Toyota/Prius Fans.... Toyota is part of the evil empire

[dipper]

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../70730006/1024

Toyota decided to fight the new CAFE law following the big 3.

For those that keep saying that it is stupid to fight CAFE, and see how Toyota should do it. Well, seems like Toyota is not a leader after all, they are rather a follower of the evil empire.

[catgic]

HTTP 404 Not Found

[dipper]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

Dipper --- The link you offer No Werkum.
[/b]

Looks like autoweek got a beating by Toyota's avertising money, and decided to take it down...

Found a copy of the full article cut/pasted by another forum.... http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=512664

[boulder_bum]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

My question is how did the Senate/Congress and Sen. Dick Durbin select 35-mpg as “the standard?" Why not 34-mpg, 36-mpg or even 40-mpg. Clearly, selecting the “35-mpg” fuel economy number used in the Bill was not done in concert and coordination with those “owning” the FE-Technology. Otherwise, the “Big 3” and Toyota would not be baulking at the Senate/Congress laying that fuel economy number on them.
[/b]

The auto industry also bawled when the government required cars have seat belts, when they required airbags, and also the last time they raised fuel standards (which was 30 years ago).

One of the reasons we're in the mess we're in right now is because the govenment passed energy bills where those "owning the FE-technology" had too much say! The Levin-Bond Fuel Economy Amendment of 2002 is criticized as the "let's do nothing but say we did" amendment by environmentalists and, indeed, the legislation that Michigan Senator Carl Levin passed with the help of his constituants in Detroit has had pretty much zero positive change since its passage.

Our government is finally doing what it was supposed to do, which is to not let special interests/automakers define our energy policy.

That said, as a matter of history, Toyota also fought hard against the electric car mandate in California back in the day. Although they make the Prius and several other environmentally friendly cars, Toyota isn't any more innocent in its lobbying than GM or any other manufacturer.

[MikeSF]

Kind of a rhetorical question here ...

but why do corporations get to have any say in what those leaders who were elected by the people want to do?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Aug 1 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]488939[/snapback]</div>

That said, as a matter of history, Toyota also fought hard against the electric car mandate in California back in the day. Although they make the Prius and several other environmentally friendly cars, Toyota isn't any more innocent in its lobbying than GM or any other manufacturer.
[/b]

IIRC the mandate was worded really poorly, the idea was to have zero emission cars, however it outlined that those must be strictly battery powered electric.

[richard schumacher]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 1 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

but why do corporations get to have any say in what those leaders who were elected by the people want to do?
[/b]

One dollar, one vote. It's the American way.

[Godiva]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 1 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

but why do corporations get to have any say in what those leaders who were elected by the people want to do?
[/b]

Because a moronic clerical error has allowed corporations the same rights as a person and the error has never been corrected. (Probably because of the monetary benefits to the corporations and the corporations make sure their political puppets maintain the status quo.)

[cwerdna]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Aug 1 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]488733[/snapback]</div>

Looks like autoweek got a beating by Toyota's avertising money, and decided to take it down...

Found a copy of the full article cut/pasted by another forum.... http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=512664
[/b]

No, it wasn't taken down. The link was wrong w/the embedded periods. There's no way it could've worked as is.

See http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...1024/LATESTNEWS.

[Earthling]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

Citizens, politicians and auto-truck producers all recognize 4) as a 21st Century priority.

[/b]

Ha, that's a laugh.

While polls do show that citizens realize we need better fuel economy, the Big Three certainly don't act like it. They continue to fight new CAFE standards so they can maximize profits by selling oversized gas-guzzlers. And yes, you can include Toyota in that unethical business practice.

Harry

[Stev0]

Yeah, I know Toyota still makes, markets, and happily sells gas-guzzling SUVs. But unlike the Big Three, they also market a car that uses much less gas without compromising anything. Which is why I bought that car.