What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
508 Comments
- MatthewKee, on 02/03/2009, -6/+394Is this the... oh no it's not The Onion. Dugg for being real.
- alapoet, on 02/02/2009, -3/+269Whose nuts?
- andarnold, on 02/03/2009, -34/+182the government should have stayed out of it in the first place, social Darwinism would have rooted out those that don't diserve to stay alive.
- smacksaw, on 02/03/2009, -5/+153It would have cost a lot less for a safety net for the workers than this bailout. If the Big 3 cannot adapt and are unwilling to change, why keep them irrelevant any longer than they've already been?
The only thing that TRULY matters are the amount of people who would be jobless. And instead of investing in employment insurance, we're investing in a sinking ship. Hell, I'm a libertarian, but if I have to choose, the lesser of two evils is unemployment benefits, not prolonging "jobs" in an industry that cannot make it anyway.
It's like saying "HMS Titanic - sinking. We've lost most of the crew. We need to hire new crew. Send replacements, quick. We've only got another hour or so before we sink!" - GetItBuilt, on 02/02/2009, -53/+177Their nuts. Don't buy from them!
- t71E, on 02/03/2009, -5/+109The vehicle manufactures what?
- DirtyVicar, on 02/03/2009, -2/+81This article would have been better if it explained the lawsuits.
- MateyO, on 02/03/2009, -1/+75Deez nuts!
- aufte, on 02/03/2009, -12/+82Hey America, you like that? Is it time to start burning ***** yet? No? You want more? Alright, sexy.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -20/+89Buy Ford. They've come a long way since the late 80's in quality.
- HookmasterCH47, on 02/03/2009, -27/+90And this is why I will never again buy an American car...
- SmokenJoe, on 02/03/2009, -5/+59Make a good green car worth buying or someone else will instead. You cant live on hand outs forever. Trying to continue to thumb their noses at people who want a an American car that is small and well built. They make great big cars but who wants to waste gas?
- morepowerr, on 02/03/2009, -6/+60"Those lawsuits were brought by the entire industry, to protect the longstanding federal law that says that fuel-efficiency standards should be set at the federal level and not by individual states.”
OK, Make 52 mpg the federal law for all car made after 2009 problem solved. At that point there case is in the ***** - jfsimard79, on 02/03/2009, -1/+53I like this comment from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy In America"
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money” - Spuy767, on 02/03/2009, -6/+57I like it. You call it darwinism instead of capitalism and get dugg up. Clever.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -3/+52"They're" nuts. But I agree with the sentiment.
- MrFurious2k, on 02/03/2009, -3/+52It should be pointed out that foreign manufacturers have been united with the domestics in arguing against these new regulations.
- theTranquil, on 02/03/2009, -0/+48I think he meant; Don't buy from the automotive companies' nuts.
- Hillsfar, on 02/03/2009, -7/+47How come our U.S. emissions standards are lower than in China and lower than in Europe? And yet Ford is power-selling a 50-mpg diesel-powered car like gangbusters?
Ford won't sell it in the U.S. because it's apparently too expensive to ship from the U.K. factory to the U.S. and too expensive to start up a new factory in the U.S. But they're committing lots of money to their factories in BRAZIL. - dalittle, on 02/03/2009, -2/+40People need to stop calling them bailouts, they are corporate welfare.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -6/+37There nuts. I mean they're nuts. I mean their nuts. *****
- jsd8cc, on 02/03/2009, -2/+28"the government should have stayed out of it in the first place, the Free Market would have rooted out those that don't deserve to stay alive."
Fixed. - inactive, on 02/03/2009, -1/+23The problem is that most people who can afford a new car aren't that concerned with fuel economy. Everybody says they want the auto makers to make economical cars, but what they really mean is that they want the auto makers to make economical cars for everybody else, while they continue to drive their SUV.
- karlyguy, on 02/03/2009, -6/+27i agree on the principle, but the social Darwinism is just buzz words and playfulness in the same way as The Darwin Awards
the theory of social darwinism is a 100% made up, unrealistic theory that is a debasement of Darwins evolutionary theory - evolution is genetic adaptation over millions of years. - inactive, on 02/03/2009, -17/+37What kind of ***** moron would buy a Dodge/Chrysler?!
Yes, let's waste 20k on a car that'll break down before 50k miles. - RATM4EVER, on 02/03/2009, -6/+26...among other reasons.
- pinchduck, on 02/03/2009, -1/+20Giving them the money to sue you isn't even close to being free-market capitalism. It's outright corporate welfare.
- yeahright, on 02/03/2009, -0/+17You obviously have not driven a late '90s Ford Windstar.
Quality, at its finest! - feliks2, on 02/03/2009, -1/+18I'm sure about 95% of truck owners don't actually need a truck. Sure, some people really do, but not that many. And all but a few SUVs being manufactured are completely useless off road and don't have very much interior space, and thus are completely useless when compared to a sedan. Or a hatch, or estate, or van.
- nmezib, on 02/03/2009, -1/+17Don't worry, I won't buy their nuts.
- balthisar, on 02/03/2009, -4/+20It's easy to be a critic when you have no idea what the lawsuits entail, and why they're important.
You all do know that the Asians and Europeans are aligned with the domestics on this, right? - NaziHatinChimp, on 02/03/2009, -19/+35Can we go kill these people yet?
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -11/+26A 52mpg fuel economy requirement would collapse the auto market, but good try.
- MrFurious2k, on 02/03/2009, -18/+33Isn't this just like the government? It creates rules and regulations that increase the costs of doing business. In the past 20 years, government has decided to wage a war against domestic business by taxing and regulating to death and then is shocked when said businesses fail to make a profit and collapses. This ultimately becomes an issue of nationalization. They'll crush the domestics with regulations until they can't turn a profit. So the government begins subsidizing them until they literally decide what they make, what they pay employees, and what the product costs. Then when people are buying superior foreign products, they'll just tariff the hell out of the foreign companies.
- ParanoydAndroid, on 02/03/2009, -1/+15@briLo
Actually, boycotting companies that refuse to innovate and won't create products that satisfy customers is exactly the sort of thing that would benefit our economy in the long term.
If we allow market forces to take control and run stale badly-run companies out of business, then we enable other companies (existing or new) the opportunity to grab customers and we darwinianly ensure that only better managed (financially, and R&D) companies survive.
In the long term this means that tomorrow's "big 3" could be companies with cheaper cars (thanks to better financial management) that contain the features we actually want (e.g., mileage) - ChonoonFiend, on 02/03/2009, -2/+16Let them ***** die. The auto workers will find new jobs.
- MrFurious2k, on 02/03/2009, -2/+16Is there a difference? Neither party has shown any sort of fiscal responsibility or kept out of the lives of others. Government appears to be a wholly corrupting force.
- EntropyFan, on 02/03/2009, -0/+14You also should add that until gas went to $4+ a gallon, these companies were profitable and making the cars that Americans wanted and were buying; large, gas guzzling SUV's.
It wasn't that they couldn't make smaller, more fuel efficient cars or hybrids, we the people were not buying them.
And gas prices can change faster then an industry can retool... who would have thought?
The blame lies as much on the American consumer as the Big 3. - tetroidBurke, on 02/03/2009, -1/+15No, he meant don't buy nuts because of the peanut butter recall. Good call! He's just looking out for us!
- OliveStreet, on 02/03/2009, -2/+16"It should be pointed out that foreign manufacturers have been united with the domestics in arguing against these new regulations."
Could you remind again how much of my tax money the foreign manufacturers received?
Thanks - Spuy767, on 02/03/2009, -8/+21No, most euro cars can pass Euro NCAP crash tests but fail US crash tests and therefore are illegal to import. They won't retool a factory to make a US Compatible car. Small cars sell better in europe becuse of expensive gas, end of story.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -2/+15This is corporatism, not capitalism.
- Sainthax, on 02/03/2009, -1/+14I own a BMW 325Ci/SMG and a GM Tahoe...I drive the BMW like a race car, the Tahoe like any other typical SUV owner. 100k miles later on both of them and the BMW is running near flawless, the Tahoe has more pops, snaps, and wear issues than I can count.
Yeah, they make great cars alright...I'll never buy another one. - inactive, on 02/03/2009, -7/+20No thanks, I'll go with a Japanese or German car.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -18/+31Keep your facts off digg please, we only care about kneejerk reactions from liberals having a circle jerk around here.
- bluechips23, on 02/03/2009, -2/+14You know, I thought about that last month when I was looking for a new car. I did a little research, and went to GMC's website to check out some of the SUVs they might have. Do you know what's the average mileage on their SUVs? Not more than 22 MPG on highway for the Hybrid, and others were far less - around 10-12 MPG.
Now, you compare that with any standard "green" SUV, and you will realize why most Americans don't want to run to the gas station every few miles to fill up the tank during the summer when the gas prices reach close to 4 bucks per gallon.
It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Features do matter, but efficiency is always the most important thing. - SupaFlyTNT, on 02/03/2009, -1/+13But the foreign guys didn't get the bailout money.....that's the point of it.
- WiretapStudios, on 02/03/2009, -8/+19Too bad they haven't in overall design. I just looked at their website, and don't see anything I'd shell out for. (In the car lineup)
- LinuxLars, on 02/03/2009, -3/+14Let them fail now, or waste billions by giving it to corporate greed and let them fail later.
- doogan, on 02/03/2009, -2/+13Too bad social Darwinism is a fallacy... Darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest is based off of Mandelian development. Whereas corporations and social entities work with Lamarckian development. In other words there is no inherent trait of the corporation that makes it successful. The inherent traits that drive Darwinian evolution are innate and immutable so it doesn't apply here.
references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_genetics
you can also look up Stephen J Gould, I don't have the article at hand, but he discusses reasons why Darwianian evolution doesn't apply to social evolution... -
Show 51 - 100 of 515 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is