"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"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.

Uhm, SUVs are **** for high speed chases.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they were
safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving nothing but
SUVs.

You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

Yet relevant to HeyBub's claim.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"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.

But will it be a positive democratic state? If they elect an asshole as
their leader, then we are in just as bad a situation as before. Eemocracy
does not equal a positive result necssarily. Hey, we have a Democracy here
and look, it got us Bush as President.


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

In article ,
wrote:

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.

Another stupid Canuck. On behalf of the rest of us, I apologize.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

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. "


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.

And that's a good use for such a vehicle, but you know full well that that
the majority of SUV owners do NOT use their vehicles that way. I don't know
how old you are, but 25 years ago, if you looked around a crowded parking
lot, you ***NEVER*** saw that 75% of the cars there were actually trucks,
unless perhaps the parking lot belonged to a sportsman's club. But, that's
the case now. No way that many more people are driving off-road, skiing,
towing boats or hauling a half ton of cinder blocks. No way. You know that.

Ranting about personal choice is silly. You can't open your mouth at all
about our energy problems if you're not willing to do what's patriotic. I'm
not saying that you should try and tow a boat with a hybrid vehicle. I *am*
saying that if all you ever do is shop and haul 3 kids around, the patriotic
thing to do is not waste gasoline just so you can drive what your neighbors
are driving because you think it's cool.

trader4 likes the word "whacko", and pulls it out of his massive verbal
arsenal whenever I'm around because I spanked him over his love of garden
chemicals. However, I think that once he's out of high school, he'll mellow
some.

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


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they
were
safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving nothing but
SUVs.

You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

Hmmm....stability at high speeds. I think you just let all the air out of
the "SUVs are safer" theory. This is why we see so many of them in ditches,
waiting for tow trucks. That's where the higher seating level is handy - you
can see over the top of the ditch so you know when the tow truck's arrived.

"FDR" wrote in message
...

"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.


I believe that's been phased out. It was too much of an embarrassment.

"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"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.
what are they using? malibus? crown vics? tahoes?

Crown Victorias, nicely modified, and a few nice Mustangs, heavily tweaked.

FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

Yet relevant to HeyBub's claim.

Nope.

And I've never given a damn about his claim,
I dumped on Peng myself in another post.

There were much more recent 'problems with
Muslims' well before 9/11 than those pirates.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they were
safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving nothing but
SUVs.


You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

i bet if you asked the cops themselves, theyd tell you theyd rather
throw around a crown vic during a high speed chase than an expedition.

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

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??"

Because that's the end result of one group of people deciding what's moral
for
everybody and it's our civic duty to point that out whenever the
opportunity
arises.

That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

"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.

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

My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some people
if you suggest this. :-)

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

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they
were safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving
nothing but SUVs.


You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

i bet if you asked the cops themselves, theyd tell you theyd rather throw
around a crown vic during a high speed chase than an expedition.

I think you'd get that same response from ANYONE with more awareness than
your average hammer. :-)

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
snip
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.
snip

Where did you get those numbers?

Toyota's web site.



http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2005.pdf lists 15/18 mpg for the 4WD
& 16/18 mpg for the 2WD, both with the 4.7l V8 & 5 speed automatic. It
does list a 2wd Tundra rated at 18/22 mpg, but that's with the 4.0l V6
engine.

R,
Tom Q.

Remove bogusinfo to reply

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

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!]

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question. I suggested that consumers
be offered a much different choice when it comes to owning an SUV. And I
pointed out that the choices I'm suggesting are not so unusual TODAY if
you're buying a pickup truck. Or, at least those choices existed two days
ago when a friend of mine bought a new Toyota Tundra.

Are you saying that choices which already exist are impractical? Or, are you
saying that it would be too much to expect salespeople to explain the
choices?

"FDR" wrote in message
...

"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.

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other things,
like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car instead of a
truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

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

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin
Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

We did arm the Mujahidin, and they got ****ed over by
the Taliban, who were financed and armed by Pakistan.



I'm still entertained when I read the story of Peter Rabbit. You too, I
suspect.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
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.

What are YOUR sources for in-depth news?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Yes, it makes sense to not have the 4WD in theory, but even
that is arguable in areas that see much snow etc, particularly
for the sort of woman driver that drives so many of the SUVs.

You can make a case that they are quite a bit safer in those
in the worst driving conditions of snow and icy roads etc.

Skill and the correct tires trump drive train features, always. I live in
the kind of climate you describe, and we see see loads of 4WD vehicles in
ditches. They produce a false sense of confidence, something I learned in my
first half hour of driving in snow with my 4WD pickup. That's why I feel the
feature is a silly one to base a purchase on ***FOR SOME PEOPLE***. If
you're a half-assed driver, the feature will do very little for you in snow.



And they are basically prepared to pay for that in the substantially
higher cost of the vehicle and the cost of the fuel it wastes while
ever the cost of fuel is affordible, and it obviously still is.

And that's the problem! ***IF*** you believe that it's a useful strategy for
this country to buy less oil, and ***IF*** you can make a contribution in
that direction, then whether you can afford the fuel is not the issue.

I don't think we disagree that much. My thoughts come from lots of
conversations with my grandparents, who, along with millions of other
Americans, made some significant sacrifices during other times of shortage,
such as WWII. To them, it was a very matter of fact thing - just something
did for your country. And, it still happens today. When we first went to
Iraq, people in one of the gun newsgroups commented that they were unable to
order enough of certain rifle ammo. Someone pointed out a news article
indicating that two manufacturers were running 3 shifts at full capacity. No
big deal. People waited a bit.



The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers choosing
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.

I'm not so sure about that, but...oh well.



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".

Iraq wasnt about the price of oil.

Iraq wasn't even about Iraq, and still isn't.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not), the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was detonated
in a restaurant.

"Jim Yanik" . 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. 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.

I've trimmed away all but the important paragraph, above. Show me where I
said the government should engineer cars.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

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.

Doing fine, until they're not.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


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


Cut it out already, will ya?

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %

"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'

.....which is as dumb as the FBI pointing to mob problems and saying it's
"problems with Catholics".

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.


Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some time in or
near Tripoli in WWII. But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or
whatever the major religion was in Germany at the time. :-)

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

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!)

I think he means that even if you haven't been in a history class in 30
years, maps can reawaken your memory. You know - implied knowledge and all
that.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I
think mostly of the waste of my tax money...

"FDR" wrote in message
...


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.


David Letterman sometimes runs a short feature called "George Bush -
Wordsmith" Actual video clips of George, with absolutely NO comments added.
Recent quote:

"Some of these people have actually been trained to disassemble. That means
to not tell the truth".

The show overlaid text of the definition of "disassemble", just in case
anyone wasn't sure.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

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. And it may
very well work. Guys like you don't have a plan, nor anything positive
to contribute. 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. 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.


I just KNEW you'd reach this point eventually.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. **I** seek to divide the
country, weaken your president, and cause the death of more of our soldiers?
Exactly how am I doing that?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not), the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at the
pump...

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

I believe most of the US-imported oil currently comes from Canada and
Venezuela.And Mexico.

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %


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.




Ah,you don't know what the real facts are.
And you are mistaken about the Iraq war being about oil,along with many of
your other assumptions.

Well, let's see.....

1) Save the Iraqi people from further violence caused by their evil leader.
We succeeded at that. But, we've broken open a hornet's nest, and Iraqis are
being killed pretty much every day. And, we've done pretty much NOTHING in
places like Africa where genocide was taking place right on television. I
wonder why we ignored those other countries. Maybe because we already have
all the sorghum we need?

2) Deal with terrorism: You will now say "Well, you haven't seen a terrorist
attack in this country since we cleaned up Iraq, right?" My response:
They'll do it whenever they want, just as they did in London a couple of
days ago.

3) Deal with WMDs. Let's not even go there, OK?

4) Contain Saddam. No. He was already contained. And, his lousy attitude
gave us one of the best development and training environments the Air Force
could've hoped for. Fly over all day long, bomb the snots out of radar
installations with pretty much NO loss of life, test new electronics and
munitions without any complaints from anyone about upsetting endangered
frogs in the American desert - perfect.

Here's something fishy. Your president began waving his dick and making
threats about 6 months before the invasion. One moment, his sitters were
insinuating that they didn't trust the U.N. to achieve anything meaningful
with Iraq. The next moment, your president would say he was giving the U.N.
one last chance to do whatever it is he wanted them to do. So: "They're
pansies and we don't believe in their abilities, but we'll sit and wait".

Meanwhile, he gave the so-called enemy plenty of time to get ready.
Something stinks. There was a reason for waiting so long, and it is NOT the
"it takes time to plan an invasion" nonsense.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a
period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to
get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I
think mostly of the waste of my tax money...

Me too, but believe it or not, a few of them have worked. Takes forever, but
so does winning an argument with your wife.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100 people and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What I *am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used car
lots is some indication of this idea.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not),
the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was
detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at the
pump...

Speculation. Exactly. Definition: A bunch of suits who also bet on hog
bellies and orange juice.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Ford Prefect" 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.



The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy for
the individual to use, but difficult for the mega corps to control
distribution. There is no money in it for them if you or I can produce our
own power, heat & fuel.


Maybe, but try as I might, I have not been able to design, build and install
any sort of thing on my roof that'll provide all my hot water & heat, and
maybe some of my electricity. (I'd settle for the first two). So, I'm
probably gonna have to buy something. It'll be expensive, and I'll probably
only buy it once, or maybe twice if it wears out.

Hey....this sounds like the same purchasing cycle as the roof on a house.
Why can't corporations make money on this?



Hear you go, http://www.acrosolarlasers.com/addition.html

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a
period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to
get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I
think mostly of the waste of my tax money...

Me too,....

Then why are you advocating for it?

Not the government's job imo...

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


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they
were
safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving nothing but
SUVs.

You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

Hmmm....stability at high speeds. I think you just let all the air out of
the "SUVs are safer" theory. This is why we see so many of them in ditches,
waiting for tow trucks. That's where the higher seating level is handy - you
can see over the top of the ditch so you know when the tow truck's arrived.

"High speeds" meaning in high-speed chases. SUVs are perfectly stable during
normal highway driving. As for "see[ing] so many of them in ditches", I think
you're fantasizing. The overwhelming majority of vehicles that I see in
ditches are small, front-drive cars.

And SUVs *are* safer in collisions with other cars. For their occupants,
that is, not necessarily for the people in the other cars.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.