Another Stimulus success story
 

A123 Systems, an electric car battery company, ”has laid off 125 employees and had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011.”

The clean energy battery maker that received $390.1 million in federal and state subsidies has slashed jobs and posted massive losses.

I love the icing on this cake, so sweet:

Sooo....

You are complaining about the state of Michigan providing substantial subsidies to A123, and corporate officer pay, Brainy?

'Cause I'm a bit baffled as to where you are trying to go with this. Fisker fucked up and can't provide A123 with batteries? But if you have a problem with Fisker, well...

http://thinkprogress.org/report/clean-energy-cons/

And this elaborates on the Republicans trying to manufacture a scandal that simply isn't there...

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...gop/?mobile=nc

Unless, of course, you consider it a bipartisan scandal where both parties raped us. I'm on board with that. But that's not what the topic said. Especially since Solyndra received loans originating from the Bush administration.

I don't think I made this partisan at all. Please stop link from those sources. I beg you. obviously you'll find letters from all senators trying to get clean energy grants for their states, it's acutally what senators are sorta supossed to do--represent their state's best interests.

it's a scam game, I never said otherwise.

in a game of winners and losers, the gov't always picks losers and pays them handsomely. This is just another fine example of home gov't innovation works...it doesn't.


in a related story: PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets in its HQ in VA.

Where?

I thought this thread would be about Viagra.

Sure, if you agree to stop posting equally partisan sources.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16500

There was a point where it worked, but that point is long gone ('60s are a stunning example of it). Crony capitalism and corporatism give obvious results.

PETA's home to one of the few places more hypocritical than our politicians.

Story originated from http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16500, which is precisely why I linked Thinkprogress in response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackina..._Public_Policy

Yeah, that made me laugh.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamaz...ublic_pol.html

The Heritage Foundation also has tried to claim it's non-partisan. Do you believe that too?

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._Public_Policy

Even actual independent sources brand it as heavily conservative Mg.

So explain to me how the Mackinac Center's conservative bent (note, a political position is not the same thing as being partisan) influenced their report on the A123 systems.

This thread is stupid. who started this stupid thread?

I'm not the one complaining about linking a blatantly liberal source to counter a blatantly conservative source, Mg. Brainy is, you may want to ask him that though.

I didnt even post any source (i do this purposely). wtf.

I gave a few simple lines from a story.

Are any of things untrue:

1. A123 Systems laid off 125 employees and had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011

2 .The clean energy battery maker that received $390.1 million in federal and state subsidies.

3. A123’s Compensation Committee approved a bunch of raises


yes or no?

Actually, my question to you involved your first comment that "that's not what the topic said." You replied by noting the source of Brain's article.

So defend your conclusion. Show me how the Mackinac's political bent has forced untruths into that article.

I really have to give you credit for your ability to try to make people say things that they never said or implied, Mg. You are good at it.

The funny thing is that I know you are smarter than you are trying to come off, but for some reason you refuse to use that intelligence on certain things.

The OP uses a constantly repeated Republican mantra, and quotes from a heavily conservative story. I refute it by using equally biased sources that counter the OP's story nicely as well as refute what the OP is implying, provide links to the original story that is quoted in the OP, and provide evidence that the story comes from a heavily biased source.

It is interesting to watch you try to manufacture outrage, so to speak. But I'm not falling for your tricks again bro, nice try though.

So the story isn't true because of who reported on it first?

you didn't refute anything. You posted links to some letters of R-senators that want some money.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

This story has as much validity as the links I first posted, Brainy.

Their fincial reports say they are in the red to the tune of $152,560,000 at the end of 2010 and reported a 78% gross loss.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._2010_10-K.pdf


Are they lying? Obama looks like he has blue lips, so therefore miata turbos are awesome.

Irrelevant to my argument.

Everything you've said is irreleveant to everything, so it's okay.

Speak clearly then, because I'm not the only one who apparently is constantly misunderstanding your points.

By the way, all I'm seeing in your two links is evidence that GOPer's were for clean energy stimulus before they were against clean energy stimulus, with no specific refutation of the information Brainy posted.

So tell me -- why is it that Brain posted an excerpt that made ZERO mention of Democrats or Republicans, and your response was immediately to assume that Brain was blaming Democrats?