WHO HERE HAS SEEN

[bcs296]

What's your take on it?

I became progressively more angry as I watched it. Pissed at the government, pissed at the oil companies, and pissed at GM.

[bobo]

I saw it. It came out quite a while ago. I think GM is trying to redeem itself somewhat now with the Volt.

[regfootball]

lol, netflix sent me it this week, i should watch it and let you know. that, and inconvenient truth.

Edited August 24, 2007 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

It's on my list. I think I will watch that and An Inconvenient Truth as a double bill, then gouge my eyes out and hurl myself in front of a bus.

[Paolino]

Ah, I thought you were referring to this: Clicky. :AH-HA_wink:

[usonia]

I saw it when it first hit the theaters and that's been a while ago. From what I can remember, I thought it definitely had an axe to grind and GM took the brunt of it. They did talk about some of the other manufacturers, but not much. However there were some strange things in it that I think they should have followed up but they didn't. I might be off in what I am remembering, but here's a couple that come to mind: Didn't they show some guy from some company who claimed to have resolved the battery issue so that the EV-1 could go much farther on a single charge? Why did GM have to actually destroy the cars rather than let the people who wanted to keep theirs buy it? (Was there really a big safety issue the didn't want to become known?)

[tmp]

I saw it. It was a little one-sided. (and I type that as a certified Westside tree-hugging California liberal) The reality is that GM had to do what it did with those cars- the lawyers would never let them just sell them outright, even if the prospective owners signed off indenturing GM against any possible liability. Gm would have to support cars that were in effect rolling laboratories for future technologies that were never meant to be everyday cars in circulation. It was a noble experiment: if anyone is to blame for the demise it's the government of California, who first put in place the mandate that made GM start the whole program, then changed to rules back making it just an expensive experiment.

I hope that by 2010 all of those people who went out of their way to bash GM for not keeping the EV-1 program are at their local Chevy dealership buying a Volt. Alexandra Paul, I'm looking at you...

[regfootball]

all our emissions laws should be FEDERAL and states should not be allowed to usurp or toughen them, otherwise I would cut their highway money off.

i.e. california, i'm talking about you.

automakers have enough barriers to developing technology without having to deal with tougher special interest groups like CA and the northeast dolts.

why don't we have diesel here? thank california.

i don't exactly see CA pumping 'enough' money into alternative fuels, hydrogen, or electrical production and distribution to help solve those causes I get sick of hearing everyone else talks about as savior.

CA, if you want clean cars, zero emissions, electric cars, then put up the frig-gin dollars into the infrastructure and technology and lead on that stuff. You want electric cars? Where are the statewide cost effective electric charging stations that can pump my car with electricity in 5 minutes?

You have to pay for what you want sometimes. You can't expect corporations to bear the bill for your mandates all the time.

I don't see factories in CA building the 4 million cars you buy every year or whatever. If you want this type of stuff, choke up the dollars and design and build it yourself. You can't foot the bill? Then lay off GM and the places that do choke up the dollars to design and build and MANUFACTURE the cars.

What's keeping Arnold from wooing GM and Ford with huge money packages to put up factories to build electric cars right in Cali? That would be a productive business venture. You want to lead? Get it going. Imagine all the jobs it would create in your state alone.

Edited August 24, 2007 by regfootball