"Cash for clunkers" -- charitable donations of cars plummet

FredP wrote:
> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> miles wrote:
>>> News wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended consequences and
>>>>> end up hurting the very people they claim to be caring and looking out
>>>>> for. The results are always the opposite of the stated intent.
>>>>
>>>> Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.
>>> I have. Then I put that comment in the perspective of 7 months of
>>> Obama/Biden. It's even worse.
>>
>> Get used to it.
>>
>> We're not going back to your wrong-way, dead-end thinking for at least
>> another 7-1/2 years.
>
> Don't count your chickens til they hatch...


And you be sure not to count 'em as DOA.

"KirkM" > wrote in message news:bd9631f1-0d3e-4a0c-a21e-
>
> I am really getting tired of flyers being left on my 1993 Voyager,
> telling me that "this vehicle qualifies for the "cash for clunkers
> program."" First of all, it is not a "clunker," and I plan on keeping
> it for many more years, thank you.
>
> Even with the incentives, insurance costs are higher on a new vehicle,
> as are registration fees. Our state has quadrupled the fees over the
> past several years.
>
> -KM

I am lucky enough to not have been hassled about it myself but I feel the
same way as you about my van. The part that makes the C.A.R.S. program
deplorable to me is what the dealers have to do to them (sodium silicate) to
get reimbursed.

'95 Grand Caravan SE 3.3L FWD
233,230 miles.
21.9 MPG over the last 10,000 miles per the mini trip computer with soon to
be replaced bad lower ball joints (thus bad front end alignment and chewed
up tires) and noisy rear wheel bearings

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> > WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and post
> > have to do with it, hypocrite?
>
> Umm - clunkers are cars. Chryslers are cars. Chryslers can be clunkers
> in the context of this discussion. The cash for clunkers idiocy falls
> under the broader category of "liberal ideas..." that "...always fail".
> Too many steps for you to follow, perhaps.

You political junkies can avoid wasting our time with your "set in your
ways" political alignments.

Lets get on the subject or I'll filter you out!
I'd hate to do that because I do get some good ideas from here. <

Spam away wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>>> WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and post
>>> have to do with it, hypocrite?
>> Umm - clunkers are cars. Chryslers are cars. Chryslers can be clunkers
>> in the context of this discussion. The cash for clunkers idiocy falls
>> under the broader category of "liberal ideas..." that "...always fail".
>> Too many steps for you to follow, perhaps.
>
> You political junkies can avoid wasting our time with your "set in your
> ways" political alignments.
>
> Lets get on the subject or I'll filter you out!
> I'd hate to do that because I do get some good ideas from here. <

Is not the subject of this newsgroup "cars", and specifically Chrysler
cars? You can't separate politics from the many subjects of life,
whether it's bailouts or cash for clunkers (both have to do with
politics, both have to do with cars, including Chrysler cars).

I have to wonder if there are people on political blogs who complain if
a discussion starts about, say, cash for clunkers - because its about
"cars" and not "politics" per-se. Do you see my point? You can't
separate the two.

When I see idiocy in the way things are run, I point them out. That's
not being "set in my ways".

Plus - as Obama is learning, there are many people who would not choose
to be, as you put it, "political junkies", except that they are
compelled to become that when they see people in power who have no
constraints, who see the Constitution as a worthless document that gets
in the way of implementing socialist and Marxist ideas, and are intent
on systematically destroying our nation in several ways.

And when I see examples in discussions specifically about cars (like
cash for clunkers) of the idiocy of those running it and their agendas,
I will make a broader political statement pointing out how that (the
thing about cars being discussed) is an example of the idiocy of those
in power and how that idiocy might expand over into other
non-car-related areas like health care/health insurance (for example, I
might make statements like: If they implement it and it totally
bankrupts the nation - which it will - and then nobody has decent
coverage like other countries have found out, then how has that helped
*anybody* - and why should illegals be covered? And why would the people
who put us under such a system reserve for themselves their own
"special" system for *their* health care coverage?).

Hang around, or filter away if you must.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> compelled to become that when they see people in power who have no
> constraints, who see the Constitution as a worthless document that gets
> in the way of implementing socialist and Marxist ideas, and are intent
> on systematically destroying our nation in several ways.
>
> non-car-related areas like health care/health insurance (for example, I
> might make statements like: If they implement it and it totally
> bankrupts the nation - which it will - and then nobody has decent
> coverage like other countries have found out, then how has that helped
> *anybody* - and why should illegals be covered?


Why do you and your wingnut whackjob "birther" "open carry" faux KoolAid
drinking ilk feel obligated to constantly and outrageously lie about the
facts of these programs?

http://factcheck.org/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_264970.html

Are you that friggin stupid? Are you sheep? Or just mendacious without
bounds?

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> Is not the subject of this newsgroup "cars", and specifically Chrysler
> cars?
Definitely YES!
>You can't separate politics from the many subjects of life,
> whether it's bailouts or cash for clunkers (both have to do with
> politics, both have to do with cars, including Chrysler cars).
Of course you can, just stick the car subject.
I have no trouble doing that.
Politics and religion are very driven by emotion, here we talk about
(car) facts.

I'll not comment on the political dribble in the rest of your post.

Spam away wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>> Is not the subject of this newsgroup "cars", and specifically Chrysler
>> cars?
> Definitely YES!
>> You can't separate politics from the many subjects of life,
>> whether it's bailouts or cash for clunkers (both have to do with
>> politics, both have to do with cars, including Chrysler cars).
> Of course you can, just stick the car subject.
> I have no trouble doing that.
> Politics and religion are very driven by emotion, here we talk about
> (car) facts.
>
> I'll not comment on the political dribble in the rest of your post.

That last sentence is self-contradictory. It would appear that it's not
*that* politics is being discussed that bothers you as much as
*what's* being said.

Funny that when Bush was President, you'd hear quotes like these from
Democrats:
""Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths
shut?"

"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism"

"Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism"

(BTW - all 3 of those quotes are from Hillary Clinton in 2006)

Yet when a Democrat is in the White House, when people spontaneously on
there own start speaking out, they get called Nazis and un-American,
that they are being organized by some ACORN-like effort on the right.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

News wrote:

> Why do you and your wingnut whackjob "birther" "open carry" faux KoolAid
> drinking ilk feel obligated to constantly and outrageously lie about the
> facts of these programs?

Ahhh - yes. Saul Alinsky's patented Rules for Radicals nos. 5 and 12:

"RULE 5: 'Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.' There is no defense.
It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point
to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?
They want to create anger and fear.

"RULE 12: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and
ridicule works.

I think Pelosi, Frank, Obama et al are learning how these rules are no
longer working in a communicating and thinking society. The lies are
too easy to spot.

> http://factcheck.org/
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_264970.html

I haven't got time to point out the falsehoods and inconsistencies in
all of those. But for one, Obama, Frank, Emanuel have all explicitly
and unmistakenly stated in the past that single payer is the ultimate
goal. (Here's a video of Obama saying *precisely* that:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-...lth-care-plan/)

Sebelius and Frank have said that the healthcare "public option" is the
first step towards a single payer system.

Frank on single payer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

Anything they say to the contrary *now* is a lie to cover up the real
agenda.

> Are you that friggin stupid? Are you sheep? Or just mendacious without
> bounds?

Hmm - those Rules 5 and 12 appear again. Nice use of your training.
But again - no longer effective. You guys need to go back to the
drawing board. Alinsky is dead.

Here's something to consider on the cost of what's been proposed:

In 1966 Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. It cost $108
billion — 9 times that estimate. Prorating that against the CBO's
projected $1 trillion cost for health care reform, that means in 10
years it would cost $3.5 trillion.


For those interested (if not interested, don't read them), here are Saul
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in full. Enjoy:

"RULE 1: 'Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you
have.' Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people.
'Have-Nots' must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things
of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always
have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost
exclusively with economic arguments.)"

"RULE 2: 'Never go outside the expertise of your people.' It results in
confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of
anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address
the 'real' issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have
no knowledge.)"

"RULE 3: 'Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.'
Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This
happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are
blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced
to address.)"

"RULE 4: 'Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.' If the rule
is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill
them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
(This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and
reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not
living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the
damage.)"

"RULE 5: 'Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.' There is no defense.
It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point
to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?
They want to create anger and fear.)"

"RULE 6: 'A good tactic is one your people enjoy.' They'll keep doing it
without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and
will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no
different that any other human being. We all avoid 'un-fun' activities,
and we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)"

"RULE 7: 'A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.' Don't become
old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and
involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)"

"RULE 8: 'Keep the pressure on. Never let up.' Keep trying new things to
keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach,
hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from
all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest,
regroup, recover and re-strategize.)"

"RULE 9: 'The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.'
Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any
activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a
worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists'
minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and
energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions.
The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in
demoralization.)"

"RULE 10: 'If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and
become a positive.' Violence from the other side can win the public to
your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used
this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of
unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath,
often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to
their side.)"

"RULE 11: 'The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.' Never let the enemy score points because you're caught
without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the
solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an
agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given
a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise
solution.)"

"RULE 12: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and
ridicule works."

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> I think ... these rules are no
> longer working in a communicating and thinking society. The lies are
> too easy to spot.


Indeed, yours, for example.

And those outrageous lies and misrepresentations of your wingnut
whackjob "birther" "open carry" faux KoolAid drinking cretinous creatures.

News wrote:

> Why do you and your wingnut whackjob "birther" "open carry"...

How funny you mentioned "open carry" in your Saul Alinsky Rule nos. 5
and 12 list.

WATCH THIS MSNBC VIDEO - AND NOTICE IN PARTICULAR HOW THEY CROPPED AND
EDITED IT, followed by comments by the "unbiased" reporter, Contessa
Brewer: "...there are questions about whether this has racial overtones
- I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people
showing up with guns strapped to their waste...":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

(Also listen to what the race-baiter who speaks after Ms. Brewer says.)

NOW HERE'S THE SAME SCENE, UNCROPPED AND UNEDITED SHOWING WHAT REALLY
HAPPENED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEASA...ye r_embedded

Notice anything about the man carrying the guns? He's black. Anything
wrong with that? Nope - not a thing. But the reporting shows the bias
and race-baiting that the press is willing to exhibit - even when the
facts don't fit the desired narrative.

Thanks for this opportunity to set the record straight.

Again - the information available today is why the Saul Alinsky tactics
are dead. The press and the white house don't realize this yet, but I
think they may be catching on - hopefully too late. Actually, I think
they don't know how to act outside the context of Saul Alinsky's Rules
for Radicals (thinking particularly of Rahm Emanuel and Obama himself).

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')