| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The Terrorists Won..
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Their greatest recruiter, Dubya, was re-inaugurated today, thus ensuring growth in terrorist ranks for the next four years. You mean growth in the number of terrorist casualties. |
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Their greatest recruiter, Dubya, was re-inaugurated today, thus ensuring growth in terrorist ranks for the next four years. They had enough recruits before to fly airliners in to builds, killing a few thousand innocents. some even Union members, so you should be happy we are going after terrorists. |
He could very well be the antichrist.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Their greatest recruiter, Dubya, was re-inaugurated today, thus ensuring growth in terrorist ranks for the next four years. |
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:44:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Hey Doug, on a different note..... A friend of mine told me Buffalo went to a regional (county) government. Is that true and if so, how is it working out? No idea. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:44:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Hey Doug, on a different note..... A friend of mine told me Buffalo went to a regional (county) government. Is that true and if so, how is it working out? No idea. Some were winners...some losers when we were forced to become a regional municipality by our provincial gov't in the mid '90s. For the old city of Halifax, which was in good financial shape...higher taxes with very visible deterioration in services...especially police. |
Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. Very correct. So we buy it and turn it in to a very good lifestyle. You think you would be employed if we ran out of energy? How many buildings and bridges would be designed and built? We require it for our economy. How are you going to supply the energy to run this country and the economic engine? |
Calif Bill wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. Very correct. So we buy it and turn it in to a very good lifestyle. You think you would be employed if we ran out of energy? How many buildings and bridges would be designed and built? We require it for our economy. How are you going to supply the energy to run this country and the economic engine? Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing new, more energy efficient buildings. There would be new technologies sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right wing just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace the horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working, profitable farms today? |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. Very correct. So we buy it and turn it in to a very good lifestyle. You think you would be employed if we ran out of energy? How many buildings and bridges would be designed and built? We require it for our economy. How are you going to supply the energy to run this country and the economic engine? Wouldn't matter. If we ran out of energy, I'll guess half this country's population would be dead within a short time. |
You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at least as
big as 1929. "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. Very correct. So we buy it and turn it in to a very good lifestyle. You think you would be employed if we ran out of energy? How many buildings and bridges would be designed and built? We require it for our economy. How are you going to supply the energy to run this country and the economic engine? Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing new, more energy efficient buildings. There would be new technologies sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right wing just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace the horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working, profitable farms today? |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at least as big as 1929. Once again, asslicker proves why he is the "KING of the NG idiots" "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: What are you going to do about the energy requirements of the West? Supply and demand! Simple as that. If we don't have it, we can't use it. Very correct. So we buy it and turn it in to a very good lifestyle. You think you would be employed if we ran out of energy? How many buildings and bridges would be designed and built? We require it for our economy. How are you going to supply the energy to run this country and the economic engine? Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing new, more energy efficient buildings. There would be new technologies sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right wing just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace the horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working, profitable farms today? |
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:39:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at least as big as 1929. Have you heard of the Olduvai Theory? I'm not saying it's accurate, but it does provide food for thought. http://dieoff.com/page224.htm |
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To survive, we are going to have to learn to live within the constraints of this planet, whatever they may be. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. |
"NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? |
"NOYB" wrote in message . net... Remove the other nations competing for the oil from the face of the map. That should free up another 5 decades of the stuff. .......or..if the super wasteful US was removed from the equation...the supply might last another millennium. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? Once we pump all of the oil out of the ground in the Middle East, we can pump it underground in the vacant caves. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? There are places in the US where we can safely bury the waste. As to high level waste, there is really very little of it. As to radiation pollution, coal mining and burning releases exponentially more radiation than Nuclear plants. There are stable mountains in Nevada, Salt Mines in several other states. Encased in lead and glass, makes for a stable storage package. If you are going to live within the constraints of the energy available to us with out fission or fusion, then figure about 1/2 the people on earth will have to leave. Oil and natural gas is also used for plastic, medicine, fertilizer outside the energy area. Thunder asked about the Olduvai Theory, is a theory same as a lot of theories. Is not a given or provable. There is going to be a major upheaval in the world as oil production decreases. Middle East will be a violent place, and we will have to fend them off. They get their food and manufactured goods from the West and East now. But with no oil money, there are going to have to try to take over arable lands outside their area. They have not done well in the last 2000 years since they started as the cradle of civilization, been going downhill since. They could learn from the Israelis on how to produce food in less than ideal conditions and with brackish water. But religion and extremists prevent that. 50-100 years from now will be very interesting times for mankind. Hope they survive. |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? There are places in the US where we can safely bury the waste. As to high level waste, there is really very little of it. As to radiation pollution, coal mining and burning releases exponentially more radiation than Nuclear plants. There are stable mountains in Nevada, Salt Mines in several other states. Encased in lead and glass, makes for a stable storage package. If you are going to live within the constraints of the energy available to us with out fission or fusion, then figure about 1/2 the people on earth will have to leave. Oil and natural gas is also used for plastic, medicine, fertilizer outside the energy area. Thunder asked about the Olduvai Theory, is a theory same as a lot of theories. Is not a given or provable. There is going to be a major upheaval in the world as oil production decreases. Middle East will be a violent place, and we will have to fend them off. They get their food and manufactured goods from the West and East now. But with no oil money, there are going to have to try to take over arable lands outside their area. They have not done well in the last 2000 years since they started as the cradle of civilization, been going downhill since. They could learn from the Israelis on how to produce food in less than ideal conditions and with brackish water. But religion and extremists prevent that. 50-100 years from now will be very interesting times for mankind. Hope they survive. The end of oil reservees in the near future has been predicted for years. THe fact is that there are fstill plenty of sources that are currnetly not economical to develop. As the readily available sources become scarcer, those known deposits will become economically viable, as will alternate energy sources.......synthetics, etc. |
"NOYB" wrote in message .net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? Once we pump all of the oil out of the ground in the Middle East, we can pump it underground in the vacant caves. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.................. Bait someone else. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message . net... Remove the other nations competing for the oil from the face of the map. That should free up another 5 decades of the stuff. ......or..if the super wasteful US was removed from the equation...the supply might last another millennium. Hey....let's get sumthin straight there, Canadian boy. Everyone's got a god-given right to own a HUMV, even if we have no family and never carry anything but 3 bags of groceries. Sez so right thar in the bible. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Hey....let's get sumthin straight there, Canadian boy. Everyone's got a god-given right to own a HUMV, even if we have no family and never carry anything but 3 bags of groceries. Sez so right thar in the bible. That's a very good place to start. people should require a 'special' license to operate anything above a compact car or small pickup. I feel that gasoline should be rationed to encourage less waste. Let's say..the first 20 gallons a week at a affordable price...increasing to double that for anything over..(a form of luxury tax). |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Hey....let's get sumthin straight there, Canadian boy. Everyone's got a god-given right to own a HUMV, even if we have no family and never carry anything but 3 bags of groceries. Sez so right thar in the bible. That's a very good place to start. people should require a 'special' license to operate anything above a compact car or small pickup. I feel that gasoline should be rationed to encourage less waste. Let's say..the first 20 gallons a week at a affordable price...increasing to double that for anything over..(a form of luxury tax). Gawd, am I glad I live in America where I have the right to buy whatever vehicle I want and use as much gas as I want to. Gotta luv those HumVees and 59' Cadillacs. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Hey....let's get sumthin straight there, Canadian boy. Everyone's got a god-given right to own a HUMV, even if we have no family and never carry anything but 3 bags of groceries. Sez so right thar in the bible. That's a very good place to start. people should require a 'special' license to operate anything above a compact car or small pickup. I feel that gasoline should be rationed to encourage less waste. Let's say..the first 20 gallons a week at a affordable price...increasing to double that for anything over..(a form of luxury tax). Are you going to take away Eisboch's and his wife's fuel guzzling boats too? Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Should air travel be banned? Should we all be forced to buy MiniCoopers? Should we limit the amount of electricity we can use? Electric power plants burn plenty of fuel. Better not buy that 5 hp Honda gas snowblower....you will be using up *your* allotment of gas.;-) |
"JimH" wrote in message ... Gawd, am I glad I live in America where I have the right to buy whatever vehicle I want and use as much gas as I want to. Gotta luv those HumVees and 59' Cadillacs. That's the good thing about our age. We'll probably be 6 feet under by the time the crisis hits. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:42:10 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: I will answer yours even though you avoid answering mine. Build lots of nuclear power plants. Same thing we should be doing now. Wind and solar are not efficient enough to supply the countries needs. Then we could save the oil for the items that require them. And energy is not the only use of petroleum. I would agree that nuclear energy has an important role in our future, but we must be careful. Switching from one unsustainable energy source to another is not the answer. To Nuclear energy is not unsustainable. It takes a miniscule amount of nuclear material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) to create a sustainable fissile reaction. Mind if we bury the waste in your town? There are places in the US where we can safely bury the waste. As to high level waste, there is really very little of it. As to radiation pollution, coal mining and burning releases exponentially more radiation than Nuclear plants. There are stable mountains in Nevada, Salt Mines in several other states. Encased in lead and glass, makes for a stable storage package. If you are going to live within the constraints of the energy available to us with out fission or fusion, then figure about 1/2 the people on earth will have to leave. Oil and natural gas is also used for plastic, medicine, fertilizer outside the energy area. Thunder asked about the Olduvai Theory, is a theory same as a lot of theories. Is not a given or provable. There is going to be a major upheaval in the world as oil production decreases. Middle East will be a violent place, and we will have to fend them off. They get their food and manufactured goods from the West and East now. But with no oil money, there are going to have to try to take over arable lands outside their area. They have not done well in the last 2000 years since they started as the cradle of civilization, been going downhill since. They could learn from the Israelis on how to produce food in less than ideal conditions and with brackish water. But religion and extremists prevent that. 50-100 years from now will be very interesting times for mankind. Hope they survive. The end of oil reservees in the near future has been predicted for years. THe fact is that there are fstill plenty of sources that are currnetly not economical to develop. As the readily available sources become scarcer, those known deposits will become economically viable, as will alternate energy sources.......synthetics, etc. Aren't we coming up on "the" 30 years. Thirty years of oil left in the ground and once it is gone we will have used it all up yet. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Hey....let's get sumthin straight there, Canadian boy. Everyone's got a god-given right to own a HUMV, even if we have no family and never carry anything but 3 bags of groceries. Sez so right thar in the bible. That's a very good place to start. people should require a 'special' license to operate anything above a compact car or small pickup. I feel that gasoline should be rationed to encourage less waste. Let's say..the first 20 gallons a week at a affordable price...increasing to double that for anything over..(a form of luxury tax). Probably a DINK (at least before retiring) with no decent sized boat to tow. |
"JimH" wrote in message
... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. |
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:36:12 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:
The end of oil reservees in the near future has been predicted for years. THe fact is that there are fstill plenty of sources that are currnetly not economical to develop. As the readily available sources become scarcer, those known deposits will become economically viable, as will alternate energy sources.......synthetics, etc. Yeah, but, it takes energy to develop those sources. There is a point where it is no longer viable from an energy standpoint, regardless of the economic prices. Make no mistake, oil has been a gift, a *finite* gift. The intelligent thing would be to start using it as a precious resource. |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. |
Calif Bill wrote: You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at least as big as 1929. Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that says anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why would there be a depression? There may be some down time involved, because the government would rather put it's money into plodding along with the same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund research and development of new technologies. But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do things. Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a previous oil shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in place to protect us against that, even IF it were to happen? Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing new, more energy efficient buildings. There would be a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies" onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right wing just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace the horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working, profitable farms today? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do, there's no need for Monster Truck. BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats? |
Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do, there's no need for Monster Truck. BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats? That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or 50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste? |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do, there's no need for Monster Truck. BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats? That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or 50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste? It is a pretty sad case when Krause has to rely on Bassy to defend him. Sort of like getting Kramer to do your electrical work. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do, there's no need for Monster Truck. BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats? That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or 50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste? Around here (Rochester NY), the excuse is that they're more stable in snow. In fact, I see MORE of them in ditches. Then, their main advantage is their height. The windows remain above the snow so the dummy can wave for help. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at least as big as 1929. Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that says anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why would there be a depression? There may be some down time involved, because the government would rather put it's money into plodding along with the same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund research and development of new technologies. But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do things. Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a previous oil shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in place to protect us against that, even IF it were to happen? Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing new, more energy efficient buildings. There would be a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies" onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right wing just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace the horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working, profitable farms today? As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a small recession when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of Silicon Valley was out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country. That was just cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the odd / even days for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a 60% lack of energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country will be gone while the search for energy reigns supreme. |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:09:39 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: It would be worse if you were so incompetent in life you enlisted in the military as a career after serving your commitment as a draftee. Do you know someone who did that, Harry? You know so little about the military you can't even get the terms correct. Go back to lies about where you've been, who you've known, what you've owned, and how many doctorates your wife has. You're better at it. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:37:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message roups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their car for business use? Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup and adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals he bought at state fairs. IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat. Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at some mileage stickers at dealerships. One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do, there's no need for Monster Truck. BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats? That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or 50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste? Around here (Rochester NY), the excuse is that they're more stable in snow. In fact, I see MORE of them in ditches. Then, their main advantage is their height. The windows remain above the snow so the dummy can wave for help. The same is true around here. The drivers just don't know how to handle an SUV with an automatic transmission when there's a little snow on the ground. It's funny to watch them try, though. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com