend to use it as a giant redirect site, and check what their sources say about something (but what should that matter? I read at least a book a week, mostly historical nonfiction.)
baaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaa-aaaaaaa.... sheep lemming trogoldyte.
No, see, this is ad hominem. I show the problems with what you say then insult you for not having the brain cells necessary to understand. You just insult, insult, then insult. And when someone points out something wrong with what you say - oh, insult.
Shwan, when I sign my contract I will have you on as a guest host. You can bring your life partner too if you want, I'm no bigot!
If you're older than twelve, you really need to hang it up.
(And not doing too good, sorry to say.)
It's "not doing too well".
And of course we aren't, we have to go against religious zealots. We can't 'convert' you people because your minds are closed. You've so involved yourselves in the belief that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
He would have, if the GOP hadn't committed so many felonies cooking the results.
hahahahaha no conspiracy too large or small.
Bush won fair and square. You people need to stop being fucking babies about it.
write that down somewhere you can get to it later... then when you have to dig it out and eat it, remind yourself how much smarter you are than you think you are while you're chewing.
Well since you can't disprove a fact (that's why they're facts, you silly goose!), I won't be eating my words.
It's actually really amusing seeing someone who barely rates above nesnyc in the intelligence department questioning anyone else's smarts.
I'm sure he also rigged Florida, even though he would've won every recount, and lost voters when Gore was prematurely declared the winner (the panhandle is a conservative area).
Anybody ever heard of the EV-1?
Who Killed the Electric Car?
1) Big Oil
2) Auto Industry
3) C.A.R.B
There, some conspiracies really do happen.
Pwah! Looks like Bogglehead just watched a documentary and feels that Ed Bagley is a science expert.
Nobody killed the electric car except us consumers. Oh and the present level of technology and infrastructure that isn't able to develop a viable, competative electric vehicle.
What a freaking joke.
Like, hey man, I mean I hope they ask me to play myself when South Park does their Loose Change show. I mean, like, how could they get anyone better than me to be me? I mean like, I'm a very unique person, you know.
Like I hope they don't let Korey do himself, I mean, he wasn't there like at the begining.
But, I mean my man Jason, he wear a hat just like Cartman and Kyle and stuff.
Its not like electric cars are dead either. You could get them 100 years ago, and you can still get them today. But they have not proven a viable vehicle for the average consumer (note to Ed Bagely Jr: Not everyone lives in sunny California).
The idea that GM conspired to 'kill' a single model of electric car after dumping a BILLION dollars in research into it is laughable.
GM states that they had a waiting list of 5000 people who showed interest in the electric car, but when their number came up, only 50 of them actually leased one. That says it all.
Viable is the key word ofcourse. What good is a car that you can only drive for 80km and then have to recharge for 6 hours? I regularily drive for 250km at a time or more. So it would take me something like 24 hours to complete a trip that now takes me less than 2. No thanks!
Hybrids on the other hand are a viable technology, they're just too expensive at this point in time, and the infrastructure isn't there for a hydrogen-electric hybrid. What we need is a tax subsidy for anyone buying a new hybrid vehicle, as well as some sort of government incentive for large oil to start distributing hydrogen at normal gas stations. If that were implemented, you'd see the elimination of more than 50% of fossil-fuel burning vehicles over the next decade.
Oh, and roger, I have just one question for you. Do you think the moon-landings were faked too?
:) Wow. And people accuse the military of brainwashing people. This guy is unbeleivable.
Bobble, you're right that economics killed off the electric car. That's pretty much what WE are saying. It got killed off because it wasn't viable. Nobody wanted it because it didn't have much range, it was inconvinient, it was expensive, and it's batteries needed replacing every few years so it was also expensive to maintain. When you have a product, and nobody wants that product, then yes it can be accurately said that "economics killed off" that product.
On the other hand, what YOU are suggesting is that some giant conspiracy amongst the owners of GM killed off the electric car. Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with economics. And seing as how it's just another fabrication of your overactive imagination...well, it doesn't have much to do with anything at all. It's just another CT we can point to and laugh at when discussing just how clueless you are. So keep it up Mr. Physics, we don't mind the amusement. I just hope that your original villiage isn't too distraught over losing it's idiot.
not
Oh every single media outlet is in on it? Excellent circular logic.
You are truly a child.
delusion
hahahah except that's how it went down. If anything Bush lost voters because of the early call. I didn't vote for the guy either time, there's no reason for me make up shit about how we stole the election.
But the electric car could have had a much greater range, and was sabotaged by Texaco which bought up the stock of the company making its battery at a crucial juncture.
Conspiracy nonsense. When the California mandate went out there were battery companies all over the US and the world working on trying to solve the problems with battery powered cars. They all failed. Trying to blame Texaco for this is nonsense.
1 Billion dollars invested, 800 cars leased.
5000 on the waiting list, only 50 actually leased one when given the chance. That's all you need to know.
If these cars hadn't been crushed they could have been updated with 300 mile ranges,
Fantasyland. The research never got that far, and likely still won't.
If it was all a big conspiracy, how come Europe hasn't developed a large electric car market? They are in a much better position than the US? Or how about Japan?
Obviously the hydrogen car has about the same range.
Put down the crackpipe. Puping hydrogen into a tank takes about the same ammount of time as pumping gas into your current vehicle. Recharging an electric cars battery takes 6 hours minimum. So no, the electric car would NOT have the same range as a hydrogen vehicle.
But the electric car could have had a much greater range, and was sabotaged by Texaco which bought up the stock of the company making its battery at a crucial juncture. If these cars hadn't been crushed they could have been updated with 300 mile ranges
Ah, yes. A battery which will power a car for 300 miles. Hey man, maybe they should just put antimatter drives and flux-capacitors into it instead.
Besides it was built by a special team, not a mass production assembly line. This is true of anything that isn't mass marketed.
Alright, so because of that it was EXTREMELY expensive. It still would have been more expensive than the average vehicle even if it had reached the mass-production stage. But that point is irrelevant anyway - price is only a small consideration because of all the other disadvantages. Perhaps if each car were to sell for $6,000 BELOW the average price of a normal car, then maybe people would be willing to put up with the other shortcomings. However, when it's got all sorts of problems, AND it's more expensive, the end result is obvious.
Funny how the hydrogen car stays alive with government subsidies. That helped kill the electric car too. That's a historical fact, not a conjecture. It has the same range but it costs $1,000,000 per vehicle and the infrastructure will take, generously, a decade to develop whereas electrical sub-stations exist everywhere.
Now I KNOW you're smoking crack. $1,000,000 per vehicle? Yah. You need to stop getting all your "facts" from your anus.
Anyway, here's a very relevant quote from GM:
The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line. For example:
* GM's two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
* The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
* GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.
* GM's fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today's HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.
So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
You can whine and moan about the demise of the electric car all you like, but anyone who's looked into the technology can only come to one conclusion: the early electric vehicles were not viable alternatives to todays gasoline powered vehicles. There's no fucking conspiracy you retard. Even if we assume that the evil GM overlords wanted to suppress viable electric vehicles, don't you think someone on europe or china would have started producing them by now? This CT nonsense is so idiotic that only a total ignoramus could even consider agreeing with it, let alone actualy profess to seriously beleive in it. The EV1 was a development model like any other. Large automakers are constantly creating development/demonstration models which never make it into production. There are literaly hundreds of vehicles which were built, tested, showcased at various car shows, and then shelved. That's because the vast majority are never meant to go into production - they're created only to research and develop a new technology, which can then be implemented into future commercial vehicles. As the GM press release makes clear, that's exactly what happened with the EV1. The technology continues to exist and to be refined, and it is making it's way into future models.
Like, hey man, if like everybody wanted to like buy an electric car, I mean, GM wouldn't like be bankrupt right?
So, I mean. GM killed it, because they could make more money going like, out of business?
Like, GM makes cars - not gasoline, so, if like they had a car that didn't run on gasolene, and every body bought it, they'd like, I mean, make money right?
Maybe they should give away the electric cars, like loooose change - I give away loose change,
The HydroGen3 cost about $1,000,000 to produce, so to sell it at a profit presumably requires a net gain.
Sigh.
From carlist.com:
The first $2,000,000 I drove was a car that looked like a corvette that had new technology on it called Anti-Lock Braking system. At first ABS was on only the most expensive cars, but once the technology was received and the cost amortized, the prices came down. Now ABS is on almost all cars as standard equipment.
One can expect the first mass produced car to cost somewhere between $55,000 and $75,000. For the first time in over 100 years, there are alternatives that have the potential to substantially increase fuel economy and reduce emissions without sacrificing the functionality the customers are purchasing today.
You reall ARE an idiot. I'm done with you.
If you're at all interested in getting back in my good graces, provide a link to your super-battery. Show me where I can buy one. Otherwise, fuck off.
From the site:
While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications. Mpg is for the EPA highway driving cycle.
AND the claim 250 miles per charge, not 300. In addition, the car is a ROADSTER. Good luck adapting the same technology to build a normal car, or a mini-van, truck, or SUV.
Not that it doesn't have potential, but don't get your panties in a knot untill they actualy release some details about the design of this bad-boy. Right now there is absolutely ZERO info about this wonder-vehicle; the best you can do is make uninformed speculations (which you seem to love doing).
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.html
Hey, its by the guy who tried to make the Rocketbook. How could this possible go wrong?
Of course, if the electric car was 'killed' why is this thing coming out?
Ofcourse, the other thing that this numpty fails to realize is that a hydrogen powered car basicaly IS an electric car. If battery technology improves enough in the next couple decades, it'd be childs play to buy yourself a bigass batter, toss it in the trunk, hook up a few wires, and have yourself a vehicle which can be recharged overnight through a wall outlet for city use, and can also run off of hydrogen when the batery charge runs down. Heck, you could even do that with todays gasoline-electric hybrids, you'd just be dragging around an extra 600 kilos of engine components so it wouldn't be quite as efficient.
What is highly relevant is that this little company you've never heard of couldn't make it go another 50 miles.
No, dumbass, what's important is that a roadster wighs less and carries less passangers and cargo than a normal car. So if you applied the same technology to, say, a Chrysler Interpid body, you'd have maybe half the range.
It probably didn't help that they thoroughly sabotaged their own battery, as is documented in Who Killed the Electric Car?
Yeah, well you also seem to think that there's good documentation of explosive charges being used in the WTC, so your "documentation" carries very little weight around here.
The only thing the auto-execs care about is that it doesn't hit the market, for as long as possible.
Heh, this is rather like arguing with a child in a special-ed class.
Please, boggie, explain to us just why it would benefit any car company to hold back this technology.
An electric car's battery outlasts the car itself.
Eh, no, the battery certainly wouldn't last that long. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to link to your source for that particular mistake. The motors DEFFINITELY wouldn't. Neither would mounts, computers, or steering components. Shock absorbers, brakes, windshield wipers, electronics, door and window mechanisms, etc. etc. So there's still plenty of room to make money on replacement components, upgrades, and maintanance. How much would the industry lose by not being able to sell oil and filter changes? $80 per car per year? Oh no! Over a 10 year lifetime that comes out to $800. You're telling me they couldn't make that back by overpricing the car itself? Or overpricing some of the replacement parts?
And even if you were right, it's still a non-issue. Any company which produces the first viable alternate fuel vehicle will make billions extra in revenue. The durability argument, if it were true, would only ensure that a huge majority of people would make the switch, AND it would allow the company to overprice the car, making more on the initial sale than they would on replacement components for the typical car. Furthermore, any savings made by the costumer would be translated back to the company as increased business in the future. If a customer can save, say $10,000 over 3 years in maintanance and gas costs, why not buy the newest model 3-4 years down the road? Instead of keeping the same car for 10 years, you could buy a new one in half that time (and, as much as I dislike the idea of people doing that, you KNOW it would happen). So once again what you end up with is extra business for whoever makes it viable first. There is absolutely ZERO reason to hold back such technology. Especialy when considering the fact that, if you were right, car makers in Japan and China would be falling all over eachother in their haste to produce one. So if GM holds back the tech, China makes an electric car, and then makes billions selling it in the US and europe, while GM loses billions because they can't sell their existing cars, and it takes 'em another 2 years to develop their own viable electric. By which time, nobody really cares because the original is already established.
See, makes no sense. Only a CTer could see logic in a company holding back the development of new tech.
First of all if you can make more money by overpricing, presumably everybody just overprices things--the higher you price something, the more money you obviously make.
No, not everyone overprieces, only those who are in a position to do so. Someone who makes applejuice for instance can't overprice much because people will simply go and buy a different kind of applejuice. Car manufacturers on the other hand can under-price their cars to encourage more sales, and then over-price components to make back some of that money. For instance, you want a axle for a '99 Pontiac Grand Prix. Well, you can buy the certified part off of Pontiac, and because they're the only one who make the real thing it'll cost you $120. Or you can take your chances with a black market copy for $50. Ofcourse, all mechanics will use brand-name parts and pass the cost on to you, so the only real way for you to save money is to do the work yourself. Most people can't. So overpricing car components is standard practice. They don't make their money by selling you oil changes, they make money by selling mechanical and electrical components. Now imagine the opportunities there with a totaly new type of car. If an electrical motor costs you $200 to make, you could sell it for $800 easy, knowing that there's nobody anywhere who can make the same part, and that even if they did, mechanics would mainly use your part anyway.
Additionally, how do you propose to claim that savings in the cost of a car translate into future sales of cars? Presumably money saved on food translates into futures sales of cars as well.
What the? Well the analogy I thought you were going to use is a saving in food costs translates into sales of more food. The one you actually used makes absolutely no sense. The other way it would at least make SOME sense, except with a modification - an overal decrease in the price of food leads to an increase in the purchase of better quality foods, and possibly higher quantities as well. The money spent stays about the same due to the way people budget their spending.
There's just thorough, all-pervading illogic in your claims.
Ever hear of irony?
So the cars would cost the same merely because they're in competition with $20,000 cars and when they eventually dropped to $40 a car
Why in the world would they drop to 40 bucks a car?
The marginal cost for making a single electric car would be much, much greater than forty dollars. And considering the huge fixed cost of the development, there's no way in hell this car would be cheap.
Goddamn, this thread got derailed.
Oh, I see what you're getting at.
A cheap car wouldn't be beneficial to the car manufacturers.
That's one hundred percent bogus.
If the car is cheap to make, the companies would make tremendous profit by selling it cheaply. It would be stupid to not sell a car cheaply.
No car company is going to shut down production of a car that lasts long and is inexpensive to make. The worth of that car would be tremendous. The blame rests on the consumers shoulders.
The idea that car manufacturers produce cars for the purpose of breaking down is ludicrous. My God, think of the share of the market they would hold with the eternal electric car. Of the worldwide market. And then the profits on spare parts sold for those cars that everyone owns.
The problem is, the demand does not exist. The supply does.
The supply's gone because GM wasn't listening to any offers.
They rounded up all those electric cars and shredded them like they were afraid one would get away as in the movie Fargo for example.
The supply is gone because the car was not econimically viable and you are naive about how a product must be supported if it is allowed to contiue in the market in any way.
GM's corporate policy says that any car in the field must have parts supplied for 10 years. Little problem: The parts manufacturers has said there wasn't enough of a market for them to keep making parts. So no parts for GM.
So what does this mean? It means any parts for the electric car in its post-lease era would be made by amatuers without any supervision. That means liability city.
Liability for who? Not the driver or the amateur parts maker. The liability was for GM, for providing san environment that encouraged dangerous replacement parts. All of this with the promise of no benefit except teh good will of a few nutcases who managed to keep their post-lease cars without needing parts.
GM was looking at years and years of parts nightmares and lawsuits stemming from a handful of cars that had shown no profit and no profit potential.
What would you do? Stop it before it started. Makea perfect business sense.
Except to brain dead CT'ers like bogglehead who do not understand economics, law, production, or corporate research in the slightest way except for what their conspiracy masters tell them.
Like, hey man, why are you talking like about cars, you know? I mean, you shuld be talking about me, and Loooose Change man.
The reason there is no electric car is because most people don't want them. It's really that simple.
Boggle, you've lost me completely.
I'm having a hard time following you, bud.
Yep, he's gone off into whacko-land.
You haven't even supported your counter-claim about a supposed lack of consumer demand in the circumstantial evidence of the case
Bullshit. Only 800 cars were ever leased. Out of 5,000 people on the waiting list, only 50 actually followed through.
YOU on the other hand have yet to show ANY evidence that a huge market exists. All of your sentences to that effect are something along the lines of "I'm SURE that more than x ammount of people would want one". Well we don't give a flying fuck what you're sure of. We've shown you that there was no market for the EV1. Your excuses about bad marketing are irrelevant. Let's see you prove that there WAS a viable market for it.
GM prevented the battery maker from touting major advances in the battery and and then Texaco moved in to take a controlling share in the battery maker.
Evidence?
Using claims by GM about how many people were willing to sign on the dotted line on a waiting list they took a long time to even acknowledge existed is rather like letting the suspect run the investigation.
Ok, then provide more reliable numbers. Using YOUR numbers is rather like letting a guy with a grade 2 education and a 95 IQ be the juge, jury, and executioner. Unless you can provide some more reliable statistics, I'll take GM's figures over your guesses any day.
You know, you could have just said "No Alex, I don't have any evidence, I'm just talking out of my ass".
Would have saved us both a lot of time.
No transaction occured because there was no demand. There's no curve involved. When you have zero (or close enough to zero to make no difference) demand, supply never comes into the equation.
And no, GM's claims and the claims of those on the wait list can't be canceled out. The people on the wait list can only comment on what they themselves were thinking, and similarily, GM can only comment on their own motives, thoughts, and decisions. There's not enough similarity for them to cancel out. And you haven't actualy shown any testimony from people on the waitlist anyway. In fact you haven't shown any hard data at all. Either put up or shut up.
Ban this guy. He's a spamming troll.
Post a Comment
<< Home