This is the BS that GM Chrysler and Ford have to deal with M. Moore..
06-01-2009, 06:04 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
This is the BS that GM Chrysler and Ford have to deal with M. Moore..
Opinions and thoughts on what is said...just mind numbing to me..
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...dex.php?id=248
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...dex.php?id=248
Last edited by Caps94ZODG; 06-01-2009 at 06:15 PM.
06-01-2009, 07:41 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bentonville, AR
Posts: 1,451
It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted
Can someone please explain to me how GM (the recently dethroned #1 automaker) makes cars that no one wants? I will agree that GM has issues covering themselves when they make a sale (which is another argument) however, to act as if they weren't selling cars is beyond me.
06-01-2009, 08:06 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
3. Announce that we will have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next five years. Japan is celebrating the 45th anniversary of its first bullet train this year. Now they have dozens of them. Average speed: 165 mph. Average time a train is late: under 30 seconds. They have had these high speed trains for nearly five decades -- and we don't even have one! The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal. Let's hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country. Chicago to Detroit in less than two hours. Miami to DC in under 7 hours. Denver to Dallas in five and a half. This can be done and done now.
4. Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.
4. Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.
06-01-2009, 08:43 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
And I agree with him on that too. Our mass transit system is complete sh*t. In a country as large as ours, you would think that we would be more inclined to build one. Instead those countries in Europe that our the size of some of our states put ours to shame. I say instead of dumping all this coin on health care that we put it towards mass transit.
And I'm agreeing with you even after you've called me names and have refused to respond to my rebuttals.
Outside of this, MM deserves to be dropped off in the Swat Valley, Pakistan.
And I'm agreeing with you even after you've called me names and have refused to respond to my rebuttals.
Outside of this, MM deserves to be dropped off in the Swat Valley, Pakistan.
06-01-2009, 08:58 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Our "mass transit" system evolved around personal mobility, Europe and Japan have pretty good mass transit systems due to WWII, most people couldn't afford a car coming out of the war and alot of cities, towns, ect had been leveled (the same with Japan obviously), ergo mass transit systems were easier to adopt and implement, but on the plus side here in the US, personal property is pretty much a meaningless idea and it shouldn't be a problem mowing down a few neighborhoods to implement an efficient system.
06-01-2009, 11:59 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 185
The high speed train comparison is pretty stupid...think of the distance a train has to cover going cross-country here vs. Japan, the difference of wildlife, along with many cost factors (engineering, maintenance, safety, etc...). What happens when a train going 165 crosses paths with a deer? cow? bear? bison? How are you going to protect the entire stretch of track?? Yeah, you can account for that, but again, imagine the costs and planning of everything involved!!
Last edited by BIG B7887; 06-02-2009 at 12:07 AM.
06-02-2009, 04:40 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
High-speed trains make sense for medium distance corridors, like LA-SF, Chicago-St Louis, Washington-New York, etc. Intermediate distance where it's too short to fly but too long to drive comfortably. And it probably would cost less than adding freeway lanes.
As for the wandering bison, the solution is the same as the freeway system - a cyclone fence.
As for the wandering bison, the solution is the same as the freeway system - a cyclone fence.
06-02-2009, 06:49 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
In my personal opinion high speed train should be used for 800-100 mile trips. They would be much faster than planes. I could write 5 pagers about how the airlines and airports suck but I'll leave that for some other time.
Cross country and 1000mi.+ you still need planes.
Cheap and plentiful oil was great for us in the 1950's but might be our downfall in the 2020's. A lot of places in Europe didn't have the access to oil like we had (we were the Saudi Arabia of the early 20th century). So they relied on more efficient alternatives like trains, less sprawl, and even electrified rail for every type of train. I could be wrong about the country, but I think it is Switzerland that is something like 90% electrified rail, all because post WWII oil was expensive and unreliable.
Cross country and 1000mi.+ you still need planes.
Our "mass transit" system evolved around personal mobility, Europe and Japan have pretty good mass transit systems due to WWII, most people couldn't afford a car coming out of the war and alot of cities, towns, ect had been leveled (the same with Japan obviously), ergo mass transit systems were easier to adopt and implement, but on the plus side here in the US, personal property is pretty much a meaningless idea and it shouldn't be a problem mowing down a few neighborhoods to implement an efficient system.
Last edited by Z28x; 06-02-2009 at 06:55 AM.
06-02-2009, 07:03 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lake Hopatcong N.J
Posts: 1,045
He has alot of great points, it is Irony that GM is having such business problems after they caused so much devistation in places like flint.
GM Needs a MAJOR revamp if they want to sell cars in the 21st century. The overspending and poor management has put them out of business.
GM also did build crappy cars and have built some lame ducks, but overall they have improved recently. I would say GM DOES build cars people like/want, but people forget how long it takes to build a car so adapting to current trends can take time.
Turn off the Fox 5
GM Needs a MAJOR revamp if they want to sell cars in the 21st century. The overspending and poor management has put them out of business.
GM also did build crappy cars and have built some lame ducks, but overall they have improved recently. I would say GM DOES build cars people like/want, but people forget how long it takes to build a car so adapting to current trends can take time.
Turn off the Fox 5
06-02-2009, 10:38 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
You mean people actually listen to Michael Moore?
It's amazing that anyone here on this board takes him seriously enough to make a thread about him.
He has less current influence on the auto industry than Joan Claybrook or Ralph Nader... and when was the last time you heard from them?
If this was Al Gore, you'd have my attention. If it was a member of the EPA, the Transportation Department, or even some half crazed senator or representative, you'd have meat for a thread.
What's Michael Moore? A director of 3 moderately successful docu-tainment movies? Angilina Jolie has done far more and gathered more attention regarding social issues. Woody Harrelson has gotten more attention regarding enviromental issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger had more influence on Hummer sales than Michael Moore has on the US auto industry.
Let it go.....Michael Moore is an attention grabbing, self important, blowhard that no one has taken seriously since his Academy Award rant some years ago.
He's offering to do news shows and interviews for free (and a few of them value what little entertainment value he has) because he wants back in to the spot light.
Don't give it to him.
It's amazing that anyone here on this board takes him seriously enough to make a thread about him.
He has less current influence on the auto industry than Joan Claybrook or Ralph Nader... and when was the last time you heard from them?
If this was Al Gore, you'd have my attention. If it was a member of the EPA, the Transportation Department, or even some half crazed senator or representative, you'd have meat for a thread.
What's Michael Moore? A director of 3 moderately successful docu-tainment movies? Angilina Jolie has done far more and gathered more attention regarding social issues. Woody Harrelson has gotten more attention regarding enviromental issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger had more influence on Hummer sales than Michael Moore has on the US auto industry.
Let it go.....Michael Moore is an attention grabbing, self important, blowhard that no one has taken seriously since his Academy Award rant some years ago.
He's offering to do news shows and interviews for free (and a few of them value what little entertainment value he has) because he wants back in to the spot light.
Don't give it to him.
06-02-2009, 10:40 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
You mean people actually listen to Michael Moore?
It's amazing that anyone here on this board takes him seriously enough to make a thread about him.
He has less current influence on the auto industry than Joan Claybrook or Ralph Nader... and when was the last time you heard from them?
If this was Al Gore, you'd have my attention. If it was a member of the EPA, the Transportation Department, or even some half crazed senator or representative, you'd have meat for a thread.
What's Michael Moore? A director of 3 moderately successful docu-tainment movies? Angilina Jolie has done far more and gathered more attention regarding social issues. Woody Harrelson has gotten more attention regarding enviromental issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger had more influence on Hummer sales than Michael Moore has on the US auto industry.
Let it go.....Michael Moore is an attention grabbing, self important, blowhard that no one has taken seriously since his Academy Award rant some years ago.
He's offering to do news shows and interviews for free (and a few of them value what little entertainment value he has) because he wants back in to the spot light.
Don't give it to him.
It's amazing that anyone here on this board takes him seriously enough to make a thread about him.
He has less current influence on the auto industry than Joan Claybrook or Ralph Nader... and when was the last time you heard from them?
If this was Al Gore, you'd have my attention. If it was a member of the EPA, the Transportation Department, or even some half crazed senator or representative, you'd have meat for a thread.
What's Michael Moore? A director of 3 moderately successful docu-tainment movies? Angilina Jolie has done far more and gathered more attention regarding social issues. Woody Harrelson has gotten more attention regarding enviromental issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger had more influence on Hummer sales than Michael Moore has on the US auto industry.
Let it go.....Michael Moore is an attention grabbing, self important, blowhard that no one has taken seriously since his Academy Award rant some years ago.
He's offering to do news shows and interviews for free (and a few of them value what little entertainment value he has) because he wants back in to the spot light.
Don't give it to him.
While that may be true for some of us, I can't tell you how many times people have quoted something from Farenheit 9-11 to me to prove some point. Say what you will about him, but there are plenty of normal people out there who buy into his crap.