Comments on: Halting the Corvair made America safer http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: TripRodriguez http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-72625 Mon, 13 May 2013 13:55:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-72625 Ah Ralphie, still at it! It is amazing how misinformation is touted as fact constantly and people still buy it. CorvairLover even you have it wrong I’m afraid. There were no issues with ANY year Corvair suspension.. except for it looking scary on a lift. The fact is that the very thing that makes people think Corvairs roll over (wheel jacking) actually PREVENTS rollovers by reducing the contact patch and causing the rear end to break and slide. 42 years of CORSA racing events (including many bone stock 60-63 Corvairs and even the VANS!) with not one single rollover proves that. Also the NHTSA cleared the Corvair in 1971. On top of all this nobody made GM “halt” Corvair production, the Corvair went out of production because the Mustang came out and killed sales figures, making building the Corvair cease to be profitable.

]]>
By: CorvairLover http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-72012 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:04:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-72012 wrong. The 60-63 corvair suspension caused all the issues. The 64 suspension fixed the issue. The 65-69 suspension was changed that also removed the problem. The only issue was the heating system – never was fixed. How do i know? I own a 66 corvair, and with 16inch wheels, the car behaves as well as a current vehicle. I really get tired of people coming up to me and telling me how this car flips. Not.

]]>
By: BajaArizona http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44305 Thu, 17 May 2012 00:23:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44305 mst3000j wrote “It was Bush who put us into war; and I am all too confident that Gore would have gone the same route what with his war-mongering VP choice Mr. Joe Liebermann. I suspect millions would have been dead.”

I made assertions which I backed up with evidence. The only evidence you provide to back up your convictions is your own confidence in their truth. Well, that is quite inadequate. Lieberman was not know for being a “war-monger” at the time of the 2000 election and regardless the office of the VP holds little power unless the president sees fit to cede decision making.

Furthermore, it is willfully ignorant thinking to conclude that Gore would have invaded Iraq. The Clinton/Gore administration showed no appetite for invasion despite conducting an ongoing air war against Hussein. Nothing in Gore’s record indicates that he wished for a unilateral invasion, whereas much of Bush’s pre-election rhetoric did signal this intention.

You also write: “There is a false equivalency between the actions of Bush/Cheney and the running of public citizen Nader for president. You need to clarify these things into your prejudiced and regressive posting.”

I detect some confusion in your post about what the term ‘false-equivalency’ means. The definition of false-equivalency refers to an argument which seeks to make equal and the same two things which are not. I use it to refer to your idea that Republicans and Democrats are the same (i.e. “Republocrats”–very clever by the way).

You seem to be using the term to state that there is no equivalency between Bush/Cheney and a mythical Nader administration. It’s an obvious point and a red-herring besides. Of course a Nader presidency would not have been the same thing as the Bush presidency. What you can’t seem to grasp is that Nader had no more chance of being president than you did. Even Nader understood this. As I demonstrated in my previous post, he was actively trying to prevent Gore from being president so that the “Revolution” would finally be brought on by a progressive population pushed to the brink. That was his disgusting strategy, and it tells any rational person all they need to know about his fitness for the office should the dog ever miraculously catch the mechanical rabbit.

That you still pine for the Nader administration that you believe could have been tells everyone how deeply out of touch you actually are.

]]>
By: running http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44222 Mon, 14 May 2012 23:13:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44222 Mr.Nader, you know so much about a 1960 Corvair, you should the President of a foreign country since cars are being made overseas now a days.

]]>
By: Sanity-Monger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44215 Mon, 14 May 2012 20:06:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44215 Ingrassia is not only charging that Nader threw the election to Bush in 2000, but that Nader’s attacks on the Corvair in the 1960’s did so. Do we think that had Ralph decided to initially go after, say, airplane safety or shenanigans in the financial industry or environmental degradation that he would not have been in a position to grab 97,000 votes in Florida in 2000? That it had to be the Corvair? This is where the man is completely off base in a blatant effort to grab headlines and sell his silly book.

]]>
By: ARJTurgot2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44207 Mon, 14 May 2012 13:13:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44207 Vint Cerf is generally described as one of ‘the father(s) of the Internet’. It’s not accurate, and he will be the first one to tell you that, but among the other things that he has done is produced an endorsement of Al Gore for president in 2000. You read that right, the ‘father of the Internet’ says that Al Gore was his political sponsor in getting funding for the research. He also makes the point that Gore himself never claimed to be what has been attributed to him.

The major point tho, is even when Gore had Vint’s endorsement, even when he was (is) getting ridiculed for something he never said, his campaign was unable to turn the whole situation to their advantage. Gore 2000 was a mismanaged mess. It should have never come down to Florida.

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

Nader’s correct here, ANYONE can run for President, we don’t belong to the parties, and I personally don’t have to/don’t want to, wear anyone’s label. We should thank him for making that point, you will never hear it from the political establishment.

]]>
By: GLK http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44205 Mon, 14 May 2012 11:12:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44205 The only people that tell lies better than Politicians are Actors. No wonder they get along so well.

]]>
By: desdemona http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44158 Sun, 13 May 2012 21:06:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44158 If we are going to claim that the Ralph Nader elected Mr Bush in 2000, then we should recall that Ross Perot elected Mr Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and George Wallace took away the southern Democrats and elected Richard Nixon in 1968.

This is just a structural consequence of our election procedures: if any major party too long ignores the concerns of a faction of its coalition, then that coalition will bolt to a third party and cost that major party an election.

des/de/mona

]]>
By: CaptnCrunch http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44135 Sun, 13 May 2012 13:40:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44135 “the lawless, corporatist, war-starting, anti-democratic Bush regime”

Mr Nader, I’ve been watching and listening to you since I was a little kid in the 60’s. I thought you were a nut then, and at 57 my opinion hasn’t changed, but I will say, America would be poorer without you. You are indeed a man of purpose who against great opposition has always stayed true to the vision in your head.

]]>
By: mst3000jay http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/10/halting-the-corvair-made-america-safer/#comment-44105 Sun, 13 May 2012 04:14:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12761#comment-44105 BajaArizona:

Ralph Nader tells the truth and a legenday consumer advocate who saved thousands of lives through his public service; if this country listened to him and not put up with professional politicians like Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, our country would be far better off.
It was Bush who put us into war; and I am all too confident that Gore would have gone the same route what with his war-mongering VP choice Mr. Joe Liebermann. I suspect millions would have been dead.

There is a false equivalency between the actions of Bush/Cheney and the running of public citizen Nader for president. You need to clarify these things into your prejudiced and regressive posting. The country is in bad shape with your vile, polluted, and sickening thinking. The Democrats love you while they sell this country down the toilet.

You are the type of person who would prevent another person for running for office just because he is not a member of the established Republicrat party.

Ralph Nader’s legacy is one of a truth-telling, safe cars, cleaner air, serving the public sentiment, activism, peace, justice, environmentalism, and exposing corruption from the professional two-party dictatorship this country suffers from, and one of which your ignorance perpetuates and enables.

Please continue to fight Mr. Nader. You are a national treasure and a modern day Abraham Lincoln

]]>