"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news:q8l2q2-
:

Now if the money was put into -building- nuclear power plants,then it
might
be worthwhile,although the Islamics would STILL be attacking us,as we
of
the West stand in the way of them spreading their religion,and are an
excuse for them not achieving their "greatness" under Islamic rule.


Bin Laden's bug up his ass stems from our bases in Saudi Arabia during
the 1st Gulf War.

And allegedly our support for Israel against the "Palestinians",and other
things.

We were there because of Kuwait

AND Saudi Arabia,the -next- target of Saddam.

, and we loved Kuwait
not because of the Kuwaiti people, wonderfully pleasant folks that they
are.

Without our oil money, they'd be living in tents and pulling sand out of
their ass.




Except that they are not getting OUR "oil money",which is going to
Canada,Venezuela,and Mexico.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals" and
other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce our
fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering
a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing -
no need for such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and
he had a god-given right to own anything he wanted.

Well,that IS the truth.It's supposedly a free country.
It's their money to spend.

Or are you one of those who believe that government should determine what
people can or can't own?

(IOW,a Communist/Socialist)

(I drive a small fuel-efficient car,BTW,only owned one "large" car in my
life. )

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news2q2q2-
:

Don't confuse the message and the medium. I drive a 1985 Toyota, don't
even have a garage, and I've never even flown 1st class (although I was
bumped to business class on a trip to South America).

What exactly do conservatives conserve?




The Constitution. Our written laws.Individual rights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate
for maybe 90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying
that a carpenter, mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup
truck. But, it's just plain stupid that soccer mommies are driving
around in SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built
on a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the
Accord or Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids.
But other than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

OK, but look around as you drive. Are the majority of SUVs things
like RAV-4s, or mid & full size hogs? Here (upstate NY), I mostly see
hogs.

But, as you noted just a post earlier, you're obviously seeing fewer
as "the used car lots are full" of them. An observation which should
indicate that market forces do work...

Once upon a time there was a fad for custom-outfitted "conversion
vans" that were at least as gas-hungry and much less road-worthy.
They, too, had a short time when they were near the most popular, if
not the most, new vehicle class sold. Tastes changed, as they will
again.

It used to be that most of the cars sold in the US were "domestic" full
size cars with really crappy mileage;road whales,all of them.

Now market forces have pursuaded people to buy more "foreign" autos that
get far better mileage,and the "domestic" automakers have followed by
improving their products mileage.

But there's still a contingent of people who only "feel safe" in large
vehicles,and will only buy/drive those,and they generally have lousy
mileage.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for
maybe 90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a
carpenter, mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But,
it's just plain stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in
SUVs which, by design, get hideous gas mileage. You know full well
that the vast majority of people who own them will never EVER need
the mechanical advantages of those power trains. NEVER. No towing,
no off-road, nothing.

yeah? well, its their choice. i myself have a 98 civic hatch, and if
i ever replace it itll be with another small hatch. also have a small
dual-sport motorcycle, and a big scooter. i dont even bother looking
at the pump price when i fill up. less money spent on gas means more
money to spend on cool toys

It's their choice, but only if they're made aware of the mechanical
options they knew nothing about. Without knowledge, there is no
choice.




You can't force people to learn,it must be their choice.

(in a free society)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wow, at least I learned some new insults from this most insightful exchange.

"pathetic twerp"

"stupid pig ignorant clown"

"pig ignorant drivel" (shouldn't that be hyphenated?)

barbie gee wrote in
:



On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, max wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is
right for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should
go take a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to
Colorado necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's
closer? How about driving the family to the beach every weekend in
the summer? Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not
only does it use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to
use less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to
close disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

we call that kind of sloppy thinking "the slippery slope" train of
thought.
"First they restrict our freedom to waste, next thing ya know we'll
all be in a concentration camp!"

ridiculous.




"freedom to waste";are you advocating rationing?
Or government specifying what sort of vehicle you get to buy with "your"
money?

Yeah,that will work SO good....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news:6ep2q2-
:


Bottom line: it not the government, it's the American citizenry who is
to blame, by its economic behavior in the showroom and the road, and
by
the government whose actions it continues to support at election time.

Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax.

All increasing the gas tax will do is give government more money to waste
at the citizen's expense.Note that businesses get to transfer their costs
to the buyers;-citizens.A doubly whammy to the economy.

But they
lack the political cojones to do so.

They're smarter than you.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work.





Incidentally,CAFE is the reason for SUVs current popularity,because CAFE
effectively killed off the full-size auto,*and SUV's and "light trucks"
wangled an -exemption- from CAFE*.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I never understood why anyone would go to the trouble to write a novel
when you can just go out and buy one for a few bucks." -- lpogoda

wrote in
ups.com:

"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one drop!
The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are already
way down.

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.



The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a desolate miserable place,not
any "pristine wilderness".
And where they already have drilled,the wildlife is doing fine.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one
drop! The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are
already way down.

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long
time ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.


Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of
arguement, and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the
mechanical design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and
as any cop, tow truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow
belt will tell you, 4WD is of no advantage to most drivers, and may
actually be a hindrance. The only possible advantage to SUVs (and I
won't touch this debate) is that they may be safer in collisions.

With me so far?

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should
find an incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers
to offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely
approach "normal". "Not like a truck", in other words. The power train
design is the PRIMARY reason these vehicles get such bad mileage. Give
customers the same physical, boxy shape they want, same choice of
motors, but with front wheel drive. The car makers can reduce the
price a little, but probably make more, since most customers have no
real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle. And, offer 4wd
versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't think many
will.





Ah,you want GOVERNMENT to engineer autos.
That's really efficient...yup.Sure.

(sarcasm mode back to off)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to
offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely
approach "normal". "Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY
reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high
weight. Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage -
or it might not move at all.

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the
100-200 lbs of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even when
4WD is not engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance.
***BASICALLY*** the same V-8 as a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in
real world terms) about 25% better gas mileage.

In addition, the automatic transmission in an SUV or pickup is
programmed to shift MUCH differently than in a roughly equivalent
sedan. It takes about a week of driving one to notice this. It's set
up with the assumption that you're hauling lots of weight, so it tends
to upshift later, and especially, to downshift sooner when you need
only a small amount of acceleration. Good for towing, or hauling a ton
of bricks, but just plain stupid for the majority of drivers who are
carrying the kids to baseball.

By the way, if the absence or presence of 4WD is as insignificant as
you say, then explain this example:
Toyota Tundra, Regular cab, 4.7 liter V-8 with 2 wheel drive: 18/22
mpg Same truck with 4wd: 15/18 mpg.

Bigger ash trays in the 4x4?



The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical? Dealers do it
all the time with pickup trucks, or they'd be out of the truck
business insofar as tradespeople (who use trucks for work) are
concerned.

Why do you think something that is already happening is impractical?




Next you will be calling for a return to the 55mph National Motor Speed
Limit,from 1973.(which worked SO well)[not!]

Then maybe speed limiters.
Vehicles will be no faster than 60 mph,in all conditions.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the
100-200 lbs of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even
when 4WD is not engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance.
***BASICALLY*** the same V-8 as a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in
real world terms) about 25% better gas mileage.

fleets like that generally want to stick with one type of vehicle, so
they can keep a smaller supply of parts like tires, filters, etc.
plus, car tires are cheaper than SUV tires.

True, but with the political clout they have, I don't think the NYS
police would put up with bad vehicles for very long, considering that
they have to drive the things in some of the most disgusting weather
you've ever seen.




Actually,police departments are turning to more SUVs as the large autos
they need are being discontinued.And the SUVs work better in flood and
other weather conditions.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
news
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I
don't think many will.

Sure, but you wont get any real improvement in fuel efficiency your
way.

I don't agree, and neither do the three mechanics at the shop I've
been using for years, but it's not worth debating. It's enough to say
that if you add a hundred pounds of rotating parts to a drive train,
and they do nothing most of the time, there MUST be some effect. Maybe
not as large as I suspect, but greater than zero.



The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers
choose fuel efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until
the cost of the fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying
decisions.

That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low
gas mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact,
they should be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the
oil supply which we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so
wrapped up in the kinds of cars we drive".




Except that our oil is presently coming from CANADA,VENEZUELA,and
Mexico,not Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil due to
their increasingly industrialized economy,thus the present supply has to go
to more consumers,thus the rise in price.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
oups.com...
"But, it's just plain stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in
SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage. You know full well that the vast majority of
people who
own them will never EVER need the mechanical advantages of those power
trains. NEVER. No towing, no off-road, nothing. "

The concept of letting people decide what they want to do with their
lives went right over Doug's pointed little head. You moan on about
how no one needs the features. Who are you to decide what others need
or want? I go snowboarding at Killington, VT frequently. I go with a
buddy and we always take his SUV because it has room for our gear and 4
wheel drive is very desirable in that environment. And it gets about
21MPG. That's right, 21MPG.

On the highway no doubt. Put that to everyday use in the city and it's
going to be more like 14.


But apparently that isn't good enough, is
it? Or as I asked before, maybe I just shouldn't go snowboarding at
all, because that isn't important to YOU.

So I assume that your vehicle isn't a SUV with 4 wheel drive. Seems like
you have some sense.

Should we close Disneyland,
because it isn't necessary either and just encourages energy waster by
people flying there from all over the country?

When gas prices hit $10/gallon, it will close anyway becasue no one will be
able to afford it.


And the reality is that half the energy problem is liberal whackos like
Doug. They're the reason a new refinery hasn't been built in the US in
the last 30 years.

No, it's because the gas companies don't want to. Why should they throw
money at refining more fuel when they know there will be less of it to
refine since it's going to run out?

And refinery capacity has a lot to do with the
price increase of gas.

As is the demand for gas.

They also won't let anyone drill in ANWR,
though they pretend to be soooo worried about the security of the US.
If they were, then not only would we be drilling for oil and building
refineries, we'd be building nuclear plants too.

But anytime you want to do any of that, the whackos that know what
everyone else should be riding in, run out and bitch. If we listened
to them, we'd all be back in caves by now.


Yo, it's us "wackos" that have been pushing for efficiency. You seem quite
contenty throwing your money away. Your loss.

However, I encourage everyone to drive Hummers and mini Peterbuilts so that
we can the wells dry sooner and end our dependence on gas once and for all.
Anyone up for a buggy ride?

wrote in
oups.com:

"That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low
gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they
should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply
which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the
kinds
of cars we drive".


How much oil was there in Bosnia, when Clinton sent troops there to
die? Or how about Somalia? Did they have much oil? Or Vietnam or
Korea? But suddenly oil is the only reason the US is in Iraq. LOL
Fools like Doug don't learn from history.

They don't read sources other than the socialist-biased major
media,either.If they read some conservative sources,they would know better.

They think that if the US
somehow no longer needed to import oil that we could just ignore a hot
spot like the Middle East and let anything happen. Like we ignored
Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin Laden run
terrorist training camps.

The simple fact is, the world will need large quantities of oil for as
far as anyone can see. The world can't afford to let that oil and all
the revenue fall into hostile hands, like Bin Laden for example,
because with all that money and unlimited power, everyone knows what
that would lead to. Doug would sit here driving his Yugo, living in
his solar powered house, feeling nice and superior, till one day he
realized half the world was at war, with Bin Laden now a nuclear power.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
The Real Bev wrote:
...
...We don't heat or cool our house, ...

Where would that be?

Nirvanaland.

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news:jv03q2-
:


Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.



Dunno. Can you change radical Islamist thinking by throwing this money
into Iraq? Where is this money better spent (forget about the lives of
U.S.)? How much do we spend now on energy research?




Why do you believe throwing more money into research will produce more
realistically useable energy sources?

Practically,it will mean higher salaries for some,more equipment in their
labs,more employees to enlarge their authority(justifying a higher salary).


Build more nuclear power plants.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one drop!
The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are already
way down.

Yet shale is goping to have to provide some source as demand increases and
supply levels off. Shale is abundant in Canada and they are going to use
it. But it is much more expensive to extract.


What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.

And when that runs out where do we get it from, out of your ass?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of
arguement,
and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the mechanical
design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and as any cop, tow
truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow belt will tell you,
4WD
is of no advantage to most drivers, and may actually be a hindrance. The
only possible advantage to SUVs (and I won't touch this debate) is that
they
may be safer in collisions.

"may be" ????? _Of_course_ they're safer in collisions: they're bigger and
heavier. No argument with the rest of what you've stated.

With me so far?

Yep.

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly, and
the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal".
"Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY
reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high weight.
Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage - or it
might not move at all.

Exactly.

..

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
the FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms....

But it is the reason so many buy SUVs.

And then there are the tax deductions that the IRS allows for companys to
buy them. Funny how they don't allow them for high efficiency cars.

"Gonzo" wrote in
:

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next
attack so we can get your permission to go after the source next
time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until
9-11.

Not true.
Bin Laden alone made several attacks on the US and US overseas embassies
and military well before 9-11. Remeember the FIRST WTC bombing,when CLINTON
was President? Or the two Embassy bombings or the USS Cole bombing?

A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed through
time.

Oh,yeah,that's a -great- source for political data. (not!)


So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the
current mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air.

No,it did not.Not considering the previous attacks,like WTC-bombing #ONE.


But there
was a lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of
technologically naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and crash
them with deadly effect. You cannot defeat a billion of angry
muslims to prevent another attack. So you must work out a political
solution and neither going to war or building space age defences is
going to do it.

Going to war will turn Iraq to a democratic state,and already is fostering
democratic changes in other ME states.

That be the case then they are committing genocide. That is not the
case though as only a few radical Islam idiots are doing it. You make
it sound like all of the ME is after us. Do some more research.




Your own research is lacking,as I've pointed out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion)
used for alternative energy research instead of spending it
on the war, Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there,
we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.

Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.

Yeah, you can't build a fission weapon out of Uranium by throwing money at
it. You can't get electricity from nuclear material by throwing money aat
it. . Oh wait, we did in both cases....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until
9-11.

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years of
our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who
raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute.
In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led
to the Tripolitan war with the United States. When the peace treaty
was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute
to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing over
Tripoli. Yeah right.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"The numbers aren't hard to find online, but who cares? If it were
true, that
would eliminate Curious George's only remaining reason for our presence
in
Iraq. We can't have that happening - reality shifting based on actual
physical facts. "

At least President Bush has a plan to deal with terrorism.

Yeah, invading countries will nilly because Rumsfeld tells him to.


And it may very well work.

You mean it hasn't happened yet?


Guys like you don't have a plan, nor anything positive
to contribute.

Uhm, spend our resources actually tring to find the group that attacked us.
Use our clout to unite the world, not divide it. Use our brains to develop
altrenatives to gas.

And even if you did, last time I checked, the American
people gave the job to President Bush by returning him to office in a
decisive election.

Hmmm, I suppose it had nothing to do with all those state initiatives
banning gay marriage.

Now, instead of at least giving him the benefit of
the doubt and supporting what he's trying to do, you instead you seek
to divide the country and try to weaken the Commander in Chiefin a time
of war. That only emboldens our terrorist enemies and makes the war
harder, longer and costs more lives.

Maybe if our commander in chief wasn't constantly hurting himslef on bikes
and pretzels, could speak like somebody with a Yale education and wasn't
trying to run this country into the ground by spending the USA credit card
all the time, he'd ahve more respect.

FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion)
used for alternative energy research instead of spending it
on the war, Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there,
we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.

Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.

Yeah, you can't build a fission weapon out of Uranium by throwing
money at it. You can't get electricity from nuclear material by
throwing money aat it. . Oh wait, we did in both cases....

We've already spent that sort of money on 'alternative energy research'
and discovered as a result of that that while its quite viable in some
situations like off the grid power, but aint ever gunna do much about
what we get from those 'sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc'

FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until 9-11.

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years
of our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who
raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute.
In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led
to the Tripolitan war with the United States. When the peace treaty
was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute
to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing over
Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

You might get bombed.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:04:40 GMT, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

I'm Canadian, I just check my beer.

The Real Bev wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:
...
...We don't heat or cool our house, ...

Where would that be?

Los Angeles area.

Figures...my sympathies...

Duane Bozarth wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
....

...We don't heat or cool our house, ...


Where would that be?

los angeles. i dont have A/C either. this past winter, i think i ran the
forced air furnace twice, mostly to make sure it still works

Duane Bozarth wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:
...
...We don't heat or cool our house, ...

Where would that be?

Los Angeles area.

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
It's cheaper." -- Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999

wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:


Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture


Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

i think the D8 would get squished.

wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

This is a safety contest, right?

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
It's cheaper." -- Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999

Incidentally,CAFE is the reason for SUVs current popularity,because CAFE
effectively killed off the full-size auto,*and SUV's and "light trucks"
wangled an -exemption- from CAFE*.

=======================
Hell of a long thread...so long that I honestly do not tremember what
NG I am reading.. Damn after looking its Alt Home Repair... LOL..

HOWEVER...
Jim Yanik has already expressed most of my feelings ..I am int
complete agreement with at least 90 percent of his comments...

Bob G.

SoCalMike wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:


Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture


Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

i think the D8 would get squished.

I think so too...a D8 is roughly 20-22 tons (short) while one of these
goes at about 75,000 lb empty. I think they have a payload of 40-50
tons, so a loaded one would be in the neighborhood of 80-90 tons...

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news2q2q2-
:

Don't confuse the message and the medium. I drive a 1985 Toyota, don't
even have a garage, and I've never even flown 1st class (although I was
bumped to business class on a trip to South America).

What exactly do conservatives conserve?




The Constitution. Our written laws.Individual rights.

So why did you elect that bozo?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

FDR wrote:
....
So why did you elect that bozo?

'Cause this bozo was the lesser bozo of the two...

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals" and
other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce our
fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering
a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing -
no need for such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and
he had a god-given right to own anything he wanted.

Well,that IS the truth.It's supposedly a free country.
It's their money to spend.

I dodn't know that God gave rights to vehicle ownership. Is that in
Leviticus or James?


Or are you one of those who believe that government should determine what
people can or can't own?

I think common sense should dictate that. Unfortunately little of that is
around.


(IOW,a Communist/Socialist)

(I drive a small fuel-efficient car,BTW,only owned one "large" car in my
life. )

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar.
Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

This is a safety contest, right?

More like whose penis size is bigger contest.


--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
It's cheaper." -- Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:05:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

On what do you base that statement? The dump truck would certainly
win the load-carrying contest, and, I'm pretty sure, would win a
tractor pull if you parked it fully loaded with the brakes set.

771D DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37840&x=7

Engine Engine Model Cat 3408E
Gross Power 518 hp / 386 kW
Flywheel Power 487 hp / 363 kW
Net Power - Cat 487 hp / 363 kW
Max. Torque 1618 lb ft / 2186 N.m
Bore 5.4 in / 137 mm
Stroke 6 in / 152 mm
Displacement 1099 in3 / 18 L
Maximum Gross Machine Weight 166500 lb / 75700 kg


D8T WH DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37840&x=7

Engine Engine Model Cat C15 ACERT
Gross Power 347 hp / 259 kW
Flywheel Power 310 hp / 231 kW
Bore 5.4 in / 137 mm
Stroke 6.75 in / 172 mm
Displacement 928 in3 / 15.2 L
Operating Weight 85150 lb / 38660 kg

The ball is in your court. Care to continue the debate?